The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition for rehearing, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1242. The HOA was not required to provide the statutory details or the notice of the right to petition ADRE because the Petitioner failed to submit a written response by certified mail within 21 days of the violation notices.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1242. The HOA was not required to provide the information listed in A.R.S. § 33-1242 (C) or the notice of right to petition in (D) because the Petitioner did not submit a written response by certified mail within twenty-one days, which is the triggering requirement for those obligations.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of statutory requirements for homeowner association violation notices.
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1242 requirements regarding violation notices. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to establish the violation because he did not respond by certified mail within the 21-day statutory period, meaning the HOA was not triggered to fulfill its obligations under § 33-1242(C) and (D).
Home Builders Association of Central Arizona v. City of Scottsdale, 187 Ariz. 479, 483, 930 P.2d 993, 997(1997)
Canon School Dist. No. 50 v. W.E.S. Constr. Co., 177 Ariz. 526, 529, 869 P.2d 500, 503 (1994)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
19F-H1918009-REL Decision – 671673.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:23 (85.4 KB)
Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918009-REL
Briefing Document: Garcia v. Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes two Administrative Law Judge Decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Rogelio A. Garcia (Petitioner) and the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the case is Mr. Garcia’s allegation that the HOA violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1242 by failing to follow specific procedures after issuing notices for a violation of its short-term rental policy.
The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed Mr. Garcia’s petition in both an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing. The central finding was that Mr. Garcia failed to meet a critical prerequisite outlined in the statute: he did not respond to the violation notices by certified mail within the 21-day period. This failure meant that the HOA’s corresponding statutory obligations—such as providing the name of the person who observed the violation—were never triggered.
Furthermore, the judge determined that the HOA was not required to inform Mr. Garcia of his right to an administrative hearing because the violation notices themselves included instructions on the HOA’s internal process for contesting the matter. Mr. Garcia’s argument that the HOA’s rapid issuance of fines and subsequent notices prevented him from responding was found to be unsubstantiated by evidence. The decisions underscore a strict interpretation of the statute, placing the initial burden of response on the unit owner.
——————————————————————————–
I. Case Overview
This matter was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings after a petition was filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The case involved an initial hearing and a rehearing requested by the Petitioner.
Entity / Individual
Petitioner
Rogelio A. Garcia
Respondent
Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association (“Villagio”)
Respondent’s Counsel
Nathan Tennyson, Esq.
Adjudicating Body
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Velva Moses-Thompson
Case Number (Initial)
19F-H1918009-REL
Case Number (Rehearing)
19F-H1918009-REL-RHG
Core Allegation
Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1242 by the Respondent.
II. Chronology of Events
• March 8, 2018: Villagio mails the first letter to Mr. Garcia, alleging a violation of short-term lease provisions in the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The letter instructs him to file an appeal with the Board of Directors within 10 days of receipt.
• March 22, 2018: Villagio mails a second notice for the same violation, informing Mr. Garcia that a $1,000 fine has been posted to his account. This notice also contains instructions for contesting the violation.
• April 5, 2018: Villagio mails a third notice, informing Mr. Garcia that a $2,000 fine has been posted to his account for the continuing violation.
• Response from Garcia: Mr. Garcia did not respond to any of the three notices within the 21-calendar-day period specified by statute. He did, at some point, file an appeal directly with Villagio, which held a hearing but did not change its position.
• August 17, 2018 (approx.): Mr. Garcia files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, formally initiating the administrative hearing process.
• October 30, 2018: The first evidentiary hearing is held before Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson.
• November 19, 2018: The initial Administrative Law Judge Decision is issued, dismissing Mr. Garcia’s petition.
• January 3, 2019 (approx.): The Arizona Department of Real Estate issues an order setting a rehearing for the matter, following a request from Mr. Garcia.
• February 12, 2019: The rehearing is held. Mr. Garcia testifies on his own behalf, and Villagio presents testimony from Community Manager Tom Gordon.
• March 4, 2019: The final Administrative Law Judge Decision is issued, again dismissing Mr. Garcia’s petition.
III. Central Legal Issue: Interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1242
The entire dispute centered on the procedural requirements laid out in A.R.S. § 33-1242, which governs how an HOA must handle notices of violation to a unit owner. The key provisions are:
• Unit Owner’s Responsibility (Subsection B): A unit owner who receives a written notice of violation may provide the association with a written response. This response must be sent by certified mail within twenty-one calendar days after the date of the notice.
• Association’s Obligations upon Response (Subsection C):Within ten business days after receiving the certified mail response, the association must provide a written explanation that includes:
1. The specific provision of the condominium documents allegedly violated.
2. The date the violation occurred or was observed.
3. The first and last name of the person(s) who observed the violation.
4. The process the unit owner must follow to contest the notice.
• Association’s Obligation Regarding Administrative Hearings (Subsection D): An association must provide written notice of the owner’s option to petition for an administrative hearing with the state real estate department unless the information required in Subsection C, paragraph 4 (the contest process) is provided in the initial notice of violation.
IV. Analysis of Arguments and Evidence
Petitioner’s Position (Rogelio A. Garcia)
Mr. Garcia’s arguments, presented across both hearings, focused on three primary claims of statutory violation by Villagio:
1. Failure to Provide Required Information: Villagio violated the statute by not providing him with the first and last name of the person who observed the violation.
2. Failure to Notify of Hearing Rights: Villagio did not inform him of his right to petition for an administrative hearing with the state real estate department.
3. Prevention of Response: Mr. Garcia contended that Villagio effectively prevented him from responding via certified mail within the 21-day statutory period. He argued that the notices’ demand for compliance within 10 days, combined with the issuance of a second notice and a fine just 14 days after the first, led him to believe he only had 10 days to act before incurring another violation.
Respondent’s Position (Villagio at Tempe HOA)
Villagio presented a defense based on a direct reading of the statute and Mr. Garcia’s inaction:
1. Statutory Obligations Not Triggered: Villagio’s central argument was that its obligations under A.R.S. § 33-1242(C)—including the duty to name the observer—are only triggered after a unit owner submits a written response by certified mail within 21 days. Since Mr. Garcia never sent such a response, these obligations never came into effect.
2. Internal Contest Process Satisfied Statute: Per A.R.S. § 33-1242(D), the duty to notify an owner of their right to an administrative hearing only applies if the HOA fails to provide its own contest process. Villagio argued that because all three notices explicitly stated the process for appealing to the Board of Directors, it had fulfilled its statutory duty.
3. No Prevention of Response: Mr. Garcia was never legally or physically prevented from sending a certified letter. During cross-examination, he admitted he was not under any court order prohibiting him from responding.
4. Statute Inapplicability (Argument from Rehearing): Villagio further contended that A.R.S. § 33-1242 applies specifically to violations concerning the “condition of the property,” not the “use” of the property. Since short-term renting is a use, Villagio argued the statute did not apply to this situation at all.
Key Testimony from Rehearing
During the February 12, 2019 rehearing, Villagio’s Community Manager, Tom Gordon, testified.
• On direct examination, Mr. Gordon stated that Villagio does not restrict homeowners from responding to violation notices within the 21-day period.
• On cross-examination, when asked by Mr. Garcia if Villagio would have abided by “this statute” had he responded in 21 days, Mr. Gordon replied, “No.” He explained this by stating that homeowners are given 10 days to contest a notice with Villagio pursuant to its own short-term rental policy.
V. Administrative Law Judge’s Decisions and Rationale
The judge’s findings were consistent across both the initial decision and the rehearing decision, leading to the same conclusion in each instance.
Initial Decision (November 19, 2018)
• Finding of Fact: It was undisputed that Mr. Garcia did not respond to the March 8, March 22, or April 5, 2018 notices within 21 calendar days.
• Conclusion 1: Because Mr. Garcia did not respond within the 21-day period, Villagio was not required to provide him with the first and last name of the person(s) who observed the violation.
• Conclusion 2: Because Villagio notified Mr. Garcia of the process for contesting the notice, it was not required under A.R.S. § 33-1242(D) to provide him with notice of the right to petition for an administrative hearing.
• Outcome: Mr. Garcia failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation occurred. The petition was dismissed.
Rehearing Decision (March 4, 2019)
The judge reaffirmed the initial findings and addressed Mr. Garcia’s argument that he was prevented from responding.
• Finding on “Prevention”: The judge found no evidence that Villagio informed Mr. Garcia he could not respond within 21 days or otherwise prevented him from doing so. The issuance of a second notice 14 days after the first was not deemed a preventative act that nullified Mr. Garcia’s statutory window to respond to the first notice.
• Statutory Construction: The decision invoked the legal principle that “what the Legislature means, it will say,” indicating a strict, literal interpretation of the statute’s requirements.
• Reaffirmed Conclusions: The judge again concluded that because Mr. Garcia failed to submit a written response by certified mail, Villagio’s obligations under A.R.S. § 33-1242(C) were not triggered, and its inclusion of an internal appeal process satisfied the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1242(D).
• Outcome: Mr. Garcia’s petition was dismissed for a second time, with Villagio deemed the prevailing party.
VI. Final Disposition
The Administrative Law Judge ordered that Mr. Garcia’s petition be dismissed. The decision issued after the rehearing on March 4, 2019, is binding on the parties. Any party wishing to appeal the order must seek judicial review with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918009-REL
Study Guide: Garcia v. Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association
This guide is designed to review the key facts, legal arguments, and outcomes of the administrative case between Rogelio A. Garcia and the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association, as detailed in case number 19F-H1918009-REL.
Quiz: Short-Answer Questions
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, based on the provided source context.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in this case, and what were their respective roles?
2. What specific violation did the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association initially accuse Mr. Garcia of committing?
3. What was the core of Mr. Garcia’s legal complaint against the Homeowners Association?
4. According to the court’s findings, what crucial step did Mr. Garcia fail to take after receiving the violation notices?
5. What was Villagio’s main argument for why it was not obligated to provide Mr. Garcia with the name of the person who observed the violation?
6. Under what circumstance did Villagio argue it was not required to provide Mr. Garcia with notice of his right to petition for an administrative hearing?
7. What new fines were imposed on Mr. Garcia in the notices dated March 22, 2018, and April 5, 2018?
8. At the rehearing, what was Mr. Garcia’s explanation for why he was unable to respond to the notices within the statutory 21-day period?
9. What argument did Villagio introduce at the rehearing concerning the distinction between a property’s “condition” and its “use”?
10. What was the final outcome of both the initial hearing and the subsequent rehearing?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Rogelio A. Garcia, the Petitioner who brought the complaint, and the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association, the Respondent defending against the complaint. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson.
2. Villagio accused Mr. Garcia of violating the short-term lease provisions located in the association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The association alleged that Mr. Garcia’s unit was being rented in violation of its short-term rental policy.
3. Mr. Garcia alleged that Villagio violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242. He claimed Villagio failed to provide him the opportunity to respond by certified mail within 21 days, did not inform him of his right to an administrative hearing, and did not provide the name of the person who observed the violation.
4. The court found that Mr. Garcia did not respond to the violation notices sent on March 8, March 22, and April 5, 2018. Specifically, he failed to provide the association with a written response by sending it via certified mail within 21 calendar days after the date of the notices.
5. Villagio argued that its obligation to provide the observer’s name under A.R.S. § 33-1242(C) is only triggered if the unit owner first submits a written response by certified mail within the 21-day period. Because Mr. Garcia did not do so, Villagio was not required to provide that information.
6. Villagio argued it was not required to provide notice of the right to petition for a hearing because it had already fulfilled its legal obligation under A.R.S. § 33-1242(D). The violation notices it sent to Mr. Garcia contained instructions on the process for contesting the notice with the Board of Directors.
7. The notice dated March 22, 2018, informed Mr. Garcia that a fine of $1,000 had been posted to his account. The subsequent notice on April 5, 2018, stated that an additional $2,000 fine had been posted for the same violation.
8. Mr. Garcia contended that Villagio prevented him from responding because it did not wait 21 days before issuing subsequent notices and fines. He believed he only had 10 days to comply based on language in the notices, which created confusion and pressure.
9. At the rehearing, Villagio argued that A.R.S. § 33-1242 did not apply because the statute addresses violations related to the “condition of the property.” Villagio asserted its notices concerned the “use” of Mr. Garcia’s property (short-term renting), not its physical condition.
10. In both the initial hearing decision issued on November 19, 2018, and the rehearing decision issued on March 4, 2019, the Administrative Law Judge found that Mr. Garcia failed to prove Villagio had violated the statute. Consequently, Mr. Garcia’s petition was dismissed in both instances.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to provoke deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, drawing evidence and reasoning exclusively from the case documents.
1. Analyze the legal reasoning used by Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson to dismiss Mr. Garcia’s petition. How did the judge interpret and apply the specific subsections of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242 to the facts presented in the initial hearing and the rehearing?
2. Trace the progression of arguments made by both Rogelio A. Garcia and Villagio from the initial petition through the rehearing. How did their claims and defenses evolve, and what new evidence or legal theories were introduced in the second hearing?
3. Discuss the significance of the “burden of proof” in this case, which rested upon Mr. Garcia. Explain the standard of a “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the legal decision and detail why the judge concluded Mr. Garcia failed to meet this standard.
4. Evaluate the strength and potential implications of Villagio’s argument, introduced at the rehearing, that A.R.S. § 33-1242 applies only to the “condition” of a property and not its “use.” Although the judge did not base the final decision on this point, discuss how this interpretation could affect future disputes between homeowners and associations.
5. Based on the dates and actions described in the two decisions, construct a detailed procedural timeline of this case. Begin with the first violation letter from Villagio and conclude with the notice of the right to appeal the rehearing decision, including all key notices, filings, hearings, and fines.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions. In this case, the ALJ was Velva Moses-Thompson.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. (A.R.S.)
The Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona. The central statute in this case was A.R.S. § 33-1242.
Burden of Proof
The obligation on a party in a legal case to prove its allegations. In this matter, Mr. Garcia bore the burden of proof to show that Villagio committed the alleged violation.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The governing documents that dictate how a condominium or planned community must be operated and maintained, and which contain the rules that unit owners must follow. Mr. Garcia was accused of violating the short-term lease provisions of Villagio’s CC&Rs.
Certified Mail
A type of mail service that provides the sender with a mailing receipt and electronic verification that an article was delivered or that a delivery attempt was made. A.R.S. § 33-1242(B) specifies this method for a unit owner’s written response to a violation notice.
Evidentiary Hearing
A formal proceeding, similar to a trial, where parties present evidence (such as testimony and documents) to a neutral decision-maker. Hearings were held in this case on October 30, 2018, and February 12, 2019.
Office of Administrative Hearings
A state agency that conducts impartial hearings for other state agencies, boards, and commissions. This office was responsible for conducting the hearings in this case.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Rogelio A. Garcia was the Petitioner.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this case. It is defined as “The greater weight of the evidence…sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Rehearing
A second hearing of a case to reconsider the original decision, often granted to review the evidence or arguments. Mr. Garcia requested and was granted a rehearing after the initial decision was issued.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed; the party who must respond to the allegations. In this case, the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association was the Respondent.
