Tag Archives: VMT

Susannah Sabnekar v. Four Peaks Vista Owners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H006-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-10-26
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the statutes cited by the petitioner regarding conveyance of common elements (A.R.S. §§ 33-1252 and 33-1217) do not apply to the leasing of common elements, which was the action taken by the Respondent HOA.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Susannah Sabnekar Counsel —
Respondent Four Peaks Vista Owners Association Counsel Maria McKee

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §§ 33-1252 and 33-1217

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the statutes cited by the petitioner regarding conveyance of common elements (A.R.S. §§ 33-1252 and 33-1217) do not apply to the leasing of common elements, which was the action taken by the Respondent HOA.

Why this result: The statutes cited by the Petitioner apply to conveyances, but the disputed action was determined to be a lease, which is treated separately under Arizona's Condominium Act.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the Board violated statute by conveying a portion of common elements without a vote from all homeowners.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. §§ 33-1252 and 33-1217 by approving a lease agreement granting the Declarant (Four Peaks) the right to use a portion of the clubhouse as a management office, arguing this action constituted a conveyance requiring an 80% homeowner vote. The ALJ ruled that the statutes apply only to conveyances, not leases, and found no violation.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • 33-1252
  • 33-1217
  • 33-1242
  • 33-1225

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Condominium Act, Lease vs Conveyance, Common Elements, Declarant Rights, Motion to Dismiss
Additional Citations:

  • 33-1252
  • 33-1217
  • 33-1242
  • 33-1225
  • 33-1226

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H006-REL Decision – 1097274.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:14:04 (52.7 KB)

24F-H006-REL Decision – 1099296.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:14:07 (50.8 KB)

24F-H006-REL Decision – 1099320.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:14:12 (48.2 KB)

24F-H006-REL Decision – 1106232.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:14:18 (118.8 KB)

24F-H006-REL Decision – 1097274.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:57 (52.7 KB)

24F-H006-REL Decision – 1099296.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:00 (50.8 KB)

24F-H006-REL Decision – 1099320.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:04 (48.2 KB)

24F-H006-REL Decision – 1106232.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:09 (118.8 KB)

This summary details the hearing proceedings, key arguments, and final decision in the administrative law matter of *Susannah Sabnekar v. Four Peaks Vista Owners Association*, Case No. 24F-H006-REL.

Summary of Administrative Hearing

Key Facts and Background

The Petitioner, Susannah Sabnekar (a condominium unit owner and member of the Association), challenged the Respondent, Four Peaks Vista Owners Association. The dispute centered on a March 21, 2022, decision by the Association’s Board to approve a lease agreement. This Lease granted the Declarant (Four Peaks Investment Partners I LLC and II LLC) the right to maintain a leasing and property management office within a portion of the community’s clubhouse, which constitutes a common element. Petitioner alleged that four Rockwell employees serving on the board voted to approve this motion on July 13, 2023.

Main Legal Issue

The core dispute, heard by Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson on October 6, 2023, was whether the Board violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 33-1252 and 33-1217 by effectively "conveying" a portion of the common elements without securing the statutory vote from all homeowners.

Petitioner's Arguments

Petitioner Susannah Sabnekar, supported by witness Amy Watier, argued that the Board's action was a conveyance or encumbrance of a common element. Petitioner asserted that A.R.S. § 33-1252(A) requires that common elements may only be conveyed if 80% of the persons entitled to vote agree. Furthermore, A.R.S. § 33-1217(E) states that common elements are not subject to partition, and any purported conveyance or encumbrance made without the unit to which the interest is allocated is void.

Respondent's Arguments

The Association maintained that the material facts were not in dispute and that the Petitioner could not establish a statutory violation. The Respondent's primary legal position was that the Petitioner conflated "conveyance" with "leasing," which are separate legal concepts under the Arizona Condominium Act.

Key points raised by the Respondent included:

  1. Statutory Distinction: A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(9) expressly grants the Association the right to "Grant easements, leases, licenses and concessions through or over the common elements," without referencing the 80% vote requirement of A.R.S. § 33-1252.
  2. Definition of Conveyance: A conveyance, requiring compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1252, signifies a total transfer of fee title and must be evidenced and recorded in the same manner as a deed (A.R.S. § 33-1252(B)). A lease, which expires after a set period, does not meet the formal requirements of a conveyance.
  3. Declarant Rights: The Lease was permitted under A.R.S. § 33-1225, which allows a declarant to maintain sales or management offices on common elements unless prohibited by the declaration or law.

Final Decision and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the Respondent's pre-hearing Motion to Dismiss, allowing the hearing to proceed. However, after considering the arguments and evidence, the ALJ issued a decision on October 26, 2023, concluding that A.R.S. §§ 33-1252 and 33-1217 do not apply to leases, but rather to conveyances.

Finding that no evidence of a conveyance of common elements was presented, the ALJ determined that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish the merits of the petition.

The petition was ordered dismissed.

Questions

Question

Does leasing a common area count as 'conveying' it, requiring a supermajority vote?

Short Answer

No. Leasing and conveying are separate legal concepts in Arizona, and leasing does not trigger the voting requirements of a conveyance.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that Arizona law distinguishes between leasing real property and conveying it. While a conveyance (transfer of title) of common elements often requires an 80% vote under A.R.S. § 33-1252, granting a lease does not. The Association has the specific statutory right to grant leases over common elements without meeting the stricter requirements for a conveyance.

Alj Quote

Plainly, Arizona law distinguishes between leasing real property and conveying it. These are two separate legal concepts. … The Administrative Law Judge concludes that A.R.S. §§ 33-1252 and A.R.S. 33-1217 do not apply to leases, but rather conveyances.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(9); A.R.S. § 33-1252

Topic Tags

  • common elements
  • leasing
  • voting requirements

Question

Can the HOA board authorize a lease of common elements without a vote of all homeowners?

Short Answer

Yes. The Board generally has the authority to grant leases, whereas conveying the property would require a homeowner vote.

Detailed Answer

The decision highlights that A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(9) expressly gives the Association the right to lease common elements. This section does not reference the voting requirements found in A.R.S. § 33-1252, which applies only when the Association conveys or encumbers the property (like a mortgage).

Alj Quote

Notably, subsection (A)(9) expressly provides the Association the right to enter into the Lease, without any mention of A.R.S. § 33-1252, while the right to 'convey' Common Elements is subject to the requirements imposed in A.R.S. § 33-1252.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(9)

Topic Tags

  • board authority
  • leasing
  • common elements

Question

Is a Declarant allowed to use common elements for management offices?

Short Answer

Yes, a Declarant may maintain offices on common elements unless the Declaration specifically prohibits it.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ cited A.R.S. § 33-1225, which explicitly permits a declarant to maintain sales and management offices on common elements unless the community's declaration says otherwise or another law prohibits it.

Alj Quote

A declarant may maintain sales offices, management offices and models in units or on common elements in the condominium unless: 1. The declaration provides otherwise. 2. Such use is prohibited by another provision of law or local ordinances.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1225

Topic Tags

  • declarant rights
  • common elements
  • offices

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the statute. The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning they must show it is more probable than not that the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the A.R.S. §§ 33-1252 and A.R.S. 33-1217 by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal procedure
  • burden of proof

Question

What qualifies as a 'conveyance' of HOA property?

Short Answer

A conveyance is generally interpreted as a total transfer of fee title, usually evidenced by a recorded deed.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that a conveyance involves a permanent transfer of interest, such as through a deed, and must be recorded. A lease, which is for a set period and does not transfer title, does not qualify as a conveyance.

Alj Quote

The Legislature… made clear its intent that a conveyance is a total transfer of fee title. … Furthermore, once any such 'conveyance' occurs, it must be evidenced by the execution and recording of the document in the same manner as a deed.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1252(A); A.R.S. § 33-1252(B)

Topic Tags

  • definitions
  • conveyance
  • property rights

Question

How are ambiguous restrictive covenants in CC&Rs interpreted?

Short Answer

If they are unambiguous, they are enforced according to the intent of the parties.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that restrictive covenants must be viewed as a whole and interpreted based on their underlying purpose. If the text is clear (unambiguous), it is enforced to uphold the parties' intent.

Alj Quote

In Arizona, if a restrictive covenant is unambiguous, it is enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties. 'Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.'

Legal Basis

Case Law (Powell v. Washburn)

Topic Tags

  • CC&Rs
  • interpretation
  • legal standards

Case

Docket No
24F-H006-REL
Case Title
Susannah Sabnekar vs. Four Peaks Vista Owners Association
Decision Date
2023-10-26
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Does leasing a common area count as 'conveying' it, requiring a supermajority vote?

Short Answer

No. Leasing and conveying are separate legal concepts in Arizona, and leasing does not trigger the voting requirements of a conveyance.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that Arizona law distinguishes between leasing real property and conveying it. While a conveyance (transfer of title) of common elements often requires an 80% vote under A.R.S. § 33-1252, granting a lease does not. The Association has the specific statutory right to grant leases over common elements without meeting the stricter requirements for a conveyance.

Alj Quote

Plainly, Arizona law distinguishes between leasing real property and conveying it. These are two separate legal concepts. … The Administrative Law Judge concludes that A.R.S. §§ 33-1252 and A.R.S. 33-1217 do not apply to leases, but rather conveyances.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(9); A.R.S. § 33-1252

Topic Tags

  • common elements
  • leasing
  • voting requirements

Question

Can the HOA board authorize a lease of common elements without a vote of all homeowners?

Short Answer

Yes. The Board generally has the authority to grant leases, whereas conveying the property would require a homeowner vote.

Detailed Answer

The decision highlights that A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(9) expressly gives the Association the right to lease common elements. This section does not reference the voting requirements found in A.R.S. § 33-1252, which applies only when the Association conveys or encumbers the property (like a mortgage).

Alj Quote

Notably, subsection (A)(9) expressly provides the Association the right to enter into the Lease, without any mention of A.R.S. § 33-1252, while the right to 'convey' Common Elements is subject to the requirements imposed in A.R.S. § 33-1252.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(9)

Topic Tags

  • board authority
  • leasing
  • common elements

Question

Is a Declarant allowed to use common elements for management offices?

Short Answer

Yes, a Declarant may maintain offices on common elements unless the Declaration specifically prohibits it.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ cited A.R.S. § 33-1225, which explicitly permits a declarant to maintain sales and management offices on common elements unless the community's declaration says otherwise or another law prohibits it.

Alj Quote

A declarant may maintain sales offices, management offices and models in units or on common elements in the condominium unless: 1. The declaration provides otherwise. 2. Such use is prohibited by another provision of law or local ordinances.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1225

Topic Tags

  • declarant rights
  • common elements
  • offices

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the statute. The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning they must show it is more probable than not that the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the A.R.S. §§ 33-1252 and A.R.S. 33-1217 by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal procedure
  • burden of proof

Question

What qualifies as a 'conveyance' of HOA property?

Short Answer

A conveyance is generally interpreted as a total transfer of fee title, usually evidenced by a recorded deed.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that a conveyance involves a permanent transfer of interest, such as through a deed, and must be recorded. A lease, which is for a set period and does not transfer title, does not qualify as a conveyance.

Alj Quote

The Legislature… made clear its intent that a conveyance is a total transfer of fee title. … Furthermore, once any such 'conveyance' occurs, it must be evidenced by the execution and recording of the document in the same manner as a deed.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1252(A); A.R.S. § 33-1252(B)

Topic Tags

  • definitions
  • conveyance
  • property rights

Question

How are ambiguous restrictive covenants in CC&Rs interpreted?

Short Answer

If they are unambiguous, they are enforced according to the intent of the parties.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that restrictive covenants must be viewed as a whole and interpreted based on their underlying purpose. If the text is clear (unambiguous), it is enforced to uphold the parties' intent.

Alj Quote

In Arizona, if a restrictive covenant is unambiguous, it is enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties. 'Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.'

Legal Basis

Case Law (Powell v. Washburn)

Topic Tags

  • CC&Rs
  • interpretation
  • legal standards

Case

Docket No
24F-H006-REL
Case Title
Susannah Sabnekar vs. Four Peaks Vista Owners Association
Decision Date
2023-10-26
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Susannah Sabnekar (petitioner)
    Homeowner
  • Amy Watier (witness)
    Homeowner, current board member, and previous board member

Respondent Side

  • Maria McKee (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Council for Respondent
  • Chad P. Miesen (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Council for Respondent
  • Charlie Markle (HOA attorney)
    Council for the Association
  • Kathy Gower (property manager)
    Four Peaks Vista Owners Association
    Community manager
  • Shelley Kobat (board member)
    Four Peaks Vista Owners Association
    Associate board president

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission list
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission list
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission list
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission list

John R Ashley v. Rancho Reyes II Community Association, INC

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H058-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-10-04
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed Petitioner John R. Ashley's petition against Rancho Reyes II Community Association, Inc. The ALJ found that the HOA did not violate the Bylaws regarding the minimum number of directors because compliance was impossible due to lack of member interest, and the issue was subsequently moot as the board currently met the minimum requirement.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John R. Ashley Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Reyes II Community Association, INC Counsel James Brewer, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article IV, Section 1 of the Bylaws

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed Petitioner John R. Ashley's petition against Rancho Reyes II Community Association, Inc. The ALJ found that the HOA did not violate the Bylaws regarding the minimum number of directors because compliance was impossible due to lack of member interest, and the issue was subsequently moot as the board currently met the minimum requirement.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut Respondent’s claim that it actively sought a third board member. The Respondent was exonerated under the legal doctrine of impossibility of performance, and the current compliance with the three-member minimum rendered the dispute moot.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation regarding the minimum number of Board Directors

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated Article IV, Section 1 of the Bylaws by having only two Board Directors dismiss and order a redo of the 1/9/2023 Annual Membership Meeting for 3/7/2023, arguing that three directors were required to properly handle the Association’s affairs.

Orders: The petition is dismissed. Respondent was unable to comply with the Bylaws requiring three directors due to impossibility (lack of member interest) while actively seeking compliance, and the dispute is currently moot as the board now has three or more members.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. §§ 33-1801 to 33-1818
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • Garner v. Ellingson, 18 Ariz. 181, 182 (App. 1972)
  • Whelan v. Griffith Consumers Company, 170 A.2d 229, 230 (D.C. App., 1961)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Assân v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: impossibility of performance, board structure, election dispute, bylaw violation, Planned Communities Act, mootness
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. §§ 33-1801 to 33-1818
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • Garner v. Ellingson, 18 Ariz. 181, 182 (App. 1972)
  • Whelan v. Griffith Consumers Company, 170 A.2d 229, 230 (D.C. App., 1961)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Assân v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H058-REL Decision – 1075520.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:11:40 (45.8 KB)

23F-H058-REL Decision – 1078604.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:11:43 (47.9 KB)

23F-H058-REL Decision – 1078608.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:11:46 (5.5 KB)

23F-H058-REL Decision – 1099484.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:11:49 (104.5 KB)

23F-H058-REL Decision – 1075520.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:58:49 (45.8 KB)

23F-H058-REL Decision – 1078604.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:58:52 (47.9 KB)

23F-H058-REL Decision – 1078608.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:58:56 (5.5 KB)

23F-H058-REL Decision – 1099484.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:01 (104.5 KB)

This summary addresses the administrative hearing held on September 14, 2023, in the matter of John R. Ashley v. Rancho Reyes II Community Association, INC (No. 23F-H058-REL).

Key Facts and Main Issues

Petitioner John R. Ashley challenged the actions of the Rancho Reyes II Community Association (Respondent). The sole issue of the hearing was whether the Respondent violated Article IV, Section 1 of the Community Bylaws. This bylaw requires the affairs of the Association to be managed by "not less than three (3) nor more than nine (9) directors".

The violation Petitioner alleged was that two sitting Board Directors (Sherry Ortega and Maria Ruelas) acted alone (on or about January 19, 2023) in dismissing the results of the January 2023 Annual Membership Meeting and ordering a redo election for March 7, 2023, when at least three directors were required to handle Association affairs. It was established that the Board operated with only two members from late 2021 until the March 2023 election.

The January 2023 election, in which five members were elected, was invalidated by the two existing board members after the community manager suspected fraud and irregularities (including stuffed ballots, improper envelopes, and an elected candidate whose husband stated she did not submit her name and was not fluent in English).

Key Arguments

Petitioner's Argument: Petitioner argued the decision to redo the election was invalid because it was made by fewer than three directors, thus violating the Bylaw. Petitioner also contended that the two directors (Ortega and Ruelas) were not duly elected in 2022, asserting that there were effectively zero legal board members when the re-election was ordered. Petitioner further argued that the Respondent's claims of fraud were "non-existent" under ARS title 33, Section 1812, because the board was responsible for approving returned ballots prior to the meeting.

