Tag Archives: J. Roger Wood

Park, Denise vs. Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1213010-BFS-rhg
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2014-01-17
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Denise Park Counsel J. Roger Wood
Respondent Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association Counsel Jonathon V. O’Steen

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1247
A.R.S. § 33-1248
A.R.S. § 33-1250
A.R.S. § 33-1258

Outcome Summary

The Director accepted the ALJ's recommendation on rehearing. The Petitioner prevailed on claims regarding maintenance of common areas (weeds, wall) and failure to hold elections. The HOA was ordered to comply with statutes and prove weed control. Claims regarding open meetings were dismissed because the Petitioner failed to attend. Claims regarding financial records were dismissed due to the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse half ($1,000) of the filing fee directly to the Petitioner.

Key Issues & Findings

Maintenance of common elements

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to maintain common areas, citing overflowing trash, weeds, and a broken wall. The ALJ found the evidence established these failures.

Orders: Respondent ordered to comply with statute and provide proof that weeds in common areas have been eliminated or properly controlled.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1247

Open meetings

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to conduct open meetings. The HOA proved notice was mailed for the May 24, 2012 meeting.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_lose

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1248

Voting and proxies

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to hold proper elections. The HOA admitted no election was held at the annual meeting because only three members attended.

Orders: Respondent ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1250 in the future.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1250

Association financial and other records

Petitioner requested financial records in August 2011 which were not provided until Jan/Feb 2012 (late).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_lose

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 12-541(5)

Decision Documents

12F-H1213010-BFS-rhg Decision – 370568.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:28:29 (41.0 KB)

12F-H1213010-BFS-rhg Decision – 376532.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:28:29 (212.0 KB)

**Case Summary: Park v. Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association**
**Case No.** 12F-H1213010-BFS-rhg
**Nature of Proceeding:** Administrative Rehearing

**Overview**
This summary addresses the **rehearing** of a dispute between Denise Park (Petitioner), a condominium owner, and the Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association (Respondent). While an original decision was issued in March 2013 finding the Respondent liable for three violations, the rehearing in November 2013 and subsequent Final Order modified these findings based on a statute of limitations defense,.

**Procedural History and Original Decision**
Petitioner originally alleged four statutory violations: failure to maintain common areas, failure to conduct open meetings, failure to hold elections, and failure to provide financial information.
* **Original Outcome:** In the March 28, 2013 decision, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the Petitioner on three counts (maintenance, elections, and financial records) and ordered the Respondent to reimburse $1,500 of the filing fee.

**Rehearing Proceedings and Legal Analysis**
The rehearing was conducted on November 20, 2013. The ALJ re-evaluated the evidence and new legal arguments regarding the four alleged violations,.

**1. Maintenance of Common Areas (A.R.S. § 33-1247)**
* **Issue:** Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to repair a broken wall, control weeds, and provide adequate trash services,.
* **Argument:** Respondent argued that maintenance was deferred because Petitioner and others failed to pay dues,.
* **Ruling:** **Violation Affirmed.** Evidence established the common areas were not maintained (broken wall, weeds, peeling paint). Although the Respondent performed repairs *after* the original hearing, the ALJ ruled that post-hearing remedial actions did not alter the fact that the violation existed at the time of the petition,.

**2. Open Meetings (A.R.S. § 33-1248)**
* **Issue:** Petitioner claimed she did not receive notice of the annual meeting.
* **Ruling:** **Violation Not Found.** The ALJ found that the Respondent mailed the notice in accordance with the statute. The Petitioner’s failure to attend or receive the notice did not constitute a violation by the HOA,. This upheld the original finding.

**3. Elections (A.R.S. § 33-1250)**
* **Issue:** The HOA failed to hold elections for officers.
* **Argument:** Respondent argued no election was required because only three members attended the meeting, and all agreed to continue in their current officer roles,.
* **Ruling:** **Violation Affirmed.** The ALJ ruled that the HOA failed to hold proper elections as required by state statute and the Association's Bylaws.

**4. Financial Records (A.R.S. § 3

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Denise Park (Petitioner)
    Owner of three condominium units
  • Kevin R. Harper (Attorney)
    Harper Law, PLC
    Receiving mail for Petitioner in Final Order; listed as Respondent's attorney in initial hearing decision text
  • J. Roger Wood (Attorney)
    J. Roger Wood PLLC
    Represented Petitioner in rehearing

Respondent Side

  • Carol Ann Klagge (Treasurer)
    Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association
    Board member; witness
  • Jay Klagge (Secretary)
    Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association
    Board member
  • Tony Sturgeon (Vice President)
    Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association
    Board member
  • Helen Bartels (Board Member)
    Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association
    Witness; became board member after March 28, 2013
  • Jonathon V. O’Steen (Attorney)
    O’Steen & Harrison, PLC
    Represented Respondent in rehearing and final order; listed as Petitioner's attorney in initial hearing decision text

