Tag Archives: Self-represented

Briefing: Kansfield vs. Del Webb at Dove Mountain Community Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative hearing and subsequent decision regarding the dispute between Petitioners Karen and Marenis Kansfield and the Respondent, Del Webb at Dove Mountain Community Association, Inc. (Case No. 26F-H045-REL).

The conflict originated from an incident on December 5, 2025, during a community Christmas party. The Kansfields were forcefully ordered to leave the event by a community employee, Barb Truman, on the grounds that they had not purchased tickets in their own names but were instead using tickets transferred from their neighbors, the Secotts. The Kansfields alleged that the Association violated several articles of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), specifically regarding rights to common area use, due process for the suspension of rights, and the requirement for similar treatment of members.

Following a hearing on July 6, 2026, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Velva Moses-Thompson issued a decision on July 27, 2026, dismissing the petition. The ALJ concluded that the Association acted within its rights to enforce a non-transferable ticket policy and that the Kansfields failed to prove a violation of the CC&Rs, despite the acknowledged unprofessional conduct of the Association’s staff.

Key Themes and Analysis

1. The Validity of "Non-Transferable" Ticket Policies

A central point of contention was whether the Association had a formal rule prohibiting the transfer of event registrations.

• Petitioner Perspective: The Kansfields argued that no written rule in the governing documents prohibited ticket transfers. They maintained that they had verbal permission from an employee, Mitch Allen, to use the Secotts' tickets.
• Respondent Perspective: The Association argued that while perhaps not explicitly in the CC&Rs, the Social Committee had a clear understanding and practice that tickets were non-transferable.
• ALJ Finding: The ALJ found that the Social Committee had indeed adopted a rule that tickets could not be transferred. This was corroborated by evidence that the Kansfields were instructed by their neighbor to "pretend" to be the Secotts, suggesting an awareness that a direct transfer was not permitted.

2. Common Area Access vs. Restricted Event Participation

The Kansfields alleged violations of Article II, Sections 2.1 and 2.2, which grant members non-exclusive easements to use and enjoy common areas and recreational facilities.

• The Conflict: The Kansfields viewed their removal from the Saguaro Center as a denial of their fundamental right to access community property.
• The Defense: The Association argued that these rights are subject to the Board’s authority to adopt rules and regulations, including limiting the number of occupants for specific events.
• Legal Conclusion: The ALJ ruled that the Association did not violate Article II. Because the Kansfields had not purchased tickets for the sold-out event, their right to access that specific event was legally restricted by the Association's occupancy and registration rules.

3. Employee Professionalism and Association Liability

The hearing revealed significant evidence of hostile behavior by community employee Barb Truman.

• The Incident: Witness testimony from Stacy Brown and the Kansfields established that Truman used profanity ("I don't get paid enough to put up with this s***"), shouted at the petitioners in the parking lot, and directed staff to call 911 despite no evidence of a physical threat.
• Association Response: The Association admitted the treatment was "poor" and "regrettable" and confirmed that Truman was disciplined by her employer, Associated Asset Management.
• Legal Distinction: The ALJ noted that while she "sympathizes with the way that the Kansfields were treated," unprofessional conduct by an employee does not automatically constitute a violation of the CC&Rs.

4. Due Process and Sanctions

The Kansfields argued under Article IV, Section 4.2, that they were entitled to notice and a hearing before their rights to the community center were suspended.

• Analysis: The Association contended that they were not "suspending" the Kansfields' membership rights in a general sense; they were merely enforcing the rules of a specific ticketed event.
• Legal Conclusion: The ALJ determined that Article IV gives the Board discretion to impose sanctions but does not create a duty to follow formal sanctioning procedures before requiring someone to leave an event for which they are not registered.

Important Quotes and Context

Testimony on the Incident

Stacy Brown (Witness): "The Del Webb Barb Truman… was getting very adamant… It was obvious that this was turning into something that was not comfortable… Barb got quite upset and followed them out the door… with very inappropriate comments… 'I don't make enough money to put up with your s***.'"

• Context: This testimony supported the Kansfields' claim of hostile treatment and showed that the incident was public, occurring in front of other residents and ruining the event's atmosphere.

The "Smoking Gun" for the Defense

Jason Smith (Respondent Counsel): "Mitch said all you need to do when you check in is say you're John and Carol Secott, your impersonators."

• Context: Smith read this from a text message (Exhibit A) sent by Carol Secott to Karen Kansfield. This quote was critical in proving that the petitioners knew they were not technically authorized to attend under their own names, undermining their claim of a "straightforward" right to access.