Unit Owner
A person who owns a unit within a condominium or planned community and is subject to the association’s governing documents. Mr. Garcia is a unit owner in the Villagio at Tempe community.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918009-REL
Select all sources
671673.pdf
692638.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
19F-H1918009-REL-RHG
2 sources
These sources consist of two Administrative Law Judge Decisions from the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute between Rogelio A. Garcia (Petitioner) and the Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association (Respondent). The first document records the initial decision from October 2018, which dismissed Mr. Garcia’s petition alleging the HOA violated Arizona statute § 33-1242 by not providing required information following a notice of violation for short-term leasing. The second document details the rehearing decision from February 2019, which again found that Mr. Garcia failed to prove the HOA violated the statute because he did not respond to the violation notices by certified mail within the mandatory 21-day period to trigger the HOA’s legal obligations. Both rulings concluded that since the HOA provided him with the process for contesting the notices, they were not required to provide written notice of his option to petition for an administrative hearing. Consequently, both decisions dismissed Mr. Garcia’s petition and designated the HOA as the prevailing party.
What are the legal requirements concerning notice and response for HOA violations?
How did the unit owner’s failure to respond impact their statutory rights?
What legal interpretation was key to dismissing the homeowner’s administrative petition?
Based on 2 sources
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Rogelio A. Garcia(petitioner) Appeared on behalf of himself,
Respondent Side
Nathan Tennyson(HOA attorney) Brown Olcott, PLLC Appeared on behalf of Respondent Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association,
Tom Gordon(Community Manager/witness) AAM LLC Community Manager for Villagio; testified on behalf of Villagio
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) Administrative Law Judge,
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of electronic transmission of the decision,
Other Participants
Amanda Shaw(Representative/Contact) AAM LLC Listed as c/o for service of process for Villagio at Tempe Homeowners Association
Blue Ridge Estates of Coconino County Homeowners' Association
Counsel
Paul K. Frame, Esq.
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs § 3.1(a)
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the homeowner's petition in its entirety, finding the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated CC&R § 3.1(a) when denying the construction of a cedar patio structure.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish that the HOA violated CC&R 3.1(a). The proposed structure was found to be a second detached structure and/or a temporary structure barred by the community documents, and the Petitioner had previously failed to submit sufficient information for an attached structure proposal.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of CC&Rs § 3.1(a) by denying request for patio structure while allowing another member to erect a Tuff Shed.
Petitioner alleged the HOA improperly denied his request for a detached cedar patio structure (150 sq ft) based on CC&R § 3.1(A) which limits properties to one detached structure (Petitioner already had a tool shed). The ALJ found Petitioner failed to establish the violation, concluding the proposed structure was a second barred detached structure or a temporary structure (as concrete pavers were not equivalent to a required cement/block foundation). Petitioner also failed to provide sufficient architectural details for an attached structure request.
Blue Ridge Estates of Coconino County Homeowners' Association
Counsel
Paul K. Frame, Esq.
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs § 3.1(a)
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the homeowner's petition in its entirety, finding the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated CC&R § 3.1(a) when denying the construction of a cedar patio structure.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish that the HOA violated CC&R 3.1(a). The proposed structure was found to be a second detached structure and/or a temporary structure barred by the community documents, and the Petitioner had previously failed to submit sufficient information for an attached structure proposal.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of CC&Rs § 3.1(a) by denying request for patio structure while allowing another member to erect a Tuff Shed.
Petitioner alleged the HOA improperly denied his request for a detached cedar patio structure (150 sq ft) based on CC&R § 3.1(A) which limits properties to one detached structure (Petitioner already had a tool shed). The ALJ found Petitioner failed to establish the violation, concluding the proposed structure was a second barred detached structure or a temporary structure (as concrete pavers were not equivalent to a required cement/block foundation). Petitioner also failed to provide sufficient architectural details for an attached structure request.
Briefing Document: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates HOA
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and conclusions from two administrative law hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner Charles P. Mandela and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association of Coconino County (“Blue Ridge”). The core of the dispute was Blue Ridge’s repeated denial of Mr. Mandela’s requests to construct a 150-square-foot cedar patio structure on his property.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately denied Mr. Mandela’s petition in both an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing, finding that the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish any violation of the association’s governing documents. The ALJ’s decisions affirmed that Blue Ridge acted within its authority and correctly applied its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and architectural regulations.
Key takeaways from the rulings include:
• Violation of Detached Structure Limit: Mr. Mandela’s request for a detached patio was denied because he already had a tool shed, and the HOA rules explicitly permit only one detached structure per property.
• Improper “Play Structure” Request: An initial request framing the patio as a “play structure” was correctly denied as its proposed 150 sq. ft. size exceeded the 80 sq. ft. limit for certain play structures.
• Insufficient Plans for Attached Structure: A separate request to attach the structure to his home was denied due to Mr. Mandela’s failure to provide the required detailed architectural plans and construction drawings, which the HOA deemed necessary for approval.
• Arguments Found Lacking: Mr. Mandela’s arguments—including claims of selective enforcement, discrimination against homeowners without children, and misinterpretation of the term “temporary structure”—were found to be unsubstantiated by evidence. The ALJ concluded the structure would be a prohibited temporary structure as the proposed concrete pavers do not constitute a permanent foundation under the HOA’s definition.
Case Overview
Parties Involved
Description
Petitioner
Charles P. Mandela
A homeowner and member of the Blue Ridge Estates HOA.
Respondent
Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association of Coconino County
The governing homeowners’ association for the Blue Ridge Estates development.
Adjudicator
Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings.
Timeline of Key Events
c. Feb 1, 2018
Mr. Mandela submits his first request for a 150 sq. ft. patio, using a “Play Structure Approval Request” form. Blue Ridge denies it for exceeding the size limit.
c. Mar 2, 2018
Mr. Mandela submits a second request, this time to attach a cedar patio shade to his home. Blue Ridge requests detailed plans and materials.
c. Mar 8, 2018
Blue Ridge denies the request for an attached structure due to “incomplete information,” instructing Mr. Mandela to provide formal drawings as per CC&R guidelines.
c. Mar 23, 2018
Mr. Mandela files an internal appeal with Blue Ridge, which is subsequently denied for the same reason of incomplete construction information.
Post-Mar 23, 2018
Mr. Mandela submits a third request for a detached 150 sq. ft. cedar patio structure. Blue Ridge denies it because he already has a detached tool shed.
c. Jul 31, 2018
Mr. Mandela files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging Blue Ridge violated CC&R § 3.1(a) by denying his request while allowing another member a Tuff Shed.
Oct 17, 2018
An evidentiary hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Nov 6, 2018
The ALJ issues the initial decision, denying Mr. Mandela’s petition.
Dec 12, 2018
The Arizona Department of Real Estate orders a rehearing of the matter.
Feb 8, 2019
The rehearing is held before the same ALJ.
Feb 28, 2019
The ALJ issues the final decision, again finding in favor of Blue Ridge and denying Mr. Mandela’s petition.
Analysis of Construction Requests and Denials
Mr. Mandela made three distinct applications to the Blue Ridge Architectural Committee for his proposed 150 sq. ft. cedar patio structure, each of which was denied for different reasons based on the HOA’s governing documents.
Request 1: Detached “Play Structure”
Mr. Mandela’s initial application on February 1, 2018, was submitted using a “Play Structure Approval Request” form.
• HOA Rule: The form, based on modified Rules and Regulations from April 6, 2016, states: “Cannot exceed 80 SF if it’s a Tree House, Tree Viewing Stand, Play House/Fort.”
• Denial Rationale: Blue Ridge denied the request because the proposed 150 sq. ft. size of the structure exceeded the 80 sq. ft. limit specified for this type of structure.
Request 2: Attached Cedar Patio Shade
On March 2, 2018, Mr. Mandela submitted a new request to attach the structure to his home.
• HOA Action: The committee chairman, John Hart, requested documents showing the structure would not be free-standing, such as plans and material specifications.
• Mandela’s Response: In a March 3 email, Mr. Mandela stated: “I am building this myself. I am not an Architect, I have not software to show (6) 2 by 4”s to attach from the single family roof lie to the roof lien of the same roof.” He asserted that photos of other attached structures were sufficient.
• Denial Rationale: The request was denied on March 8 due to “incomplete information.” The denial letter explicitly instructed Mr. Mandela to submit all required documents, including drawings that “match exactly what you are going to build,” per CC&R Section 10.3. His subsequent appeal was also denied, with Blue Ridge noting that a manufacturer’s representative stated they would not warranty the product if the design was altered and reiterating the need for detailed elevation drawings.
Request 3: Detached Cedar Patio Structure
Following the denial of his appeal, Mr. Mandela submitted a third request for a detached version of the patio.
• HOA Rule: According to CC&R § 3.1(A) and Architectural Committee Aligned Standard 3(D), “One detached structure may… be constructed on a property.”
• Denial Rationale: Blue Ridge denied this request because Mr. Mandela already had one detached structure—a tool shed—on his property. The rules permit only one such structure.
Key Arguments and Rulings from Administrative Hearings
At the initial hearing and subsequent rehearing, both parties presented arguments regarding the application of the HOA’s rules. The ALJ systematically addressed and ruled on each point, ultimately concluding that the petitioner failed to prove his case.
Petitioner’s Core Arguments (Charles P. Mandela)
• Definition of “Detached Structure”: He argued that his proposed patio was not a “detached structure” under the CC&Rs because, based on his misinterpretation of a prior administrative ruling, a detached structure is one that can be easily converted into a second residence.
• Selective Enforcement: He alleged that Blue Ridge approved a “Tuff Shed” for another member and was not enforcing the 80 sq. ft. play structure size limit against other homeowners, thus discriminating against him.
• Discriminatory Rules: He contended that the rule allowing a second detached structure if it is a “play structure” violates CC&R 3.1 because it discriminates against people without children. He stated he wanted the patio for his mother.
• Definition of “Temporary Structure”: He asserted the structure was not a prohibited temporary structure because he planned to use concrete pavers, which he claimed constituted a “cement foundation” under the rules, and the materials had a 5-year warranty.
• One Detached Structure Rule: The rules unambiguously limit homeowners to one detached structure, and Mr. Mandela already had one.
• Incomplete Submissions: The request for an attached structure lacked the necessary architectural details to ensure it was properly and safely constructed, as required by the CC&Rs. Joseph Hancock, Vice President of Blue Ridge and a former contractor, testified that Mr. Mandela failed to consider critical factors like height and width differentials.
• Temporary Structure Violation: Mr. Hancock testified that a concrete paver is not the equivalent of a “cement or slab foundation.” Therefore, the proposed structure would be a prohibited temporary structure under the CC&Rs.
• No Selective Enforcement: Mr. Hancock refuted Mr. Mandela’s claims of selective enforcement, testifying that the lots Mr. Mandela cited either had structures built before 2003 (predating certain rules) or had no detached structures at all.
Administrative Law Judge’s Final Conclusions
The ALJ found that Mr. Mandela failed to establish his claims by a preponderance of the evidence. The final order denied his petition based on the following conclusions of law:
• Burden of Proof: The petitioner did not meet his burden to prove that Blue Ridge violated CC&R Article III, Section 3.1(a).
• Second Detached Structure: It was undisputed that Mr. Mandela had a shed on his property. The proposed 150 sq. ft. patio therefore constituted a barred second detached structure.
• Prior Rulings Not Precedent: The ALJ noted that Mr. Mandela misinterpreted the prior administrative decision he cited and, furthermore, that “prior administrative law judge decisions are not precedent or binding on future administrative law decisions.”
• Temporary Structure: The preponderance of the evidence showed the proposed structure is a temporary structure under the CC&Rs because “concrete pavers are not the equivalent of cement or block foundation.”
• Denial of Attached Structure: The denial of the request to attach the structure was proper, as the “Petitioner failed to provide sufficient details to illustrate how he would attach the cedar patio structure to his home.”
• No Evidence of Discrimination: The petitioner failed to establish that Blue Ridge approved other oversized play structures or that the denial of his requests was discriminatory. The ALJ also noted the tribunal lacked jurisdiction over potential constitutional claims under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Relevant HOA Governing Documents
Document/Section
Key Provision / Definition
CC&R § 3.1
Permitted Uses and Restrictions – Single Family: “No building or structure shall be erected or maintained separate from the Single Family Residence located on any Lot, other than a garage…”
Architectural Committee Aligned Standard 3(D)
Detached Structures: “One detached structure may, with Architectural Committee approval, be constructed on a property.”
CC&R § 3.6 & Aligned Standard
Temporary Structures: Prohibits temporary structures. A temporary structure is defined as one “without a cement or block foundation to which the structure or building is permanently attached.”
Modified Rules and Regulations (April 6, 2016)
Play Structures: Allows up to two play structures but specifies they “Cannot exceed 80 SF if it’s a Tree House, Tree Viewing Stand, Play House/Fort.”
CC&R § 3.24
Architectural Approval: “No building, fence, wall, screen, residence or other structure shall be commenced, erected, maintained, improved or altered… without the prior written approval of the… Architectural Committee.”
CC&R § 10.3
Architectural Submission Guidelines: Specifies the format and information required for submittals to the architectural committee.
CC&R § 12.2
Declaration Amendments: Requires an affirmative vote or written consent of members owning at least 75% of all lots to amend the Declaration.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918006-REL
Study Guide: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates HOA
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between petitioner Charles P. Mandela and respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association of Coconino County. The case revolves around Mr. Mandela’s multiple attempts to gain approval for a patio structure on his property and the subsequent legal proceedings. The material is drawn from two Administrative Law Judge Decisions, dated November 6, 2018, and February 28, 2019.
——————————————————————————–
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing your information directly from the provided case documents.
1. What were the three distinct requests Mr. Mandela submitted to the Blue Ridge Estates HOA, and what was the outcome of each?
2. Explain the HOA’s rule regarding detached structures and why Mr. Mandela’s third request for a detached patio was denied under this rule.
3. On what grounds did the HOA deny Mr. Mandela’s second request to attach a cedar patio shade to his home?
4. What was Mr. Mandela’s primary allegation in his initial petition filed with the Department of Real Estate on July 31, 2018?
5. How do the Blue Ridge rules define a “temporary structure,” and why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude Mr. Mandela’s proposed patio fell into this category?
6. Describe Mr. Mandela’s discrimination argument regarding the HOA’s policy on play structures.
7. What is the legal standard of proof the petitioner was required to meet in this case, and what does this standard mean?
8. Mr. Mandela cited a prior administrative law judge decision to support his case. What was his interpretation of that decision, and how did the presiding judge respond to this line of argument?
9. Who is Joseph Hancock, and what key pieces of testimony did he provide on behalf of the HOA during the rehearing?
10. According to the CC&Rs, what is the procedural difference between amending the Declaration (the CC&Rs themselves) versus adopting new “Rules and Regulations”?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. Mr. Mandela first submitted a “Play Structure Approval Request” for a 150-square-foot patio, which was denied for exceeding the 80-square-foot size limit for such structures. His second request was to attach a cedar patio shade to his home, which was denied due to incomplete information and a lack of adequate plans. His third request was for a detached 150-square-foot patio structure, which was denied because he already had another detached structure on his property.
2. According to CC&Rs § 3.1(A) and Architectural Committee regulation 3(D), a property is permitted to have only one detached structure. Mr. Mandela’s third request was denied because it was undisputed that he already had a tool shed on his property. The proposed detached patio would have constituted a prohibited second detached structure.