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Joni Cage (Complaint Program Manager)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety

Park, Denise vs. Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1213010-BFS-rhg
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date 2014-01-17
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Denise Park Counsel J. Roger Wood
Respondent Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association Counsel Jonathon V. O’Steen

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1247
A.R.S. § 33-1248
A.R.S. § 33-1250
A.R.S. § 33-1258

Outcome Summary

The Director accepted the ALJ's decision on rehearing. The Petitioner prevailed on 2 of 4 issues (maintenance and elections). The Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner $1,000.00 (half the filing fee) and provide proof of weed control in common areas.

Why this result: Petitioner lost the open meetings issue due to failure to attend despite notice, and the financial records issue due to the one-year statute of limitations.

Key Issues & Findings

Maintenance of common areas

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to maintain common areas, citing a broken wall, weeds, and overflowing trash containers. The Tribunal found credible evidence of these conditions.

Orders: HOA ordered to comply with statute; eliminate or control weeds within 90 days and provide proof.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 73
  • 76
  • 133
  • 138
  • 139

Open meetings

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to conduct open meetings. The Tribunal found notice was mailed but Petitioner failed to attend.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_lose

Cited:

  • 73
  • 134

Proper elections

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to hold proper elections. The Tribunal found no election was held at the annual meeting.

Orders: HOA ordered to fully comply with election statutes in the future.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 73
  • 135
  • 138

Financial information

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to provide requested financial information. While the HOA failed to provide records within 10 days, the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_lose

Cited:

  • 73
  • 136
  • 137

Decision Documents

12F-H1213010-BFS Decision – 334123.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:10:12 (205.6 KB)

12F-H1213010-BFS Decision – 370568.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:10:12 (41.0 KB)

12F-H1213010-BFS Decision – 376532.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:10:13 (212.0 KB)

**Case Summary: Denise Park v. Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association**
**Case No. 12F-H1213010-BFS**

**Overview**
This case involves a petition filed by Denise Park (Petitioner) against the Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association (Respondent) before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The Petitioner, an owner of three condominium units, alleged that the Respondent violated multiple provisions of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) regarding planned communities. The proceedings included an initial hearing on March 28, 2013, and a rehearing on November 20, 2013.

**Key Allegations and Issues**
The Petitioner charged the Respondent with four specific violations:
1. **Failure to maintain common areas** (A.R.S. § 33-1247), specifically regarding a broken wall, weeds, peeling paint, and insufficient trash containers.
2. **Failure to conduct open meetings** (A.R.S. § 33-1248).
3. **Failure to hold proper elections** (A.R.S. § 33-1250).
4. **Failure to provide financial information** within the statutory timeframe (A.R.S. § 33-1258).

**Arguments**
* **Petitioner:** Park testified that common areas were neglected, trash bins were overflowing, and she had not received proper notice of meetings or elections. She also argued the Association failed to provide requested financial records until after she filed her petition.
* **Respondent:** The Association argued that maintenance issues resulted from financial struggles caused by unpaid dues, including dues owed by the Petitioner. Regarding meetings, the Treasurer testified that notice for the May 2012 meeting was mailed to Park, but she did not attend. Regarding elections, the Association argued that because only three members attended the meeting—all of whom were current officers willing to continue—no formal election was necessary. On rehearing, the Respondent raised a defense regarding the statute of limitations for the financial records claim.

**Findings of Fact and Legal Conclusions**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision on rehearing, which modified the initial findings:

1. **Maintenance (Violation Found):** The ALJ found the Association failed to maintain common areas, citing the broken wall and weeds. Although the Association performed repairs after the initial hearing, the violation was substantiated at the time of the complaint.
2. **Open Meetings (No Violation):** The ALJ found the Association did hold

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Denise Park (petitioner)
    Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association (Member)
    Owner of three condominium units
  • J. Roger Wood (attorney)
    J. Roger Wood PLLC
    Represented Petitioner in rehearing

Respondent Side

  • Carol Ann Klagge (witness)
    Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association
    Treasurer; owns three units
  • Jay Klagge (board member)
    Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association
    Secretary
  • Tony Sturgeon (board member)
    Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association
    Vice-President
  • Helen Bartels (witness)
    Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association
    Became board member after March 28, 2013 hearing
  • Jonathon V. O’Steen (attorney)
    O’Steen & Harrison, PLC
    Represented Respondent in rehearing; listed as Petitioner's attorney in initial hearing decision
  • Kevin R. Harper (attorney)
    Harper Law, PLC
    Represented Respondent in initial hearing; Final Order mailing list lists 'Denise Park c/o Harper Law PLC'