Petitioner Argument on Governing Documents

Karen Kansfield: "This case is about a straightforward but serious violation of our rights as homeowners… This was not a rules enforcement action. It was arbitrary and unequal denial of access."

• Context: This highlights the petitioners' core argument: that the Association's actions were not based on established law but were an arbitrary exercise of power.

Administrative Law Judge's Reasoning

ALJ Velva Moses-Thompson: "While the ALJ sympathizes with the way that the Kansfields were treated at the 2025 Christmas party, there was no evidence presented that Del Webb’s actions violated the provisions of the CC&Rs cited in the petition."

• Context: This quote from the final decision illustrates the legal boundary between "bad behavior" and "illegal violation of governing documents."

Summary of CC&R Allegations and Rulings

Actionable Insights

• Formalize Event Policies: Associations should ensure that "understanding" or "practices" regarding ticket transfers are codified in written rules and clearly printed on event flyers or registration forms to avoid claims of "arbitrary" enforcement.
• Separation of Conduct and Law: Management should be aware that while an employee's unprofessional behavior (like the use of profanity or unnecessary 911 calls) can lead to internal disciplinary action, it may not constitute a breach of the Association’s governing documents unless it specifically infringes on a defined right.
• Documentation of Rules: The use of "impersonators" in text messages served as significant evidence of a known rule violation. Parties should be aware that informal communications (texts, emails) are discoverable and carry high evidentiary weight in administrative hearings.
• Burden of Proof in "Similar Treatment" Claims: To succeed in a claim of unequal treatment (Article 12.4), a petitioner must provide specific evidence of "similarly situated" individuals who were treated differently. General assertions that others "likely" did the same thing are insufficient for a legal preponderance of evidence.

Briefing Document: Jill Faucher v. Redfield Park Unit Owners Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

The matter of Jill Faucher v. Redfield Park Unit Owners Association, Inc. (Case No. 26F-H056-REL) centers on a dispute regarding the classification of a failed roof drainage pipe and the subsequent responsibility for interior damage caused by water intrusion. The Petitioner, Jill Faucher, alleged that the Association violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 33-1212 and 33-1253, as well as several sections of the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

The core of the conflict involves a leak discovered in late September 2025. While the Association eventually repaired the failed drainage pipe, it denied responsibility for the resulting interior damage to the Petitioner's unit and refused to file a claim under its master insurance policy. The Association contended the pipe was a "limited common element" serving only the Petitioner’s unit, whereas the Petitioner and her expert witness argued it was a "common element" serving a shared monolithic roof. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark presided over the hearing on June 12, 2026, to determine whether the Association’s actions constituted a breach of statutory or governing document obligations.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Classification of the Infrastructure: Common vs. Limited Common Element

The primary technical dispute involves whether the failed drainage pipe is a "common element" (Association responsibility) or a "limited common element" (Owner responsibility for costs).

• Petitioner’s Position: The roof is a monolithic, shared structure with no partitions between units. Because the drainage system serves this shared structure, any failure within it affects the entire building infrastructure. The Petitioner cited CC&R Section 2.4(6), which states that items serving more than a single unit are common elements.
• Respondent’s Position: The Association argued that while the pipe is part of the common elements, it is specifically a "limited common element" because it serves only Unit 1009 and the adjacent unit, rather than the entire 68-unit community. They maintained that under Section 7.3, the maintenance of such elements—and certainly the interior damage resulting from their failure—is the owner's burden.

2. Timeliness of Response and Mitigation

A significant portion of the testimony focused on the 15-day interval between the initial report of the leak and the final repair.

The Petitioner argued that the 12-day delay in getting a contractor to the site caused a "visual stain" to evolve into significant ceiling collapse and mold growth. The Association defended the delay, citing the "inclement weather" of the rainy season and the unavailability of preferred vendors.

3. Insurance Obligations and A.R.S. § 33-1253

The dispute regarding the master insurance policy involves the Association's refusal to tender a claim.

• The Denial: The Association issued a written denial stating the damage was caused by "ordinary wear and tear," which they classified as a non-insurable event.
• The Deductible Factor: The Association further noted that the total cost of the pipe repair ($6,245) did not exceed the $10,000 water damage deductible.
• Statutory Compliance: Under A.R.S. § 33-1253, an Association must provide a written decision within 10 business days of a loss report. The Association argued they met this by providing the written denial and reasons on November 7 and November 21, 2025.