3. The HOA denied the request to attach the patio shade because Mr. Mandela submitted incomplete information and failed to provide sufficient plans. The HOA requested detailed elevation drawings showing construction methods, dimensions, foundation details, and attachment methods, which Mr. Mandela did not provide.
4. In his petition of July 31, 2018, Mr. Mandela alleged that the Blue Ridge HOA had violated CC&Rs § 3.1(a). His specific claim was that the HOA discriminated against him by denying his request to place a patio structure in his backyard while allowing another member to erect a Tuff Shed.
5. The Architectural Committee rules define a temporary structure as one “without a cement or block foundation to which the structure or building is permanently attached.” The judge concluded the proposed patio was a temporary structure because Mr. Mandela planned to use concrete pavers, which, according to the credible testimony of Joseph Hancock, are not the equivalent of a permanent cement or block foundation.
6. Mr. Mandela argued that the modified rule allowing a second detached play structure (up to 80 sq ft) violates CC&R 3.1 because it discriminates against people who do not have children. He asserted the policy was unfair because he wanted to build the structure for his mother to rest outside, not for children’s play.
7. The petitioner, Mr. Mandela, had the burden of proof to establish his claim by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as evidence that has the most convincing force and is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of an issue rather than the other, meaning the contention is more probably true than not.
8. Mr. Mandela argued that a prior administrative law judge decision had found that a “detached structure” under Blue Ridge CC&Rs is a structure that can be easily converted into a second residence, which his patio could not. The presiding judge dismissed this by stating that Mr. Mandela misinterpreted the prior ruling and, more importantly, that prior administrative law judge decisions are not binding precedent for future decisions.
9. Joseph Hancock is the Vice President of the Blue Ridge HOA and a former general, electrical, and HVAC contractor. He testified that concrete pavers are not equivalent to a cement or block foundation, that Mr. Mandela’s plans for attaching the structure were insufficient, and that he had investigated lots Mr. Mandela cited for alleged violations and found none.
10. According to the CC&Rs, adopting, amending, or repealing “Rules and Regulations” can be done by a majority vote of the Board (§ 4.2). In contrast, amending the Declaration of CC&Rs themselves is a much more stringent process, requiring the affirmative vote or written consent of members owning at least seventy-five percent (75%) of all lots (§ 12.2).
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate your answers in a standard essay format, using specific evidence from the source documents to support your arguments.
1. Analyze the progression of Mr. Mandela’s three distinct requests to the HOA. How did the denial of his first request (as a “Play Structure”) appear to influence his subsequent applications and legal arguments?
2. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies in this case. Explain why Mr. Mandela ultimately failed to convince the Administrative Law Judge that the HOA violated its own rules, citing specific examples of his failed arguments (e.g., the temporary structure definition, claims of selective enforcement, and the adequacy of his submitted plans).
3. Examine the distinction made in the Blue Ridge Estates governing documents between the core CC&Rs and the “Rules and Regulations” adopted by the Board. How did this distinction allow the HOA to have a rule permitting a second “play structure” while the main CC&Rs seem to limit properties to a single residence and one other detached structure (a garage)?
4. The HOA denied Mr. Mandela’s request for an attached structure due to “incomplete information.” Based on the evidence presented in the decisions, evaluate the reasonableness of the HOA’s request for detailed plans versus Mr. Mandela’s assertion that he had provided sufficient information for approval.
5. Trace Mr. Mandela’s various claims of unfair treatment, including selective enforcement (the Tuff Shed), discrimination (the play structure rule), and his interpretation of key terms like “detached structure.” For each claim, explain the HOA’s counter-position or the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings for state agencies, such as the one between Mr. Mandela and the HOA. In this case, the ALJ was Velva Moses-Thompson.
Architectural Committee
A committee within the HOA granted authority by CC&R § 10.2 to approve or deny proposed construction and promulgate regulations aligned with the CC&Rs. It denied all of Mr. Mandela’s requests.
Burden of Proof
The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this case, the petitioner (Mr. Mandela) bore the burden of proof.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the primary governing documents for the Blue Ridge Estates community, outlining land use, permitted structures, and rules members must follow.
Detached Structure
A building or structure on a property that is separate from the main single-family residence. According to Architectural Committee regulation 3(D), only one such structure is permitted per lot.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Charles P. Mandela is the petitioner.
Play Structure
A structure defined by the HOA’s modified rules to include items like Swing Sets, Jungle Gyms, Tree Houses, and Ground Placed Play Houses/Forts. Play Houses/Forts and Tree Houses are limited to 80 square feet.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this case. It is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” representing the greater weight of the evidence.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association is the respondent.
Rules and Regulations
Rules that can be adopted, amended, or repealed by a majority vote of the HOA Board, as distinct from the CC&Rs which require a 75% vote of all lot owners to amend. The “Play Structure” rules are an example.
Temporary Structure
As defined by the Architectural Committee regulations, a structure “without a cement or block foundation to which the structure or building is permanently attached.” Such structures are prohibited by CC&R § 3.6.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918006-REL
Select all sources
669528.pdf
692294.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
19F-H1918006-REL-RHG
2 sources
These sources document two decisions from the Office of Administrative Hearings concerning a dispute between Charles P. Mandela and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association (HOA). The first document presents the initial Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision which denied Mr. Mandela’s petition, finding he failed to prove the HOA violated its governing documents by denying his request to build a patio structure. The second document is the ALJ Decision following a rehearing, which reaffirms the initial denial, concluding that Mr. Mandela’s proposed structure was either a prohibited second detached structure or a temporary structure lacking a proper foundation, and that he failed to provide sufficient plans for an attached structure. Both sources establish that Mr. Mandela did not meet his burden of proof to show the HOA discriminated against him or otherwise violated the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
What were the specific reasons the HOA denied Charles Mandela’s requests?
How did the HOA Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions govern detached structures?
What was the ultimate outcome of Charles Mandela’s petition and subsequent rehearing?
Based on 2 sources
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Charles P. Mandela(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Paul Frame(HOA attorney) FRAME LAW PLLC
John Hart(HOA Chairman) Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association Reviewed petitioner's requests
Joseph Hancock(HOA Vice President, witness) Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association Presented testimony
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) OAH
Judy Lowe(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmitted decision
Other Participants
Felicia Del Sol(administrative staff) Transmitted decision electronically
Patricia Davies-Brown, Individually and as Trustee of the Trust; BART A. BROWN, JR.; SCOTT R. DAVIES
Counsel
—
Respondent
Starwood Estates Homeowners Association
Counsel
Daniel Campbell & Kristopher L. Smith
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs; Bylaws; Architectural Guidelines
Outcome Summary
The Petitioners' request alleging that the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association violated community documents by approving a copper-colored metal roof was denied. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioners failed to establish the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, noting that the guidelines prohibiting reflective surfaces applied primarily to windows and doors, not roofs.
Why this result: Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its CC&Rs, Bylaws, or Architectural Guidelines.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Exterior Appearance and Colors provisions regarding copper-colored metal roof approval
Petitioners alleged that the HOA improperly approved a copper-colored metal roof because it constituted a reflective surface and did not blend with the natural surroundings, violating the community documents. The ALJ denied the petition, finding Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated its documents, noting the reflective surfaces ban applied to windows and doors, not roofs, and the roof's appearance was acceptable.
Orders: Petitioners' petition is denied.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
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)
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)
Briefing Document: Davies-Brown v. Starwood Estates HOA
Executive Summary
This document summarizes the administrative hearing and decision in case No. 18F-H1818039-REL, concerning a dispute between homeowners Patricia Davies-Brown, Bart A. Brown, Jr., and Scott R. Davies (the “Petitioners”) and the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association (the “Respondent”). The core of the dispute was the HOA Board of Directors’ 2013 approval of a copper-colored metal roof for homeowners Jeff and Karen Martin.
The Petitioners alleged this approval violated the community’s CC&Rs, Bylaws, and Architectural Guidelines. Their primary arguments were that the roof was an impermissible “reflective surface,” that it did not “blend with the natural surrounding and landscape,” and that the Board lacked the authority to approve it without prior review by the Architectural Committee (ACC) and without viewing a physical sample.
The Respondent defended the Board’s decision, arguing that the Board possessed the authority to grant such approvals. They contended the prohibition on reflective surfaces in the community guidelines applies specifically to windows and doors, not roofing. Furthermore, they asserted that the roof was aesthetically compliant and that other reflective metal roofs exist within the community.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Velva Moses-Thompson, ruled in favor of the Respondent. The decision, issued on September 14, 2018, denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof. The ALJ found that the Board had the authority to approve the roof, the ban on reflective surfaces did not apply to roofing, and the Petitioners did not establish that the roof failed to blend with its natural surroundings.
——————————————————————————–
Case Overview
• Case Name: Patricia Davies-Brown, et al. vs. Starwood Estates Homeowners Association
• Case Number: 18F-H1818039-REL
• Forum: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
• Presiding Judge: Velva Moses-Thompson, Administrative Law Judge
• Hearing Dates: July 10, 2018, and August 13, 2018
• Final Decision Date: September 14, 2018
Key Parties and Representatives
Name(s)
Representation / Contact
Petitioners
Patricia Davies-Brown, Bart A. Brown, Jr., Scott R. Davies
Appeared on behalf of themselves 9777 E Dreyfus Ave., Scottsdale, AZ 85260 [email protected]
Respondent
Starwood Estates Homeowners Association
Kristopher L. Smith, Esq. O’Connor & Campbell, P.C. 7955 S Priest Dr., Tempe, AZ 85284 [email protected]
Homeowners
Jeff and Karen Martin
Owners of the property with the disputed roof at 8500 Skywood Drive, Pinetop, Arizona (Lot 40 of Starwood Estates).
Core Dispute: The Martin Residence Roof
The central conflict originated in the summer of 2013 when the Starwood Estates Board of Directors approved a request from Jeff and Karen Martin to install a copper-colored metal roof on their home. The approval was passed by a 5-1 vote. Petitioner Scott R. Davies was the sole board member who voted against the approval at that time.
The Board reviewed a brochure containing the roof’s color before granting approval but did not observe a physical sample. However, one Board member, Pat Knight, was reportedly familiar with the appearance of such roofs from a previous home she owned nearby. The petition challenging this 2013 decision was filed on or about March 26, 2018.
Petitioners’ Allegations and Arguments
The Petitioners filed their petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging that the HOA violated community governing documents. Their case was built on three central questions:
1. Does the exterior appearance of the Martins’ aluminum copper-colored metal roof blend with the “natural surrounding and landscape” of Starwood Estates?
2. Does such roof constitute a “reflective surface”?
3. If the answer to (1) above is no and/or the answer to (2) above is yes, did the ACC and the Board of Starwood Estates erroneously violate the provisions of the CC&R’s and GUIDELINES in permitting the Martins to install such aluminum copper-colored metal roof…?
During the hearing, the Petitioners expanded on these points, arguing:
• Reflective Surface: The copper-colored roof was a prohibited reflective surface under the Architectural Guidelines.
• Aesthetic Incompatibility: The roof did not blend with the natural surroundings as required.
• Procedural Violations:
◦ The Board violated the CC&Rs by approving the roof without first viewing a physical sample of the material.
◦ The approval was invalid because it should have first been granted by the two-person Architectural Committee (ACC) appointed by the Board.
Respondent’s Defense and Arguments
The Starwood Estates HOA maintained that its approval of the Martin roof was proper and compliant with all governing documents. Their key arguments were:
• Board Authority: The HOA asserted that either the Board of Directors or the Architectural Committee had the authority to approve the roof.
• Interpretation of “Reflective Surfaces”: The Respondent argued that the prohibition on “reflective surfaces” within the Architectural Guidelines applies specifically to windows and doors, not to roofing, which is addressed in a separate section of the guidelines.
• Aesthetic Compliance: They contended the roof, while having a “shine,” was not a barred reflective surface and did blend in with the natural surroundings.
• Precedent: The HOA noted that several other metal roofs that are reflective had been previously approved in Starwood Estates. They submitted images of reflective green and red roofs in the Pinetop Country Club area as evidence.
Referenced Governing Documents
The decision cited specific sections from the HOA’s governing documents to adjudicate the dispute.
• Section 3.1.4: Requires prior written approval from the Architectural Committee for any work that alters the exterior appearance of a Lot.
• Section 5.2: States that approvals or actions to be taken by the Association “shall be valid if given or taken by the Board.”
• Article VII, Section A(2): Grants the Board authority to exercise all powers and duties vested in the Association unless reserved to the membership.
• Article VII, Section B: Empowers the Board to “Review and approve any architectural plan for the building of any improvements on any Lots.”
• Exterior Appearance and Colors: Mandates that exterior appearance “shall blend with the natural surroundings and landscape.” It also states, “Clear aluminum window and doorframes are not permitted, nor are reflective surfaces.” A note requires the owner to submit samples of materials for ACC approval.
• Roofs, Materials, and Pitches: Stipulates that “Metal roofs are permitted only with ACC approval” and that all pitched roof materials “shall promote a continuity of texture and color.”
Evidence Presented
• Petitioner’s Exhibit 13: A photograph of the Martins’ copper-colored roof. The ALJ’s decision noted that while the image showed a reflection, the photograph itself was “blurred.”
• Respondent’s Exhibit 26: The brochure containing the color of the copper-colored roof that the Board reviewed before its 2013 approval.
• Respondent’s Exhibit 7: Images of other reflective green and red metal roofs located in the Pinetop Country Club area, which were previously approved.
• Testimony: Board member Pat Knight’s familiarity with the appearance of copper-colored roofs was noted.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The petition was denied. The ALJ found that the Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs, Bylaws, or Architectural Guidelines.
Conclusions of Law
1. Burden of Proof: The Petitioners bore the burden of proving their claims by a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as evidence that is more probably true than not. They failed to meet this standard.
2. Board Authority: The ALJ concluded that the governing documents allowed for the roof to be approved by either the Architectural Committee or the Board of Directors. The Board’s action was therefore valid.
3. Interpretation of Reflective Surfaces: The evidence established that the prohibition on “reflective surfaces” in the Architectural Guidelines applies to windows and doors. Roofs are addressed in a separate section of the guidelines. The existence of other approved shiny metal roofs further supported this interpretation.
4. Aesthetic Compliance: The Petitioners did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the copper-colored roof failed to blend in with the natural surroundings.
Final Order
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied because Petitioners have not established that Respondent violated the Community Bylaws, Community CC&Rs, and the Community Architectural Guidelines when Respondent approved the Martins’ request to install the copper-colored roof.
The order was made binding unless a rehearing was requested within 30 days of service.
Study Guide – 18F-H1818039-REL
Study Guide: Davies-Brown v. Starwood Estates HOA (Case No. 18F-H1818039-REL)
This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative hearing case between Patricia Davies-Brown, et al., and the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association. It includes a short-answer quiz to test factual recall, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms as defined within the context of the provided legal documents.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing exclusively from the information presented in the case documents.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in Case No. 18F-H1818039-REL?
2. What specific architectural feature was the central point of the dispute?
3. What were the three main questions the Petitioners raised in their petition filed on March 26, 2018?
4. How did the Respondent (Starwood Estates HOA) justify the approval of other reflective metal roofs in the community?
5. According to the Petitioners, which two procedural errors did the Board of Directors commit when approving the Martins’ roof?
6. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion regarding the prohibition of “reflective surfaces” in the Architectural Guidelines?
7. What is the legal standard of proof the Petitioners were required to meet, and did they succeed?
8. Which governing documents grant the Board of Directors the authority to approve architectural plans?
9. When was the disputed roof originally approved by the Board, and what was the vote count?
10. What evidence did the Board review before its initial approval, and what evidence was not reviewed at that time?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioners were Patricia Davies-Brown (Individually and as Trustee of the Trust), Bart A. Brown, Jr., and Scott R. Davies. The Respondent was the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association.
2. The central dispute was an aluminum, “copper-colored metal roof” installed by homeowners Jeff and Karen Martin on their property at Lot 40 of Starwood Estates. The Petitioners challenged the HOA Board’s approval of this roof.
3. The Petitioners’ petition questioned whether the roof blended with the “natural surrounding and landscape,” whether it constituted a “reflective surface,” and if so, whether the Board and ACC violated the CC&Rs and Guidelines by permitting it.
4. The Respondent submitted evidence of other reflective green and red metal roofs within the Pinetop Country Club area that had been previously approved by the Board. This was used to argue that roofs with a shine were not explicitly barred.
5. The Petitioners contended the Board violated the CC&Rs by approving the roof without first viewing a physical sample. They also argued that the roof required approval from the two-person Architectural Committee (ACC) and could not be approved by the Board alone.
6. The Judge concluded that the bar on reflective surfaces, as written in the Architectural Guidelines, applies specifically to windows and doors. Roofs are addressed in a separate section of the guidelines that does not contain the same prohibition.
7. The Petitioners bore the burden of proof to establish their case by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means showing their contention is more probably true than not. The Judge ruled that they failed to meet this standard.
8. Section 5.2 of the CC&Rs states that actions taken by the Board are valid, and Article VII of the Starwood Bylaws grants the Board the power to exercise Association authority and to review and approve architectural plans. The Judge found this authority allowed the Board to approve the roof.
9. The roof was approved by the Board of Directors in the summer of 2013. The approval passed with a 5-1 vote, with Petitioner Scott R. Davies being the sole board member who voted against it.
10. Before approving the roof, the Board reviewed a brochure containing the color of the copper-colored roof. However, the Board did not observe a physical sample of the actual roofing material.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions for Further Study
The following questions are designed for deeper, analytical consideration of the case. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the conflict between CC&Rs Section 3.1.4 (requiring ACC approval) and other governing documents (like CC&Rs Section 5.2 and Bylaws Article VII) that grant broad authority to the Board. How did the Administrative Law Judge resolve this apparent contradiction in the final decision?
2. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied in this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means and detail why the Petitioners failed to meet this standard with respect to their claims about the roof’s reflective nature and its harmony with the natural surroundings.
3. Examine the interpretation of the Architectural Guidelines regarding “reflective surfaces.” How did the Respondent and the Administrative Law Judge construe this rule, and what evidence and reasoning supported their interpretation over the Petitioners’ broader application?
4. Evaluate the evidence presented by both the Petitioners and the Respondent. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s evidence (e.g., the blurred photograph vs. the brochure and photos of other roofs) and explain how this likely influenced the outcome of the case.
5. Based on the issues raised in this case, what specific changes or clarifications could be made to the community’s CC&Rs and Architectural Guidelines to prevent similar disputes in the future?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition in Context
ACC (Architectural Committee)
A committee, as referenced in the CC&Rs and Architectural Guidelines, responsible for approving exterior alterations and ensuring all building materials and colors conform to community standards.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The presiding official (Velva Moses-Thompson) at the Office of Administrative Hearings who conducts hearings, evaluates evidence, and issues a binding decision on the matter.
Architectural Guidelines
A set of community documents establishing goals and specific rules for exterior appearance, colors, materials, and site development to retain the character of Starwood Estates.
Board of Directors (Board)
The governing body of the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association, which is empowered by the CC&Rs and Bylaws to conduct the affairs of the Association and approve architectural plans.
Bylaws
The rules and regulations that govern the internal operations of the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association, including the powers and duties of the Board of Directors.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. Legally binding rules recorded with the property deeds in the Starwood Estates community that govern what homeowners may or may not do with their property.
Conclusions of Law
The section of the ALJ’s decision that applies legal principles, statutes, and case law to the established facts of the case to reach a final judgment.
Findings of Fact
The section of the ALJ’s decision that formally lists the factual determinations made by the judge based on the evidence presented at the hearing.
Petitioner
The party that initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Patricia Davies-Brown, Bart A. Brown, Jr., and Scott R. Davies, who brought the complaint against the HOA.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and has a greater weight than the evidence offered in opposition, persuading the fact-finder that a contention is more likely true than not.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association, which had to defend its decision to approve the roof.
Restrictive Covenant
A provision in a deed or community document (like a CC&R) that limits the use of the property. In Arizona, if unambiguous, these are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties.
Blog Post – 18F-H1818039-REL
This Copper Roof Caused a Legal Battle: 3 Surprising Lessons Every Homeowner Should Learn
Introduction: The Neighborhood Dispute That Went to Court
The relationship between homeowners and their Homeowners Association (HOA) can be a delicate balance. Architectural rules, designed to maintain a community’s aesthetic, often become a source of friction. But what happens when a disagreement over design choices escalates?
In the case of Davies-Brown v. Starwood Estates Homeowners Association, a dispute over Jeff and Karen Martin’s new copper-colored metal roof didn’t just cause whispers over the fence—it went all the way to a formal administrative hearing. When the HOA board approved the roof in a 5-1 vote, the lone dissenting board member, Scott R. Davies, joined two other homeowners to formally challenge the decision.
This seemingly simple disagreement over a roofing material reveals several powerful, and often counter-intuitive, lessons for anyone living in a planned community. From the structural placement of a single sentence to the evidentiary power of a blurry photograph, this case offers a masterclass in HOA law. Here are three surprising lessons every homeowner should learn.
——————————————————————————–
1. The Devil in the Document: How a Single Sentence Can Decide Everything
The first major lesson from this case is that the hyper-specific wording and structure of your community guidelines are paramount. The location and context of a rule can be just as important as the rule itself.
The petitioners’ core argument was that the copper-colored roof violated the Architectural Guidelines because it was a “reflective surface,” which they believed was forbidden. On the surface, this seems like a straightforward complaint.
However, the HOA mounted a successful counter-argument based on document structure. The Administrative Law Judge agreed with the HOA’s interpretation. The rules for roofs were addressed in a distinct section titled “Roofs, Materials, and Pitches.” The ban on “reflective surfaces,” meanwhile, was located in an entirely separate section, “Exterior Appearance and Colors,” which also contained rules for windows and doors. This seemingly minor structural detail was the deciding factor on this point.
The exact rule the petitioners cited, found in the “Exterior Appearance and Colors” section, illustrates the point perfectly:
Clear aluminum window and doorframes are not permitted, nor are reflective surfaces.
Because this prohibition was not located in the roofing section, the judge concluded it applied only to windows, doors, and general exterior surfaces—not roofs. This case highlights that homeowners must read their community documents with extreme care. A prohibition you think is universal might, in fact, be limited to a very specific context by its placement in the text.
2. The Power of Precedent: What Your Neighbors Did Years Ago Matters Today
The second key takeaway is that an HOA board’s decisions can be heavily influenced by the character of the surrounding area, not just by what has been approved inside the development’s gates.
During the hearing, the HOA presented evidence of other reflective metal roofs, including green and red ones, that existed in the broader Pinetop Country Club area. Starwood Estates is part of this larger community, and the judge’s official findings noted this evidence, which significantly supported the HOA’s position to approve the Martins’ copper-colored roof.
This reveals a nuanced lesson: an HOA doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Once a certain style or material becomes common in the surrounding region, it can establish a de facto community standard. This makes it significantly more difficult for other homeowners to argue against a similar request, as the board can point to the broader neighborhood aesthetic to justify its decision. Before you challenge a project, it’s crucial to look not only at what has been approved within your HOA, but also at the character of the community at large.
3. The Burden of Proof: Your Complaint Is Only as Good as Your Evidence
The third critical lesson is that in any formal dispute, the quality of your evidence is non-negotiable. A subjective feeling or personal opinion holds little weight without objective proof.
The petitioners attempted to prove the roof was overly reflective by submitting a photograph as evidence. However, the judge’s official findings delivered a devastating blow, noting with precise and revealing language: “Although the image showed a reflective the image, the photograph was blurred.”
This detail underscores a vital point: in a legal or formal setting, a complaint must be backed by clear, objective proof. Weak or poor-quality evidence, like a blurred photo, can completely undermine an otherwise valid concern. Even though the image hinted at the issue, its poor quality rendered it useless. If you are going to make a claim, the burden is on you to prove it with convincing, high-quality evidence. Without it, your case is likely to be dismissed.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: Before You Build or Battle, Do Your Homework
The Starwood Estates case serves as a powerful reminder that navigating HOA rules requires diligence. From this single dispute over a copper roof, we learn to read the fine print—and the structure—of governing documents, understand the power of aesthetic standards in the broader community, and ensure any complaint is backed by strong, clear evidence.
The next time you plan a home project or question a neighbor’s, ask yourself: have you really done your homework on the rules, the history, and the facts?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Patricia Davies-Brown(petitioner) Appeared on behalf of petitioners
Bart A. Brown, Jr.(petitioner)
Scott R. Davies(petitioner, board member) Starwood Estates HOA Board Voted against the roof approval
Respondent Side
Kristopher L. Smith(HOA attorney) O'Connor & Campbell, P.C. Appeared on behalf of Respondent
Daniel Campbell(HOA attorney) O'Connor & Campbell, P.C.
Pat Knight(board member) Starwood Estates HOA Board
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
L Dettorre(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
A Hansen(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
D Jones(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
D Gardner(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
N Cano(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
C Serrano(OAH Staff) Office of Administrative Hearings Transmitted the order
Other Participants
Jeff Martin(Starwood Estates resident) Starwood Estates Property owner whose roof was subject of the dispute
Karen Martin(Starwood Estates resident) Starwood Estates Property owner whose roof was subject of the dispute
Patricia Davies-Brown, Individually and as Trustee of the Trust; BART A. BROWN, JR.; SCOTT R. DAVIES
Counsel
—
Respondent
Starwood Estates Homeowners Association
Counsel
Daniel Campbell & Kristopher L. Smith
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs; Bylaws; Architectural Guidelines
Outcome Summary
The Petitioners' request alleging that the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association violated community documents by approving a copper-colored metal roof was denied. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioners failed to establish the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, noting that the guidelines prohibiting reflective surfaces applied primarily to windows and doors, not roofs.
Why this result: Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its CC&Rs, Bylaws, or Architectural Guidelines.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Exterior Appearance and Colors provisions regarding copper-colored metal roof approval
Petitioners alleged that the HOA improperly approved a copper-colored metal roof because it constituted a reflective surface and did not blend with the natural surroundings, violating the community documents. The ALJ denied the petition, finding Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated its documents, noting the reflective surfaces ban applied to windows and doors, not roofs, and the roof's appearance was acceptable.
Orders: Petitioners' petition is denied.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
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)
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)
Briefing Document: Davies-Brown v. Starwood Estates HOA
Executive Summary
This document summarizes the administrative hearing and decision in case No. 18F-H1818039-REL, concerning a dispute between homeowners Patricia Davies-Brown, Bart A. Brown, Jr., and Scott R. Davies (the “Petitioners”) and the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association (the “Respondent”). The core of the dispute was the HOA Board of Directors’ 2013 approval of a copper-colored metal roof for homeowners Jeff and Karen Martin.
The Petitioners alleged this approval violated the community’s CC&Rs, Bylaws, and Architectural Guidelines. Their primary arguments were that the roof was an impermissible “reflective surface,” that it did not “blend with the natural surrounding and landscape,” and that the Board lacked the authority to approve it without prior review by the Architectural Committee (ACC) and without viewing a physical sample.
The Respondent defended the Board’s decision, arguing that the Board possessed the authority to grant such approvals. They contended the prohibition on reflective surfaces in the community guidelines applies specifically to windows and doors, not roofing. Furthermore, they asserted that the roof was aesthetically compliant and that other reflective metal roofs exist within the community.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Velva Moses-Thompson, ruled in favor of the Respondent. The decision, issued on September 14, 2018, denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof. The ALJ found that the Board had the authority to approve the roof, the ban on reflective surfaces did not apply to roofing, and the Petitioners did not establish that the roof failed to blend with its natural surroundings.
——————————————————————————–
Case Overview
• Case Name: Patricia Davies-Brown, et al. vs. Starwood Estates Homeowners Association
• Case Number: 18F-H1818039-REL
• Forum: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
• Presiding Judge: Velva Moses-Thompson, Administrative Law Judge
• Hearing Dates: July 10, 2018, and August 13, 2018
• Final Decision Date: September 14, 2018
Key Parties and Representatives
Name(s)
Representation / Contact
Petitioners
Patricia Davies-Brown, Bart A. Brown, Jr., Scott R. Davies
Appeared on behalf of themselves 9777 E Dreyfus Ave., Scottsdale, AZ 85260 [email protected]
Respondent
Starwood Estates Homeowners Association
Kristopher L. Smith, Esq. O’Connor & Campbell, P.C. 7955 S Priest Dr., Tempe, AZ 85284 [email protected]
Homeowners
Jeff and Karen Martin
Owners of the property with the disputed roof at 8500 Skywood Drive, Pinetop, Arizona (Lot 40 of Starwood Estates).
Core Dispute: The Martin Residence Roof
The central conflict originated in the summer of 2013 when the Starwood Estates Board of Directors approved a request from Jeff and Karen Martin to install a copper-colored metal roof on their home. The approval was passed by a 5-1 vote. Petitioner Scott R. Davies was the sole board member who voted against the approval at that time.
The Board reviewed a brochure containing the roof’s color before granting approval but did not observe a physical sample. However, one Board member, Pat Knight, was reportedly familiar with the appearance of such roofs from a previous home she owned nearby. The petition challenging this 2013 decision was filed on or about March 26, 2018.
Petitioners’ Allegations and Arguments
The Petitioners filed their petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging that the HOA violated community governing documents. Their case was built on three central questions:
1. Does the exterior appearance of the Martins’ aluminum copper-colored metal roof blend with the “natural surrounding and landscape” of Starwood Estates?
2. Does such roof constitute a “reflective surface”?
3. If the answer to (1) above is no and/or the answer to (2) above is yes, did the ACC and the Board of Starwood Estates erroneously violate the provisions of the CC&R’s and GUIDELINES in permitting the Martins to install such aluminum copper-colored metal roof…?
During the hearing, the Petitioners expanded on these points, arguing:
• Reflective Surface: The copper-colored roof was a prohibited reflective surface under the Architectural Guidelines.
• Aesthetic Incompatibility: The roof did not blend with the natural surroundings as required.
• Procedural Violations:
◦ The Board violated the CC&Rs by approving the roof without first viewing a physical sample of the material.
◦ The approval was invalid because it should have first been granted by the two-person Architectural Committee (ACC) appointed by the Board.