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Joni Cage (Complaint Program Manager)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety

Steadman, Lorinda and John -v- Esquire Village Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 11F-H1112004-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-04-09
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Lorinda and John Steadman Counsel J. Roger Wood
Respondent Esquire Village Homeowners Association Counsel Joseph Tadano

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1808

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioners, finding that the Gadsden flag is a protected flag under A.R.S. § 33-1808 as it was historically an official flag of the Marine Corps. The HOA's determination of a violation was improper, and the fines were ordered withdrawn. The HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioners' filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Restriction on flying the Gadsden flag

Petitioners challenged the HOA's assessment of fines for flying the Gadsden flag. The HOA argued the flag was not protected under A.R.S. § 33-1808. The ALJ determined that because the Gadsden flag was historically an official flag of the U.S. Marine Corps, it fell under the statutory protection for official service flags, regardless of whether it is currently used as the primary official flag.

Orders: Respondent is to take appropriate action to reflect that the flying of the Gadsden flag was not a violation and withdraw the assessment of any fees imposed. Respondent shall pay Petitioners their filing fee of $550.00.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)

Decision Documents

11F-H1112004-BFS Decision – 289742.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:39 (89.7 KB)

11F-H1112004-BFS Decision – 292654.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:39 (60.2 KB)

Based on the provided sources, here is a summary of the hearing proceedings for Case No. 11F-H1112004-BFS.

**Case Overview**
* **Case Title:** *Lorinda and John Steadman v. Esquire Village Homeowners Association*
* **Date of Hearing:** March 22, 2012
* **Judge:** Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
* **Final Decision Date:** Certified May 15, 2012,

**Key Facts**
Petitioners Lorinda and John Steadman received approval in 2008 to install a flagpole in their rear yard, subject to compliance with state statutes regarding flag displays,. In late 2010, a dispute arose when the Petitioners began flying the Gadsden flag,.

In February 2011, the Respondent (Esquire Village Homeowners Association) issued two $50 fines against the Petitioners,. The Association claimed the Gadsden flag was not a protected flag under A.R.S. § 33-1808 as it existed at the time,. The Petitioners appealed these fines to the HOA Board without success before filing a petition with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

**Main Legal Issues**
The central issue was whether the Gadsden flag was protected under the version of A.R.S. § 33-1808 in effect prior to July 2011,. Specifically, the proceedings focused on whether the Gadsden flag qualified as "an official or replica flag of the United States army, navy, air force, marine corps".

**Key Arguments**
* **Respondent’s Position:** The Association argued that the Architectural Review Committee had the authority to regulate aesthetic improvements visible from the street,. The Board President testified that she researched military manuals and consulted informally with legislative counsel, concluding the Gadsden flag was not a "current" official flag and therefore not protected,.
* **Petitioners’ Position:** The Petitioners argued the flag was protected by statute. They presented an Arizona State Senate Issue Brief stating HOAs cannot prohibit U.S. military flags and provided evidence indicating the Gadsden flag’s historical association with the Marine Corps,.

**Legal Analysis and Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that A.R.S. § 33-1808 was determinative over the Association’s aesthetic regulations,.

In analyzing the statute, the Judge noted the text protected "an official or replica flag" of the armed forces. The Judge reasoned that the use of "an" suggested any one of a number of official flags, and the statute notably lacked the word "current". Therefore, to enjoy statutory protection, the Petitioners only needed to prove the Gadsden flag was an official flag of a branch of the armed forces *at some time*.

The ALJ found the preponderance of the evidence showed the Gadsden flag was, at some time, an official flag of the United States Marine Corps.

**Outcome and Order**
The Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioners. The decision included the following orders:
1. **Violation Dismissed:** The Respondent’s determination of

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Lorinda Steadman (petitioner)
    Homeowner
  • John Steadman (petitioner)
    Homeowner
  • L. Roger Wood (attorney)
    The Law Offices of J. Roger Wood, PLLC
    Listed as 'L. Roger Wood' in appearances and 'J. Roger Wood' in service list
  • Pat Haruff (witness)
    Coalition of HomeOwners for Rights and Education
    Director of Coalition; advocate for homeowners

Respondent Side

  • Esquire Village Homeowners Association (respondent)
    Entity named as Respondent
  • Joseph Tadano (attorney)
    Farley Sletos & Choate
  • Kevin Bishop (witness)
    Renaissance Community Partners
    President of the management company
  • Julie Frost (board member)
    Esquire Village Homeowners Association
    Board President; testified at hearing

Neutral Parties

  • Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Gene Palma (agency director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on transmission of decision
  • Cliff J. Vanell (agency director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the decision
  • Beth Soliere (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    ATTN recipient for transmission