Respondent's Legal Defense: Respondent asserted that operating with only two members was due to impossibility or impracticability of performance. Respondent argued that it actively sought a third board member, but homeowners were not interested in serving. Respondent relied on Arizona case law, stating that "when, due to circumstances beyond the control of the parties the performance of a contract is rendered impossible, the party failing to perform is exonerated" (*Garner v. Ellingson*). The Respondent maintained that the re-election was necessary due to the severe irregularities in the January vote.

Outcome and Legal Decision

On October 4, 2023, Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson issued a decision dismissing the Petition.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The ALJ found that while the Bylaws required a minimum of three directors, the preponderance of the evidence showed that the Respondent actively sought a third member, and it was "unable to comply with Article IV, Section 1 of the Bylaws" due to lack of interest from members. The ALJ implicitly accepted the Respondent's defense that non-compliance was due to circumstances beyond the control of the parties.

Furthermore, the ALJ noted that the Association currently has at least three duly elected board members (elected in March 2023), meaning the issue of Bylaw compliance "is no longer in dispute". Based on the impossibility defense and the resolution of the current dispute regarding board size, the Petition was ordered dismissed.

Questions

Question

Can my HOA be penalized for having fewer than the required number of board members if no one volunteers to serve?

Short Answer

Likely not. If the HOA actively seeks candidates but no one steps up, they may be exonerated due to 'impossibility of performance.'

Detailed Answer

The decision establishes that if an HOA board is understaffed (e.g., 2 members when bylaws require 3) because homeowners refuse to volunteer despite recruitment efforts, the HOA is not held liable. The legal principle of 'impossibility' applies when circumstances beyond the parties' control prevent compliance with the bylaws.

Alj Quote

It is well settled that when, due to circumstances beyond the control of the parties the performance of a contract is rendered impossible, the party failing to perform is exonerated.

Legal Basis

Contract Law Principles (Garner v. Ellingson); Bylaws Article IV, Section 1

Topic Tags

  • Board Composition
  • Impossibility Defense
  • Bylaws

Question

If my HOA has already fixed a violation by the time of the hearing, can I still get a ruling against them?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA comes into compliance before the decision is made, the dispute may be considered resolved and the petition dismissed.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the homeowner sued because the board had too few members. However, by the time of the hearing, a full board had been elected. The judge dismissed the petition because the violation was no longer active and compliance was not in dispute.

Alj Quote

Accordingly, because the preponderance of the evidence has shown that Respondent was unable to comply with Article IV, Section 1 of the Bylaws and compliance with Article IV, Section 1 of the Bylaws is no longer in dispute, the Petition must be dismissed.

Legal Basis

Mootness

Topic Tags

  • Procedural
  • Mootness
  • Dismissal

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the violation occurred.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' This means they must convince the judge that their claim is more likely true than not.

Alj Quote

Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated Article IV, Section 1 of its Bylaws, by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

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

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Legal Standards
  • Hearing Procedures

Question

What counts as 'preponderance of the evidence' in an HOA dispute?

Short Answer

Evidence that makes a claim 'more probably true than not.'

Detailed Answer

It is not about the quantity of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence. It must be sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side over the other.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Arizona Law of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Legal Definitions

Question

How are HOA bylaws and restrictive covenants interpreted by the judge?

Short Answer

They are interpreted to support the intent of the parties and the underlying purpose of the document.

Detailed Answer

The judge will look at the documents as a whole rather than isolating a single sentence, ensuring that the interpretation gives effect to the intended purpose of the rules.

Alj Quote

Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation Principles (Powell v. Washburn)

Topic Tags

  • CC&R Interpretation
  • Bylaws

Question

Can an HOA board order a new election if they suspect fraud in the previous one?

Short Answer

Yes, this action was accepted in the context of this decision.

Detailed Answer

The decision notes that the community manager and board members decided to hold a new election after consulting with an attorney regarding suspected fraudulent tactics and unfair processes in the initial election.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s community manager suspected that the election was not a fair process and that certain individuals used fraudulent tactics to influence the election. After consulting with Respondent’s attorney, the community manager along with Ms. Ortega decided to hold a new election in March of 2023.

Legal Basis

Board Authority

Topic Tags

  • Elections
  • Fraud
  • Board Powers

Case

Docket No
23F-H058-REL
Case Title
John R. Ashley v. Rancho Reyes II Community Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-10-04
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
Office of Administrative Hearings
Agency
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Questions

Question

Can my HOA be penalized for having fewer than the required number of board members if no one volunteers to serve?

Short Answer

Likely not. If the HOA actively seeks candidates but no one steps up, they may be exonerated due to 'impossibility of performance.'

Detailed Answer

The decision establishes that if an HOA board is understaffed (e.g., 2 members when bylaws require 3) because homeowners refuse to volunteer despite recruitment efforts, the HOA is not held liable. The legal principle of 'impossibility' applies when circumstances beyond the parties' control prevent compliance with the bylaws.

Alj Quote

It is well settled that when, due to circumstances beyond the control of the parties the performance of a contract is rendered impossible, the party failing to perform is exonerated.

Legal Basis

Contract Law Principles (Garner v. Ellingson); Bylaws Article IV, Section 1

Topic Tags

  • Board Composition
  • Impossibility Defense
  • Bylaws

Question

If my HOA has already fixed a violation by the time of the hearing, can I still get a ruling against them?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA comes into compliance before the decision is made, the dispute may be considered resolved and the petition dismissed.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the homeowner sued because the board had too few members. However, by the time of the hearing, a full board had been elected. The judge dismissed the petition because the violation was no longer active and compliance was not in dispute.

Alj Quote

Accordingly, because the preponderance of the evidence has shown that Respondent was unable to comply with Article IV, Section 1 of the Bylaws and compliance with Article IV, Section 1 of the Bylaws is no longer in dispute, the Petition must be dismissed.

Legal Basis

Mootness

Topic Tags

  • Procedural
  • Mootness
  • Dismissal

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the violation occurred.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' This means they must convince the judge that their claim is more likely true than not.

Alj Quote

Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated Article IV, Section 1 of its Bylaws, by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

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

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Legal Standards
  • Hearing Procedures

Question

What counts as 'preponderance of the evidence' in an HOA dispute?

Short Answer

Evidence that makes a claim 'more probably true than not.'

Detailed Answer

It is not about the quantity of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence. It must be sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side over the other.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Arizona Law of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Legal Definitions

Question

How are HOA bylaws and restrictive covenants interpreted by the judge?

Short Answer

They are interpreted to support the intent of the parties and the underlying purpose of the document.

Detailed Answer

The judge will look at the documents as a whole rather than isolating a single sentence, ensuring that the interpretation gives effect to the intended purpose of the rules.

Alj Quote

Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation Principles (Powell v. Washburn)

Topic Tags

  • CC&R Interpretation
  • Bylaws

Question

Can an HOA board order a new election if they suspect fraud in the previous one?

Short Answer

Yes, this action was accepted in the context of this decision.

Detailed Answer

The decision notes that the community manager and board members decided to hold a new election after consulting with an attorney regarding suspected fraudulent tactics and unfair processes in the initial election.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s community manager suspected that the election was not a fair process and that certain individuals used fraudulent tactics to influence the election. After consulting with Respondent’s attorney, the community manager along with Ms. Ortega decided to hold a new election in March of 2023.

Legal Basis

Board Authority

Topic Tags

  • Elections
  • Fraud
  • Board Powers

Case

Docket No
23F-H058-REL
Case Title
John R. Ashley v. Rancho Reyes II Community Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-10-04
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
Office of Administrative Hearings
Agency
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John R. Ashley (petitioner)
    Represented himself
  • Rmulo Gonzalez (board member elect)
    Elected in March 2023 election; contested re-election procedures
  • James Canella (board member elect)
    Elected in January 2023 election; member of the community who desired to serve
  • Daniel Walker (board member elect)
    Elected in January 2023 election
  • Richard Springer (witness reference)
    Homeowner mentioned by Petitioner as willing to serve on the board
  • Charles Seers (witness reference)
    Homeowner mentioned by Petitioner as willing to serve on the board; name variations include Charles Zippers

Respondent Side

  • James Brewer (attorney)
    Tyson & Mendes, LLP
    Represented Respondent Rancho Reyes II Community Association
  • Leah M. McKeever (attorney)
    Tyson & Mendes, LLP
  • Lynn M. Allen (attorney)
    Tyson & Mendes, LLP
  • Sherry Ortega (board member)
    Rancho Reyes II Community Association
    Vice President since March 2023; President previously; testified for Respondent
  • Maria Ruelas (board member)
    Rancho Reyes II Community Association
    Director in 2022 until March 2023
  • Kimberly Schone (COO/witness)
    Mission Management (Community Manager)
    Chief Operating Officer, testified for Respondent
  • Ronda Raal (CEO/property manager)
    Mission Management (Community Manager)
    CEO of the management company
  • Sammy (assistant)
    Mission Management (Community Manager)
    Assistant who helped count ballots for January 2023 election; name variations include Tammy, Cammy, Samantha
  • Joy (manager)
    Mission Management (Community Manager)
    Manager during January 2023 election period
  • Jennifer (manager)
    Mission Management (Community Manager)
    Current manager of the account
  • Vince (management staff)
    Mission Management (Community Manager)
    Saw ballot video footage

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Also referred to as Fala Moses Thompson
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
    Recipient of official documents
  • VNunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
    Recipient of official documents
  • DJones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
    Recipient of official documents
  • Labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
    Recipient of official documents

Other Participants

  • Cordova Sapola (board member elect)
    Elected in March 2023 election; unresponsive and did not attend meetings
  • Eugenia Francisco (elected candidate)
    Elected in January 2023 election but refuted candidacy; name variations include Eugene Silva
  • Yolanda Molina (former board member)
    Former Treasurer; resigned December 2021
  • Mario Martinez (witness reference)
    Adam LMC
  • Diane (former property manager)
    First manager for the HOA around 2017-2018

John W Gray v. Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H063-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-09-20
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome Petitioner prevailed on Issue 2 (Records Requests violation), resulting in the refund of the $500 filing fee. Respondent prevailed on Issue 1 (Failure to Hold Meetings, found moot) and Issue 3 (Board Legitimacy, insufficient evidence). No civil penalty was imposed.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John W. Gray Counsel —
Respondent Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association Counsel Chad M. Gallacher, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARS § 33-1248(B), Bylaw Article 2.1
ARS § 33-1258, Bylaw Article 1.6
ARS § 33-1243(B), Bylaw Article 3.2

Outcome Summary

Petitioner prevailed on Issue 2 (Records Requests violation), resulting in the refund of the $500 filing fee. Respondent prevailed on Issue 1 (Failure to Hold Meetings, found moot) and Issue 3 (Board Legitimacy, insufficient evidence). No civil penalty was imposed.

Why this result: Petitioner lost Issue 1 because the failure to hold meetings was resolved and deemed moot. Petitioner lost Issue 3 due to insufficient evidence.

Key Issues & Findings

No meeting was held in 2020, 2021, or 2022

Petitioner alleged violation for failure to hold annual meetings in 2020, 2021, and 2022. The Board admitted meetings were not held due to the pandemic but held an annual meeting in 2023.

Orders: —

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARS § 33-1248(B)
  • Bylaw Article 2.1
  • ARS § 33-1250(C)

Petitioner has received no response to multiple requests for information

Petitioner made multiple requests for information and records (including meeting minutes from 2018-2023 and fire suppression invoices from 2014-2023). Respondent failed to provide copies of minutes from 2018-2019 and records related to the sprinkler system.

Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $500.00 filing fee refund within thirty (30) days and directed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258 and Bylaw Article 1.6 going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARS § 33-1258
  • Bylaw Article 1.6

The people claiming to be the Board are not legitimate, not duly elected, and have appointed themselves to successive terms of office

Petitioner alleged the board members were illegitimate because annual meetings lacked quorum (2018, 2019) or were not held (2020-2022), leading directors to continue in office unlawfully.

Orders: —

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARS § 33-1243(B)
  • Bylaw Article 3.2
  • A.R.S. § 10-3805(E)

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H063-REL Decision – 1081668.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:13:14 (46.0 KB)

23F-H063-REL Decision – 1095241.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:13:19 (143.2 KB)

23F-H063-REL Decision – 1081668.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:50 (46.0 KB)

23F-H063-REL Decision – 1095241.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:55 (143.2 KB)

This matter, *John W. Gray v Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association* (No. 23F-H063-REL), was heard before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Velva Moses-Thompson at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) on August 31, 2023. The Petitioner, John W. Gray, alleged that the Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and its Bylaws across three issues.

Key Facts and Procedural History

The Petitioner, a unit owner, filed his petition on or about May 15, 2023. Prior to the hearing, the OAH denied the Petitioner’s motion for a Default Decision, noting that the Commissioner, not the OAH, holds jurisdiction for defaults based on failure to respond, and the Commissioner had already accepted the Respondent's response.

The Association admitted that it failed to hold annual board meetings in 2020, 2021, and 2022. Furthermore, prior meetings in 2018 and 2019 failed to achieve quorum. The Petitioner also made multiple requests for information and records (including meeting minutes and fire sprinkler system invoices dating back to 2014) which he contended were ignored or inadequately addressed.

Main Issues and Arguments

  1. Failure to Hold Annual Meetings (2020–2022) (A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) and Bylaw Article 2.1):
  • *Respondent's Argument:* The failure was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and related health concerns. The Association argued it should not be penalized for trying to cope with an unprecedented situation, noting the difficulty of holding mandatory in-person voting (A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)) during the crisis. A meeting was successfully held in July 2023.
  • *Petitioner's Argument:* The statutes and bylaws have no emergency exception. Meetings could have been conducted remotely or effectively via absentee ballot, which was already an accepted practice.
  1. Board Legitimacy (A.R.S. § 33-1243(B) and Bylaw Article 3.2):
  • *Respondent's Argument:* The directors’ continuation in office was required by operation of law, specifically the Bylaws (Article 3.2) and the Nonprofit Corporation Act (A.R.S. § 10-3805(E)). These provisions dictate that directors shall continue to hold office until a successor is elected and qualified, preventing a lapse in governance when quorum is not met due to owner apathy. The current board members were validly elected in July 2023.
  • *Petitioner's Argument:* The board improperly and unilaterally appointed themselves to successive terms for five years (2018–2022) by making only a single attempt at an annual election and failing to reschedule, largely due to cost concerns.
  1. Failure to Respond to Information Requests (A.R.S. § 33-1258 and Bylaw Article 1.6):
  • *Respondent's Argument:* Some requests were for information rather than formal records, and some requests (like the fire system invoices back to 2014) were extensive and time-consuming to compile. They admitted they were still working on producing these records. They also noted that meeting minutes for 2020-2022 did not exist because no meetings were held.
  • *Petitioner's Argument:* The law requires a timely response, which the Association failed to provide, constituting a violation of the Condo Act.

Final Decision and Outcome

The ALJ issued her decision on September 20, 2023.

  • Issue 1 (Annual Meetings): The ALJ ruled the issue was moot because an annual meeting was held in 2023. Respondent was deemed the prevailing party on Issue 1.
  • Issue 3 (Board Legitimacy): The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the board members were not legitimate or duly elected, citing the legal principle allowing directors to hold office until successors are elected (A.R.S. § 10-3805(E)). Respondent was deemed the prevailing party on Issue 3.
  • Issue 2 (Records Requests): The ALJ found that the Respondent failed to provide copies of minutes for meetings held in 2018 and 2019, and records reques

Questions

Question

If my HOA fails to hold an annual meeting, do the current directors automatically lose their positions?

Short Answer

No. Directors typically continue to serve until a successor is elected or qualified.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ concluded that board members may serve successive terms and, in the absence of a new election (often due to lack of quorum), existing members continue to serve. The failure to hold a meeting does not automatically illegitimate the board.

Alj Quote

Directors of a non-profit organization may be elected for successive terms, unless otherwise provided for in the articles of incorporation or bylaws.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 10-3805(B)

Topic Tags

  • Board Legitimacy
  • Elections
  • Terms of Office

Question

Can I penalize my HOA for failing to hold meetings during a public health emergency like COVID-19?

Short Answer

Likely no, especially if the issue is resolved by the time of the hearing.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that failing to hold in-person meetings due to the pandemic was supported by the weight of evidence. Furthermore, because the HOA eventually held a meeting in 2023, the dispute regarding the missed meetings was considered moot.

Alj Quote

The weight of the evidence shows that the Board failed to hold in person board meetings from 2020 to 2022, due to the pandemic… Because there is no current dispute regarding the failure to hold an annual board meeting, the issue is now moot.

Legal Basis

Mootness Doctrine

Topic Tags

  • Meetings
  • COVID-19
  • Mootness

Question

Does the HOA have a valid excuse for not providing old meeting minutes if they claim they are hard to find?

Short Answer

No. The HOA must justify any failure to provide requested minutes.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled against the HOA for failing to provide minutes from 2018 and 2019, noting that the HOA provided no evidence to justify this failure, despite arguments about the difficulty of production.