Respondent’s Defense and Arguments
The Starwood Estates HOA maintained that its approval of the Martin roof was proper and compliant with all governing documents. Their key arguments were:
• Board Authority: The HOA asserted that either the Board of Directors or the Architectural Committee had the authority to approve the roof.
• Interpretation of “Reflective Surfaces”: The Respondent argued that the prohibition on “reflective surfaces” within the Architectural Guidelines applies specifically to windows and doors, not to roofing, which is addressed in a separate section of the guidelines.
• Aesthetic Compliance: They contended the roof, while having a “shine,” was not a barred reflective surface and did blend in with the natural surroundings.
• Precedent: The HOA noted that several other metal roofs that are reflective had been previously approved in Starwood Estates. They submitted images of reflective green and red roofs in the Pinetop Country Club area as evidence.
Referenced Governing Documents
The decision cited specific sections from the HOA’s governing documents to adjudicate the dispute.
• Section 3.1.4: Requires prior written approval from the Architectural Committee for any work that alters the exterior appearance of a Lot.
• Section 5.2: States that approvals or actions to be taken by the Association “shall be valid if given or taken by the Board.”
• Article VII, Section A(2): Grants the Board authority to exercise all powers and duties vested in the Association unless reserved to the membership.
• Article VII, Section B: Empowers the Board to “Review and approve any architectural plan for the building of any improvements on any Lots.”
• Exterior Appearance and Colors: Mandates that exterior appearance “shall blend with the natural surroundings and landscape.” It also states, “Clear aluminum window and doorframes are not permitted, nor are reflective surfaces.” A note requires the owner to submit samples of materials for ACC approval.
• Roofs, Materials, and Pitches: Stipulates that “Metal roofs are permitted only with ACC approval” and that all pitched roof materials “shall promote a continuity of texture and color.”
Evidence Presented
• Petitioner’s Exhibit 13: A photograph of the Martins’ copper-colored roof. The ALJ’s decision noted that while the image showed a reflection, the photograph itself was “blurred.”
• Respondent’s Exhibit 26: The brochure containing the color of the copper-colored roof that the Board reviewed before its 2013 approval.
• Respondent’s Exhibit 7: Images of other reflective green and red metal roofs located in the Pinetop Country Club area, which were previously approved.
• Testimony: Board member Pat Knight’s familiarity with the appearance of copper-colored roofs was noted.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The petition was denied. The ALJ found that the Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs, Bylaws, or Architectural Guidelines.
Conclusions of Law
1. Burden of Proof: The Petitioners bore the burden of proving their claims by a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as evidence that is more probably true than not. They failed to meet this standard.
2. Board Authority: The ALJ concluded that the governing documents allowed for the roof to be approved by either the Architectural Committee or the Board of Directors. The Board’s action was therefore valid.
3. Interpretation of Reflective Surfaces: The evidence established that the prohibition on “reflective surfaces” in the Architectural Guidelines applies to windows and doors. Roofs are addressed in a separate section of the guidelines. The existence of other approved shiny metal roofs further supported this interpretation.
4. Aesthetic Compliance: The Petitioners did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the copper-colored roof failed to blend in with the natural surroundings.
Final Order
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied because Petitioners have not established that Respondent violated the Community Bylaws, Community CC&Rs, and the Community Architectural Guidelines when Respondent approved the Martins’ request to install the copper-colored roof.
The order was made binding unless a rehearing was requested within 30 days of service.
Study Guide – 18F-H1818039-REL
Study Guide: Davies-Brown v. Starwood Estates HOA (Case No. 18F-H1818039-REL)
This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative hearing case between Patricia Davies-Brown, et al., and the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association. It includes a short-answer quiz to test factual recall, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms as defined within the context of the provided legal documents.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing exclusively from the information presented in the case documents.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in Case No. 18F-H1818039-REL?
2. What specific architectural feature was the central point of the dispute?
3. What were the three main questions the Petitioners raised in their petition filed on March 26, 2018?
4. How did the Respondent (Starwood Estates HOA) justify the approval of other reflective metal roofs in the community?
5. According to the Petitioners, which two procedural errors did the Board of Directors commit when approving the Martins’ roof?
6. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion regarding the prohibition of “reflective surfaces” in the Architectural Guidelines?
7. What is the legal standard of proof the Petitioners were required to meet, and did they succeed?
8. Which governing documents grant the Board of Directors the authority to approve architectural plans?
9. When was the disputed roof originally approved by the Board, and what was the vote count?
10. What evidence did the Board review before its initial approval, and what evidence was not reviewed at that time?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioners were Patricia Davies-Brown (Individually and as Trustee of the Trust), Bart A. Brown, Jr., and Scott R. Davies. The Respondent was the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association.
2. The central dispute was an aluminum, “copper-colored metal roof” installed by homeowners Jeff and Karen Martin on their property at Lot 40 of Starwood Estates. The Petitioners challenged the HOA Board’s approval of this roof.
3. The Petitioners’ petition questioned whether the roof blended with the “natural surrounding and landscape,” whether it constituted a “reflective surface,” and if so, whether the Board and ACC violated the CC&Rs and Guidelines by permitting it.
4. The Respondent submitted evidence of other reflective green and red metal roofs within the Pinetop Country Club area that had been previously approved by the Board. This was used to argue that roofs with a shine were not explicitly barred.
5. The Petitioners contended the Board violated the CC&Rs by approving the roof without first viewing a physical sample. They also argued that the roof required approval from the two-person Architectural Committee (ACC) and could not be approved by the Board alone.
6. The Judge concluded that the bar on reflective surfaces, as written in the Architectural Guidelines, applies specifically to windows and doors. Roofs are addressed in a separate section of the guidelines that does not contain the same prohibition.
7. The Petitioners bore the burden of proof to establish their case by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means showing their contention is more probably true than not. The Judge ruled that they failed to meet this standard.
8. Section 5.2 of the CC&Rs states that actions taken by the Board are valid, and Article VII of the Starwood Bylaws grants the Board the power to exercise Association authority and to review and approve architectural plans. The Judge found this authority allowed the Board to approve the roof.
9. The roof was approved by the Board of Directors in the summer of 2013. The approval passed with a 5-1 vote, with Petitioner Scott R. Davies being the sole board member who voted against it.
10. Before approving the roof, the Board reviewed a brochure containing the color of the copper-colored roof. However, the Board did not observe a physical sample of the actual roofing material.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions for Further Study
The following questions are designed for deeper, analytical consideration of the case. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the conflict between CC&Rs Section 3.1.4 (requiring ACC approval) and other governing documents (like CC&Rs Section 5.2 and Bylaws Article VII) that grant broad authority to the Board. How did the Administrative Law Judge resolve this apparent contradiction in the final decision?
2. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied in this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means and detail why the Petitioners failed to meet this standard with respect to their claims about the roof’s reflective nature and its harmony with the natural surroundings.
3. Examine the interpretation of the Architectural Guidelines regarding “reflective surfaces.” How did the Respondent and the Administrative Law Judge construe this rule, and what evidence and reasoning supported their interpretation over the Petitioners’ broader application?
4. Evaluate the evidence presented by both the Petitioners and the Respondent. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s evidence (e.g., the blurred photograph vs. the brochure and photos of other roofs) and explain how this likely influenced the outcome of the case.
5. Based on the issues raised in this case, what specific changes or clarifications could be made to the community’s CC&Rs and Architectural Guidelines to prevent similar disputes in the future?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition in Context
ACC (Architectural Committee)
A committee, as referenced in the CC&Rs and Architectural Guidelines, responsible for approving exterior alterations and ensuring all building materials and colors conform to community standards.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The presiding official (Velva Moses-Thompson) at the Office of Administrative Hearings who conducts hearings, evaluates evidence, and issues a binding decision on the matter.
Architectural Guidelines
A set of community documents establishing goals and specific rules for exterior appearance, colors, materials, and site development to retain the character of Starwood Estates.
Board of Directors (Board)
The governing body of the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association, which is empowered by the CC&Rs and Bylaws to conduct the affairs of the Association and approve architectural plans.
Bylaws
The rules and regulations that govern the internal operations of the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association, including the powers and duties of the Board of Directors.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. Legally binding rules recorded with the property deeds in the Starwood Estates community that govern what homeowners may or may not do with their property.
Conclusions of Law
The section of the ALJ’s decision that applies legal principles, statutes, and case law to the established facts of the case to reach a final judgment.
Findings of Fact
The section of the ALJ’s decision that formally lists the factual determinations made by the judge based on the evidence presented at the hearing.
Petitioner
The party that initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Patricia Davies-Brown, Bart A. Brown, Jr., and Scott R. Davies, who brought the complaint against the HOA.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and has a greater weight than the evidence offered in opposition, persuading the fact-finder that a contention is more likely true than not.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association, which had to defend its decision to approve the roof.
Restrictive Covenant
A provision in a deed or community document (like a CC&R) that limits the use of the property. In Arizona, if unambiguous, these are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties.
Blog Post – 18F-H1818039-REL
This Copper Roof Caused a Legal Battle: 3 Surprising Lessons Every Homeowner Should Learn
Introduction: The Neighborhood Dispute That Went to Court
The relationship between homeowners and their Homeowners Association (HOA) can be a delicate balance. Architectural rules, designed to maintain a community’s aesthetic, often become a source of friction. But what happens when a disagreement over design choices escalates?
In the case of Davies-Brown v. Starwood Estates Homeowners Association, a dispute over Jeff and Karen Martin’s new copper-colored metal roof didn’t just cause whispers over the fence—it went all the way to a formal administrative hearing. When the HOA board approved the roof in a 5-1 vote, the lone dissenting board member, Scott R. Davies, joined two other homeowners to formally challenge the decision.
This seemingly simple disagreement over a roofing material reveals several powerful, and often counter-intuitive, lessons for anyone living in a planned community. From the structural placement of a single sentence to the evidentiary power of a blurry photograph, this case offers a masterclass in HOA law. Here are three surprising lessons every homeowner should learn.
——————————————————————————–
1. The Devil in the Document: How a Single Sentence Can Decide Everything
The first major lesson from this case is that the hyper-specific wording and structure of your community guidelines are paramount. The location and context of a rule can be just as important as the rule itself.
The petitioners’ core argument was that the copper-colored roof violated the Architectural Guidelines because it was a “reflective surface,” which they believed was forbidden. On the surface, this seems like a straightforward complaint.
However, the HOA mounted a successful counter-argument based on document structure. The Administrative Law Judge agreed with the HOA’s interpretation. The rules for roofs were addressed in a distinct section titled “Roofs, Materials, and Pitches.” The ban on “reflective surfaces,” meanwhile, was located in an entirely separate section, “Exterior Appearance and Colors,” which also contained rules for windows and doors. This seemingly minor structural detail was the deciding factor on this point.
The exact rule the petitioners cited, found in the “Exterior Appearance and Colors” section, illustrates the point perfectly:
Clear aluminum window and doorframes are not permitted, nor are reflective surfaces.
Because this prohibition was not located in the roofing section, the judge concluded it applied only to windows, doors, and general exterior surfaces—not roofs. This case highlights that homeowners must read their community documents with extreme care. A prohibition you think is universal might, in fact, be limited to a very specific context by its placement in the text.
2. The Power of Precedent: What Your Neighbors Did Years Ago Matters Today
The second key takeaway is that an HOA board’s decisions can be heavily influenced by the character of the surrounding area, not just by what has been approved inside the development’s gates.
During the hearing, the HOA presented evidence of other reflective metal roofs, including green and red ones, that existed in the broader Pinetop Country Club area. Starwood Estates is part of this larger community, and the judge’s official findings noted this evidence, which significantly supported the HOA’s position to approve the Martins’ copper-colored roof.
This reveals a nuanced lesson: an HOA doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Once a certain style or material becomes common in the surrounding region, it can establish a de facto community standard. This makes it significantly more difficult for other homeowners to argue against a similar request, as the board can point to the broader neighborhood aesthetic to justify its decision. Before you challenge a project, it’s crucial to look not only at what has been approved within your HOA, but also at the character of the community at large.
3. The Burden of Proof: Your Complaint Is Only as Good as Your Evidence
The third critical lesson is that in any formal dispute, the quality of your evidence is non-negotiable. A subjective feeling or personal opinion holds little weight without objective proof.
The petitioners attempted to prove the roof was overly reflective by submitting a photograph as evidence. However, the judge’s official findings delivered a devastating blow, noting with precise and revealing language: “Although the image showed a reflective the image, the photograph was blurred.”
This detail underscores a vital point: in a legal or formal setting, a complaint must be backed by clear, objective proof. Weak or poor-quality evidence, like a blurred photo, can completely undermine an otherwise valid concern. Even though the image hinted at the issue, its poor quality rendered it useless. If you are going to make a claim, the burden is on you to prove it with convincing, high-quality evidence. Without it, your case is likely to be dismissed.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: Before You Build or Battle, Do Your Homework
The Starwood Estates case serves as a powerful reminder that navigating HOA rules requires diligence. From this single dispute over a copper roof, we learn to read the fine print—and the structure—of governing documents, understand the power of aesthetic standards in the broader community, and ensure any complaint is backed by strong, clear evidence.
The next time you plan a home project or question a neighbor’s, ask yourself: have you really done your homework on the rules, the history, and the facts?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Patricia Davies-Brown(petitioner) Appeared on behalf of petitioners
Bart A. Brown, Jr.(petitioner)
Scott R. Davies(petitioner, board member) Starwood Estates HOA Board Voted against the roof approval
Respondent Side
Kristopher L. Smith(HOA attorney) O'Connor & Campbell, P.C. Appeared on behalf of Respondent
Daniel Campbell(HOA attorney) O'Connor & Campbell, P.C.
Pat Knight(board member) Starwood Estates HOA Board
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
L Dettorre(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
A Hansen(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
D Jones(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
D Gardner(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
N Cano(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
C Serrano(OAH Staff) Office of Administrative Hearings Transmitted the order
Other Participants
Jeff Martin(Starwood Estates resident) Starwood Estates Property owner whose roof was subject of the dispute
Karen Martin(Starwood Estates resident) Starwood Estates Property owner whose roof was subject of the dispute
The Administrative Law Judge granted the Petitioner's request for relief, finding that the Respondent HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(F) by failing to provide adequate notice and agenda information regarding the proposed CC&R amendment to prohibit short term rentals. The Respondent was ordered to pay the filing fee to the Petitioner.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of open meeting and notice requirements regarding CC&R amendment
The Board violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(F) when it failed to provide notice or an agenda to all of its members of information that was reasonably necessary to inform the members that an amendment to the CC&Rs to prohibit short term members would be discussed at its special board of directors meetings held on November 8, 2017 and November 20, 2017.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was granted. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner the filing fee required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.01.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(E)(1)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(F)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-2198.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.01
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Open Meetings, HOA Governance, Notice Requirements, CC&R Amendment, Short Term Rentals
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(E)(1)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(F)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-2198.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.01
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
18F-H1817020-REL Decision – 629473.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:22:47 (46.2 KB)
18F-H1817020-REL Decision – 629515.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:22:50 (51.9 KB)
18F-H1817020-REL Decision – 636989.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:22:54 (139.8 KB)
Briefing Doc – 18F-H1817020-REL
Administrative Law Judge Decision Briefing: Smith vs. Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal dispute between Petitioner Lewis Smith and Respondent Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. The core of the case revolves around allegations that the HOA’s Board of Directors violated Arizona’s open meeting laws.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding that the Desert Isle HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(F). The decision established that the Board failed to provide its members with agendas containing information “reasonably necessary to inform the members” about discussions concerning a proposed amendment to the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that would prohibit short-term rentals. This failure occurred during Board of Directors meetings held on November 8 and November 20, 2017.