4. Expert Testimony on Causation and Standards

Christopher Ackerlund, a licensed contractor and public adjuster, provided testimony regarding the physical state of the property. He confirmed the "monolithic urethane foam roof" covered multiple units without separation. He argued that the failure occurred at a connection point (Fernco fitting) within the common area space (above the interior ceiling boundary). He emphasized that the lack of prompt mitigation allowed microbial growth and exacerbated structural damage.

Important Quotes with Context

On Component Classification

"The evidence will show that the failed pipe is part of the roof drainage system serving a shared roof structure and therefore constitutes a common element under the association's governing documents… the failure occurred outside my maintenance responsibilities." — Jill Faucher, Petitioner (Context: Opening statement regarding why the Association should be liable for all damages).

On Professional Observations

"Flat roofs are so pertinent because there's no pitch so the water doesn't shed off naturally… It is a shared drainage system on a monolithic non-division roof… the damages got exacerbated by not mitigating the water damage." — Christopher Ackerlund, Expert Witness (Context: Describing the roof's function and the necessity of immediate drying).

On the Association’s Legal Defense

"The association agrees that the roof and drainage pipe are a portion of the common elements but more particularly a limited common element… the amount of the repair did not exceed the water deductible amount of $10,000. The damage… was not caused by an insurable event." — Ashley Turner, Esq., Respondent Counsel (Context: Closing argument justifying the denial of the insurance claim and interior repairs).

On Maintenance Boundaries

"Such policy will provide coverage of the common elements only to the edge of the vertical stud walls… everything within the bounds of the planes just described is the responsibility of the owner of the unit." — Sandra Palaich, Board President (Context: Quoting CC&R Section 8.2B to support the "bare walls" insurance policy argument).

Actionable Insights

For Homeowners in Similar Disputes

• Documentation is Critical: The Petitioner’s use of time-stamped photographs (Exhibits 6.10–6.25) and a comprehensive email log (Exhibit 3.1) was essential in establishing the timeline of worsening damage.
• Expert Corroboration: Engaging a licensed professional early to provide a written report on causation can counter an Association’s "wear and tear" or "limited common element" designations.
• Understand the Deductible: If the cost of damage is lower than the Association's master policy deductible, the likelihood of a claim being tendered is minimal, shifting the focus to whether the Association was negligent in its maintenance duties.

For Association Boards and Management

• Statutory Timelines: To comply with A.R.S. § 33-1253, Boards must respond in writing within 10 business days regarding insurance decisions. Failure to do so, regardless of the merits of the claim, can be a statutory violation.
• Vendor Availability: Relying solely on "preferred vendors" during peak seasons can lead to delays that exacerbate damages. Having "vetted" secondary options may mitigate claims of negligence.
• Clarity in CC&Rs: The distinction between "Common Elements" and "Limited Common Elements" often leads to litigation. Boards should ensure that definitions of "utility fixtures" and "pipes" serving one vs. multiple units are clearly communicated to owners before incidents occur.

Legal Jurisdictional Note

The Administrative Law Judge noted that claims for "breach of contract" or "negligence" related to the interior of the unit may fall outside the specific jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal and might require separate civil litigation, though the tribunal can rule on the statutory and CC&R violations themselves.

Briefing Document: Snyder v. Las Hadas Villas Association (No. 21F-H2121032-REL)

Executive Summary

On April 7, 2021, Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella issued a decision regarding a dispute between Petitioner Carla J. Snyder and Respondent Las Hadas Villas Association. The case originated from a petition filed by Snyder on February 22, 2021, alleging that the Homeowners Association (HOA) violated Section 14.2 of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by failing to repair a defectively constructed roof.

The Petitioner sought $11,476.00 in damages, claiming that a lack of flashing in the roof’s construction led to water damage, mold, and wood rot in her garage and patio areas. The Respondent argued that the roof had been properly maintained and that the damages occurred in "exclusive use areas" (the patio and pergola), which are the owner's responsibility under Section 14.1.

