Jeremy R. Whittaker vs The Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Posted on June 5, 2025 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	25F-H041-REL
Agency	—
Tribunal	Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings / Department of Real Estate
Decision Date	2025-06-05
Administrative Law Judge	VMT
Outcome	complete
Filing Fees Refunded	—
Civil Penalties	—

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Jeremy R. Whittaker	Counsel	Self-represented
Respondent	The Val Vista Lakes Community Association	Counsel	Josh Bolen, Esq. (CHDB Law, LLP)

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H041-REL Decision – 1297701.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:40:30 (46.2 KB)

25F-H041-REL Decision – 1297767.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:40:33 (47.1 KB)

25F-H041-REL Decision – 1301723.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:40:38 (56.1 KB)

25F-H041-REL Decision – 1301746.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:40:42 (45.1 KB)

25F-H041-REL Decision – 1304724.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:40:47 (47.6 KB)

25F-H041-REL Decision – 1314414.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:40:52 (92.7 KB)

Briefing Doc – 25F-H041-REL

Briefing: Case No. 25F-H041-REL, Whittaker v. The Val Vista Community Association

Executive Summary

This briefing synthesizes the key events, arguments, and outcomes of the administrative case Jeremy R. Whittaker v. The Val Vista Community Association (No. 25F-H041-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The central dispute involved the Association’s failure to comply with its own bylaws during its 2023 Board of Directors election.

The Petitioner, Jeremy R. Whittaker, alleged that the Association violated Article IV, Section 3 of its bylaws by using a candidate application form that did not require the disclosure of familial ties or conflicts of interest. This issue became prominent when two board candidates, Diana Ebertshauser and Brodie Hurtado, did not disclose their familial relationship with a partner at the law firm hired to count election votes until after the election.

The Association admitted to the violation, which significantly narrowed the legal proceedings. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Velva Moses-Thompson focused the case exclusively on determining whether a civil penalty against the Association was warranted. Consequently, several motions and requests from the Petitioner to broaden the scope—including a motion to consolidate cases, attempts to argue attorney misconduct, and subpoenas for numerous witnesses—were denied as irrelevant to the single issue at hand.

In the final decision issued on June 5, 2025, the ALJ found that while the Association had indeed violated its bylaws, the Petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to justify a civil penalty. Despite the denial of a penalty, the Petitioner was declared the “prevailing party.” The Association was ordered to refund the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee and to ensure future compliance with its bylaws.

Case Overview and Parties

Detail

Description

Case Number

25F-H041-REL

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson

Petitioner

Jeremy R. Whittaker

Respondent

The Val Vista Community Association

Respondent’s Counsel

Josh Bolen, Esq. of CHDB Law, LLP

Core Allegation and Admitted Violation

Bylaw at Issue: Article IV, Section 3

The petition centered on a violation of the Association’s bylaws governing the election of its Board of Directors. The relevant section, Article IV, Section 3, mandates specific disclosures from candidates:

“Each candidate for the Board of Directors shall fill out an application which at minimum will require the candidate to disclose any familial, business or ownership relationships with other Directors or candidates; any current or anticipated conflicts of interest with the Association… and whether they have previously served on the on the Board.”

Nature of the Violation

The core of the case was the Association’s use of a non-compliant application form for its 2023 Board election.

• Deficient Application: The 2023 Board Candidate Application form failed to require candidates to disclose familial ties or other conflicts of interest as stipulated by the bylaws.

• Undisclosed Conflict: Board candidates Diana Ebertshauser and Brodie Hurtado did not disclose their familial ties to a partner at the law firm Carpenter Hazelwood. This disclosure was only made after the election, in which the firm was asked to count the votes.

• Respondent’s Admission: The Val Vista Community Association filed a written answer admitting that the candidate application forms supplied by the 2023 Board were not in compliance with Article IV, Section 3. This admission eliminated the need to litigate the facts of the violation itself.

Key Procedural Rulings and Hearing Scope

Following the Association’s admission, ALJ Velva Moses-Thompson strictly limited the scope of the proceedings to the single question of whether a civil penalty was appropriate. This focus resulted in several key rulings that shaped the case.