As a result of this finding, the Petitioner’s petition was granted, and the Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee. The ruling underscores the state’s policy that planned community meetings must be conducted with transparency, and agendas must provide sufficient detail for members to understand the matters to be discussed or decided.
Case Overview
Case Number
18F-H1817020-REL
Tribunal
Office of Administrative Hearings (Phoenix, Arizona)
Petitioner
Lewis Smith
Respondent
Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.
Administrative Law Judge
Velva Moses-Thompson
Hearing Date
April 16, 2018
Decision Date
May 29, 2018
Central Allegation
On or about December 5, 2017, Petitioner Lewis Smith filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging that the Desert Isle HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804. The petition contended that the Board of Directors discussed and advanced a significant CC&R amendment without proper notification to the association members.
The petition states, in part:
“All Board members have been meeting to discuss and add an amendment to the CC&R’s [sic] Prohibiting short term renters. These meetings have not been conducted openly and no notice or agenda were provided containing information necessary to inform members of the association of the matters to be discussed… At no time was the issue to add an amendment for short term rentals properly noticed or on an agenda for discussion before it became a ballot vote.”
Chronology of Events
October 23, 2017:
• Lewis Smith, William H. Winn, Kevin Barnett, and Chester Jay submit a formal request to the Board for a special members’ meeting.
• The stated purposes of the meeting were to:
1. Select and fund an attorney to update the HOA’s bylaws and CC&Rs to comply with current Arizona law.
2. Discuss obtaining a reserve study for the association’s capital needs.
3. Discuss a separate attorney letter regarding HOA governance.
October 24, 2017:
• Board President Doug Robinson responds to the request, expressing support for a meeting but stating that more than 30 days would be needed to gather supporting documentation.
October 31, 2017:
• A second group of homeowners, including Board members Greg Yacoubian, Doug Robinson, Curt Carlson, and Mike Andrews, submits a request to add an item to the agenda of the forthcoming special meeting.
• Their request was to “amend the CC&Rs by adding a section prohibiting ‘Short Term Rentals’ and defining minimum time allowed for Rentals.”
November 5, 2017:
• The Board provides an agenda for a Board of Directors meeting scheduled for November 8, 2017. The agenda did not include any item related to the proposed amendment to prohibit short-term rentals.
November 8, 2017:
• The Board of Directors meeting is held.
• The Board votes to call a special members’ meeting before November 23, 2017, to address the two petitions.
• During the “BOARD INPUT” section, member Curt Carlson “spoke of past issues about short term renting,” but this was not a formal agenda item for discussion or action.
November 10, 2017:
• The Board emails Lewis Smith, acknowledging his petition and requesting a “narrative explanation from you on each of your subjects” by November 17, 2017, to prepare the meeting information package for all homeowners.
November 18, 2017:
• The Board sends an agenda for another Board of Directors meeting scheduled for November 20, 2017.
• The agenda lists “Review/approval of special meeting mailing package” as a topic but provides no specific details regarding the proposed amendment on short-term rentals.
December 1, 2017:
• Board President Doug Robinson emails all homeowners to explain the upcoming special meeting on December 16, 2017.
• The email states: “To avoid cost and time we put both petitions together and are having one meeting that will required [sic] all owners to vote for or against these two petitions.”
• The agenda for the December 16 meeting is attached, which explicitly lists a vote on prohibiting short-term rentals.
December 16, 2017:
• The special members’ meeting is held. A vote is taken on the proposed amendment to prohibit short-term rentals.
• Vote Result: 9 homeowners in favor, 6 homeowners against.
Legal Framework and Analysis
The case centered on the interpretation and application of Arizona Revised Statutes related to planned communities.
Key Statute: ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
This statute governs meetings and notices for planned communities. The judge’s decision rested heavily on the policy outlined in subsection (F).
• § 33-1804(B): Requires that notice for any special meeting of members must state the purpose, including “the general nature of any proposed amendment to the declaration or bylaws.”
• § 33-1804(E)(1): Requires that the agenda for a Board of Directors meeting be made available to all members in attendance.
• § 33-1804(F): This subsection contains the state’s declaration of policy, which was central to the judge’s conclusion. It states:
Burden of Proof
The Petitioner, Lewis Smith, bore the burden of proving that the Respondent violated the statute by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as evidence that is sufficient “to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Findings and Conclusion of the Court
The Administrative Law Judge found that the Petitioner successfully met the burden of proof. The decision concludes that the agendas for the November 8 and November 20 Board of Directors meetings were legally insufficient.
Conclusion of Law #4:
“Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Board violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(F) when it failed to provide notice or an agenda to all of its members of information that was reasonably necessary to inform the members that an amendment to the CC&Rs to prohibit short term members would be discussed at its special board of directors meetings held on November 8, 2017 and November 20, 2017.”
Final Order
• The Petitioner’s petition in the matter was granted.
• Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), the Respondent (Desert Isle HOA) was ordered to pay the Petitioner the filing fee.
• The Order is legally binding unless a rehearing is requested with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.
Parties and Legal Representation
Address
Legal Counsel
Petitioner
Lewis Smith 5459 E. Sorrento Dr. Long Beach, CA 90803
Mark J. Bainbridge, Esq. The Bainbridge Law Firm LLC 2122 E. Highland Ave. Ste. 250 Phoenix, AZ 85016-4779
Respondent
Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. 411 Riverfront Dr. #7 Bullhead City, AZ 86442
William D. Condray, Esq. 2031 Highway 95 Ste. 2 Bullhead City, AZ 86442-6004
Study Guide – 18F-H1817020-REL
Study Guide: Smith v. Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.
This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case No. 18F-H1817020-REL between Petitioner Lewis Smith and Respondent Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a comprehensive glossary of key terms and entities involved in the matter.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the case documents.
1. Who are the primary parties in case No. 18F-H1817020-REL, and who represented them legally?
2. What was the three-part purpose of the special meeting requested by Lewis Smith and other homeowners on October 23, 2017?
3. A second petition was submitted on October 31, 2017. What was its purpose and who were the petitioners?
4. What key actions were taken regarding officers and a special meeting during the Board of Directors meeting on November 8, 2017?
5. What did the Desert Isle HOA Board demand from Lewis Smith in its email on November 10, 2017, to proceed with the special meeting?
6. What was the central allegation Lewis Smith made in his petition to the Arizona Department of Real Estate on December 5, 2017?
7. What was the outcome of the vote on the proposed amendment to prohibit short-term rentals at the December 16, 2017 special meeting?
8. Which specific section of the Arizona Revised Statutes did the Administrative Law Judge find the Board had violated?
9. According to the case documents, what is the definition of “preponderance of the evidence”?
10. What was the final ruling issued by Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson on May 29, 2018?
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Lewis Smith, and the Respondent, Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. Lewis Smith was represented by Mark J. Bainbridge, Esq., and the Desert Isle HOA was represented by William D. Condray, Esq.
2. The purpose of the meeting was threefold: to select and fund an attorney to update the HOA’s bylaws and CC&Rs to comply with current Arizona law; to discuss obtaining a reserve study for the association’s capital needs; and to discuss an attorney letter regarding HOA governance.
3. Greg Yacoubian, Doug Robinson, Curt Carlson, and Mike Andrews submitted a request to amend the CC&Rs by adding a section to prohibit “Short Term Rentals.” They requested this subject be added to the agenda of the special meeting already requested by Lewis Smith’s group to save time and money.
4. At the November 8, 2017 meeting, a motion passed unanimously to remove the existing VP, treasurer, and secretary. New officers and assistants were elected, and another motion passed to call the special meeting requested by the two groups of owners before November 23, 2017.
5. The Board requested a “narrative explanation” from Lewis Smith for each of his proposed subjects. The Board stated it would expect four narratives plus any referenced attorney engagement letters and needed the materials by November 17, 2017, to prepare the special meeting package.
6. Lewis Smith alleged that the Desert Isle HOA Board members met to discuss and add an amendment prohibiting short-term rentals without conducting the meetings openly. He stated that no proper notice or agenda was provided to inform members of the matters to be discussed before the issue became a ballot vote.
7. At the December 16, 2017 meeting, the proposed amendment to prohibit short-term rentals was voted on by homeowners. Nine homeowners voted in favor of the amendment, and six homeowners voted against it.
8. The Judge found that the Board violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(F). The violation occurred when the Board failed to provide an agenda with information reasonably necessary to inform members that an amendment to the CC&Rs prohibiting short-term rentals would be discussed at the board meetings on November 8 and November 20, 2017.
9. The documents provide two definitions. The first is “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” The second, from Black’s Law Dictionary, is “The greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
10. The Administrative Law Judge granted the Petitioner’s petition. The Judge’s order required the Respondent (Desert Isle HOA) to pay the Petitioner the filing fee required by statute.
Essay Questions
1. Construct a detailed timeline of events from the initial petition by Lewis Smith on October 23, 2017, to the final Administrative Law Judge Decision on May 29, 2018. Include all key meetings, communications, and legal filings mentioned in the documents.
2. Analyze the ways in which the Desert Isle Homeowners Association Board failed to comply with the open meeting policies outlined in ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804. Use specific examples from the meeting agendas and communications to support the analysis.
3. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. Explain who held the burden of proof for the violation and any affirmative defenses, and how the “preponderance of the evidence” standard was met by the Petitioner.
4. Compare and contrast the two petitions submitted by homeowners in October 2017. Evaluate how the Board handled each request and the procedural steps it took that ultimately led to the legal dispute.
5. Based on the findings of fact, evaluate the communication between the Desert Isle HOA Board and its members. Discuss the effectiveness and legality of the Board’s notices, agendas, and email correspondence regarding the special meeting and the proposed CC&R amendment.
Glossary of Key Terms
Term / Entity
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over administrative hearings, in this case, Velva Moses-Thompson. The ALJ hears evidence and issues a decision based on findings of fact and conclusions of law.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804
An Arizona state statute governing meetings in planned communities. It requires open meetings, proper notice to members (between 10 and 50 days prior), and agendas that are reasonably necessary to inform members of matters to be discussed or decided.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-2198.01
An Arizona state statute that permits an owner or planned community organization to file a petition with the Department of Real Estate for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or relevant statutes.
Board of Directors (Board)
The governing body of the Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. At the time of the events, key members included Doug Robinson (President), Curt Carlson, and Mike Andrews.
Burden of Proof
The obligation to prove one’s assertion. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish the violation, and the Respondent bore the burden for any affirmative defenses.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The governing documents of the Desert Isle planned community. The petitions submitted by homeowners sought to amend these documents.
Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.
The Respondent in the case; the planned community organization and non-profit corporation responsible for managing the Desert Isle community.
Lewis Smith
The Petitioner in the case; a homeowner in the Desert Isle community who filed a petition against the HOA.
Notice of Hearing
A formal notification issued by the Department of Real Estate setting the date and location for an administrative hearing. In this case, it was issued on January 22, 2018.
Office of Administrative Hearings
The state tribunal where the hearing for this case was conducted.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Lewis Smith.
Post-hearing Briefs
Written legal arguments submitted by parties after a hearing has concluded. The record in this case was held open until May 9, 2018, to receive these briefs.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is defined as evidence that is sufficient to convince the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.
Reserve Study
A study to determine an association’s long-term capital needs for its common areas. Lewis Smith’s petition requested a discussion about obtaining one.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.
Special Meeting
A meeting of association members called for a specific purpose outside of regularly scheduled meetings. Both petitions in this case requested a special meeting.
Blog Post – 18F-H1817020-REL
Select all sources
629473.pdf
629515.pdf
636989.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
18F-H1817020-REL
3 sources
The provided documents are related to a legal dispute between Lewis Smith and the Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc., heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings. The first two sources, 629473.pdf and 629515.pdf, are identical “Order Holding Record Open” documents dated April 18, 2018, which mandated that the parties submit post-hearing briefs by specific deadlines and required the Homeowners Association to clarify its objection to a specific exhibit. The final source, 636989.pdf, is the “Administrative Law Judge Decision” issued on May 29, 2018, which found that the Homeowners Association violated Arizona law by failing to properly inform members that they would be discussing a proposed amendment to prohibit short-term rentals at two special board meetings. Ultimately, the judge granted Lewis Smith’s petition and ordered the Homeowners Association to pay the required filing fee.
Based on 3 sources
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Lewis Smith(petitioner)
Mark J. Bainbridge(petitioner attorney) The Bainbridge Law Firm LLC
William H. Winn(homeowner) Submitted petition with Petitioner
Kevin Barnett(homeowner) Submitted petition with Petitioner
Chester Jay(homeowner) Submitted petition with Petitioner
Mike Sharp(homeowner/representative) Representative for Kevin Barnett
Kim Sharp(homeowner/representative) Representative for Kevin Barnett
Respondent Side
William D. Condray(respondent attorney)
Doug Robinson(board member) Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. Board President
Curt Carlson(board member) Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.
Mike Andrews(board member) Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.
Greg Yacoubian(homeowner/board member) Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. Replaced Mike Andrews on 11/20/17
Judy Carlson(HOA officer) Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. Treasurer
Terri Robinson(HOA officer) Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. Secretary
Jamie Kelly(HOA attorney) Consulted on Special Meeting package
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ)
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
M.Aguirre(Clerk/Admin) Transmitting agent
LDettorre(ADRE Staff) ADRE Recipient of transmission
AHansen(ADRE Staff) ADRE Recipient of transmission
djones(ADRE Staff) ADRE Recipient of transmission
DGardner(ADRE Staff) ADRE Recipient of transmission
The Administrative Law Judge granted the Petitioner's request for relief, finding that the Respondent HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(F) by failing to provide adequate notice and agenda information regarding the proposed CC&R amendment to prohibit short term rentals. The Respondent was ordered to pay the filing fee to the Petitioner.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of open meeting and notice requirements regarding CC&R amendment
The Board violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(F) when it failed to provide notice or an agenda to all of its members of information that was reasonably necessary to inform the members that an amendment to the CC&Rs to prohibit short term members would be discussed at its special board of directors meetings held on November 8, 2017 and November 20, 2017.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was granted. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner the filing fee required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.01.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(E)(1)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(F)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-2198.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.01
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Open Meetings, HOA Governance, Notice Requirements, CC&R Amendment, Short Term Rentals
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(E)(1)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(F)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-2198.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.01
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
18F-H1817020-REL Decision – 629473.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:20 (46.2 KB)
18F-H1817020-REL Decision – 629515.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:20 (51.9 KB)
18F-H1817020-REL Decision – 636989.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:20 (139.8 KB)
Briefing Doc – 18F-H1817020-REL
Administrative Law Judge Decision Briefing: Smith vs. Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal dispute between Petitioner Lewis Smith and Respondent Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. The core of the case revolves around allegations that the HOA’s Board of Directors violated Arizona’s open meeting laws.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding that the Desert Isle HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(F). The decision established that the Board failed to provide its members with agendas containing information “reasonably necessary to inform the members” about discussions concerning a proposed amendment to the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that would prohibit short-term rentals. This failure occurred during Board of Directors meetings held on November 8 and November 20, 2017.