Following a hearing on April 1, 2021, the Tribunal concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish a violation of the CC&Rs. The evidence showed that the Association had repaired the roof and installed flashing in 2015, and that the specific damage was likely caused by a previous owner’s refusal to address wood rot during a pergola renovation. The petition was dismissed.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Interpretation of Maintenance Responsibilities

The central conflict revolved around the distinction between "Common Elements" and "Exclusive Use Areas" as defined in the community documents:

• Association Responsibility (CC&R 14.2): The HOA is responsible for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of Common Elements, which include the exteriors of units, building walls, roofs, and drain pipes.
• Owner Responsibility (CC&R 14.1): Owners are responsible for their own units and any "exclusive use area" under their control, specifically mentioning balconies, patios, and fenced yards.
• Board Authority: Section 14.1 explicitly states that in the event of a dispute over responsibility, "the decision of the Board shall be conclusive."

2. Allegations of Construction and Design Flaws

The Petitioner’s case leaned heavily on the testimony of a general contractor, Ray Odom, and Dr. John Gilderbloom. They argued that the unit suffered from a "design flaw" because flashing—a standard component used to divert water—was allegedly missing from the roofline.

• Petitioner’s Claim: Water damage was inevitable because the wood was not waterproofed and lacked plastic sheathing behind the stucco.
• Respondent’s Rebuttal: The Association provided a "Roof Log" from 2015 showing that Westside Roofing had installed "new valley metal and metal flashings as needed." Additionally, a 2019 inspection by Payne Roofing concluded that the roof underlayment was in good condition and no work was required.

3. The Impact of Prior Ownership and Disclosures

A significant theme emerged regarding the actions of the unit’s previous owner. Evidence indicated that the previous owner was aware of the water damage and chose to "cut corners" during repairs:

• 99 Home Improvements Affidavit: A contractor testified that in 2019, the previous owner directed them to repair stucco over damaged and rotted wood rather than replacing the underlying material.
• Non-Disclosure: The Residential Seller Disclosure Advisory provided during the sale of the unit to Snyder failed to disclose these material facts regarding wood rot and previous water issues.

4. Jurisdiction and Remedial Limits

The Respondent successfully argued that the Petitioner was seeking a "finding of negligence" to support a future civil lawsuit, which falls outside the purview of the administrative hearing. Under Arizona statute (A.R.S. § 32-2199), the administrative remedy is limited to ordering compliance with community documents or issuing a civil penalty for a violation.

Important Quotes with Context

Actionable Insights

For Homeowners

• Thorough Pre-Purchase Inspections: The case highlights the risk of "hidden" damage. Buyers should seek comprehensive inspections that go beyond surface-level aesthetics, particularly in areas like pergolas and stucco where rot can be covered.
• Review of Seller Disclosures: Homeowners should verify the accuracy of the Residential Seller Disclosure Advisory. If a seller fails to disclose known material facts (like the 2019 stucco patch over rot), the buyer may have grounds for a civil lawsuit against the seller, as suggested by the HOA Board in this case.
• Understanding "Exclusive Use": Owners must clarify which exterior portions of their property are considered "exclusive use" versus "common elements" to understand their personal financial exposure for repairs.

For Associations

• Maintenance Logs as Evidence: The Respondent’s ability to produce a detailed "Roof Log" and specific invoices from 2015 was instrumental in proving that they had fulfilled their maintenance obligations regarding flashing.
• Clear Board Decisions: When the Board makes a determination on responsibility under CC&R 14.1, it should be formally documented. The fact that the Board had already twice denied Snyder's request for reimbursement before the hearing strengthened the Respondent’s position.
• Professional Inspections: Obtaining a third-party inspection (e.g., Payne Roofing in 2019) immediately after a complaint is lodged provides a contemporary record that can be used to refute claims of ongoing negligence.

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Stanton S. Sanders vs. Florence Gardens Mobile Home Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative law decision in Case No. 08F-H088007-BFS, heard before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The dispute centers on the authority of the Florence Gardens Mobile Home Association ("the Association") to levy assessments on adjacent lots owned by a single member.

The Petitioner, Stanton S. Sanders, challenged the Association's 2007 policy change which terminated a long-standing practice of waiving assessments for vacant lots adjacent to improved lots under common ownership. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the Association, dismissing the Petitioner’s complaint. The decision clarifies that the Association's primary governing documents—specifically the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws—provide the legal basis for assessments, and that internal policies or specific restrictive covenants regarding lot "combinations" for landscaping or deed restrictions do not override this fundamental taxing authority.

Analysis of Key Themes

1. The Legal Authority to Assess

The primary theme of the decision is the source of the Association’s power to levy assessments. The Petitioner argued that certain governing documents implied that adjoining lots should be treated as a single entity. However, the ALJ distinguished between documents that restrict land use and documents that establish corporate power.