Alj Quote

Although there were no board meetings from 2020-2022, Respondent provide no evidence to justify its failure to provide copies of the minutes of Association meetings from 2018 to 2019.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Topic Tags

  • Records Requests
  • Meeting Minutes
  • HOA Obligations

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

In this case, the Petitioner prevailed on the issue regarding records requests (Issue 2), and the ALJ ordered the Respondent to pay the Petitioner the $500 filing fee directly.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Administrative Remedy

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Filing Fees
  • Costs

Question

Is the HOA required to allow in-person voting even if they want to hold virtual meetings?

Short Answer

Yes, the law requires providing for votes to be cast in person.

Detailed Answer

The decision highlights that state law requires the Board to allow members to vote in person, which was a factor in why the Board did not hold virtual-only meetings during the pandemic.

Alj Quote

The Board was required by law to allow members to vote in person.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)

Topic Tags

  • Voting
  • In-Person Requirements
  • Virtual Meetings

Question

What standard of proof do I need to meet to prove my HOA violated the law?

Short Answer

You must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The burden of proof lies with the Petitioner to show that their contention is more probably true than not.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the Association’s Bylaws and applicable statutes by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

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

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Legal Standards
  • Evidence

Question

Can the HOA withhold records just because I didn't ask for them in a specific format?

Short Answer

The request must be for records/copies; a general inquiry for information might not trigger the statutory obligation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ distinguished between requests for information (like names of directors) and requests to examine or copy specific records. The decision noted that some initial correspondence 'did not include a request to examine records or to make copies of records.'

Alj Quote

Mr. Gray’s attorney requested that the Board respond in within 30 days of receipt of the letter. However, the letter did not include a request to examine records or to make copies of records.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Topic Tags

  • Records Requests
  • Procedural Requirements

Case

Docket No
23F-H063-REL
Case Title
John W. Gray v. Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association
Decision Date
2023-09-20
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

If my HOA fails to hold an annual meeting, do the current directors automatically lose their positions?

Short Answer

No. Directors typically continue to serve until a successor is elected or qualified.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ concluded that board members may serve successive terms and, in the absence of a new election (often due to lack of quorum), existing members continue to serve. The failure to hold a meeting does not automatically illegitimate the board.

Alj Quote

Directors of a non-profit organization may be elected for successive terms, unless otherwise provided for in the articles of incorporation or bylaws.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 10-3805(B)

Topic Tags

  • Board Legitimacy
  • Elections
  • Terms of Office

Question

Can I penalize my HOA for failing to hold meetings during a public health emergency like COVID-19?

Short Answer

Likely no, especially if the issue is resolved by the time of the hearing.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that failing to hold in-person meetings due to the pandemic was supported by the weight of evidence. Furthermore, because the HOA eventually held a meeting in 2023, the dispute regarding the missed meetings was considered moot.

Alj Quote

The weight of the evidence shows that the Board failed to hold in person board meetings from 2020 to 2022, due to the pandemic… Because there is no current dispute regarding the failure to hold an annual board meeting, the issue is now moot.

Legal Basis

Mootness Doctrine

Topic Tags

  • Meetings
  • COVID-19
  • Mootness

Question

Does the HOA have a valid excuse for not providing old meeting minutes if they claim they are hard to find?

Short Answer

No. The HOA must justify any failure to provide requested minutes.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled against the HOA for failing to provide minutes from 2018 and 2019, noting that the HOA provided no evidence to justify this failure, despite arguments about the difficulty of production.

Alj Quote

Although there were no board meetings from 2020-2022, Respondent provide no evidence to justify its failure to provide copies of the minutes of Association meetings from 2018 to 2019.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Topic Tags

  • Records Requests
  • Meeting Minutes
  • HOA Obligations

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

In this case, the Petitioner prevailed on the issue regarding records requests (Issue 2), and the ALJ ordered the Respondent to pay the Petitioner the $500 filing fee directly.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Administrative Remedy

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Filing Fees
  • Costs

Question

Is the HOA required to allow in-person voting even if they want to hold virtual meetings?

Short Answer

Yes, the law requires providing for votes to be cast in person.

Detailed Answer

The decision highlights that state law requires the Board to allow members to vote in person, which was a factor in why the Board did not hold virtual-only meetings during the pandemic.

Alj Quote

The Board was required by law to allow members to vote in person.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)

Topic Tags

  • Voting
  • In-Person Requirements
  • Virtual Meetings

Question

What standard of proof do I need to meet to prove my HOA violated the law?

Short Answer

You must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The burden of proof lies with the Petitioner to show that their contention is more probably true than not.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the Association’s Bylaws and applicable statutes by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

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

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Legal Standards
  • Evidence

Question

Can the HOA withhold records just because I didn't ask for them in a specific format?

Short Answer

The request must be for records/copies; a general inquiry for information might not trigger the statutory obligation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ distinguished between requests for information (like names of directors) and requests to examine or copy specific records. The decision noted that some initial correspondence 'did not include a request to examine records or to make copies of records.'

Alj Quote

Mr. Gray’s attorney requested that the Board respond in within 30 days of receipt of the letter. However, the letter did not include a request to examine records or to make copies of records.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Topic Tags

  • Records Requests
  • Procedural Requirements

Case

Docket No
23F-H063-REL
Case Title
John W. Gray v. Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association
Decision Date
2023-09-20
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John W. Gray (petitioner)
    Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association (Member)
    Appeared on behalf of himself.
  • David Bacon (petitioner's attorney)
    Davis Ma Magcguire Gardner
    Wrote letter on behalf of Petitioner John W. Gray.

Respondent Side

  • Chad M. Gallacher (HOA attorney)
    HOALaw.biz
    Attorney for Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association.
  • Adriana Lacombe (Community Manager/Witness)
    Curtis Management
    Community Manager for Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association. Also referred to as Andrea Lome in testimony.
  • Jim Reid (property manager)
    Curtis Management
    Contact listed for Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association.
  • Rita Ali (board member/president)
    Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association
    Board President; reelected July 18, 2023.
  • Cassandra Miller (board member)
    Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association
    Appointed/elected board member.
  • Richard Randolph (board member)
    Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association
    Re-elected July 18, 2023.
  • Carl Fleming (former board member)
    Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association
    Moved out, creating a vacancy.
  • Derek Blackman (former board member/president)
    Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association
    Sold unit in 2016.

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge.
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official communication.
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official communication.
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official communication.
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official communication.

Other Participants

  • Andrea West (proposed board member)
    Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association (Member)
    Requested appointment to the board in 2018; presence noted by Petitioner at 2018 meeting.
  • Jennifer Dulick (homeowner/member)
    Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association (Member)
    Attended 2018 annual meeting attempt.

Thomas P. Hommrich v. The Lakewood Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H048-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-05-19
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition on jurisdictional grounds.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Thomas P. Hommrich Counsel —
Respondent The Lakewood Community Association Counsel Quinten Cupps, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article lV, Section 4.2(t) of the CC&R's

Outcome Summary

Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition on jurisdictional grounds.

Why this result: The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because the petition challenged the Association’s power to act (A.R.S. § 10-3304), which requires injunctive relief in a court of law, and did not concern a violation of community documents or statute (A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)).

Key Issues & Findings

Authority to enforce parking rule on residential public streets

Petitioner sought an order prohibiting the Respondent from restricting parking access on public residential streets, alleging the Association breached the CC&Rs by misapplying Article IV, Section 4.2(t).

Orders: The petition was dismissed because OAH lacked jurisdiction as the case challenged the Association's power to act under A.R.S. § 10-3304, rather than alleging a violation of community documents or statute under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A).

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • A.R.S. § 10-3304
  • A.R.S. § 10-3304(B)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Parking Restrictions, Jurisdiction, Motion to Dismiss, CC&Rs
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • A.R.S. § 10-3304
  • A.R.S. § 10-3304(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H048-REL Decision – 1057905.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:08:54 (71.7 KB)

23F-H048-REL Decision – 1059621.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:08:57 (44.2 KB)

23F-H048-REL Decision – 1057905.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:20 (71.7 KB)

23F-H048-REL Decision – 1059621.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:22 (44.2 KB)

The matter of *Thomas P. Hommrich vs. The Lakewood Community Association* (No. 23F-H048-REL) was heard in the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Key Facts and Issues

Petitioner Thomas P. Hommrich filed a single-issue petition on March 9, 2023, alleging the Respondent Association lacked the authority to enforce a parking restriction. Specifically, the Petitioner claimed the Association improperly relied upon Article IV, Section 4.2(t) of the CC&Rs, which, in the Petitioner's view, does not prohibit parking on public residential streets. The Petitioner sought an order from the OAH prohibiting the Respondent from restricting parking access on such streets.

Article IV, Section 4.2(t) of the CC&Rs indicates the Declarant's intent is to "eliminate on-street parking at Lakewood as much as possible," requiring vehicles to be kept in garages, driveways, or designated areas. It further states that "No parking is permitted on any street within Lakewood" designated on the Map of Dedication, and allows the Association to adopt additional parking rules.

Hearing Proceedings and Main Arguments

The Association filed a Motion to Dismiss on May 8, 2023. The Respondent argued that the OAH lacked jurisdiction because the petition did not concern a violation of community documents or any statute, as required by A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A). Furthermore, the Association contended that the OAH lacked the authority to grant the specific injunctive relief requested by the Petitioner.

The Petitioner responded, asserting he was alleging that the Association breached the CC&Rs.

Legal Points and Final Decision

The Administrative Law Judge granted the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the Petition on May 19, 2023.

The OAH determined that the petition did not concern a violation of community documents or any statute. The most important legal point focused on jurisdiction: the OAH found that the Petitioner was essentially attempting to challenge the Association’s power to act (authority to restrict parking on public streets). Under A.R.S. § 10-3304, the Petitioner is not permitted to challenge the Association’s power to act in the OAH tribunal. The appropriate venue for seeking injunctive relief regarding an association’s power to act is a court of law (A.R.S. § 10-3304(B)(2)).

Outcome

The petition was dismissed. Following the dismissal, the OAH received a Motion to Amend the Petition, which it could not consider because a decision had already been rendered. However, the Petitioner’s request for a rehearing was forwarded to the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE), as the ADRE, not the OAH, handles rehearing requests pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-2199.04(A).

Questions

Question

Can I use the administrative hearing process to challenge my HOA's legal authority or power to enforce a specific rule?

Short Answer

No. Challenges to an Association's corporate power to act must be brought in a court of law, not the administrative tribunal.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear challenges regarding the Association's 'power to act' (such as whether they have the authority to restrict parking). Under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 10-3304, these specific legal challenges regarding corporate authority must be addressed in a court of law.

Alj Quote

Petitioner may not challenge the Association’s power to act in this tribunal under A.R.S. § 10-3304. Petitioner may seek injunctive relief regarding the Association’s power to act in a court of law.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 10-3304

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • corporate power
  • HOA authority

Question

If I disagree with a decision, can I file a motion to amend my petition after the order has been issued?

Short Answer

No. Once a decision is rendered, the Office of Administrative Hearings cannot consider motions to amend.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ clarified that once a decision is finalized, the OAH loses the ability to take further action on the matter, meaning a Motion to Amend filed after the decision cannot be considered.

Alj Quote

The Motion to Amend the Petition cannot not be considered by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) as this tribunal’s decision has already been rendered and, because of that, OAH can take no further action on the matter.

Legal Basis

Procedural Rule

Topic Tags

  • procedure
  • appeals
  • amendments

Question

Where must I file a request for a rehearing if I lose my case?

Short Answer

You must file the request with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate (ADRE), not the hearing office.

Detailed Answer

While the hearing takes place at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), a request for a rehearing must be directed to the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the order.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Topic Tags

  • rehearing
  • procedure
  • ADRE

Question

Can the administrative tribunal issue an injunction preventing the HOA from enforcing parking restrictions on public streets?

Short Answer

Likely no, if the claim is based on the HOA lacking the 'power to act'.

Detailed Answer

The petitioner sought an order prohibiting the HOA from restricting parking on public streets. The ALJ dismissed this because the claim was fundamentally about the Association's authority (power to act), which falls outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.

Alj Quote

Petitioner asks this Court to issue an order that prohibits the Respondent from restricting parking access on public residential streets… Petitioner may seek injunctive relief regarding the Association’s power to act in a court of law.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 10-3304

Topic Tags

  • parking
  • injunctions
  • jurisdiction

Question

Does a petition challenging an HOA rule have to allege a specific violation of the community documents or statutes?

Short Answer

Yes. If the petition does not concern a violation of documents or statutes, it may be dismissed.

Detailed Answer

The HOA successfully argued that the petition should be dismissed because it did not allege that the HOA violated community documents or statutes, but rather challenged the HOA's authority to make rules.

Alj Quote

Therefore, the petition does not concern a violation of community documents or of any statute… IT IS ORDERED that the petition is dismissed.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)

Topic Tags

  • petition requirements
  • dismissal
  • violations

Case

Docket No
23F-H048-REL
Case Title
Thomas P. Hommrich vs. The Lakewood Community Association
Decision Date
2023-05-19
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can I use the administrative hearing process to challenge my HOA's legal authority or power to enforce a specific rule?

Short Answer

No. Challenges to an Association's corporate power to act must be brought in a court of law, not the administrative tribunal.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear challenges regarding the Association's 'power to act' (such as whether they have the authority to restrict parking). Under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 10-3304, these specific legal challenges regarding corporate authority must be addressed in a court of law.

Alj Quote

Petitioner may not challenge the Association’s power to act in this tribunal under A.R.S. § 10-3304. Petitioner may seek injunctive relief regarding the Association’s power to act in a court of law.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 10-3304

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • corporate power
  • HOA authority

Question

If I disagree with a decision, can I file a motion to amend my petition after the order has been issued?

Short Answer

No. Once a decision is rendered, the Office of Administrative Hearings cannot consider motions to amend.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ clarified that once a decision is finalized, the OAH loses the ability to take further action on the matter, meaning a Motion to Amend filed after the decision cannot be considered.

Alj Quote

The Motion to Amend the Petition cannot not be considered by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) as this tribunal’s decision has already been rendered and, because of that, OAH can take no further action on the matter.

Legal Basis

Procedural Rule

Topic Tags

  • procedure
  • appeals
  • amendments

Question

Where must I file a request for a rehearing if I lose my case?

Short Answer

You must file the request with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate (ADRE), not the hearing office.

Detailed Answer

While the hearing takes place at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), a request for a rehearing must be directed to the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the order.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Topic Tags

  • rehearing
  • procedure
  • ADRE

Question

Can the administrative tribunal issue an injunction preventing the HOA from enforcing parking restrictions on public streets?

Short Answer

Likely no, if the claim is based on the HOA lacking the 'power to act'.

Detailed Answer

The petitioner sought an order prohibiting the HOA from restricting parking on public streets. The ALJ dismissed this because the claim was fundamentally about the Association's authority (power to act), which falls outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.

Alj Quote

Petitioner asks this Court to issue an order that prohibits the Respondent from restricting parking access on public residential streets… Petitioner may seek injunctive relief regarding the Association’s power to act in a court of law.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 10-3304

Topic Tags

  • parking
  • injunctions
  • jurisdiction

Question

Does a petition challenging an HOA rule have to allege a specific violation of the community documents or statutes?

Short Answer

Yes. If the petition does not concern a violation of documents or statutes, it may be dismissed.

Detailed Answer

The HOA successfully argued that the petition should be dismissed because it did not allege that the HOA violated community documents or statutes, but rather challenged the HOA's authority to make rules.

Alj Quote

Therefore, the petition does not concern a violation of community documents or of any statute… IT IS ORDERED that the petition is dismissed.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)

Topic Tags

  • petition requirements
  • dismissal
  • violations

Case

Docket No
23F-H048-REL
Case Title
Thomas P. Hommrich vs. The Lakewood Community Association
Decision Date
2023-05-19
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Thomas P. Hommrich (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Quinten Cupps (respondent attorney)
    vf-law.com
    Esq.

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmittal
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmittal
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmittal
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmittal

Anthony Payson v. The Foothills Homeowners Association #1

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H041-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-05-01
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome The petition was dismissed after the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent HOA did not violate CC&R Section 5.4, finding that this section applies to use restrictions on individual Lots and Members, not the Association itself.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Anthony Payson Counsel —
Respondent The Foothills Homeowners Association #1 Counsel Sean K. Mohnihan

Alleged Violations

CC&R Section 5.4

Outcome Summary

The petition was dismissed after the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent HOA did not violate CC&R Section 5.4, finding that this section applies to use restrictions on individual Lots and Members, not the Association itself.

Why this result: The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Section 5.4 because the HOA does not own or operate the nuisance-causing television, and the CC&R section governs restrictions on lot Owners/Members, not the Association. OAH jurisdiction is limited to finding the governing document or statute violated by the respondent.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA's alleged failure to enforce nuisance provision (CC&R Section 5.4) regarding neighbor's outdoor television.

Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA failed to perform its duty to enforce CC&R Section 5.4 by refusing to seek removal of a neighbor's large, outdoor television that created noise disturbances and was deemed a nuisance.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §32- 2199.02(A)
  • CC&R Section 5.4

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Homeowners Association, CC&R, Nuisance, Enforcement, Jurisdiction, Outdoor TV
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §32- 2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H041-REL Decision – 1047496.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-01T10:25:11 (57.5 KB)

23F-H041-REL Decision – 1053240.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-01T10:25:17 (98.4 KB)

23F-H041-REL Decision – 1047496.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:55:58 (57.5 KB)

23F-H041-REL Decision – 1053240.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:01 (98.4 KB)

The legal matter of *Anthony Payson v. The Foothills Homeowners Association #1* (No. 23F-H041-REL) was heard virtually by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Velva Moses-Thompson on April 13, 2023.

Key Facts and Petitioner's Allegations:

Petitioner Anthony Payson, a homeowner within the community, alleged that the Respondent Homeowners Association (HOA) neglected its duty to enforce the Covenants, Codes, & Restrictions (CC&Rs). Specifically, the Petitioner claimed that a large, outdoor television/movie theater installed by his neighbor violated CC&R Section 5.4 (Nuisances), which prohibits anything kept on a lot that "will or might disturb the peace, quiet, comfort, or serenity of the occupants of the surrounding property". Petitioner sought an order compelling the HOA to enforce the CC&Rs and require the neighbor to remove the television.

Respondent's Key Arguments:

The Respondent HOA, represented by Sean K. Mohnihan, orally moved to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim for relief. The HOA argued that the Petitioner was alleging a violation of Section 5.4 by the neighbor, not the Association itself, and the Association neither owns nor operates the TV.

Crucially, the HOA asserted that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) lacked jurisdiction to hear disputes among neighbors or to enforce common law duties to enforce CC&Rs. Furthermore, the HOA maintained that the Petitioner failed to provide reliable evidence (such as a log book, police reports, or a noise study) to substantiate a nuisance claim, despite the HOA having requested such documentation before initiating enforcement action.

Hearing Proceedings and Evidence:

The ALJ held the motion to dismiss in abeyance but proceeded with the presentation of evidence. Petitioner Payson testified that the TV had disturbed his peace and quiet on at least one occasion involving a hockey game, and that its mere existence constituted a violation because it *might* cause disturbance. Payson admitted he did not provide the HOA with specific dates, times, decibel readings, or video evidence of the disturbance, as the HOA had requested. The Respondent ultimately elected not to call witnesses, relying instead on the Petitioner's testimony and the jurisdictional arguments.

Outcome and Legal Decision:

In the final decision issued May 1, 2023, the ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish that the Respondent (The Foothills Homeowners Association #1) violated CC&R Section 5.4.

The ALJ determined that CC&R Section 5.4 addresses use restrictions on Members and Lots. Since the provisions refer to actions of members, any breach of that Article would be a breach by a Member, not the Association. The OAH’s authority, pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), is limited to finding whether the governing document or statute has been violated by the respondent. Because the Petitioner did not contend or provide facts establishing that the HOA stored property that caused noise or disturbed the peace, the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof against the Association.

The petition was ordered dismissed.

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H041-REL”, “case_title”: “In the Matter of Anthony Payson vs The Foothills Homeowners Association #1”, “decision_date”: “2023-05-01”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can I use the ADRE administrative hearing process to force my HOA to enforce CC&R rules against a neighbor?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no, if the specific rule applies to member conduct rather than Association conduct.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) clarified that the dispute process is for determining if the Respondent (the HOA) violated a statute or governing document. If a CC&R provision restricts how a ‘lot’ may be used, a violation of that rule is a breach by the member (the neighbor), not the Association. Therefore, the HOA cannot be found guilty of violating a rule that governs homeowner behavior.”, “alj_quote”: “These provisions refer to what members may and may not do within the Association. Therefore, any breach of this Article would be a breach by a Member, not the Association. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent violated CC&R Section 5.4.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 5.4; OAH Jurisdiction”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement”, “jurisdiction”, “neighbor disputes” ] }, { “question”: “Does the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) have jurisdiction to decide if my HOA was negligent or violated common law duties?”, “short_answer”: “No, the OAH jurisdiction is strictly limited to violations of statutes and governing documents.”, “detailed_answer”: “The tribunal does not have the authority to hear claims based on common law, such as negligence or general failure to perform a duty, unless it is a specific violation of the statutes or the community documents tailored to the Association’s conduct.”, “alj_quote”: “To the extent that Petitioner alleged that Respondent may have violated common law, or any other laws, the OAH lacks jurisdiction to make such a determination.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “common law”, “negligence” ] }, { “question”: “What remedies or penalties can I request from the administrative judge if I win my case against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Relief is limited to a finding of violation, an order to comply, return of filing fees, and civil penalties.”, “detailed_answer”: “The administrative process cannot award damages for things like pain, suffering, or lost property value. The remedies are strictly defined by statute: finding a violation occurred, ordering the HOA to abide by the provision, returning the petitioner’s filing fee, and levying a civil penalty.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s relief in this venue is limited to e is limited to a finding that the governing document or statute at issue has been violated by the respondent, an order that Respondent abide by the provision in the future, and to have the filing fee returned to the petitioner and a civil penalty levied against Respondent.”, “legal_basis”: “Ariz. Rev. Stat. §32- 2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “remedies”, “penalties”, “civil penalty” ] }, { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner bringing the case must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It is not the HOA’s job to disprove the claims initially; the burden lies with the person filing the petition.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated on its CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “evidence”, “legal standard” ] }, { “question”: “What is the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard used in these hearings?”, “short_answer”: “It means the claim is more probable than not to be true.”, “detailed_answer”: “This legal standard requires that the evidence presented must convince the judge that the petitioner’s argument is more likely true than the opposing side’s argument. It is described as the ‘greater weight of the evidence.'”, “alj_quote”: ““A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.””, “legal_basis”: “Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standard”, “definitions”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “How are vague or ambiguous rules in the CC&Rs interpreted by the judge?”, “short_answer”: “They are construed to give effect to the intent of the parties and the underlying purpose of the document.”, “detailed_answer”: “When interpreting restrictive covenants, the judge looks at the document as a whole. If the covenant is unambiguous, it is enforced exactly as written to match the intent.”, “alj_quote”: ““Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.””, “legal_basis”: “Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553”, “topic_tags”: [ “interpretation”, “CC&Rs”, “legal principles” ] } ] }

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H041-REL”, “case_title”: “In the Matter of Anthony Payson vs The Foothills Homeowners Association #1”, “decision_date”: “2023-05-01”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can I use the ADRE administrative hearing process to force my HOA to enforce CC&R rules against a neighbor?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no, if the specific rule applies to member conduct rather than Association conduct.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) clarified that the dispute process is for determining if the Respondent (the HOA) violated a statute or governing document. If a CC&R provision restricts how a ‘lot’ may be used, a violation of that rule is a breach by the member (the neighbor), not the Association. Therefore, the HOA cannot be found guilty of violating a rule that governs homeowner behavior.”, “alj_quote”: “These provisions refer to what members may and may not do within the Association. Therefore, any breach of this Article would be a breach by a Member, not the Association. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent violated CC&R Section 5.4.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 5.4; OAH Jurisdiction”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement”, “jurisdiction”, “neighbor disputes” ] }, { “question”: “Does the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) have jurisdiction to decide if my HOA was negligent or violated common law duties?”, “short_answer”: “No, the OAH jurisdiction is strictly limited to violations of statutes and governing documents.”, “detailed_answer”: “The tribunal does not have the authority to hear claims based on common law, such as negligence or general failure to perform a duty, unless it is a specific violation of the statutes or the community documents tailored to the Association’s conduct.”, “alj_quote”: “To the extent that Petitioner alleged that Respondent may have violated common law, or any other laws, the OAH lacks jurisdiction to make such a determination.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “common law”, “negligence” ] }, { “question”: “What remedies or penalties can I request from the administrative judge if I win my case against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Relief is limited to a finding of violation, an order to comply, return of filing fees, and civil penalties.”, “detailed_answer”: “The administrative process cannot award damages for things like pain, suffering, or lost property value. The remedies are strictly defined by statute: finding a violation occurred, ordering the HOA to abide by the provision, returning the petitioner’s filing fee, and levying a civil penalty.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s relief in this venue is limited to e is limited to a finding that the governing document or statute at issue has been violated by the respondent, an order that Respondent abide by the provision in the future, and to have the filing fee returned to the petitioner and a civil penalty levied against Respondent.”, “legal_basis”: “Ariz. Rev. Stat. §32- 2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “remedies”, “penalties”, “civil penalty” ] }, { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner bringing the case must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It is not the HOA’s job to disprove the claims initially; the burden lies with the person filing the petition.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated on its CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “evidence”, “legal standard” ] }, { “question”: “What is the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard used in these hearings?”, “short_answer”: “It means the claim is more probable than not to be true.”, “detailed_answer”: “This legal standard requires that the evidence presented must convince the judge that the petitioner’s argument is more likely true than the opposing side’s argument. It is described as the ‘greater weight of the evidence.'”, “alj_quote”: ““A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.””, “legal_basis”: “Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standard”, “definitions”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “How are vague or ambiguous rules in the CC&Rs interpreted by the judge?”, “short_answer”: “They are construed to give effect to the intent of the parties and the underlying purpose of the document.”, “detailed_answer”: “When interpreting restrictive covenants, the judge looks at the document as a whole. If the covenant is unambiguous, it is enforced exactly as written to match the intent.”, “alj_quote”: ““Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.””, “legal_basis”: “Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553”, “topic_tags”: [ “interpretation”, “CC&Rs”, “legal principles” ] } ] }

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Anthony Payson (petitioner)
    Homeowner

Respondent Side

  • Sean K. Mohnihan (HOA attorney)
    Smith & Wamsley, PLLC
    Appeared for Respondent The Foothills Homeowners Association #1
  • Jason E Smith (attorney)
    Smith & Wamsley, PLLC
    Listed with counsel
  • Gabron (board member)
    The Foothills Homeowners Association #1
    Board representative/potential witness
  • Linda Armo (board member)
    The Foothills Homeowners Association #1
    Board representative/potential witness
  • Philip Brown (former HOA attorney)
    Previously represented the HOA; wrote a letter to Petitioner

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Barry Callahan (neighbor)
    Alleged violator of CC&Rs, neighbor to Petitioner

Clifford S Burnes V. Saguaro Crest Homeowners’ Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H038-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-04-20
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome Petitioner prevailed on the allegation that Respondent failed to provide notice of the board meeting in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804, resulting in a refund of $500.00. Respondent prevailed on the allegation that the board meeting was required to be open, as the meeting was properly closed to receive legal advice under a statutory exception.
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

Petitioner prevailed on the allegation that Respondent failed to provide notice of the board meeting in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804, resulting in a refund of $500.00. Respondent prevailed on the allegation that the board meeting was required to be open, as the meeting was properly closed to receive legal advice under a statutory exception.

Why this result: Petitioner lost the open meeting claim because the meeting was protected by the legal advice exception under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1).

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide notice of board meeting to members.

Petitioner alleged Respondent conducted an unnoticed board meeting regarding obtaining legal advice. Respondent conceded the meeting was unnoticed. The ALJ concluded Respondent was required to provide notice to members that it would be conducting a board meeting to consider legal advice from an attorney that would be closed to members, and failed to do so.

Orders: Respondent must pay Petitioner the filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days. Respondent is directed to comply with the notice requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)

Board meeting was not open to all members of the association.

Petitioner alleged the meeting, attended by two board members and an attorney, should have been open. Respondent contended the meeting was a permitted closed session to consider legal advice from an attorney regarding reorganization/disbanding, pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1). The ALJ concluded the meeting was not required to be open because the board members were solely receiving legal advice from an attorney.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Open Meetings, Notice Requirement, Legal Advice Exception, Planned Communities Act
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(C)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H038-REL Decision – 1036995.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:05:06 (52.7 KB)

23F-H038-REL Decision – 1050950.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:05:15 (119.2 KB)

23F-H038-REL Decision – 1036995.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:41 (52.7 KB)

23F-H038-REL Decision – 1050950.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:44 (119.2 KB)

The administrative hearing (Docket No. 23F-H038-REL) involved Petitioner Clifford S. Burnes and Respondent Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association (HOA). The hearing was conducted virtually on March 31, 2023, before Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The core dispute concerned an HOA meeting held on or about May 31, 2022. The Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1804, which governs open meetings for planned communities, on two specific points: that the meeting was not noticed and that it was not open to association members.

The meeting involved two of the three HOA board members (Esmeralda Sarina-Ayala Martinez and Dave Madill) meeting with an attorney to obtain legal advice regarding the potential dissolution of the HOA and the disposition of the subdivision's 18-acre common area. Both parties stipulated during the hearing that the meeting was neither noticed nor open to the general membership.

Key Legal Arguments

  1. Respondent's Argument (HOA): The HOA contended that they had not violated the statute because the meeting's purpose fell under the exception allowing a closed session for receiving legal advice from an attorney pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1). Counsel argued that the closed nature of the meeting exempted them from the typical notice requirements. Furthermore, the Respondent argued that because only two of the three board members were present, and no votes or formal actions were taken, it did not constitute an official "meeting of the board of directors" requiring statutory notice.
  2. Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner argued that even if the meeting was closed for legal advice, the law still requires notice to be given. He asserted that the HOA failed to comply with requirements, such as identifying the statutory authority for closing the meeting before proceeding, as outlined in A.R.S. § 33-1804(C). Mr. Burns contended that because the meeting involved two board members (which could constitute a quorum depending on the definition) discussing critical HOA business (dissolution), it should have adhered to open meeting and notice provisions.

Outcome and Final Decision

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision on April 20, 2023. The ALJ’s conclusion was split, with both parties deemed prevailing on one issue.

  1. Openness Issue (HOA Wins): The ALJ concluded that the HOA did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804 by closing the meeting, as the only information discussed and obtained was legal advice from an attorney, which is an allowable exception.
  2. Notice Issue (Petitioner Wins): The ALJ concluded that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 when it failed to provide notice to its members of the board meeting, even though the content was privileged. The ALJ concluded that the statute requires notice even for meetings held to consider legal advice.

Orders and Remedies:

  • The Respondent HOA was ordered to pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00.
  • The Respondent was directed to comply with the notice requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 going forward.
  • The Petitioner’s request for a civil penalty was denied.

Questions

Question

If the HOA board meets with their attorney, do they still have to notify homeowners about the meeting?

Short Answer

Yes. Even if the meeting will be closed for legal advice, the board is legally required to provide notice to the members that the meeting is occurring.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that while a board can close a meeting to receive legal advice, they cannot skip the notice requirement. The HOA in this case violated the law by failing to provide notice of a board meeting where they obtained legal advice.

Alj Quote

Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 when it failed to provide notice to its members of the March 31, 2022 board meeting where it obtained legal advice from an attorney.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • notice
  • legal advice

Question

Can the HOA board exclude homeowners from a meeting if they are discussing legal advice?

Short Answer

Yes. The board is permitted to close a portion of a meeting if it is limited to considering legal advice from an attorney.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that the HOA did not violate the open meeting law by keeping the meeting closed, because the sole purpose was to receive legal advice. This is a specific exception to the open meeting requirement.

Alj Quote

The Administrative law Judge further concludes that Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804 when it failed to make the March 31, 2022 board meeting open to members when the only information discussed and obtained was legal advice from an attorney.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • exclusions
  • attorney-client privilege

Question

Does a gathering of board members count as a 'meeting' if they are just meeting informally or for a workshop?

Short Answer

Yes. If a quorum of the board meets to discuss association business, even informally, they must follow open meeting and notice laws.

Detailed Answer

The decision cites the statute stating that any quorum meeting informally to discuss business must comply with notice and open meeting provisions, regardless of whether a formal vote is taken.

Alj Quote

Any quorum of the board of directors that meets informally to discuss association business, including workshops, shall comply with the open meeting and notice provisions of this section without regard to whether the board votes or takes any action on any matter at that informal meeting.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(4)

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • quorum
  • workshops

Question

If I file a petition against my HOA and win, will the HOA have to reimburse my filing fees?

Short Answer

Yes, the judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee if the homeowner prevails on the issue.

Detailed Answer

In this case, because the homeowner prevailed on the issue regarding the lack of notice, the ALJ ordered the HOA to pay back the $500 filing fee.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Order of the ALJ

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • penalties

Question

Does a violation of the open meeting law always result in a fine for the HOA?

Short Answer

No. The judge has discretion and may decide that no civil penalty is appropriate even if a violation occurred.

