Tag Archives: M. Philip Escolar

Debenedictis, Joseph vs. Sunrise Desert Vistas POA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1212006-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-10-02
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Joseph DeBenedictis Counsel M. Philip Escolar
Respondent Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

Paragraph 4.G

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition because the Petitioner failed to prove an existing violation of the CC&Rs. The Petitioner did not establish that a property transfer had occurred triggering the disputed assessment.

Why this result: Failure to prove an existing violation; the tribunal declined to rule on hypothetical future actions.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to impose initial regular assessment

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated CC&Rs by failing to collect a $400 assessment when parcels were transferred. Respondent argued the fee only applied to initial developer transfers.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Paragraph 4.G

Decision Documents

12F-H1212006-BFS Decision – 308828.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:38 (83.7 KB)

12F-H1212006-BFS Decision – 313213.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:38 (54.7 KB)

**Case Title:** *Joseph DeBenedictis v. Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association*
**Case Number:** 12F-H1212006-BFS

**Overview and Parties**
This matter came before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute between homeowner Joseph DeBenedictis (Petitioner) and the Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association (Respondent),. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

**Main Issues and Arguments**
The core legal issue was the interpretation and enforcement of "Paragraph 4.G" of the CC&Rs regarding a $400 initial regular assessment.

* **Petitioner’s Position:** The Petitioner argued that the CC&Rs required the Respondent to assess and collect a $400 fee every time a parcel within the community was transferred to a new party. The Petitioner claimed the Association violated the governing documents by failing to impose this fee,.
* **Respondent’s Position:** The Respondent argued that the $400 assessment was only applicable when a parcel was first transferred from the developer or divided from a larger parcel. Additionally, the Respondent presented evidence of a March 2011 settlement agreement from the Superior Court of Maricopa County. In that settlement, the Respondent had explicitly agreed *not* to assess this specific $400 fee against any past, present, or future Association members,.

**Hearing Proceedings**
An administrative hearing was held on September 12, 2012, presided over by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Tammy L. Eigenheer. The Petitioner bore the burden of proving that a violation of the CC&Rs occurred by a "preponderance of the evidence".

**Findings and Legal Analysis**
The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The decision focused on the lack of evidence regarding an actual violation rather than a definitive interpretation of the CC&R text itself.

* **Lack of Evidence:** The ALJ noted that even assuming, *arguendo*, that the Petitioner’s interpretation of the CC&Rs was correct, he failed to present evidence that a specific parcel transfer had occurred since the 2011 settlement agreement where the Respondent failed to collect the fee.
* **Existing vs. Future Violations:** The ALJ determined that while the settlement agreement indicated the Respondent's future intent regarding the fee, the Petitioner did not establish that an actual violation existed at the time of the hearing. The ALJ stated it would be inappropriate to address "possible future violations".

**Final Decision and Outcome**
* **ALJ Order:** On October 2, 2012, the ALJ ordered that the petition be dismissed, finding that no action was required of the Respondent.
* **Final Certification:** On November 7, 2012, the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety certified the ALJ’s ruling as the final administrative decision, as no action was taken to reject or modify it within the statutory timeframe.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Joseph DeBenedictis (petitioner)
    Sunrise Desert Vistas (Resident)
    Represented by M. Philip Escolar
  • M. Philip Escolar (attorney)
    Counsel for Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association (respondent)
    Organization/Association
  • Grace Violette (president)
    Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association
    Represented Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the decision
  • Holly Textor (recipient)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Gene Palma

Sallus, Suzanne vs. Sunrise Desert Vistas POA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1212008-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date 2012-10-02
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Suzanne Sallus Counsel M. Philip Escolar
Respondent Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1806

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1806 by failing to provide legally required resale disclosure documents directly to the purchaser within the statutory timeframe. The HOA's reliance on its website was deemed insufficient as the website did not contain all required information (specifically regarding financials and pending litigation).

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide resale disclosure documents

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to provide required documents upon pending sale of the property. Respondent argued directing the title agent to the website was sufficient. The ALJ found the website did not contain all required documents and that Respondent failed to disclose pending litigation.

Orders: Respondent ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1806 and provide copies of all required documents within 10 days; Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner filing fee of $550.00.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1806
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B)

Decision Documents

12F-H1212008-BFS Decision – 308830.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:57 (122.1 KB)

12F-H1212008-BFS Decision – 313396.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:58 (59.0 KB)

**Case Title:** *Suzanne Sallus v. Sunrise Desert Vistas POA*
**Case Number:** 12F-H1212008-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

### **Proceedings and Key Facts**
On September 12, 2012, Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer presided over a hearing regarding a petition filed by Suzanne Sallus (Petitioner) against the Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association (Respondent). The dispute arose from Petitioner's purchase of a property within the community in early 2011.

Petitioner alleged that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1806 by failing to provide required disclosure documents within ten days of receiving notice of the pending sale,. On March 12, 2011, Petitioner's title agency contacted Respondent requesting information on fees and assessments. Respondent replied by email providing assessment figures and directing the agent to the association's website for the CC&Rs and Bylaws. Escrow closed on April 2, 2011, without Petitioner receiving the full statutory disclosures,.

### **Main Legal Issues and Arguments**
The central legal question was whether Respondent’s actions satisfied the disclosure requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1806.

* **Adequacy of Electronic Delivery:** Respondent argued that directing Petitioner’s agent to the association's website satisfied the requirement to provide documents in "paper or electronic format". The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rejected this argument because the website did not contain all required documents. Specifically, the website's "Financials" page merely stated that reports were available "on request," which did not meet the statutory obligation to deliver the current operating budget and most recent annual financial report.

* **Missing Statements:** Respondent admitted it failed to provide a dated statement containing mandatory disclosures, including insurance coverage details, reserve amounts, and a statement regarding alteration violations.

* **Pending Litigation Disclosure:** A.R.S. § 33-1806 requires associations to summarize pending lawsuits. Respondent argued that two lawsuits (*Violette* and *Given*) did not need to be disclosed because settlement agreements were signed in February 2011. However, the ALJ determined that because the official dismissals for these cases were not entered by the Superior Court until March 16 and March 21, 2011—after Respondent received notice of the sale—the lawsuits were legally "pending" and should have been disclosed.

### **Final Decision and Outcome**
The ALJ ruled in favor of Petitioner, concluding that she established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1806,.

**The Order required Respondent to:**
1. Comply with the statute and provide Petitioner with copies of all required documents within ten days.
2. Reimburse Petitioner the $550.00 filing fee within 30 days.

The decision was certified as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on November 8, 2012, after the Department took no action to reject or modify the ALJ's ruling,.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Suzanne Sallus (Petitioner)
    Sallus Family Trust
    Served as member of SDV Board of Directors from May 2011 through April 2012
  • M. Philip Escolar (attorney)
    Escolar Law Office
    Represented Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Grace Violette (board member)
    Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association
    President of Respondent; represented Respondent at hearing; also named in separate lawsuit dismissed March 2011

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ decision
  • Holly Textor (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on mailing distribution