Case Summary
| Case ID | 26F-H045-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | — |
| Tribunal | — |
| Decision Date | 2026-07-27 |
| Administrative Law Judge | VMT |
| Outcome | Dismissed |
| Filing Fees Refunded | — |
| Civil Penalties | — |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Karen Kansfield | Counsel | Self-represented |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Del Webb at Dove Mountain Community Association, Inc. | Counsel | — |
Alleged Violations
No violations listed
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
26F-H045-REL Decision – 1439045.pdf
26F-H045-REL Decision – 1440566.pdf
26F-H045-REL Decision – 1442238.pdf
26F-H045-REL Decision – 1449659.pdf
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
| CC&R Article | Provision | Ruling | Reason for Dismissal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article II (2.1, 2.2) | Right to use Common Areas | No Violation | Rights are subject to Board rules; the "non-transferable" ticket rule was valid. |
| Article III (3.2) | Membership Privileges | No Violation | No evidence provided that membership status was denied or altered. |
| Article IV (4.2) | Sanction Procedures | No Violation | The Association has discretion, not a duty, to use these procedures for event-specific issues. |
| Article XII (12.4) | Similar Treatment | No Violation | Petitioners failed to prove other members were allowed to attend without tickets. |
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.
Study Guide: Kansfield vs. Del Webb at Dove Mountain Community Association, Inc.
This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing regarding Case No. 26F-H045-REL. It analyzes the dispute between homeowners Karen and Marenis Kansfield and the Del Webb at Dove Mountain Community Association, Inc., focusing on the interpretation of governing documents, the transferability of event registrations, and the burden of proof in administrative proceedings.
I. Case Overview
Docket Number: 26F-H045-REL Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): Velva Moses-Thompson Petitioners: Karen and Marenis Kansfield Respondent: Del Webb at Dove Mountain Community Association, Inc. (Del Webb) Hearing Date: July 6, 2026 Final Decision Date: July 27, 2026
Central Conflict
The case arose from an incident on December 5, 2025, during a community Christmas party at the Saguaro Center. The Kansfields attempted to attend the sold-out event using the registration of their neighbors, the Secotts, who were unable to attend due to illness. An HOA employee, Barb Truman, forcefully ordered the Kansfields to leave the premises, leading to allegations of CC&R (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions) violations.
II. Key Legal Concepts and CC&R Articles
The petition filed by the Kansfields alleged violations of five specific sections of the community’s governing documents.
Table 1: Relevant CC&R Provisions
| Article & Section | Provision Name | Summary of Rights/Obligations |
|---|---|---|
| Article II, § 2.1 | Right of Use & Access | Owners have a non-exclusive easement of use and enjoyment in Common Areas, subject to Board rules. |
| Article II, § 2.2 | Recreational Facilities | Owners have a non-exclusive right to use recreational facilities subject to the Declaration. |
| Article III, § 3.2 | Membership Privileges | Every owner is a member; rights are shared among co-owners (e.g., spouses). |
| Article IV, § 4.2 | Sanctions & Procedures | The Board may impose sanctions for violations only after proper notice and an opportunity to be heard. |
| Article XII, § 12.4 | Similar Treatment | Similarly situated owners and occupants must be treated similarly by the Board and members. |
III. Summary of Witness Testimony
Petitioners' Witnesses
- Carol Secott: Neighbor who offered her tickets to the Kansfields. She testified that an employee (Mitch Allen) told her there were "no tickets per se" and to just tell the center they were taking the Secotts' place.
- Gloria Phillips: Social Committee member and registration volunteer. She testified that it was the "understanding" of the social committee that tickets could not be transferred, though she was unaware if this was a formal HOA policy.
- Stacy Brown: Neighbor and witness to the incident. She described Barb Truman’s behavior as "hostile" and "inappropriate," quoting Truman as saying, "I don't get paid enough to put up with your s***."
- Marenis Kansfield: Co-petitioner who described the attempt to de-escalate the situation. He testified that the incident made them feel unwelcome in their own community despite being members in good standing for eight years.
Respondent's Testimony/Defense
- Mitch Allen: HOA employee who admitted Carol Secott called about the tickets but denied giving permission to transfer them. She testified that Barb Truman backed down and invited the Kansfields to stay once the situation was clarified, but they chose to leave.