Narrowing the Hearing’s Scope

During the May 16, 2025 hearing, the ALJ explicitly defined the legal boundaries:

“The only way for the association to violate this bylaw is to fail to require the candidate to disclose any familial uh conflicts of interest. So that is the sole issue for this hearing… I can’t make decisions just about anything, but it’s specifically related to the alleged violation.”

The Petitioner’s attempts to introduce other issues were consistently disallowed. During his opening statement, Mr. Whittaker began to argue for sanctions against the Respondent’s attorneys for alleged discovery violations and harassment. The ALJ interrupted, stating, “these may be important and relevant issues, but not to the alleged violation today,” and clarified that “the attorneys are not the association.”

Denied Motions and Subpoenas

Several requests by the Petitioner were denied on the grounds of relevance to the narrowly defined issue:

• Motion to Consolidate (Denied April 24, 2025): The Petitioner’s motion to consolidate docket No. 25F-H041-REL with a separate case, No. 25F-H046-REL, was denied.

• Subpoena for Laura Tannery (Denied May 6, 2025): A subpoena request for Ms. Tannery was denied because the “Petitioner has not demonstrated the relevance of Ms. Tannery’s testimony to the issue of whether a civil penalty should be imposed.”

• Mass Subpoenas Quashed (May 13, 2025): Subpoenas issued on April 28, 2025, for eight individuals were quashed following a motion from the Respondent. The individuals were Brodie Hurtado, Diana Ebertshauser, Kevin McPhillips, Jonathan Ebertshauser, Esq., Joshua Bolen, Esq., Rob Actis, David Watson, and Laura Tannery.

In contrast, the Respondent’s motion to vacate the hearing was denied on April 24, 2025, with the ALJ affirming that a hearing was necessary to rule on the civil penalty question.

Final Decision and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge Decision, issued on June 5, 2025, provided a conclusive resolution to the matter.

Ruling on Standing

The Respondent had moved to dismiss the petition, arguing the Petitioner lacked standing because he only became a property owner in June 2024, after the 2023 violation occurred. The ALJ rejected this argument, concluding that the Petitioner had standing because he “was a member of Respondent at the time that the petition was filed.”

Ruling on the Violation and Civil Penalty

• Violation Confirmed: The decision reiterated that “Respondent has admitted that it violated Article IV, Section 3 of Respondent’s Bylaws.”

• Civil Penalty Denied: The ALJ determined that a civil penalty was “not appropriate in this matter.” The official reasoning was that the “Petitioner failed to meet its burden to establish that a civil penalty should be imposed” and “did not present relevant evidence” at the hearing to support such a penalty.

Final Orders

The ALJ’s order contained three key directives:

1. Prevailing Party: The Petitioner, Jeremy R. Whittaker, was deemed the prevailing party.

2. Reimbursement: The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner his $500.00 filing fee within thirty days.

3. Future Compliance: The Respondent was directed to comply with Article IV, Section 3 of its bylaws in all future elections.

All other forms of requested relief were denied.

Timeline of Key Events

The Val Vista Community Association holds its Board election using non-compliant candidate applications.

June 2024

Jeremy R. Whittaker becomes a property owner in the Val Vista Lakes development.

May 20, 2019

Petitioner files a single-issue petition with the Department of Real Estate (as recorded in the final decision).

April 24, 2025

ALJ denies Respondent’s motion to vacate the hearing and Petitioner’s motion to consolidate cases.

April 28, 2025

The tribunal signs subpoenas for eight individuals.

May 6, 2025

A sanctions hearing is scheduled for May 16. The Petitioner’s subpoena request for Laura Tannery is denied.

May 9, 2025

Deadline for parties to provide information regarding the 2023 election and discovery of the conflict.

May 13, 2025

ALJ grants Respondent’s motion to quash all eight subpoenas.

May 16, 2025

A hearing is held to determine the appropriateness of a civil penalty.

June 5, 2025

The final Administrative Law Judge Decision is issued.