Detailed Answer

Although the HOA was found to have violated the notice statute, the ALJ explicitly stated that no civil penalty was appropriate in this specific matter.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Discretion of ALJ

Topic Tags

  • civil penalty
  • fines
  • enforcement

Question

What legal standard do I have to meet to prove my HOA violated the rules?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

The decision defines the burden of proof as the greater weight of the evidence, sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side rather than the other.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)

Topic Tags

  • legal standard
  • burden of proof
  • evidence

Case

Docket No
23F-H038-REL
Case Title
Clifford S. Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Decision Date
2023-04-20
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

If the HOA board meets with their attorney, do they still have to notify homeowners about the meeting?

Short Answer

Yes. Even if the meeting will be closed for legal advice, the board is legally required to provide notice to the members that the meeting is occurring.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that while a board can close a meeting to receive legal advice, they cannot skip the notice requirement. The HOA in this case violated the law by failing to provide notice of a board meeting where they obtained legal advice.

Alj Quote

Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 when it failed to provide notice to its members of the March 31, 2022 board meeting where it obtained legal advice from an attorney.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • notice
  • legal advice

Question

Can the HOA board exclude homeowners from a meeting if they are discussing legal advice?

Short Answer

Yes. The board is permitted to close a portion of a meeting if it is limited to considering legal advice from an attorney.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that the HOA did not violate the open meeting law by keeping the meeting closed, because the sole purpose was to receive legal advice. This is a specific exception to the open meeting requirement.

Alj Quote

The Administrative law Judge further concludes that Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804 when it failed to make the March 31, 2022 board meeting open to members when the only information discussed and obtained was legal advice from an attorney.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • exclusions
  • attorney-client privilege

Question

Does a gathering of board members count as a 'meeting' if they are just meeting informally or for a workshop?

Short Answer

Yes. If a quorum of the board meets to discuss association business, even informally, they must follow open meeting and notice laws.

Detailed Answer

The decision cites the statute stating that any quorum meeting informally to discuss business must comply with notice and open meeting provisions, regardless of whether a formal vote is taken.

Alj Quote

Any quorum of the board of directors that meets informally to discuss association business, including workshops, shall comply with the open meeting and notice provisions of this section without regard to whether the board votes or takes any action on any matter at that informal meeting.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(4)

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • quorum
  • workshops

Question

If I file a petition against my HOA and win, will the HOA have to reimburse my filing fees?

Short Answer

Yes, the judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee if the homeowner prevails on the issue.

Detailed Answer

In this case, because the homeowner prevailed on the issue regarding the lack of notice, the ALJ ordered the HOA to pay back the $500 filing fee.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Order of the ALJ

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • penalties

Question

Does a violation of the open meeting law always result in a fine for the HOA?

Short Answer

No. The judge has discretion and may decide that no civil penalty is appropriate even if a violation occurred.

Detailed Answer

Although the HOA was found to have violated the notice statute, the ALJ explicitly stated that no civil penalty was appropriate in this specific matter.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Discretion of ALJ

Topic Tags

  • civil penalty
  • fines
  • enforcement

Question

What legal standard do I have to meet to prove my HOA violated the rules?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

The decision defines the burden of proof as the greater weight of the evidence, sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side rather than the other.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)

Topic Tags

  • legal standard
  • burden of proof
  • evidence

Case

Docket No
23F-H038-REL
Case Title
Clifford S. Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Decision Date
2023-04-20
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Clifford S. Burnes (petitioner; witness)
    Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association member
    Also known as Clifford (Norm) S. Burnes,; appeared on behalf of himself,.

Respondent Side

  • John T. Crotty (HOA attorney)
    Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent,.
  • Esmeralda Sarina Ayala-Martinez (board member; witness)
    Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
    Also referred to as Esmeralda Sarina-Ayala Martinez or Esmerita Martinez; testified on behalf of Respondent.
  • Dave Madill (board member)
    Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
    Vice President; also referred to as Dave Matt or Dave Medil; was one of the two board members who met with the attorney.
  • Joseph Martinez (board member)
    Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
    Husband of Esmeralda Sarina Ayala-Martinez; third board member.
  • David A. Melvoy (HOA attorney/legal counsel)
    Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
    Provided legal advice during the underlying May 31, 2022, closed meeting; also referred to as David Mackoy, Eoy, or Eway,,.

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Susan Nicolson (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official transmission,.
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official transmission,.
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official transmission,.
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official transmission,.
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official transmission,.

Barbara J. Ryan v. Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H035-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-04-17
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The ALJ found the Respondent violated Bylaw section 7.1 by failing to hold an annual members meeting in 2021 and 2022. Respondent was ordered to refund the $500 filing fee and ensure future compliance with Bylaw section 7.1. No civil penalty was imposed.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Barbara J. Ryan Counsel —
Respondent Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association Counsel Jody Corrales, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804, A.R.S. § 33-1318, Respondent’s Bylaws sections 7.1, 7.2, 12.1 – 12.3

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The ALJ found the Respondent violated Bylaw section 7.1 by failing to hold an annual members meeting in 2021 and 2022. Respondent was ordered to refund the $500 filing fee and ensure future compliance with Bylaw section 7.1. No civil penalty was imposed.

Why this result: The violation (failure to hold an annual member meeting) was undisputed by the Respondent, and Respondent's counsel conceded there were no legal defenses to this fact.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to hold an annual members meeting in two years and ignoring members written petitions and requests for a meeting

It was undisputed that the Respondent HOA failed to hold an annual meeting of the members from March 2020 to the time of the hearing. The ALJ found by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated section 7.1 of its Bylaws.

Orders: Respondent must pay the Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days and is directed to comply with section 7.1 of its Bylaws going forward. No civil penalty was found appropriate.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 33-1318
  • Respondent’s Bylaws sections 7.1
  • Respondent’s Bylaws sections 7.2
  • Respondent’s Bylaws sections 12.1 – 12.3
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Annual Meeting, Bylaws Violation, Filing Fee Refund, Administrative Hearing, Planned Community
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 33-1318
  • Respondent’s Bylaws sections 7.1
  • Respondent’s Bylaws sections 7.2
  • Respondent’s Bylaws sections 12.1 – 12.3
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1043132.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:02:56 (55.9 KB)

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1048244.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:03:02 (37.7 KB)

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1049662.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:03:16 (18.7 KB)

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1049665.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:03:31 (23.9 KB)

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1049666.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:03:40 (87.4 KB)

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1043132.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:21 (55.9 KB)

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1048244.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:24 (37.7 KB)

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1049662.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:28 (18.7 KB)

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1049665.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:31 (23.9 KB)

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1049666.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:36 (87.4 KB)

This is a summary of the administrative hearing held on March 27, 2023, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Velva Moses-Thompson at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Key Facts and Parties

The case, *In the Matter of Barbara J. Ryan vs. Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association*, Docket No. 23F-H035-REL, involved Petitioner Barbara J. Ryan (Petitioner) and the Respondent Homeowners Association (HOA). The Petitioner paid $500.00 to file the dispute. The Respondent was represented by attorney Jody Corrales.

Main Issue and Core Dispute

The issue set for determination was whether the Respondent HOA violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1804 and § 33-1318) and the HOA’s Bylaws (specifically Article 7.1) by failing to hold an annual member meeting in two years.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

  1. Petitioner’s Position: The Petitioner argued that the Respondent's Board of Directors had failed to hold an annual member meeting since February 2020, a period exceeding three years. This failure violated both the association's bylaws and Arizona statutes, despite multiple requests from members.
  2. Undisputed Fact: The Respondent's counsel stipulated and confirmed that there had been no annual members meeting held since February 2020.
  3. Respondent’s Defense: The Respondent's primary defense for the lack of meetings was attributed to ongoing legal turbulence, including contentious state court litigation (initiated around September 2021) and a subsequent Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing (August 25, 2022). The HOA argued that this reorganization process justified the delay. The Respondent also asserted that a vote by written ballot for directors in February 2021 served the same function as an annual meeting for that year.
  4. ALJ Determination on Jurisdiction: The ALJ strictly limited the hearing's scope to the single paid issue concerning the failure to hold the required annual meeting, explicitly rejecting discussion on related issues such as board elections, removal proceedings, or the details of the bankruptcy, stating these matters were outside the ALJ's jurisdiction.
  5. Legal Concession: Ultimately, the Respondent's counsel conceded that they had no legal defenses to the fact that they failed to hold the annual meeting.

Outcome and Final Decision

The Administrative Law Judge issued the decision on April 17, 2023:

  1. Violation Found: The ALJ concluded that the preponderance of the evidence established that the Respondent violated section 7.1 of its Bylaws by failing to hold an annual meeting of the members in 2021 and 2022.
  2. Prevailing Party: Petitioner Barbara J. Ryan was deemed the prevailing party.
  3. Remedy: The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days.
  4. Compliance Order: The Respondent was further directed to comply with the requirements of section 7.1 of its Bylaws going forward.
  5. Penalty: No civil penalty was found appropriate in this matter.

Questions

Question

Can an HOA skip annual member meetings due to ongoing litigation or bankruptcy proceedings?

Short Answer

No. Legal defenses based on external issues like litigation or bankruptcy may not validate the failure to hold meetings required by bylaws.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the HOA attempted to argue that bankruptcy and litigation prevented them from holding meetings. However, the ALJ noted that the Respondent's own counsel eventually admitted there were no legal defenses for failing to hold the meeting, and the failure was ruled a violation.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s counsel stated that there were no legal defenses to Respondent’s failure to hold a board meeting.

Legal Basis

Bylaws Section 7.1

Topic Tags

  • annual meetings
  • HOA defenses
  • bankruptcy

Question

If I include multiple complaints in my petition but only pay the fee for one, will the judge hear all of them?

Short Answer

No. The Administrative Law Judge will likely only address the specific issue for which the filing fee was paid.

Detailed Answer

The petitioner included allegations regarding failure to respond to requests for special meetings and removal of directors, but because she only paid the $500 fee for one issue (failure to hold annual meetings), the other allegations were not addressed in the decision.

Alj Quote

The petition included other allegations including, but not limited to, the Board failure to respond to requests for a special meeting of members and/or a meeting to remove directors from the Board. However, Petitioner has paid for only one issue.

Legal Basis

Procedural Rule

Topic Tags

  • filing fees
  • petition scope
  • administrative procedure

Question

Does the failure to hold an annual meeting automatically invalidate the HOA's corporate actions?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. Bylaws often contain specific provisions stating that the failure to hold a meeting does not affect the validity of corporate actions.

Detailed Answer

The decision cites a specific section of the HOA's bylaws which explicitly states that missing the fixed time for an annual meeting does not invalidate corporate actions.

Alj Quote

The failure to hold an annual or regular meeting at a time stated in or fixed in accordance with the Bylaws does not affect the validity of any corporate action.

Legal Basis

Bylaws Section 7.1

Topic Tags

  • corporate actions
  • validity
  • bylaws

Question

What standard of proof must a homeowner meet to win a hearing against their HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The burden is on the petitioner to show that their contention is 'more probably true than not.' It is not based on the number of witnesses but on the convincing force of the evidence.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated on its CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

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

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standard
  • evidence

Question

Can I be reimbursed for my filing fee if I win my case against the HOA?

Short Answer

Yes. The ALJ has the authority to order the HOA to pay the filing fee back to the prevailing homeowner.

Detailed Answer

After ruling in favor of the petitioner regarding the failure to hold meetings, the judge ordered the HOA to pay the petitioner the $500 filing fee within 30 days.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association must pay to Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of receipt of this Order.

Legal Basis

Order of the ALJ

Topic Tags

  • reimbursement
  • filing fees
  • penalties

Question

Will the HOA always be fined a civil penalty if they are found to have violated the bylaws?

Short Answer

No. The judge may decide that a civil penalty is not appropriate even if a violation is found.

Detailed Answer

Although the HOA was found to have violated the bylaws by not holding meetings for two years, the judge explicitly declined to assess a civil penalty in this specific matter.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Judicial Discretion

Topic Tags

  • civil penalty
  • fines
  • enforcement

Case

Docket No
23F-H035-REL
Case Title
Barbara J. Ryan vs Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2023-04-17
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can an HOA skip annual member meetings due to ongoing litigation or bankruptcy proceedings?

Short Answer

No. Legal defenses based on external issues like litigation or bankruptcy may not validate the failure to hold meetings required by bylaws.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the HOA attempted to argue that bankruptcy and litigation prevented them from holding meetings. However, the ALJ noted that the Respondent's own counsel eventually admitted there were no legal defenses for failing to hold the meeting, and the failure was ruled a violation.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s counsel stated that there were no legal defenses to Respondent’s failure to hold a board meeting.

Legal Basis

Bylaws Section 7.1

Topic Tags

  • annual meetings
  • HOA defenses
  • bankruptcy

Question

If I include multiple complaints in my petition but only pay the fee for one, will the judge hear all of them?

Short Answer

No. The Administrative Law Judge will likely only address the specific issue for which the filing fee was paid.

Detailed Answer

The petitioner included allegations regarding failure to respond to requests for special meetings and removal of directors, but because she only paid the $500 fee for one issue (failure to hold annual meetings), the other allegations were not addressed in the decision.

Alj Quote

The petition included other allegations including, but not limited to, the Board failure to respond to requests for a special meeting of members and/or a meeting to remove directors from the Board. However, Petitioner has paid for only one issue.

Legal Basis

Procedural Rule

Topic Tags

  • filing fees
  • petition scope
  • administrative procedure

Question

Does the failure to hold an annual meeting automatically invalidate the HOA's corporate actions?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. Bylaws often contain specific provisions stating that the failure to hold a meeting does not affect the validity of corporate actions.

Detailed Answer

The decision cites a specific section of the HOA's bylaws which explicitly states that missing the fixed time for an annual meeting does not invalidate corporate actions.

Alj Quote

The failure to hold an annual or regular meeting at a time stated in or fixed in accordance with the Bylaws does not affect the validity of any corporate action.

Legal Basis

Bylaws Section 7.1

Topic Tags

  • corporate actions
  • validity
  • bylaws

Question

What standard of proof must a homeowner meet to win a hearing against their HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The burden is on the petitioner to show that their contention is 'more probably true than not.' It is not based on the number of witnesses but on the convincing force of the evidence.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated on its CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

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

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standard
  • evidence

Question

Can I be reimbursed for my filing fee if I win my case against the HOA?

Short Answer

Yes. The ALJ has the authority to order the HOA to pay the filing fee back to the prevailing homeowner.

Detailed Answer

After ruling in favor of the petitioner regarding the failure to hold meetings, the judge ordered the HOA to pay the petitioner the $500 filing fee within 30 days.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association must pay to Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of receipt of this Order.

Legal Basis

Order of the ALJ

Topic Tags

  • reimbursement
  • filing fees
  • penalties

Question

Will the HOA always be fined a civil penalty if they are found to have violated the bylaws?

Short Answer

No. The judge may decide that a civil penalty is not appropriate even if a violation is found.

Detailed Answer

Although the HOA was found to have violated the bylaws by not holding meetings for two years, the judge explicitly declined to assess a civil penalty in this specific matter.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Judicial Discretion

Topic Tags

  • civil penalty
  • fines
  • enforcement

Case

Docket No
23F-H035-REL
Case Title
Barbara J. Ryan vs Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2023-04-17
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Barbara J. Ryan (petitioner)
    Appeared on behalf of herself
  • Bill Nethery (witness)
    Meadows Property Association member
    Listed as a witness on Petitioner's petition
  • Damon Rosen (applicant for board vacancy)
    Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association member
    Individual who submitted a resume to serve on the board

Respondent Side

  • Jody A. Corrales (HOA attorney)
    DeConcini McDonald Yetwin & Lacy
    Represented the Respondent, Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association
  • Dorothy Marine (board member/witness)
    Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association
    Director and President of the board; testified at hearing
  • Cindy Celeste (board member)
    Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association
    Director
  • Jim Kasa (board member)
    Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association
    Director

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    OAH
    Also introduced herself as Sales Thompson
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Gail Olia (former board member)
    Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association
    Director who resigned; also referred to as Jill Olia
  • Sorl Tate (homeowner)
    Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association member
    Individual whose prior contentious state court proceeding against the HOA contributed to the bankruptcy

Senol Pekin v. Artesian Ranch Community Association (ROOT)

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H034-REL
Agency Arizona Department of Real Estate
Tribunal Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date 2023-04-10
Administrative Law Judge VMT
Outcome —
Filing Fees Refunded —
Civil Penalties —

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Senol Pekin Counsel Pro Se
Respondent Artesian Ranch Community Association Counsel Ashley Moscarello, Esq.