- Jason Smith (Counsel): Argued that the case was about "hurt feelings" rather than legal violations. He emphasized that the Board has the right to limit attendance for events and that the Kansfields were not treated differently than any other resident who lacked a valid ticket.
IV. Judicial Findings and Conclusion
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition based on the following legal conclusions:
- Burden of Proof: The Kansfields bore the burden of proving the CC&R violations by a "preponderance of the evidence."
- Ticket Policy: The ALJ found that the Social Committee had adopted a rule that tickets were non-transferable. Evidence included a text message from Mrs. Secott instructing the Kansfields to "pretend" to be the Secotts, suggesting an awareness that transfers were not standard practice.
- No Violation of Use Rights: Because the Kansfields did not purchase their own tickets and the event was sold out, the Association did not violate their rights of access by enforcing event capacity and registration rules.
- Due Process (Article IV): The ALJ ruled that Article 4.2 grants the Board discretion to impose sanctions but does not require a formal hearing process for simple facility management, such as asking non-ticketed guests to leave an event.
- Similar Treatment: The Kansfields failed to provide evidence that any other resident was permitted to attend the party using transferred tickets.
V. Practice Quiz: Short-Answer Questions
- What was the specific date of the Christmas party incident?
- Which HOA employee was accused of using hostile language and ordering the Kansfields to leave?
- According to the ALJ, what did the text message instructing the Kansfields to "pretend" to be the Secotts prove?
- How did the Respondent's counsel characterize the nature of the Kansfields' complaint?
- Under which Article of the CC&Rs did the Kansfields argue they were entitled to "Similar Treatment"?
- Why was the motion to compel the production of documents denied prior to the hearing?
- Did the ALJ find that the HOA was required to hold a hearing before asking the Kansfields to leave the party? Why or why not?
- What was the final outcome of the Administrative Law Judge's decision?
VI. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration
- Policy vs. Governing Documents: Analyze the tension between formal CC&R articles and informal "understandings" or policies created by committees (such as the non-transferability of tickets). To what extent should homeowners be bound by rules not explicitly written in the CC&Rs?
- The Role of Professional Conduct in HOA Management: While the ALJ dismissed the legal claims, the record reflects an apology from management and disciplinary action against the employee involved. Discuss the distinction between "hostile treatment" and "legal violation" within the context of community association law.
- Burden of Proof in Administrative Hearings: Explain the "preponderance of evidence" standard used in this case. Evaluate whether the Kansfields’ evidence (witnesses and video snapshots) met this threshold for any of the five alleged violations.
VII. Glossary of Important Terms
- Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over hearings and adjudicates disputes involving government agencies or statutory petitions.
- CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions): The governing documents that establish the rules and regulations for a planned community or homeowners' association.
- Common Area: Land or facilities within a development owned by the HOA for the use and enjoyment of all members (e.g., community centers, parks).
- Motion to Compel: A legal request asking the court/judge to force a party to produce documentation or information.
- Non-exclusive Easement: A right to use a property (like a community center) that is shared with others rather than held by one individual exclusively.
- Petitioners: The parties (the Kansfields) who initiate a legal action or request for a hearing.
- Preponderance of the Evidence: The evidentiary standard in civil cases where a fact is proven if it is shown to be "more probably true than not."
- Respondent: The party (Del Webb) against whom a petition is filed.
- Sanction: A penalty or disciplinary measure imposed for a violation of rules.
Tinsel, Tickets, and the Law: Lessons from the Kansfield vs. Del Webb HOA Dispute
1. Introduction: A Holiday Celebration Turned Legal Battle
On the evening of December 5, 2025, the Saguaro Center was set for a festive, sold-out Christmas party—the highlight of the holiday season for the Del Webb at Dove Mountain community. For homeowners Karen and Marenis Kansfield, however, the evening devolved into a public confrontation and a forceful order to leave the premises. What began as an attempt to use tickets transferred from ill neighbors escalated into a heated legal battle heard under the authority of the Arizona Planned Communities Act (A.R.S. § 33-1801 et seq.).