As a result of this finding, the Petitioner’s petition was granted, and the Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee. The ruling underscores the state’s policy that planned community meetings must be conducted with transparency, and agendas must provide sufficient detail for members to understand the matters to be discussed or decided.
Case Overview
Case Number
18F-H1817020-REL
Tribunal
Office of Administrative Hearings (Phoenix, Arizona)
Petitioner
Lewis Smith
Respondent
Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.
Administrative Law Judge
Velva Moses-Thompson
Hearing Date
April 16, 2018
Decision Date
May 29, 2018
Central Allegation
On or about December 5, 2017, Petitioner Lewis Smith filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging that the Desert Isle HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804. The petition contended that the Board of Directors discussed and advanced a significant CC&R amendment without proper notification to the association members.
The petition states, in part:
“All Board members have been meeting to discuss and add an amendment to the CC&R’s [sic] Prohibiting short term renters. These meetings have not been conducted openly and no notice or agenda were provided containing information necessary to inform members of the association of the matters to be discussed… At no time was the issue to add an amendment for short term rentals properly noticed or on an agenda for discussion before it became a ballot vote.”
Chronology of Events
October 23, 2017:
• Lewis Smith, William H. Winn, Kevin Barnett, and Chester Jay submit a formal request to the Board for a special members’ meeting.
• The stated purposes of the meeting were to:
1. Select and fund an attorney to update the HOA’s bylaws and CC&Rs to comply with current Arizona law.
2. Discuss obtaining a reserve study for the association’s capital needs.
3. Discuss a separate attorney letter regarding HOA governance.
October 24, 2017:
• Board President Doug Robinson responds to the request, expressing support for a meeting but stating that more than 30 days would be needed to gather supporting documentation.
October 31, 2017:
• A second group of homeowners, including Board members Greg Yacoubian, Doug Robinson, Curt Carlson, and Mike Andrews, submits a request to add an item to the agenda of the forthcoming special meeting.
• Their request was to “amend the CC&Rs by adding a section prohibiting ‘Short Term Rentals’ and defining minimum time allowed for Rentals.”
November 5, 2017:
• The Board provides an agenda for a Board of Directors meeting scheduled for November 8, 2017. The agenda did not include any item related to the proposed amendment to prohibit short-term rentals.
November 8, 2017:
• The Board of Directors meeting is held.
• The Board votes to call a special members’ meeting before November 23, 2017, to address the two petitions.
• During the “BOARD INPUT” section, member Curt Carlson “spoke of past issues about short term renting,” but this was not a formal agenda item for discussion or action.
November 10, 2017:
• The Board emails Lewis Smith, acknowledging his petition and requesting a “narrative explanation from you on each of your subjects” by November 17, 2017, to prepare the meeting information package for all homeowners.
November 18, 2017:
• The Board sends an agenda for another Board of Directors meeting scheduled for November 20, 2017.
• The agenda lists “Review/approval of special meeting mailing package” as a topic but provides no specific details regarding the proposed amendment on short-term rentals.
December 1, 2017:
• Board President Doug Robinson emails all homeowners to explain the upcoming special meeting on December 16, 2017.
• The email states: “To avoid cost and time we put both petitions together and are having one meeting that will required [sic] all owners to vote for or against these two petitions.”
• The agenda for the December 16 meeting is attached, which explicitly lists a vote on prohibiting short-term rentals.
December 16, 2017:
• The special members’ meeting is held. A vote is taken on the proposed amendment to prohibit short-term rentals.
• Vote Result: 9 homeowners in favor, 6 homeowners against.
Legal Framework and Analysis
The case centered on the interpretation and application of Arizona Revised Statutes related to planned communities.
Key Statute: ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
This statute governs meetings and notices for planned communities. The judge’s decision rested heavily on the policy outlined in subsection (F).
• § 33-1804(B): Requires that notice for any special meeting of members must state the purpose, including “the general nature of any proposed amendment to the declaration or bylaws.”
• § 33-1804(E)(1): Requires that the agenda for a Board of Directors meeting be made available to all members in attendance.
• § 33-1804(F): This subsection contains the state’s declaration of policy, which was central to the judge’s conclusion. It states:
Burden of Proof
The Petitioner, Lewis Smith, bore the burden of proving that the Respondent violated the statute by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as evidence that is sufficient “to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Findings and Conclusion of the Court
The Administrative Law Judge found that the Petitioner successfully met the burden of proof. The decision concludes that the agendas for the November 8 and November 20 Board of Directors meetings were legally insufficient.
Conclusion of Law #4:
“Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Board violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(F) when it failed to provide notice or an agenda to all of its members of information that was reasonably necessary to inform the members that an amendment to the CC&Rs to prohibit short term members would be discussed at its special board of directors meetings held on November 8, 2017 and November 20, 2017.”
Final Order
• The Petitioner’s petition in the matter was granted.
• Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), the Respondent (Desert Isle HOA) was ordered to pay the Petitioner the filing fee.
• The Order is legally binding unless a rehearing is requested with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.
Parties and Legal Representation
Address
Legal Counsel
Petitioner
Lewis Smith 5459 E. Sorrento Dr. Long Beach, CA 90803
Mark J. Bainbridge, Esq. The Bainbridge Law Firm LLC 2122 E. Highland Ave. Ste. 250 Phoenix, AZ 85016-4779
Respondent
Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. 411 Riverfront Dr. #7 Bullhead City, AZ 86442
William D. Condray, Esq. 2031 Highway 95 Ste. 2 Bullhead City, AZ 86442-6004
Study Guide – 18F-H1817020-REL
Study Guide: Smith v. Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.
This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case No. 18F-H1817020-REL between Petitioner Lewis Smith and Respondent Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a comprehensive glossary of key terms and entities involved in the matter.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the case documents.
1. Who are the primary parties in case No. 18F-H1817020-REL, and who represented them legally?
2. What was the three-part purpose of the special meeting requested by Lewis Smith and other homeowners on October 23, 2017?
3. A second petition was submitted on October 31, 2017. What was its purpose and who were the petitioners?
4. What key actions were taken regarding officers and a special meeting during the Board of Directors meeting on November 8, 2017?
5. What did the Desert Isle HOA Board demand from Lewis Smith in its email on November 10, 2017, to proceed with the special meeting?
6. What was the central allegation Lewis Smith made in his petition to the Arizona Department of Real Estate on December 5, 2017?
7. What was the outcome of the vote on the proposed amendment to prohibit short-term rentals at the December 16, 2017 special meeting?
8. Which specific section of the Arizona Revised Statutes did the Administrative Law Judge find the Board had violated?
9. According to the case documents, what is the definition of “preponderance of the evidence”?
10. What was the final ruling issued by Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson on May 29, 2018?
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Lewis Smith, and the Respondent, Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. Lewis Smith was represented by Mark J. Bainbridge, Esq., and the Desert Isle HOA was represented by William D. Condray, Esq.
2. The purpose of the meeting was threefold: to select and fund an attorney to update the HOA’s bylaws and CC&Rs to comply with current Arizona law; to discuss obtaining a reserve study for the association’s capital needs; and to discuss an attorney letter regarding HOA governance.
3. Greg Yacoubian, Doug Robinson, Curt Carlson, and Mike Andrews submitted a request to amend the CC&Rs by adding a section to prohibit “Short Term Rentals.” They requested this subject be added to the agenda of the special meeting already requested by Lewis Smith’s group to save time and money.
4. At the November 8, 2017 meeting, a motion passed unanimously to remove the existing VP, treasurer, and secretary. New officers and assistants were elected, and another motion passed to call the special meeting requested by the two groups of owners before November 23, 2017.
5. The Board requested a “narrative explanation” from Lewis Smith for each of his proposed subjects. The Board stated it would expect four narratives plus any referenced attorney engagement letters and needed the materials by November 17, 2017, to prepare the special meeting package.
6. Lewis Smith alleged that the Desert Isle HOA Board members met to discuss and add an amendment prohibiting short-term rentals without conducting the meetings openly. He stated that no proper notice or agenda was provided to inform members of the matters to be discussed before the issue became a ballot vote.
7. At the December 16, 2017 meeting, the proposed amendment to prohibit short-term rentals was voted on by homeowners. Nine homeowners voted in favor of the amendment, and six homeowners voted against it.
8. The Judge found that the Board violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(F). The violation occurred when the Board failed to provide an agenda with information reasonably necessary to inform members that an amendment to the CC&Rs prohibiting short-term rentals would be discussed at the board meetings on November 8 and November 20, 2017.
9. The documents provide two definitions. The first is “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” The second, from Black’s Law Dictionary, is “The greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
10. The Administrative Law Judge granted the Petitioner’s petition. The Judge’s order required the Respondent (Desert Isle HOA) to pay the Petitioner the filing fee required by statute.
Essay Questions
1. Construct a detailed timeline of events from the initial petition by Lewis Smith on October 23, 2017, to the final Administrative Law Judge Decision on May 29, 2018. Include all key meetings, communications, and legal filings mentioned in the documents.
2. Analyze the ways in which the Desert Isle Homeowners Association Board failed to comply with the open meeting policies outlined in ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804. Use specific examples from the meeting agendas and communications to support the analysis.
3. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. Explain who held the burden of proof for the violation and any affirmative defenses, and how the “preponderance of the evidence” standard was met by the Petitioner.
4. Compare and contrast the two petitions submitted by homeowners in October 2017. Evaluate how the Board handled each request and the procedural steps it took that ultimately led to the legal dispute.
5. Based on the findings of fact, evaluate the communication between the Desert Isle HOA Board and its members. Discuss the effectiveness and legality of the Board’s notices, agendas, and email correspondence regarding the special meeting and the proposed CC&R amendment.
Glossary of Key Terms
Term / Entity
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over administrative hearings, in this case, Velva Moses-Thompson. The ALJ hears evidence and issues a decision based on findings of fact and conclusions of law.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804
An Arizona state statute governing meetings in planned communities. It requires open meetings, proper notice to members (between 10 and 50 days prior), and agendas that are reasonably necessary to inform members of matters to be discussed or decided.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-2198.01
An Arizona state statute that permits an owner or planned community organization to file a petition with the Department of Real Estate for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or relevant statutes.
Board of Directors (Board)
The governing body of the Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. At the time of the events, key members included Doug Robinson (President), Curt Carlson, and Mike Andrews.
Burden of Proof
The obligation to prove one’s assertion. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish the violation, and the Respondent bore the burden for any affirmative defenses.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The governing documents of the Desert Isle planned community. The petitions submitted by homeowners sought to amend these documents.
Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.
The Respondent in the case; the planned community organization and non-profit corporation responsible for managing the Desert Isle community.
Lewis Smith
The Petitioner in the case; a homeowner in the Desert Isle community who filed a petition against the HOA.
Notice of Hearing
A formal notification issued by the Department of Real Estate setting the date and location for an administrative hearing. In this case, it was issued on January 22, 2018.
Office of Administrative Hearings
The state tribunal where the hearing for this case was conducted.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Lewis Smith.
Post-hearing Briefs
Written legal arguments submitted by parties after a hearing has concluded. The record in this case was held open until May 9, 2018, to receive these briefs.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is defined as evidence that is sufficient to convince the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.
Reserve Study
A study to determine an association’s long-term capital needs for its common areas. Lewis Smith’s petition requested a discussion about obtaining one.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.
Special Meeting
A meeting of association members called for a specific purpose outside of regularly scheduled meetings. Both petitions in this case requested a special meeting.
Blog Post – 18F-H1817020-REL
Select all sources
629473.pdf
629515.pdf
636989.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
18F-H1817020-REL
3 sources
The provided documents are related to a legal dispute between Lewis Smith and the Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc., heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings. The first two sources, 629473.pdf and 629515.pdf, are identical “Order Holding Record Open” documents dated April 18, 2018, which mandated that the parties submit post-hearing briefs by specific deadlines and required the Homeowners Association to clarify its objection to a specific exhibit. The final source, 636989.pdf, is the “Administrative Law Judge Decision” issued on May 29, 2018, which found that the Homeowners Association violated Arizona law by failing to properly inform members that they would be discussing a proposed amendment to prohibit short-term rentals at two special board meetings. Ultimately, the judge granted Lewis Smith’s petition and ordered the Homeowners Association to pay the required filing fee.
Based on 3 sources
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Lewis Smith(petitioner)
Mark J. Bainbridge(petitioner attorney) The Bainbridge Law Firm LLC
William H. Winn(homeowner) Submitted petition with Petitioner
Kevin Barnett(homeowner) Submitted petition with Petitioner
Chester Jay(homeowner) Submitted petition with Petitioner
Mike Sharp(homeowner/representative) Representative for Kevin Barnett
Kim Sharp(homeowner/representative) Representative for Kevin Barnett
Respondent Side
William D. Condray(respondent attorney)
Doug Robinson(board member) Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. Board President
Curt Carlson(board member) Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.
Mike Andrews(board member) Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.
Greg Yacoubian(homeowner/board member) Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. Replaced Mike Andrews on 11/20/17
Judy Carlson(HOA officer) Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. Treasurer
Terri Robinson(HOA officer) Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. Secretary
Jamie Kelly(HOA attorney) Consulted on Special Meeting package
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ)
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
M.Aguirre(Clerk/Admin) Transmitting agent
LDettorre(ADRE Staff) ADRE Recipient of transmission
AHansen(ADRE Staff) ADRE Recipient of transmission
djones(ADRE Staff) ADRE Recipient of transmission
DGardner(ADRE Staff) ADRE Recipient of transmission
Briefing on the Administrative Law Judge Decision Document
Executive Summary
The source material provides a standardized template for an “Administrative Law Judge Decision” issued by the Office of Administrative Hearings located in Phoenix, Arizona. The document is structured to formalize the outcome of an administrative hearing, delineating key procedural and case-specific information. Its core components include sections for case identification, hearing details, participant appearances, and the presiding judge’s official signature. A notable feature is the explicit protocol for electronic transmission of the final decision to a designated client contact, indicating a formalized digital workflow. The template utilizes a series of placeholders to be populated with specific details for each case.
Document Origin and Jurisdiction
The document template originates from a specific governmental body, establishing its context and authority within an administrative legal framework.
• Issuing Authority: Office of Administrative Hearings
This information firmly places the document within the purview of this Arizona-based administrative office.
Core Components of the Decision Template
The template is systematically organized to ensure all critical information for a legal decision is captured and presented clearly.
1. Case Identification
The header section is designed to uniquely identify the matter being adjudicated.
• Case Number: The document includes a field for a unique identifier, denoted as No. «Matter Matter ID».
• Matter Notes: A placeholder, «Matter Notes», is provided at the top, likely for a case title, subject matter, or other essential preliminary information.
2. Hearing and Participant Details
The template formalizes the record of the hearing and its attendees.
• Hearing Information: A dedicated HEARING: section is included to record the specifics of the hearing itself, such as the date and nature of the proceedings.
• Appearances: A section labeled APPEARANCES: is designated for listing the parties and representatives who were present.