Remedies
Compliance
Elections

Case

Docket No: 25F-H041-REL
Case Title: Jeremy R. Whittaker vs. The Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Decision Date: 2025-06-05
Alj Name: Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Questions

Question

Can I file a petition against my HOA for a violation that occurred before I became a homeowner?

Short Answer

Yes. You have standing to file a petition as long as you are a member of the association at the time you file the paperwork, even if the violation happened prior to your ownership.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Petitioner had standing to file the petition. Petitioner was a member of Respondent at the time that the petition was filed.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01

Topic Tags

Standing
Homeowner Rights
Procedure

Question

If the HOA admits they violated the bylaws, will they automatically be required to pay a civil penalty?

Short Answer

No. An admission of guilt does not automatically result in a monetary fine. The homeowner must still provide evidence proving that a penalty is necessary or appropriate.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Topic Tags

Civil Penalties
Violations
Burden of Proof

Question

Does the HOA have to require board candidates to disclose conflicts of interest or family ties?

Short Answer

Yes, if the association's bylaws specifically require such disclosures in the candidate application.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Bylaws Article IV, Section 3

Topic Tags

Elections
Board of Directors
Conflicts of Interest

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent is directed to comply with Article IV, Section 3 of Respondent’s Bylaws.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

Remedies
Compliance
Elections

Case

Docket No: 25F-H041-REL
Case Title: Jeremy R. Whittaker vs. The Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Decision Date: 2025-06-05
Alj Name: Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Jeremy R. Whittaker (petitioner)
Appeared on behalf of himself

Respondent Side

Josh Bolen (respondent attorney)
CHDB Law, LLP
Diana Ebertshauser (board member)
The Val Vista Community Association
Board candidate who failed to disclose familial ties; subpoena quashed
Brodie Hurtado (board member)
The Val Vista Community Association
Board candidate who failed to disclose familial ties; subpoena quashed

Neutral Parties

Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
Administrative Law Judge
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
vnunez (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of Order transmission (listed by email handle)
djones (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of Order transmission (listed by email handle)
labril (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of Order transmission (listed by email handle)
mneat (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of Order transmission (listed by email handle)
lrecchia (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of Order transmission (listed by email handle)
gosborn (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of Order transmission (listed by email handle)

Other Participants

Laura Tannery (witness)
Subpoena quashed/denied
Kevin McPhillips (witness)
Subpoena quashed
Jonathan Ebertshauser (attorney/witness)
Subpoena quashed
Rob Actis (witness)
Subpoena quashed
David Watson (witness)
Subpoena quashed

Carla J Snyder v. Las Hadas Villas Association

Posted on April 7, 2021 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	21F-H2121032-REL
Agency	—
Tribunal	Office of Administrative Hearings, Arizona Department of Real Estate
Decision Date	2021-04-07
Administrative Law Judge	—
Outcome	complete
Filing Fees Refunded	—
Civil Penalties	—

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Carla J. Snyder	Counsel	—
Respondent	Las Hadas Villas Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121032-REL Decision – 870534.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:33:14 (121.6 KB)

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

# 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

| Quote | Source | Context |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| "The impact of having an ill constructed roof has resulted in $11,476.00 in damages for which I had to incur the cost." | **Carla J. Snyder (Petitioner)** | The primary justification for the petition and the stated financial burden on the homeowner. |
| "Each Owner shall also be responsible for... the maintenance and repair of any exclusive use area... including, for example, balconies, patios, or fenced yard areas." | **CC&R Section 14.1** | The legal basis used by the Respondent to argue that the damage to the patio and pergola was not the HOA’s liability. |
| "The prior owner specifically told us that he did not want to replace the underlying material, but just the pergola and a patch of stucco." | **Tom Reynolds (Contractor)** | Evidence showing that the root cause of the rot was a previous owner's decision to hide damage rather than fix it. |
| "In developments, they cut corners." | **Dr. John Gilderbloom (Witness)** | General testimony provided to support the Petitioner's claim that the HOA/developers failed to meet construction standards. |
| "The decision of the Board shall be conclusive." | **CC&R Section 14.1** | A critical clause giving the HOA Board final say in disputes regarding maintenance responsibility. |

---

## 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.

Study Guide: Carla J. Snyder v. Las Hadas Villas Association

# Study Guide: Carla J. Snyder v. Las Hadas Villas Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between Petitioner Carla J. Snyder and Respondent Las Hadas Villas Association (Case No. 21F-H2121032-REL). It covers the legal frameworks, factual disputes, and ultimate findings regarding homeowner association (HOA) responsibilities.