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H034-REL Decision – 1044665.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-28T11:14:03 (166.9 KB)

23F-H034-REL Decision – 1048179.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-28T11:14:24 (106.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Pekin vs. Artesian Ranch Community Association (Consolidated Matters 23F-H034-REL and 23F-H037-REL)

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the testimony, evidentiary records, and final judicial decision regarding the consolidated legal matters between Petitioner Senol Pekin and Respondent Artesian Ranch Community Association. The dispute centers on allegations of governance failures, bylaw violations, and the infringement of member rights by the Association and its management firm, Associated Asset Management (AAM).

Following a hearing on March 20, 2023, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Velva Moses-Thompson issued a decision on April 10, 2023. The ALJ found that the Association committed two specific violations: failing to hold its annual meeting in accordance with its bylaws and unlawfully prohibiting the recording of an open board meeting. While several other allegations regarding meeting organization and the muting of board members were dismissed, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $1,000 filing fee for the established violations.

Key Case Entities and Witnesses

Entity/Individual Role Description
Senol Pekin Petitioner A homeowner and elected board member who filed the petitions.
Artesian Ranch Community Association Respondent The homeowners' association governing the community.
AAM, LLC Management Agent Associated Asset Management; provides portfolio management for the Association.
Mandy Rogers Witness Community Manager at AAM; manages 10 communities including Artesian Ranch.
Susanne Easterday Roskens Witness Board President of the Association.
Velva Moses-Thompson Presiding ALJ Administrative Law Judge who rendered the final decision.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Bylaw Adherence vs. Operational Cadence

A central conflict in the testimony was the discrepancy between the Association's written bylaws and its actual practices. Article II, Section 2.3 of the Bylaws explicitly requires subsequent regular annual meetings to be held on the second Wednesday of April each year.

  • Evidence of Violation: The 2022 annual meeting was held in May.
  • Management Defense: Mandy Rogers testified that the meeting date was set based on a "cadence" established by previous management and board decisions influenced by COVID-19 delays. She argued that the provision requiring an April election for a January 1st term commencement was "unheard of" and that she had never seen such a requirement in her 17 years of experience.
  • Judicial Ruling: The ALJ rejected the Association’s defense that this was a "technical violation" with no harm. The ruling stated that A.R.S. § 10-3701(e) does not provide an exception for adhering to bylaws that require a set time for an annual meeting.
2. The Scope of Management Authority

Petitioner Pekin argued that the HOA Manager overstepped her authority by scheduling a board meeting on September 22, 2022, asserting that only board members possess such power under the bylaws.

  • Conflict of Testimony: Pekin claimed he never authorized the meeting. Conversely, Susanne Roskens testified that she requested the meeting via a phone call with Mandy Rogers to resolve a time-sensitive landscaping issue regarding "overseeding" that required a prompt decision.
  • Judicial Ruling: The ALJ ruled in favor of the Association on this issue, noting that Rogers, as an employee of the Community Manager, may act as an agent of the Board.
3. Transparency and Statutory Recording Rights

The October 24, 2022, board meeting featured a directive from management prohibiting attendees from recording the session.

  • Statutory Context: A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) explicitly permits persons attending open board meetings to audiotape or videotape the proceedings. It forbids the board from requiring advance notice for such recording.
  • Management Justification: Rogers claimed the prohibition was based on advice from the Association’s attorney to protect the privacy of executive session items being discussed in an open forum.
  • Judicial Ruling: The ALJ found this to be a clear violation of state law, confirming that the Association cannot preclude members from recording open portions of meetings.
4. Digital Governance and Board Member Participation

The Petitioner alleged he was silenced during Zoom meetings through the "mute" function, preventing him from voicing opposition to financial decisions, specifically regarding a $60,000 tree trimming budget.

  • The "Combative" Label: Rogers testified that the mute function was used because Pekin was "combative," "aggressive," and brought up "executive session material in an open session."
  • Witness Observations: Witness Shelly Nelson testified that Pekin was muted several times and that the tone of the meeting felt "antagonistic" and "not friendly."
  • Judicial Ruling: Despite the muting, the ALJ found that Pekin failed to prove he was not allowed to speak. The evidence showed he had several opportunities to speak during the meeting and even suggested follow-up discussions on agenda items.

Important Quotes with Context

"Your annual meeting for the past 3 years was on the wrong date per the bylaw. That's my answer." — Mandy Rogers, Community Manager Context: This admission followed a line of questioning by Pekin regarding the consistent failure to hold April meetings as mandated by the governing documents.

"I have never seen governing documents that call that out ever. Nor has anybody in my company or at the attorney's firm… it's unheard of." — Mandy Rogers, Community Manager Context: Rogers was defending the decision to ignore the bylaw requiring a January 1st start date for directors elected in April, arguing the document was an anomaly she was not initially aware of.

"By muting me they are inhibiting my effective participation functioning in the board… I am representing [homeowners] who have been severely molested by the mosquitoes in our community." — Senol Pekin, Petitioner Context: Pekin explaining his frustration during closing arguments, linking the procedural silencing to his inability to address urgent health and safety issues like vector control.

"The board shall provide for a reasonable number of persons to speak on each side of an issue. Persons attending may audiotape or videotape those portions of the meetings… the board… shall not require advance notice." — ALJ Velva Moses-Thompson (citing A.R.S. § 33-1804) Context: The legal foundation for the ruling that the Association violated statutory member rights by banning recording.

Actionable Insights

For Homeowners' Associations
  • Strict Bylaw Compliance: Technical violations regarding meeting dates are not excused by "practicality" or "unprecedented issues" like COVID-19. Associations must formally amend bylaws if the mandated timelines are no longer feasible.
  • Adherence to A.R.S. § 33-1804: Boards cannot prohibit the recording of open meetings or require prior notice. Any such rule is a violation of Arizona law.
  • Management as Agent: Management firms may lawfully organize meetings at the verbal or written direction of the Board President or a majority of the board, provided they act as authorized agents.
For Board Members and Management
  • Documentation of Directives: To avoid disputes over who "called" a meeting, board presidents should provide written confirmation of their request to management.
  • Judicious Use of Muting: While managing "combative" members is a legitimate function of meeting moderation, it must be balanced against the statutory right of members to speak at appropriate times during deliberations.
  • Director Training Requirements: Per Bylaws Section 3.1A, all directors should complete training before commencing service. The evidence indicated that failure to synchronize training with election dates can lead to delays in organizational meetings.

Final Judicial Disposition

Issue Finding Ruling
1. Annual Meeting Date Violated Bylaw 2.3 Prevailing Party: Petitioner
2. Organizational Meeting Bylaws do not require separate meeting Prevailing Party: Respondent
3. Authority to Call Meeting Manager acted as agent of the Board Prevailing Party: Respondent
4. Prohibition of Recording Violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 Prevailing Party: Petitioner
5. Muting/Opposing Views Petitioner had opportunities to speak Prevailing Party: Respondent

Remedy: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $1,000 (filing fee reimbursement). Civil penalties were deemed inappropriate.

Artesian Ranch Community Association vs. Senol Pekin: A Study Guide on HOA Governance and Legal Disputes

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the consolidated legal matters (23F-H034-REL and 23F-H037-REL) involving the Artesian Ranch Community Association and Petitioner Senol Pekin. It explores key concepts of HOA governance, the interpretation of bylaws versus state statutes, and the final rulings of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).

1. Core Themes and Key Concepts

Governing Documents and Statutes

The case centers on the hierarchy and interpretation of specific legal documents:

  • HOA Bylaws: Specifically Article II (Annual Meetings), Article III (Organizational Meetings), and Article IV (Officers).
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Arizona Revised Statutes): Part of the Planned Communities Act, which mandates that meetings must be open to all members and allows for the recording of such meetings.
  • A.R.S. § 10-3701(e): A provision of the Nonprofit Corporation Act regarding the validity of corporate actions even if an annual meeting is delayed.
Types of Meetings and Requirements
  • Annual Meeting: Per Bylaw 2.3, this must be held on the second Wednesday of April each year.
  • Organizational Meeting: Per Bylaw 3.7, this must be held within a "reasonable time" after new directors take office to elect officers.
  • Open Session vs. Executive Session: Open sessions allow homeowners to observe and speak; executive sessions are closed for sensitive matters (e.g., legal advice, personnel issues).
Roles and Authority
  • The Board of Directors: Responsible for the affairs of the association. Actions generally require a quorum (a majority of directors).
  • The Community Manager (AAM, LLC): Acts as an agent for the Board. The manager (Mandy Rogers) handles day-to-day operations, including noticing meetings and drafting budgets.
  • Officer Duties: The Secretary/Treasurer (a role assigned to Senol Pekin in 2022) is responsible for minutes and overseeing budget preparation, though the management agent often performs the actual drafting.

2. Summary of Legal Issues and Final Rulings

The following table outlines the five specific issues adjudicated by Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson on April 10, 2023.

Issue Number Allegation Final Ruling
1 Violation of Bylaw 2.3 for not holding the 2022 Annual Meeting in April. Violation Found. Respondent failed to follow the specific date required by Bylaws.
2 Failure to hold an "exclusive and timely" Organizational Meeting. No Violation. Bylaws do not require the meeting to be exclusive from other board business.
3 Unauthorized calling of a Board Meeting (Sept 22, 2022) by the HOA Manager. No Violation. The meeting was requested by the Board President; the manager acted as an agent.
4 Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by prohibiting the recording of an open session. Violation Found. Statute explicitly prohibits requiring advance notice for recording.
5 Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 by muting the Petitioner during a Zoom meeting. No Violation. Evidence showed Petitioner had opportunities to speak; muting was deemed a management tool for conduct.

3. Short-Answer Practice Questions

Q1: According to the Artesian Ranch Bylaws, specifically Section 2.3, when exactly must the regular annual meeting take place?

  • Answer: The second Wednesday of April each year.

Q2: What is the significance of A.R.S. § 33-1804 regarding the recording of board meetings?

  • Answer: It states that persons attending may audiotape or videotape open portions of meetings and that the board shall not require advance notice for such recording.

Q3: Why did the Association claim the 2021 and 2022 meetings were held outside of the required April timeframe?

  • Answer: The Association argued that COVID-19 pushed the calendar off course, leading to an August meeting in 2021 and a May meeting in 2022.

Q4: How does the Administrative Law Judge define a "preponderance of the evidence"?

  • Answer: Proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is "more probably true than not," or the "greater weight of the evidence."

Q5: What was the Board’s justification for muting Senol Pekin during the October 24, 2022, Zoom meeting?

  • Answer: The Community Manager testified that he was being combative/aggressive and was attempting to bring up closed Executive Session items during an Open Session.

4. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Conflict Between Bylaws and State Statutes: Analyze the ALJ's decision regarding Issue 1 and Issue 4. In Issue 1, the Association argued that a state statute (A.R.S. § 10-3701(e)) excused their failure to follow their own bylaws. In Issue 4, the state statute overrode the Association's internal rules about recording. Discuss the hierarchy of authority in HOA governance based on these rulings.
  2. The Role of Professional Management: Evaluate the testimony of Mandy Rogers (AAM, LLC). To what extent does a management company act as a neutral administrator versus a decision-making entity? Reference the dispute over who "called" the September 2022 meeting in your answer.
  3. Defining "Reasonable Time" and "Organizational Meeting": The Petitioner argued that an organizational meeting should be a standalone event held immediately after directors take office on January 1st. The Board argued that holding it during the first scheduled meeting in August was "reasonable." Critique these opposing views using the Source Context.
  4. Due Process in Virtual Meetings: Discuss the challenges of maintaining a "parliamentary process" in digital formats (e.g., Zoom). How did the ability to "mute" participants impact the legal determination of whether the Petitioner was allowed to voice an opposing side?

5. Glossary of Important Terms

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804: The Arizona statute governing open meetings for homeowners' associations in planned communities.
  • Adjudicated: To make a formal judgment or decision about a problem or disputed matter.
  • Agent: A person or entity (like AAM, LLC) authorized to act on behalf of another (the Board).
  • Combative: A term used by the Respondent to describe the Petitioner's behavior, defined in testimony as being argumentative or conflict-oriented.
  • Consolidated Matter: When multiple separate legal petitions (in this case, two filed by the same Petitioner) are joined into a single hearing.
  • Executive Session: A portion of a board meeting closed to homeowners, restricted to specific topics like legal advice, pending litigation, or personal/financial info of members.
  • Notwithstanding: A legal term meaning "in spite of" or "regardless of." Used in A.R.S. § 33-1804 to show that state law overrides any contrary HOA bylaws.
  • Organizational Meeting: A meeting specifically intended for the board to elect officers (President, Secretary, etc.) among themselves.
  • Prevailing Party: The participant in a lawsuit or hearing who wins on the specific issues presented.
  • Quorum: The minimum number of members (usually a majority) of an assembly that must be present to make the proceedings of that meeting valid.
  • Ultra Vires: A legal term (alluded to by the Petitioner) meaning "beyond the powers." It refers to an act which requires legal authority but is done without it.

HOA Law in Action: Lessons from the Artesian Ranch Legal Battle

In a legal landscape where "technical violations" are often dismissed by boards as trivial inconveniences, the recent ruling in the Artesian Ranch legal battle serves as a $1,000 reminder that governing documents are not mere suggestions. The consolidated cases of Senol Pekin v. Artesian Ranch Community Association (Nos. 23F-H034-REL and 23F-H037-REL) offer a masterclass in the friction between homeowner rights and board authority.

Adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) on behalf of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, this dispute underscores a critical reality for community leaders: administrative oversight exists to ensure that the "business" of an HOA is conducted with the transparency and procedural integrity required by law. For homeowners and board members alike, the findings regarding meeting conduct, the right to record, and strict bylaw adherence provide a definitive roadmap for modern HOA governance.

The Five Charges: A Summary of the Dispute

The litigation involved five specific charges brought by Petitioner Senol Pekin against the Association. The proceedings featured testimony from Mr. Pekin, Board President Susanne Roskens, and Community Manager Mandy Rogers of AAM, LLC.

Petitioner’s Allegations vs. Legal Basis
Allegation Specific Bylaw or Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.)
1. Annual Meeting Timing: Failure to hold the 2022 Annual Meeting on the date required by the governing documents. Bylaws Art. II, § 2.3
2. Organizational Meeting: Failure to elect officers in an exclusively scheduled and timely manner. Bylaws Art. III, § 3.5 & 3.7; Art. IV, § 4.2
3. Unauthorized Meeting Call: A September 2022 meeting called by the Manager without Board authority. Bylaws Art. III, § B; Art. IV, § 6.7(b); Agency Law
4. Recording Prohibition: Prohibiting residents from recording the open session of the October 2022 meeting. A.R.S. § 33-1804
5. Unfair Muting: Silencing the Petitioner during a Zoom meeting, preventing the "opposing side" from being heard. A.R.S. § 33-1804

Victory for Transparency: The Right to Record

A primary flashpoint of the dispute occurred during the October 24, 2022, board meeting. Testimony revealed that Mandy Rogers, acting for the Association, prohibited residents from recording the session. The Association argued that they required advance notice for recording and cited concerns regarding privacy.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Velva Moses-Thompson found this to be a clear violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804. The statute is unambiguous: homeowners have a statutory right to record any portion of a meeting that is open to the membership. Boards cannot use "privacy concerns" or "proprietary technology" as a pretext to bypass the Arizona Planned Communities Act.

Pro-Tips for Homeowners and Boards:

  • No Advance Notice Needed: Associations are legally barred from requiring homeowners to provide notice before recording an open session.
  • Open vs. Closed: Recording rights apply strictly to open sessions. Boards maintain the right to prohibit recording during executive (closed) sessions where sensitive legal or personnel matters are discussed.
  • Rule Limitations: While boards may adopt "reasonable rules" for recording (such as tripod placement), they cannot preclude it unless the board provides its own unedited recording to members upon request.

The Letter of the Law: Why Meeting Dates Matter

The dispute over the 2022 Annual Meeting date highlights a common pitfall for HOAs: the "lack of harm" defense. The Artesian Ranch Bylaws require the annual meeting to be held on the second Wednesday of April; however, the Association held it in May.

The Association’s defense—that the violation was "technical," driven by a schedule push from the COVID-19 pandemic, and resulted in no harm—was flatly rejected. While A.R.S. § 10-3701(e) ensures that corporate actions remain valid even if a meeting is late, the ALJ clarified that this statute does not grant boards a "free pass" to ignore specific timing requirements.

The Expert Insight: Compliance is not optional based on the perceived scale of the error. When governing documents dictate a date, the board is legally bound to it. Deviating because of "convenience" or "past practice" invites litigation and erodes the community's trust in the rule of law.

Where the Board Prevailed: Authority and "Combative" Conduct

The Association was deemed the prevailing party on Issues 2, 3, and 5, largely due to the Petitioner’s failure to meet the burden of proof.

The Meeting Call and the Agency Lesson

The Petitioner argued that Mandy Rogers (AAM) called the September 22 meeting without authority. However, the court found the call legitimate because the manager acted as an agent for Board President Susanne Roskens. For boards, the lesson is clear: a manager can legally call a meeting on the President’s behalf, but the agency relationship must be clear. Documentation of such authorizations is the ultimate shield against claims of "ultra vires" (unauthorized) actions.