The dispute, docketed as Case No. 26F-H045-REL before the Arizona Department of Real Estate, centered on the Kansfields' claim that the Association violated their fundamental rights as homeowners. This case serves as a critical case study for the intersection of recorded governing documents and the practical, often unwritten, rules of community event management.
2. The "Impersonation" Incident: What Really Happened?
The conflict was set in motion the day before the party. Neighbors of the Kansfields, the Secotts, had fallen ill and were unable to attend. Carol Secott contacted Mitch Allen, an employee of the management firm Associated Asset Management (AAM), to inquire about a refund. When told refunds were unavailable, Secott informed Allen she would find someone to use the spots.
A vital legal distinction emerged during testimony: while the Kansfields argued they had permission to attend, Mitch Allen testified that she merely said "okay" when Secott mentioned finding replacements, rather than granting a formal transfer of the non-refundable tickets. This confusion led to a pivotal piece of evidence: a text message from Carol Secott to Karen Kansfield advising the couple to "pretend" to be the Secotts and check in as "impersonators." (Note: The ALJ’s Final Decision, Finding 14, refers to a "Ms. Basin" sending this text, which appears to be a clerical typo in the record for Mrs. Secott).
On the night of the event, the Kansfields were initially checked in by Gloria Phillips, a social committee volunteer. However, they were soon confronted by staff member Barb Truman. Noting the Kansfields were not on the official paid list, Truman ordered them to leave. The situation escalated quickly, with Truman allegedly threatening to call 911 and following the couple into the parking lot after they had already begun to exit.
3. Witness Accounts: The Hostility and the Heat
The hearing provided a stark contrast between the Association’s "rules-first" defense and the "hostile" atmosphere described by witnesses. Stacey Brown, a neighbor standing directly behind the Kansfields during the confrontation, testified to the disproportionate aggression displayed by the staff.
"The temperature went up and [Barb Truman] was getting very adamant… It was obvious that this was turning into something that was not comfortable. [Truman’s language was] very inappropriate, extremely hostile, accusatory… A choice comment she said is, 'I don't get paid enough to put up with this shit.'"
Mitch Allen’s testimony offered a different perspective, justifying the defensive posture as a reaction to "hostile residents" and the alleged "backpedaling" of the petitioners. Allen claimed the confrontation only reached a fever pitch after Marenis Kansfield allegedly challenged staff by saying, "I’d like to see anybody get us out of here."
4. The Legal Breakdown: Why the CC&Rs Mattered
The Kansfields alleged that the Association’s actions violated multiple provisions of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). As a legal analyst, it is essential to look at how the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reconciled these property rights with the Association's right to manage its facilities.
The Petitioner’s Claims vs. The Judge’s Ruling
| CC&R Provision Cited | Petitioner’s Argument | The ALJ’s Conclusion |
|---|---|---|
| Article II, Sections 2.1 & 2.2: Rights of Use | The Kansfields possess a non-exclusive easement to common areas and were arbitrarily denied access to the center. | No Violation. The Board has the right to adopt rules limiting occupancy for events. Because the Social Committee rule made tickets non-transferable, the Kansfields lacked a valid right of access for that specific event. |
| Article III, Section 3.2: Privileges of Membership | As members in good standing, the couple was denied the standard privileges afforded to all owners. | No Violation. There was no evidence that the Association denied a general membership privilege, but rather enforced a specific event-based restriction. |
| Article IV, Section 4.2: Sanctions and Notice | The HOA failed to provide a notice or a hearing before "suspending" the couple’s right to use the facility. | No Violation. This section grants the Board discretion to impose sanctions for violations but does not apply to the immediate management of event capacity. No general "suspension" of rights occurred. |
| Article XII, Section 12.4: Similar Treatment | The Kansfields were targeted for removal while other residents were allowed to stay and enjoy the facilities. | No Violation. The Petitioners failed to prove that any other "similarly situated" resident (i.e., someone without a valid ticket) was allowed to remain. |
5. The Verdict: Why the Petition was Dismissed
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson dismissed the petition, ruling that the Kansfields failed to meet the "Preponderance of Evidence" standard. The dismissal turned on several key legal findings:
- Enforceability of Committee Rules: While the CC&Rs did not explicitly forbid ticket transfers, the ALJ found that the social committee had an established, unwritten rule against it. The "impersonation" text message was interpreted as evidence that the petitioners knew the transfer was not standard procedure.