• Presiding Judge: The decision is attributed to a specific judge, identified by the placeholder ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: «Professional Full Name».
3. Decision and Execution
The concluding section of the template is structured for the formal issuance and authentication of the judge’s decision.
• Date of Decision: The document is dated with the line: Done this day, «Today: July 4, 1996».
• Judge’s Signature: A formal signature line is provided for the judge: /s/ «Professional Full Name» Administrative Law Judge.
4. Transmission Protocol
The template includes explicit instructions for the document’s dissemination after being finalized.
• Method of Delivery: The document specifies it is “Transmitted electronically to:”.
• Recipient Information: It contains placeholders to detail the recipient, including their full name («Client Contact Full Name»), title («Client Contact Title»), and organization («Client Contact Company»).
Analysis of Placeholder Fields
The template’s functionality relies on a series of placeholder fields, which reveal the specific data points required to complete a formal decision document.
Placeholder Field
Inferred Purpose
«Matter Notes»
To be replaced with the case title, subject, or other key contextual notes.
«Matter Matter ID»
The unique docket or case number assigned to the administrative matter.
«Professional Full Name»
The full name of the presiding Administrative Law Judge; used in two locations.
«Today: July 4, 1996»
The specific date on which the judge finalizes and issues the decision.
«Client Contact Full Name»
The full name of the primary contact person receiving the decision.
«Client Contact Title»
The professional title of the recipient.
«Client Contact Company»
The company or organization to which the recipient belongs.
Study Guide – 18F-H1717040-REL
Study Guide: Administrative Law Judge Decision Document
This guide provides a detailed review of the structure, components, and terminology found within the provided document template from the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Quiz: Short Answer Questions
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, based solely on the information provided in the source document.
1. What is the official name and full address of the government body that issues this document?
2. What is the formal title of the document, and what is the title of the official who signs it?
3. How is the document delivered to its intended recipient after being finalized?
4. Identify two placeholders in the document that are used to specify the unique details of a particular case.
5. What two distinct sections are designated in the body of the document’s template, apart from the header and signature blocks?
6. Who is the specific audience for the electronic transmission of this document, as indicated by the placeholders?
7. What information is located in the header of the document?
8. Describe the function of the placeholder «Professional Full Name» in the context of this document.
9. What action is indicated as being completed on the date specified by the «Today: July 4, 1996» placeholder?
10. Where is the Office of Administrative Hearings located within its building?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The issuing body is the Office of Administrative Hearings. Its full address is 1740 West Adams Street, Lower Level, Phoenix, Arizona 85007.
2. The formal title of the document is “ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION.” The official who signs the document holds the title of “Administrative Law Judge.”
3. After being finalized and signed, the document is “Transmitted electronically” to the designated client contact.
4. The placeholders «Matter Notes» and No. «Matter Matter ID» are used to specify the unique details of a case. These likely correspond to a short description or title of the matter and its official case number.
5. The two distinct sections designated in the body of the template are “HEARING” and “APPEARANCES.” These sections are intended to contain details about the proceeding and the parties involved.
6. The audience for the electronic transmission is a specific individual identified by placeholders for their full name («Client Contact Full Name»), professional title («Client Contact Title»), and company («Client Contact Company»).
7. The header contains the name of the issuing body, the Office of Administrative Hearings, and its physical address. It also includes the case identifier («Matter Matter ID») and a space for case notes («Matter Notes»).
8. The placeholder «Professional Full Name» appears twice. It is used for the name of the presiding Administrative Law Judge in the main body and again above the signature line to indicate which judge authored and signed the decision.
9. The date placeholder signifies when the decision was officially completed and signed by the Administrative Law Judge. The document states, “Done this day,” followed by the date.
10. The Office of Administrative Hearings is located on the “Lower Level” of the building at 1740 West Adams Street.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage a deeper, more analytical understanding of the document. Formulate a comprehensive response to each prompt.
1. Describe the structure and key components of the “ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION” document as presented in the source. What does this structure suggest about the formal legal process it represents?
2. Analyze the role of placeholders (e.g., «Matter Matter ID», «Professional Full Name», «Client Contact Company») in this document. Discuss their function in transforming a generic template into a case-specific official record.
3. Based on the information provided, explain the complete procedural flow of this document, from its creation and signing by an Administrative Law Judge to its final delivery.
4. Discuss the significance of the “Office of Administrative Hearings” and the “Administrative Law Judge” in the context of the legal system, as implied by the details in this document template.
5. Evaluate the methods of communication and record-keeping indicated in the source text (e.g., electronic transmission, formal titling, unique case identifiers). How do these elements contribute to the document’s authority and administrative efficiency?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge
The title of the presiding official within the Office of Administrative Hearings who signs and issues the formal decision.
Administrative Law Judge Decision
The formal title of the document, indicating it is the official ruling resulting from a hearing conducted by an Administrative Law Judge.
Appearances
A designated section in the document template, intended to formally list the parties and/or legal counsel who participated in the hearing.
Hearing
A designated section in the document template, referring to the formal proceeding where arguments and evidence were presented before the Administrative Law Judge.
Matter Matter ID
A placeholder for the unique numerical or alphanumerical identifier assigned to a specific legal case or matter.
Matter Notes
A placeholder at the top of the document, likely used for a brief title or summary description of the legal case.
Office of Administrative Hearings
The governmental body, located in Phoenix, Arizona, that is responsible for conducting hearings and issuing administrative law decisions.
Transmitted electronically
The official method specified for the delivery of the finalized and signed decision document to the designated recipient.
Blog Post – 18F-H1717040-REL
What a Blank Legal Form Reveals About the Systems We Live In
Introduction: The Stories Hidden in Plain Sight
We tend to see legal documents as the epitome of boring: dense, intimidating, and irrelevant until we’re forced to deal with them. They are the paperwork we ignore, the fine print we scroll past. But what if even the most mundane administrative form held surprising insights into the systems that shape our society? A closer look at a template for an “ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION” from the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona, reveals just that. This single page exposes the inherent tension in modern justice: the system’s need for standardized, machine-like efficiency clashing with the unique, messy human stories it is built to process. Let’s explore the lessons hidden within its structure.
The Unexpected Takeaways
The first thing one notices is not a dramatic narrative but a series of placeholders: «Matter Matter ID», «Matter Notes», and «Professional Full Name». Running down the left margin are line numbers, 1 through 30, a tool for absolute precision, allowing legal professionals to reference exact parts of the document in future arguments. This is not a unique script for a high-stakes battle; it is a template, a fill-in-the-blanks form.
This reality stands in stark contrast to the dramatic courtroom scenes portrayed in media. The day-to-day process of justice is less about impassioned speeches and more about systematic procedure. From a systems analyst’s perspective, this banality is a cornerstone of fairness. Templates, line numbers, and standardization are mechanisms designed to reduce variance and ensure predictable outputs. They ensure each case is processed through the same structural lens, making justice a repeatable, and therefore equitable, procedure. But within this rigid template, the system must still make space for the very thing it seeks to control: people.
While the format is rigid, it is ultimately a vessel for human conflict. The fields for APPEARANCES and the ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE are waiting for human names. But the analysis deepens when we see the recipient information: «Client Contact Full Name», «Client Contact Title», and «Client Contact Company». The system needs to know not just who you are, but what you do and who you represent.
This form acts as an input protocol, designed to convert a complex human narrative into structured, machine-readable data for the legal system. Each filled-out template signifies a human story—a dispute, a claim, a need—being processed. It reveals that the system sees people not just as individuals, but as actors within a larger organizational and economic context. It’s a framework built to contain the messiness of human affairs, reminding us that even our most personal problems must be assigned a title and a case number to be resolved. And this system, designed to process human data, is itself grounded in a very real place.
The law can feel like an abstract, untouchable force. Yet, printed at the top of the form is a concrete, physical location: Office of Administrative Hearings 1740 West Adams Street, Lower Level Phoenix, Arizona 85007.
This small detail grounds the entire process in reality. The law isn’t just an idea; it’s an institution run by people working in a specific building. Decisions that impact lives are made not in some ethereal cloud of authority, but in a lower-level office on West Adams Street. This detail demystifies the system, making it more tangible and, perhaps, more accountable. And it is in this physical building, steeped in procedural tradition, that we find the most telling signs of adaptation to a new world.
The document announces its formal gravity with an almost archaic header: IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS. This language evokes a sense of place, history, and tradition. Yet, this tradition is forced to confront modernity in a few subtle keystrokes. Below the formal signature line for the judge, we find /s/ «Professional Full Name».
That /s/ is a ghost in the machine. It is a modern typographic convention signifying a digital signature, a symbol that represents the authority of a handwritten signature in an electronic context. This quiet nod to the digital age is confirmed by the final line on the page: Transmitted electronically. The juxtaposition is powerful. A document that begins with the formal weight of a physical office ends with the frictionless speed of digital transmission. This, combined with a legacy placeholder date of «Today: July 4, 1996», paints a perfect picture of an institution in transition, holding onto its analog legacy while operating with the tools of the present.
Conclusion: Finding Meaning in the Margins
Insightful truths about our society are not always found in grand pronouncements. Sometimes, they are quietly embedded in the structure of administrative paperwork, revealing the constant negotiation between systematic order and human reality. By looking closely at the mundane, we uncover the logic, values, and contradictions of the complex world we have built—a world of templates designed to process unique lives, and of digital signatures that carry the weight of centuries of law.
What other everyday documents do we overlook, and what stories might they tell if we looked closer?
Briefing on the Administrative Law Judge Decision Document
Executive Summary
The source material provides a standardized template for an “Administrative Law Judge Decision” issued by the Office of Administrative Hearings located in Phoenix, Arizona. The document is structured to formalize the outcome of an administrative hearing, delineating key procedural and case-specific information. Its core components include sections for case identification, hearing details, participant appearances, and the presiding judge’s official signature. A notable feature is the explicit protocol for electronic transmission of the final decision to a designated client contact, indicating a formalized digital workflow. The template utilizes a series of placeholders to be populated with specific details for each case.
Document Origin and Jurisdiction
The document template originates from a specific governmental body, establishing its context and authority within an administrative legal framework.
• Issuing Authority: Office of Administrative Hearings
This information firmly places the document within the purview of this Arizona-based administrative office.
Core Components of the Decision Template
The template is systematically organized to ensure all critical information for a legal decision is captured and presented clearly.
1. Case Identification
The header section is designed to uniquely identify the matter being adjudicated.
• Case Number: The document includes a field for a unique identifier, denoted as No. «Matter Matter ID».
• Matter Notes: A placeholder, «Matter Notes», is provided at the top, likely for a case title, subject matter, or other essential preliminary information.
2. Hearing and Participant Details
The template formalizes the record of the hearing and its attendees.
• Hearing Information: A dedicated HEARING: section is included to record the specifics of the hearing itself, such as the date and nature of the proceedings.
• Appearances: A section labeled APPEARANCES: is designated for listing the parties and representatives who were present.
• Presiding Judge: The decision is attributed to a specific judge, identified by the placeholder ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: «Professional Full Name».
3. Decision and Execution
The concluding section of the template is structured for the formal issuance and authentication of the judge’s decision.
• Date of Decision: The document is dated with the line: Done this day, «Today: July 4, 1996».
• Judge’s Signature: A formal signature line is provided for the judge: /s/ «Professional Full Name» Administrative Law Judge.
4. Transmission Protocol
The template includes explicit instructions for the document’s dissemination after being finalized.
• Method of Delivery: The document specifies it is “Transmitted electronically to:”.
• Recipient Information: It contains placeholders to detail the recipient, including their full name («Client Contact Full Name»), title («Client Contact Title»), and organization («Client Contact Company»).
Analysis of Placeholder Fields
The template’s functionality relies on a series of placeholder fields, which reveal the specific data points required to complete a formal decision document.
Placeholder Field
Inferred Purpose
«Matter Notes»
To be replaced with the case title, subject, or other key contextual notes.
«Matter Matter ID»
The unique docket or case number assigned to the administrative matter.
«Professional Full Name»
The full name of the presiding Administrative Law Judge; used in two locations.
«Today: July 4, 1996»
The specific date on which the judge finalizes and issues the decision.
«Client Contact Full Name»
The full name of the primary contact person receiving the decision.
«Client Contact Title»
The professional title of the recipient.
«Client Contact Company»
The company or organization to which the recipient belongs.
Briefing on the Administrative Law Judge Decision Document
Executive Summary
The source material provides a standardized template for an “Administrative Law Judge Decision” issued by the Office of Administrative Hearings located in Phoenix, Arizona. The document is structured to formalize the outcome of an administrative hearing, delineating key procedural and case-specific information. Its core components include sections for case identification, hearing details, participant appearances, and the presiding judge’s official signature. A notable feature is the explicit protocol for electronic transmission of the final decision to a designated client contact, indicating a formalized digital workflow. The template utilizes a series of placeholders to be populated with specific details for each case.
Document Origin and Jurisdiction
The document template originates from a specific governmental body, establishing its context and authority within an administrative legal framework.
• Issuing Authority: Office of Administrative Hearings
This information firmly places the document within the purview of this Arizona-based administrative office.
Core Components of the Decision Template
The template is systematically organized to ensure all critical information for a legal decision is captured and presented clearly.
1. Case Identification
The header section is designed to uniquely identify the matter being adjudicated.
• Case Number: The document includes a field for a unique identifier, denoted as No. «Matter Matter ID».
• Matter Notes: A placeholder, «Matter Notes», is provided at the top, likely for a case title, subject matter, or other essential preliminary information.
2. Hearing and Participant Details
The template formalizes the record of the hearing and its attendees.
• Hearing Information: A dedicated HEARING: section is included to record the specifics of the hearing itself, such as the date and nature of the proceedings.
• Appearances: A section labeled APPEARANCES: is designated for listing the parties and representatives who were present.
• Presiding Judge: The decision is attributed to a specific judge, identified by the placeholder ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: «Professional Full Name».
3. Decision and Execution
The concluding section of the template is structured for the formal issuance and authentication of the judge’s decision.
• Date of Decision: The document is dated with the line: Done this day, «Today: July 4, 1996».
• Judge’s Signature: A formal signature line is provided for the judge: /s/ «Professional Full Name» Administrative Law Judge.
4. Transmission Protocol
The template includes explicit instructions for the document’s dissemination after being finalized.
• Method of Delivery: The document specifies it is “Transmitted electronically to:”.
• Recipient Information: It contains placeholders to detail the recipient, including their full name («Client Contact Full Name»), title («Client Contact Title»), and organization («Client Contact Company»).
Analysis of Placeholder Fields
The template’s functionality relies on a series of placeholder fields, which reveal the specific data points required to complete a formal decision document.
Placeholder Field
Inferred Purpose
«Matter Notes»
To be replaced with the case title, subject, or other key contextual notes.
«Matter Matter ID»
The unique docket or case number assigned to the administrative matter.
«Professional Full Name»
The full name of the presiding Administrative Law Judge; used in two locations.
«Today: July 4, 1996»
The specific date on which the judge finalizes and issues the decision.
«Client Contact Full Name»
The full name of the primary contact person receiving the decision.
«Client Contact Title»
The professional title of the recipient.
«Client Contact Company»
The company or organization to which the recipient belongs.