The "Mute Button" and the Human Cost

The debate over Zoom conduct provided a window into the breakdown of community trust. Manager Mandy Rogers defended the use of the mute button by stating:

"Mute is an option that is utilized when we have combative board members and members of the association in attendance."

While the ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to prove he was silenced unfairly—noting he had multiple opportunities to speak—the testimony of witness Shelly Nelson provided a sobering contrast. Nelson described the muting as "antagonistic," noting it felt particularly egregious when the board prioritized "aesthetics" (overseeding) while residents were trying to address "health and safety" (a mosquito and dry well crisis). This illustrates that even when a board’s use of technology is legally defensible, its use to stifle dissent can make a community feel silenced.

Bylaw Ambiguity

Regarding Issue 2, the Respondent’s counsel argued that the Petitioner's interpretation of a January 1st start date for directors failed the "common sense test." These bylaws, drafted by a developer who later went bankrupt, were poorly constructed. The takeaway for boards is that when governing documents are ambiguous or outdated, legal interpretation should be sought before a dispute arises, rather than as a defense during a hearing.

The Final Verdict: Financial and Governance Outcomes

ALJ Velva Moses-Thompson issued a balanced final order:

  • Petitioner Prevails: On Issue 1 (Annual Meeting timing) and Issue 4 (Recording rights).
  • Respondent Prevails: On Issue 2 (Organizational meetings), Issue 3 (Meeting calls), and Issue 5 (Muting/Conduct).
  • Financial Reimbursement: The Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner $1,000 for his filing fees.
  • No Civil Penalty: The Judge determined that an additional civil penalty was not appropriate, as the reimbursement of fees served as a sufficient remedy.

Conclusion: Three Pillars of Better HOA Governance

The Artesian Ranch case provides a definitive set of guidelines for associations moving forward:

  1. Bylaws are Not Suggestions: Procedural rules regarding timing and elections must be followed strictly. A "technical violation" is a legal liability, regardless of whether a homeowner can prove "harm."
  2. Technology as a Tool, Not a Shield: Zoom features like the "mute" button should facilitate order, not serve as a weapon to shut down unpopular dialogue. Prioritizing aesthetics over safety concerns in a public forum is a recipe for toxic community relations.
  3. Transparency is a Statutory Right: The right to record is a cornerstone of Arizona law. Managers and boards must be educated on A.R.S. § 33-1804 to ensure they do not inadvertently infringe upon homeowner rights.

Boards and residents are encouraged to review their own governing documents and meeting protocols immediately to ensure alignment with Arizona law and prevent similar, costly litigation.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Senol Pekin (Petitioner)
    Appeared on behalf of himself
  • Shelley Nelson (Witness)
    Resident, testified on behalf of Petitioner
  • Sherry Swanson (Witness)
    Homeowner, testified on behalf of Petitioner
  • Julie Willowby (Witness)
    Testified on behalf of Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Ashley N. Moscarello (Attorney)
    goodlaw.legal
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent Artesian Ranch Community Association
  • Mandy Rogers (Witness / Community Manager)
    AAM, LLC
    Employee of Respondent's Community Manager
  • Susanne Easterday Roskens (Witness / Board Director)
    Artesian Ranch Community Association
    Board President
  • Dennis Berger (Board Director)
    Artesian Ranch Community Association

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Senol Pekin v. Artesian Ranch Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H037-REL
Agency —
Tribunal —
Decision Date 2023-04-10
Administrative Law Judge VMT
Outcome complete
Filing Fees Refunded —
Civil Penalties —

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Senol Pekin Counsel Pro Se
Respondent Artesian Ranch Community Association Counsel Ashley N. Moscarello, Esq., Daniel S. Francom, Esq., Goodman Law Group

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H037-REL Decision – 1037672.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:04:22 (49.3 KB)

23F-H037-REL Decision – 1041383.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:04:28 (50.6 KB)

23F-H037-REL Decision – 1044671.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:04:33 (166.9 KB)

23F-H037-REL Decision – 1044839.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:04:38 (36.5 KB)

23F-H037-REL Decision – 1048179.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:04:43 (105.1 KB)

23F-H037-REL Decision – 1054714.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:04:47 (47.2 KB)

Briefing: Dispute and Resolution – Pekin vs. Artesian Ranch Community Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document summarizes the legal proceedings and administrative decisions regarding the dispute between Petitioner Senol Pekin and Respondent Artesian Ranch Community Association. The matter, involving consolidated dockets No. 23F-H034-REL and No. 23F-H037-REL, was heard before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) on March 20, 2023, under the jurisdiction of Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson.

The Petitioner alleged five distinct violations of the Association’s Bylaws and the Arizona Planned Communities Act (A.R.S. §§ 33-1801 to 33-1818). The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the Association violated its Bylaws by failing to hold its 2022 annual meeting on the prescribed date and violated state law by prohibiting members from recording open board sessions. Consequently, the Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party on these issues, and the Association was ordered to reimburse the $1,000 filing fee. Claims regarding the timing of organizational meetings, the authority of the HOA manager to schedule meetings, and the muting of members during Zoom calls were dismissed.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Adherence to Governing Documents and Bylaws

A central theme of the dispute was the Association's failure to strictly follow its own Bylaws regarding meeting schedules.

  • Annual Meeting Requirement: Bylaws Article II, Section 2.3 requires the regular annual meeting to be held on the second Wednesday of April. In 2022, the Association held this meeting in May instead.
  • The "Technical Violation" Defense: The Association argued this was a "technical violation" with no harm to the Petitioner, citing A.R.S. § 10-3701(e). However, the ALJ ruled that while state statute may protect the validity of corporate actions taken during late meetings, it does not provide an exception for failing to adhere to the specific timing requirements set forth in the Bylaws.
2. Member Rights and Open Meeting Statutes

The case highlighted the tension between HOA management and member rights under A.R.S. § 33-1804.

  • Recording of Meetings: During an October 24, 2022, meeting, the Community Manager informed homeowners they could not record the session. The ALJ found this to be a direct violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), which explicitly permits attendees to audiotape or videotape open portions of meetings.
  • Notice and Restrictions: The Association attempted to require advanced notice for recording, but the ALJ noted that the law prohibits boards from requiring such notice.
  • Participation and "Muting": The Petitioner alleged that the Association muted opposing viewpoints during Zoom meetings. The ALJ ruled in favor of the Association on this point, finding that the Petitioner was given several opportunities to speak and that the muting was a response to "generally aggressive" behavior rather than a systematic effort to silence dissent.
3. Governance and Administrative Authority

The proceedings clarified the roles of the Board versus the Community Manager (AAM, LLC).

  • Organizational Meetings: The Petitioner argued that officers must be elected in a separate, exclusively scheduled organizational meeting. The ALJ disagreed, noting that Bylaws do not require these meetings to be held separately from regular board meetings.
  • Managerial Agency: The Petitioner challenged the HOA Manager's authority to schedule board meetings. The ALJ ruled that a Community Manager, as an employee of the management firm (AAM, LLC), may act as an agent of the Board.
4. Evidentiary and Procedural Rulings
  • Subpoenas: The court managed multiple subpoenas for witnesses including Mandy Rogers, Susanne Roskens, and others. Notably, a subpoena for Dennis Berger was quashed, and the subpoena for Mandy Rogers was limited to her attendance, exempting her from producing documents.
  • Closure of Record: Following the March 20, 2023, hearing, the Petitioner attempted to file additional allegations and the Respondent filed a response. These were rejected by the ALJ as the record had officially closed at the conclusion of the hearing.

Important Quotes with Context

Quote Context
"Subsequent regular annual meetings shall be held on the second Wednesday of April of each year." Found in the Respondent’s Bylaws (Article II, Section 2.3), this served as the basis for the finding that the Association was in violation by holding its meeting in May.
"The board of directors of the association shall not require advance notice of the audiotaping or videotaping…" A critical excerpt from A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) used by the ALJ to determine that the Association's prohibition on recording was unlawful.
"The section does not provide an exception to the adherence to Bylaws that require a set time for an annual meeting." The ALJ’s rebuttal to the Association’s defense that their late annual meeting was merely a "technical violation."
"Ms. Rogers explained that she placed Petitioner on mute because he was generally aggressive." Testimony regarding the Association's conduct during the October 24, 2022, Zoom meeting, which the ALJ accepted as a reasonable management of the meeting.
"Petitioner be deemed the prevailing party regarding issues 1 and 4… Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $1,000." The final order regarding the financial consequences of the Association's violations.

Actionable Insights

For Homeowners' Association Boards
  • Strict Bylaw Compliance: Boards must treat the specific dates and procedures outlined in their Bylaws as mandatory. "Technical violations" regarding meeting dates are still legally actionable and can result in the Association paying the Petitioner's filing fees.
  • Recording Policy Update: Associations should immediately cease any policy requiring advance notice for recording open meetings. While boards can adopt "reasonable rules" for recording, they cannot preclude the act of recording itself unless the Association provides its own unedited recording to members.
  • Managerial Conduct: Community managers should be trained to clearly distinguish between closed (executive) and open sessions when communicating rules about recording and participation to avoid inadvertently violating state statutes.
Regarding Dispute Resolution
  • Record Integrity: Once a hearing concludes, no further evidence or allegations can be introduced. Parties must ensure all relevant documentation and testimony are presented during the scheduled hearing.
  • Rehearing Procedures: If a party is dissatisfied with an ALJ decision, the request for a rehearing must be filed with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) within 30 days, as the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) loses jurisdiction once a decision is rendered.
  • Conflict of Interest in Meetings: As noted in internal Association communications, if a Board member has filed a petition against the Association, they may be required to recuse themselves or log off during executive sessions where their specific legal matter is being discussed with the Association's attorney.

Study Guide: Pekin v. Artesian Ranch Community Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative legal proceedings between Senol Pekin (Petitioner) and the Artesian Ranch Community Association (Respondent). It covers the legal framework, procedural history, specific allegations, and final rulings issued by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

I. Case Overview and Legal Framework

Jurisdiction and Authority

The matter was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) under the authority of the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE).

  • Governing Law: The proceedings are governed by Title 33, Chapter 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, known as the Planned Communities Act (A.R.S. §§ 33-1801 to 33-1818).
  • Adjudicator: Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Velva Moses-Thompson.
Case Identification
  • Petitioner: Senol Pekin.
  • Respondent: Artesian Ranch Community Association.
  • Docket Numbers: 23F-H034-REL and 23F-H037-REL (Consolidated).

II. Procedural History and Significant Events

Date Event Description
January 25, 2023 Notice of Hearing ADRE sets the initial hearing dates.
February 28, 2023 Consolidation Order The ALJ consolidates the two dockets and sets a single hearing for March 20, 2023.
February 28, 2023 Subpoena Issuance Subpoenas issued for Mandy Rogers, Susanne Roskens, Dennis Berger, Brock O’Neal, Julie Willoughby, Shelley Nelson, and Sherry Swanson.
March 13, 2023 Order on Subpoenas Dennis Berger's subpoena is quashed. Mandy Rogers' subpoena is limited to attendance (no document production). Other motions to quash are denied.
March 20, 2023 Administrative Hearing The hearing convenes at 9:00 AM.
March 28, 2023 Minute Entry The ALJ refuses to consider documents filed after March 20, 2023, as the record was closed.
April 10, 2023 Final Decision The ALJ issues the official Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
May 8, 2023 Rehearing Request A request for rehearing is filed but forwarded to the ADRE as the OAH loses jurisdiction after a decision is rendered.

III. Summary of Allegations and Judgments

The Petitioner raised five specific issues regarding the Association's adherence to its Bylaws and Arizona law.

Issue 1: Annual Meeting Frequency
  • Allegation: The Association violated Bylaws Article II, Paragraph 2.3 by failing to hold its 2022 annual meeting on the second Wednesday of April.
  • Evidence: The Association held the meeting in May 2022 instead of April.
  • Ruling: Violation Found. While A.R.S. § 10-3701(e) protects the validity of corporate actions despite timing errors, it does not exempt the Association from adhering to its own Bylaws.
Issue 2: Organizational Meetings
  • Allegation: Officers were not elected in a timely or exclusively scheduled Organizational Meeting as required by Bylaws.
  • Evidence: The Board appointed officers during a regular board meeting in August 2022.
  • Ruling: No Violation. The Bylaws do not require the organizational meeting to be held separately from other board meetings.
Issue 3: Authority to Call Meetings
  • Allegation: A meeting on September 22, 2022, was organized by the HOA Manager, who Petitioner argued lacked the authority to call meetings.
  • Evidence: Board President Susanne Roskens requested Mandy Rogers (Community Manager) to organize the meeting to address a landscaping issue.
  • Ruling: No Violation. The Community Manager acts as an agent of the Board.
Issue 4: Recording Open Sessions
  • Allegation: The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by prohibiting the recording of the open session on October 24, 2022.
  • Evidence: Mandy Rogers informed homeowners they could not record without clarifying that the rule only applied to closed sessions and stated that the Board required advanced notice.
  • Ruling: Violation Found. State law explicitly allows audio and video recording of open meetings and forbids the Board from requiring advance notice.
Issue 5: Participant Participation (Muting)
  • Allegation: The Association muted opposing sides during a Zoom meeting on October 24, 2022, preventing them from speaking.
  • Evidence: The Petitioner was muted due to "aggressive" behavior, but evidence showed he still had multiple opportunities to speak.
  • Ruling: No Violation. Boards may place reasonable time and conduct restrictions on speakers.

IV. Short-Answer Practice Questions

  1. What is the "Preponderance of the Evidence" standard?
  • Answer: It is a standard of proof where the evidence must show that a contention is "more probably true than not," or has the "most convincing force."
  1. Which party bears the burden of proof in an OAH hearing regarding a planned community dispute?
  • Answer: The Petitioner (Senol Pekin) bears the burden of proof to establish violations.
  1. Why did the ALJ refuse to consider the documents filed on March 27 and March 28, 2023?
  • Answer: The evidentiary record was closed on the day of the hearing, March 20, 2023.
  1. According to A.R.S. § 33-1804, what are the rules regarding advanced notice for recording a meeting?
  • Answer: The board of directors shall not require advance notice of audiotaping or videotaping of open portions of meetings.
  1. What was the financial penalty imposed on the Respondent for the violations found?
  • Answer: The Association was ordered to pay the Petitioner's $1,000 filing fee. No other civil penalty was deemed appropriate.

V. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Intersection of Corporate Validity and Bylaw Adherence: Analyze the ALJ's reasoning in Issue 1. How does the decision balance A.R.S. § 10-3701(e) (which validates corporate actions despite timing errors) with the mandatory nature of Association Bylaws?
  2. Agency and Authority in HOA Management: Discuss the ruling on Issue 3 regarding the Community Manager's role. To what extent can a third-party management firm (like AAM, LLC) exercise the powers of the Board of Directors?
  3. Open Meeting Rights vs. Orderly Conduct: Using Issue 5 as a reference, explore the legal limits of a Board's power to "mute" or restrict participants in a digital meeting format. Where is the line between "reasonable time restrictions" and the suppression of "opposing sides"?

VI. Glossary of Important Terms

  • Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over an administrative hearing and serves as the trier of fact and law.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804: The specific Arizona statute governing open meetings, the right to speak, and the right to record meetings within planned communities.
  • CAAM: Certified Arizona Association Manager (referencing the title of Mandy Rogers).
  • Consolidation: The legal process of joining two or more separate cases (dockets) into one when they involve common questions of law or fact.
  • Organizational Meeting: A meeting held within a reasonable time after directors take office to elect officers (e.g., President, Secretary).
  • Planned Communities Act: The section of Arizona law (Title 33, Chapter 16) that regulates the formation and management of HOAs.
  • Quash: A legal term meaning to nullify or void, specifically used here regarding a subpoena for Dennis Berger.
  • Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed (in this case, the Artesian Ranch Community Association).

HOA Accountability in Action: Key Lessons from the Pekin vs. Artesian Ranch Ruling

In the complex ecosystem of Arizona planned communities, the relationship between homeowners and their Board of Directors often fractures when governance becomes opaque or rules are applied inconsistently. While many disputes are settled through internal grievance processes, some reach a boiling point where legal intervention is the only path to clarity.

The case of Senol Pekin vs. Artesian Ranch Community Association (No. 23F-H034-REL) stands as a significant real-world example of a homeowner successfully seeking recourse through the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). This ruling stands as a cautionary tale for Boards who treat Bylaws as optional and a roadmap for homeowners seeking to enforce statutory transparency.