- Behavior vs. Breach: The ALJ explicitly noted that while she sympathized with the "hurt feelings" and "regrettable" behavior of the staff, poor conduct or a lack of courtesy by an employee does not constitute a breach of the CC&Rs.
- The "Offer to Stay": Critically, testimony indicated that after the initial confrontation, Truman informed the Kansfields they could stay once the substitution was clarified. The fact that the couple chose to leave—though understandably, given the environment—mooted the claim that the Association had permanently or legally denied their easement under Article II.
6. Key Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards
The dismissal of Case No. 26F-H045-REL provides essential lessons for those living in and managing planned communities:
- Understand Transfer Policies: Even if a policy is not explicitly written in the master CC&Rs, committee-level rules for "sold out" events can be legally enforceable if applied consistently. In a community of approximately 1,200 to 1,400 homes, attendance caps are a functional necessity.
- The Limits of "Rights of Use": A homeowner’s easement to common areas is not absolute. Boards have the statutory and contractual authority to regulate use for safety and capacity, including requiring valid, non-transferable tickets for social functions.
- Professionalism vs. Legality: There is a sharp distinction between a staff member being unprofessional and a staff member violating a homeowner's property rights. Because Barb Truman was an employee of Associated Asset Management, her conduct was a matter for internal employment discipline (which the Association confirmed occurred) rather than a CC&R violation.
- Documentation is King: The text message advising the Kansfields to "pretend" to be their neighbors was the single most damaging piece of evidence against the petitioners. It established that they were aware they were bypassing standard protocols.
7. Conclusion: Moving Beyond the Conflict
The dismissal of the Kansfield petition concludes a painful chapter for the Del Webb at Dove Mountain community. While the Kansfields had a 30-day window to request a rehearing, the ruling underscores a difficult truth: legal "rights of use" are subject to the reasonable, administrative realities of HOA governance.
Ultimately, this case highlights the need for clear, written communication regarding event policies. While the law supported the Association's right to enforce its ticket policy, the "extremely hostile" atmosphere described by witnesses suggests that the manner of enforcement is just as vital to community health as the rules themselves. Harmony in an HOA requires both residents who respect capacity limits and staff who remember that their primary role is serving a community, not just policing a clipboard.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Karen Kansfield (Petitioner)
Homeowner who filed the petition alleging multiple CC&R violations by the association. - Marenis Kansfield (Petitioner)
Homeowner and co-petitioner who testified about the Christmas party incident. - Carol Secott (Witness)
Neighbor of the Kansfields who attempted to transfer her Christmas party tickets to them. - John Secott (Resident)
Husband of Carol Secott who submitted a written statement supplement regarding the ticket transfer. - Stacy Brown (Witness)
Resident who witnessed the confrontation at the party and testified for the petitioners.
Respondent Side
- Jason Smith (Respondent Counsel)
Smith & Wamsley, PLLC
Legal counsel representing the Del Webb at Dove Mountain Community Association, Inc. - Linda Corsi (Community Manager)
Associated Asset Management
HOA Community Manager who participated in the hearing and management meetings. - Barb Thurman (HOA Employee)
Del Webb at Dove Mountain Community Association, Inc.
Employee whose enforcement of the ticket policy at the Christmas party led to the dispute. - Mitch Allen (Witness / HOA Employee)
Del Webb at Dove Mountain Community Association, Inc.
Front desk employee who handled Carol Secott's inquiry and testified under subpoena. - Karen Matthews (Management Representative)
Associated Asset Management
AAM representative who participated intermittently via Zoom/Teams in post-incident discussions.
Neutral Parties
- Velva Moses-Thompson (Administrative Law Judge)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Presided over the administrative hearing and issued the final decision. - Gloria Phillips (Witness / Social Committee Member)
Del Webb at Dove Mountain Community Association, Inc.
Social committee member and volunteer who registered the Kansfields at the party. - Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
ADRE Commissioner to whom the decision was transmitted.