• Articles of Incorporation: Article V, Section F grants the Association the power to levy assessments against the owners of each lot.
• Bylaws: Article XIII, Section 2 reinforces this power. The Bylaws also define a "Lot" as "any separate parcel of real property shown upon the plat."
• The Plat: Because the official Plat sets forth lots 1164 and 1165 as "separate and distinct," and no amendments to the Plat were recorded, the Association maintained the right to assess them individually.

2. Interpretation of "Single Lot" Provisions

A central conflict involved how to interpret language in the Declaration of Restrictions and CC&Rs that appeared to "combine" lots. The ALJ concluded that these provisions have limited scopes and do not apply to assessments:

• Paragraph 24 of the Declaration: States that parts of two adjoining lots shall be "deemed to constitute a single lot." The ALJ ruled this language is strictly limited to the deed restrictions within that specific Declaration.
• Section 4A of the CC&Rs: States that "combined lots will be considered as one lot." The ALJ determined this language is strictly limited to landscaping requirements.

3. Board Discretion and Policy Rescission

The case highlights the Board's authority to rescind prior policies. From 1996 to 2006, the Association had policies (1-96 and 3-98) that waived assessments for vacant adjoining lots. The Association rescinded these policies on June 6, 2006, during an open meeting. The ALJ found that because the new assessments were not imposed until 2008—after the waiver policies were officially rescinded—the Association acted within its legal authority and did not violate its own rules.

4. Statutory Interpretation: A.R.S. § 33-1802

The Petitioner alleged a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1802. The ALJ clarified a significant legal distinction: this statute sets forth definitions for planned communities but "does not impose any duties, rights or obligations on any person or legal entity." Consequently, a party cannot "violate" this specific statute in the context of an assessment dispute.

Important Quotes and Context

On Assessment Authority vs. Deed Restrictions

"The language [of Paragraph 24] is limited to those deed restrictions set forth in the Declaration and does not prohibit Respondent Association from levying assessments… because the power to levy assessments arises not from the Declaration, but from the Association’s Articles of Incorporation… and from Article XIII, Section 2 of the Bylaws."

Context: This quote explains why the ALJ rejected the Petitioner's argument that "single lot" language in the Declaration should prevent double assessments. It establishes a hierarchy where the Articles and Bylaws govern financial obligations.

On the Definition of a Lot

"Article II, Section 11… defines ‘Lot’ as ‘any separate parcel of real property shown upon the plat of real properties…’"

Context: This highlights the importance of the recorded Plat. Since the Plat still showed two distinct lots, they remained two distinct taxable units regardless of how the owner used them.

On Attorney's Fees in Administrative Hearings

"‘[W]e do not believe that an administrative agency can be characterized as a court so that a proceeding before it could be called an ‘action’ for purposes of A.R.S. section 12-341.01’ and that ‘there is no indication that the legislature intended section 12-341.01 to apply to attorney’s fees…’" (Quoting Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc.)

Context: Despite the Association being the prevailing party, the ALJ denied their request for attorney's fees. This explains that administrative tribunals in Arizona do not have the same fee-shifting powers as courts under the cited statutes.

Actionable Insights

For Association Boards

• Policy Audits: Boards have the authority to rescind long-standing waivers, provided the rescission occurs in a public meeting and adheres to the hierarchy of the Association’s governing documents.
• Clarity in CC&Rs: Language regarding "combined lots" should be explicitly tied to the specific intent (e.g., landscaping or building setbacks) to avoid ambiguity regarding financial assessments.
• Documentation Hierarchy: Ensure that assessment powers are clearly rooted in the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, as these are viewed as the primary authority over restrictive declarations.

For Property Owners

• Burden of Proof: In administrative hearings regarding HOA disputes, the Petitioner bears the burden of proof by a "preponderance of the evidence"—meaning they must prove their claim is "more likely true than not."
• Plat Reliance: If an owner wishes to treat two lots as one for financial purposes, they must likely seek a formal amendment to the recorded Plat, as the ALJ relies heavily on the Plat to define assessment units.
• Limited Scope of Statutes: Reliance on statutory definitions (such as A.R.S. § 33-1802) is insufficient to prove a violation of rights, as those sections may provide definitions without imposing actionable duties.

For Legal and Administrative Strategy

• Attorney's Fees: Parties should be aware that prevailing in an Arizona administrative hearing does not automatically entitle them to an award of attorney's fees, as these proceedings are not classified as "actions" under general fee-shifting statutes.

Final Order Summary