The Core Allegations: A Five-Point Dispute

The Petitioner’s challenge centered on five specific allegations, asserting that the Association repeatedly failed to adhere to its own governing documents and Arizona law. According to the Findings of Fact, the dispute involved:

  • Failure to Hold Annual Meetings: Violation of Bylaws Article II, Paragraph 2.3 by failing to hold the 2022 annual meeting on the required date.
  • Improper Election Procedures: Failure to elect officers during an exclusively and timely scheduled Organizational Meeting.
  • Unauthorized Meeting Organization: Alleging a September 2022 board meeting was invalid because it was organized by the Community Manager rather than the Board.
  • Prohibition of Recording: Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 by prohibiting a member from recording an open session on October 24, 2022.
  • Muting of Participants: Alleging that muting the Petitioner during a Zoom-based meeting prevented "the opposing side" from being heard, in violation of state law.

Victory for Transparency: The Ruling on Recording and Bylaws

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the Petitioner on two critical issues, delivering a stern reminder that internal governing documents carry the weight of law.

Annual Meeting Violations

The Association’s Bylaws (Article II, Paragraph 2.3) explicitly mandate that regular annual meetings be held on the second Wednesday of April. In 2022, the Association unilaterally moved this meeting to May. The Association defended this as a "technical violation" that resulted in no harm, citing A.R.S. § 10-3701(e).

However, the ALJ rejected this defense with a nuance every Board must understand: while A.R.S. § 10-3701(e) protects the validity of corporate actions taken despite timing errors, it does not provide immunity from suit or an exception for associations to ignore their own Bylaws. Adherence to mandated timeframes is a requirement, not a suggestion.

The Right to Record

The most significant win for transparency involved the Board’s attempt to restrict meeting recordings.

STATUTORY PROTECTIONS: A.R.S. § 33-1804 Arizona law is clear: persons attending open board meetings may audiotape or videotape the proceedings. The Board of Directors cannot require advance notice for recording and cannot preclude it unless the Board itself provides its own unedited recordings to members upon request. Rules may be adopted to govern recording, but they cannot be used to effectively prohibit the practice.

The ALJ found the Association in direct violation after the Community Manager informed homeowners they could not record and falsely claimed the Board required advance notice.

Financial and Reputational Outcome

While the ALJ determined a civil penalty was not warranted, the Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $1,000 filing fee. Beyond the dollar amount, the reputational cost of being declared the non-compliant party in a public ruling is a heavy burden for any Board.

The Limits of Claims: Where the Association Prevailed

The ruling also clarified the boundaries of Board authority, finding in favor of the Association on three counts:

  1. Organizational Meetings: The ALJ ruled that Bylaws do not require "organizational meetings" (where officers are elected) to be a standalone event; they may occur within the context of a regular board meeting.
  2. Management Agency: The Petitioner’s claim that a meeting was invalid because the HOA Manager organized it was dismissed. The evidence showed Board President Susanne Roskens specifically requested Manager Mandy Rogers (of AAM, LLC) to schedule the meeting to address urgent landscaping issues. The ALJ affirmed that management companies act as authorized agents of the Board.
  3. The "Muting" Threshold: Under A.R.S. § 33-1804, a Board must allow a "reasonable number of persons to speak on each side." While the Petitioner was muted during a Zoom session due to "aggressive behavior," the ALJ found no violation because the evidence showed Pekin still had several other opportunities to speak. Muting is not an automatic violation if the "opposing side" is still given a reasonable chance to be heard.

Procedural Reality Check: The Life Cycle of an HOA Dispute

This case illustrates the complex procedural hurdles involved in OAH litigation. For homeowners and boards alike, the timeline is everything:

  • February 28, 2023: The ALJ consolidated two separate dockets (23F-H034-REL and 23F-H037-REL) to streamline the hearing.
  • March 13, 2023: A significant discovery ruling occurred. The ALJ quashed the subpoena for Dennis Berger but maintained subpoenas for Susanne Roskens, Brock O’Neal, and others, demonstrating the limits of who can be compelled to testify.
  • March 20, 2023: The official Record Closing date. This is the "point of no return" for evidence.
  • March 27 & 28, 2023: The Petitioner attempted to file additional allegations and evidence. The ALJ issued a Minute Entry refusing to consider these filings, as they were submitted after the record had closed.
  • Post-Decision: After the final order in April, the Petitioner sought a rehearing. The OAH issued a Minute Entry stating it lost jurisdiction the moment the decision was rendered. Any further requests for rehearing must be directed to the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE).

Essential Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards

  1. Bylaws are Not Suggestions: Even "technical" timing shifts regarding annual meetings are actionable violations. Boards cannot use A.R.S. § 10-3701(e) as a shield to ignore their own governing documents.
  2. Recording is a Statutory Right: Boards cannot impose arbitrary hurdles, such as mandatory advance notice, on members wishing to record open meetings. Transparency is a protected right under A.R.S. § 33-1804.
  3. The Record is Final: In an administrative hearing, the window for evidence is narrow. As seen with the rejected March 27/28 filings, late submissions—no matter how relevant they seem—will be ignored once the record is closed.

Conclusion: Seeking Harmony Through Compliance

The Pekin vs. Artesian Ranch ruling serves as a vital reminder: transparency is not just a best practice; in Arizona, it is a legal mandate. While the Association prevailed on internal management issues, their failure to respect recording rights and bylaw-mandated schedules resulted in a $1,000 reimbursement order and a public record of non-compliance. To maintain community harmony and avoid the costs of litigation, both homeowners and board members must anchor their actions in a strict reading of A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Senol Pekin (Petitioner)
    Testified on his own behalf
  • Julie Willoughby (Witness)
    Testified for Petitioner; also spelled Julie Willowby in hearing decision
  • Shelley Nelson (Witness)
    Testified for Petitioner; also spelled Shelly Nelson in hearing decision
  • Sherry Swanson (Witness)
    Testified for Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Ashley N. Moscarello (Attorney)
    Goodman Law Group
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent Artesian Ranch Community Association
  • Daniel S. Francom (Attorney)
    Goodman Law Group
    Listed in service records for Respondent
  • Susanne Easterday Roskens (Director of Board / Witness)
    Artesian Ranch Community Association
    Testified for Respondent; Board President
  • Mandy Rogers (Community Manager Employee / Witness)
    AAM, LLC
    Employee of Respondent's Community Manager; organized meetings and testified

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Assigned judge who issued the decision and orders
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Received administrative copies of orders and decisions

Other Participants

  • Dennis Berger (Subpoenaed Individual)
    Subpoena was quashed
  • Brock O'Neal (Subpoenaed Individual)
    Motion to quash his subpoena was denied

Deborah Masear v. Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222057-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-10-05
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome The petition filed by the homeowner against the HOA was dismissed because the homeowner failed to prove the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) regarding financial reporting.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Deborah Mesear Counsel —
Respondent Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association Counsel Ashley N. Moscarello, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)

Outcome Summary

The petition filed by the homeowner against the HOA was dismissed because the homeowner failed to prove the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) regarding financial reporting.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to establish that the Association violated the applicable statute by a preponderance of the evidence, resulting in the dismissal of the petition.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of HOA statutory duty to provide annual financial reports (audit, review, or compilation)

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to share an annual audit/compilation for 2017-2021. The ALJ found the HOA provided financial compilations for 2017-2020 after the petition was filed. The claim regarding 2021 was found to be premature because the financial compilation was not yet due when the petition was filed on May 29, 2022.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1810

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Condominium Act, Financial Records, Compilation, Statutory Compliance, HOA Management
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1810
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222057-REL Decision – 1003891.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:53:40 (95.1 KB)

22F-H2222057-REL Decision – 988206.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:53:44 (57.1 KB)

22F-H2222057-REL Decision – 989133.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:53:48 (50.1 KB)

22F-H2222057-REL Decision – 994978.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:53:51 (50.8 KB)

22F-H2222057-REL Decision – 1003891.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:33 (95.1 KB)

22F-H2222057-REL Decision – 988206.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:37 (57.1 KB)

22F-H2222057-REL Decision – 989133.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:39 (50.1 KB)

22F-H2222057-REL Decision – 994978.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:42 (50.8 KB)

This decision, issued by Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson on October 5, 2022, dismissed the petition brought by Deborah Mesear, a condominium unit owner, against the Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association (the Association).

Key Facts and Legal Issue:

The dispute centered on the Association's compliance with Arizona financial reporting laws for condominiums. The core issue set for determination was whether the Association violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1243(J) (the applicable statute for condominiums) by failing to share annual financial reports for the years 2017 through 2021.

Petitioner Deborah Mesear filed her petition on May 29, 2022, alleging the Association failed to provide annual audits despite multiple requests, stating she could find no evidence that audits had been completed.

Legal Framework and Arguments:

  1. Statutory Requirement: A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) mandates that the board provide for an annual financial audit, review or compilation of the association. This report must be completed no later than 180 days after the fiscal year ends and made available to unit owners within 30 days of completion.
  2. Association's Defense (Compilations vs. Audits): The Association confirmed through the testimony of its community manager, Carl Westlund, that it did not prepare full audits for the relevant years, but rather financial compilations, which are substantially more limited in scope and less expensive than an audit. The Association argued that choosing a compilation complies fully with A.R.S. § 33-1243(J), as the statute permits any one of the three report types.
  3. Sharing of Reports (2017–2020): After the petition was filed, the Association provided Mesear with the financial compilations for 2017 through 2020. Mesear received these reports but argued that compilations were incomplete financial reports.
  4. 2021 Report Issue: Mesear emphasized that the 2021 report had not been provided. The Association testified that a compilation for 2021 had been ordered from a new accountant but was not yet completed as of the September 15, 2022, hearing date. The Association argued that Mesear's petition, filed May 29, 2022, regarding the 2021 compilation was not yet ripe because the 180-day deadline for its completion had likely not yet passed.

Outcome and Legal Decision:

The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

The ALJ concluded that:

  • The Association was not required to prepare annual audits; selecting annual financial compilations satisfies A.R.S. § 33-1243(J).
  • The Association shared the compilations for 2017 through 2020 with Mesear.
  • The issue concerning the 2021 compilation was not ripe when the May 29, 2022, petition was filed.

Ms. Mesear failed to establish that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1243. The petition was ordered dismissed.

Questions

Question

Is my condo HOA legally required to perform a full financial audit every year?

Short Answer

Not necessarily; a review or compilation is often sufficient unless the governing documents specifically require an audit.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law for condominiums, an association is not required to perform a full audit unless the specific condominium documents demand it. The law allows for an audit, a review, or a compilation.

Alj Quote

Unless any provision in the condominium documents requires an annual audit by a certified public accountant, the board of directors shall provide for an annual financial audit, review or compilation of the association.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)

Topic Tags

  • Financial Reports
  • Audits
  • HOA Obligations

Question

What is the deadline for the HOA to complete the annual financial report?

Short Answer

The report must be completed no later than 180 days after the end of the fiscal year.

Detailed Answer

The association has a statutory window of 180 days following the close of the fiscal year to complete the required financial audit, review, or compilation.

Alj Quote

The audit, review or compilation shall be completed no later than one hundred eighty days after the end of the association's fiscal year

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)

Topic Tags

  • Deadlines
  • Financial Reports
  • Procedural Requirements

Question

Once the financial report is finished, how soon must the HOA provide it to me?

Short Answer

The HOA must make it available within 30 days of its completion upon request.

Detailed Answer

After the financial document (audit, review, or compilation) is completed, the association is legally obligated to make it available to unit owners who request it within a 30-day window.

Alj Quote

and shall be made available on request to the unit owners within thirty days after its completion.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)

Topic Tags

  • Homeowner Rights
  • Transparency
  • Financial Reports

Question

Can I file a complaint against my HOA for failing to provide a financial report before the 180-day deadline has passed?

Short Answer

No, a complaint filed before the deadline is considered premature (not ripe).

Detailed Answer

If a homeowner files a petition regarding a missing financial report before the statutory 180-day period has elapsed, the issue is not yet ripe for adjudication because the obligation is not yet due.

Alj Quote

Moreover, the issue of whether the Association complied with A.R.S. section 33-1243 for year 2021 was not yet ripe at the time that Ms. Mesear filed her May 29, 2022 petition, because a financial compilation was not yet due.

Legal Basis

Ripeness Doctrine

Topic Tags

  • Legal Procedures
  • Filing Disputes
  • Deadlines

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law in a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the petitioner must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the A.R.S. section 33-1243(J) by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Hearing Procedures

Question

What standard of proof is used in these administrative hearings?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

This standard requires evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side rather than the other, making the contention more probably true than not.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Evidentiary Standard

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Evidence

Question

If I live in a condominium, can I cite the Planned Communities statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1810) in my complaint?

Short Answer

No, condominiums are governed by the Condominium Act, specifically A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) for financials.

Detailed Answer

While the requirements may be similar, the specific statute for planned communities does not apply to condominiums. Condominium owners must cite the applicable Condominium Act statutes.

Alj Quote

A.R.S. section 33-1810 applies to planned communities and does not apply to the Association. However, A.R.S. section 33-1243(J) applies to condominiums

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)

Topic Tags

  • Jurisdiction
  • Statutes
  • Condominiums

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222057-REL
Case Title
Deborah Mesear vs Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2022-10-05
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Is my condo HOA legally required to perform a full financial audit every year?

Short Answer

Not necessarily; a review or compilation is often sufficient unless the governing documents specifically require an audit.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law for condominiums, an association is not required to perform a full audit unless the specific condominium documents demand it. The law allows for an audit, a review, or a compilation.

Alj Quote

Unless any provision in the condominium documents requires an annual audit by a certified public accountant, the board of directors shall provide for an annual financial audit, review or compilation of the association.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)

Topic Tags

  • Financial Reports
  • Audits
  • HOA Obligations

Question

What is the deadline for the HOA to complete the annual financial report?

Short Answer

The report must be completed no later than 180 days after the end of the fiscal year.

Detailed Answer

The association has a statutory window of 180 days following the close of the fiscal year to complete the required financial audit, review, or compilation.

Alj Quote

The audit, review or compilation shall be completed no later than one hundred eighty days after the end of the association's fiscal year

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)

Topic Tags

  • Deadlines
  • Financial Reports
  • Procedural Requirements

Question

Once the financial report is finished, how soon must the HOA provide it to me?

Short Answer

The HOA must make it available within 30 days of its completion upon request.

Detailed Answer

After the financial document (audit, review, or compilation) is completed, the association is legally obligated to make it available to unit owners who request it within a 30-day window.

Alj Quote

and shall be made available on request to the unit owners within thirty days after its completion.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)

Topic Tags

  • Homeowner Rights
  • Transparency
  • Financial Reports

Question

Can I file a complaint against my HOA for failing to provide a financial report before the 180-day deadline has passed?

Short Answer

No, a complaint filed before the deadline is considered premature (not ripe).

Detailed Answer

If a homeowner files a petition regarding a missing financial report before the statutory 180-day period has elapsed, the issue is not yet ripe for adjudication because the obligation is not yet due.

Alj Quote

Moreover, the issue of whether the Association complied with A.R.S. section 33-1243 for year 2021 was not yet ripe at the time that Ms. Mesear filed her May 29, 2022 petition, because a financial compilation was not yet due.

Legal Basis

Ripeness Doctrine

Topic Tags

  • Legal Procedures
  • Filing Disputes
  • Deadlines

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law in a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the petitioner must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the A.R.S. section 33-1243(J) by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Hearing Procedures

Question

What standard of proof is used in these administrative hearings?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

This standard requires evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side rather than the other, making the contention more probably true than not.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Evidentiary Standard

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Evidence

Question

If I live in a condominium, can I cite the Planned Communities statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1810) in my complaint?

Short Answer

No, condominiums are governed by the Condominium Act, specifically A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) for financials.

Detailed Answer

While the requirements may be similar, the specific statute for planned communities does not apply to condominiums. Condominium owners must cite the applicable Condominium Act statutes.

Alj Quote

A.R.S. section 33-1810 applies to planned communities and does not apply to the Association. However, A.R.S. section 33-1243(J) applies to condominiums

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)

Topic Tags

  • Jurisdiction
  • Statutes
  • Condominiums

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222057-REL
Case Title
Deborah Mesear vs Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2022-10-05
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Deborah Mesear (petitioner, witness)
    Also appears as Deborah Masear and Deborah Mesier in the sources.

Respondent Side

  • Ashley N. Moscarello (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Holmgren Law Group
    Also appears as Ashley Moscarello, Esq. and Ashley Carillo.
  • Carl Westlund (property manager, witness)
    The Management Trust
    Community manager for Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association.
  • Mark A. Holmgren (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Holmgren Law Group

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Louis Dettorre (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • A. Hansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as administrative contact (Attn:).
  • V. Nunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as administrative contact (Attn:).
  • D. Jones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as administrative contact (Attn:).
  • L. Abril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as administrative contact (Attn:).

Other Participants

  • Miranda Alvarez (legal secretary)
    Signed transmission notice.
  • c. serrano (legal secretary)
    Signed transmission notice.