---

## I. Key Concepts and Case Overview

### Core Dispute
The dispute centers on a claim filed by Petitioner Carla J. Snyder against the Las Hadas Villas Association. The Petitioner alleged that a design flaw in her roof—specifically the absence of metal flashing—caused significant water damage and mold in her unit, totaling $11,476.00 in repair costs. She asserted that under Section 14.2 of the Community Documents (CC&Rs), the HOA was responsible for these repairs and the resulting damages.

### Governing Documents: The CC&Rs
The case relies on the interpretation of two specific sections of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs):

*   **Section 14.1 (Owner’s Responsibility):** Owners are responsible for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of the interior of their units and "exclusive use areas." This includes windows, doors, air conditioning units, balconies, patios, and fenced yards. Crucially, this section states that in the event of a dispute, the decision of the Board regarding responsibility is conclusive.
*   **Section 14.2 (Association’s Responsibility):** The Association is responsible for the maintenance and repair of "Common Elements." This includes the painting and repair of unit exteriors, building walls, trim, drain pipes, and roofs.

### Legal Standards
*   **Jurisdiction:** The hearing was conducted by the Office of Administrative Hearings under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. § 32-2199).
*   **Burden of Proof:** The Petitioner bears the burden of proving a violation by a **preponderance of the evidence**.
*   **Preponderance of the Evidence:** A legal standard meaning the claim is "more probably true than not" based on the greater weight and convincing force of the evidence.

---

## II. Short-Answer Practice Questions

**1. What specific construction element did the Petitioner claim was missing from her roof?**
> **Answer:** Metal flashing, which is used to divert water and prevent wood rot.

**2. According to the Respondent’s "Roof Log," what work was performed on the Petitioner's unit in October 2015?**
> **Answer:** Westside Roofing removed tiles and underlayment, installed new wood nailer strips, and provided new valley metal and metal flashings as needed.

**3. What did the roofing inspection report by Payne Roofing (October 18, 2019) conclude?**
> **Answer:** The underlayment was in good condition, the leak appeared to be an old issue, and no work was needed at that time.

**4. Why did the Board deny the Petitioner's request for reimbursement for the pergola and balcony repairs?**
> **Answer:** Pursuant to Section 14.1, the Board determined these were exclusive use areas and therefore the responsibility of the homeowner.

**5. What did the previous owner of the unit fail to disclose during the sale to the Petitioner?**
> **Answer:** The previous owner failed to disclose the water damage and wood rot associated with the pergola, having merely installed stucco over the rot at the direction of a contractor (99 Home Improvements).

**6. What is the filing fee for a Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition?**
> **Answer:** $500.00.

---

## III. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

### 1. The Conflict of Responsibility: Common Elements vs. Exclusive Use
Analyze the distinction between Section 14.1 and Section 14.2 of the CC&Rs. In your essay, discuss how the classification of an area (such as a pergola or patio) as an "exclusive use area" versus an "exterior surface" dictates financial liability. How did the Board’s "conclusive" power under Section 14.1 influence the outcome of this case?

### 2. Evidentiary Weight in Administrative Hearings
Compare and contrast the evidence provided by the Petitioner’s expert witnesses (Ray Odom and Dr. John Gilderbloom) with the documentary evidence provided by the Respondent (the 2015 Roof Log and the 2019 Payne Roofing report). Discuss why the Administrative Law Judge found that the Petitioner failed to meet the "preponderance of the evidence" standard despite the testimony regarding design flaws.

### 3. The Role of Seller Disclosure in Property Disputes
The Board suggested the Petitioner file a lawsuit against the previous owner rather than the HOA. Using the details from the "Residential Seller Disclosure Advisory" mentioned in the text, explain the legal obligation of a seller in Arizona and how the previous owner's actions (patching stucco over rot) complicated the Petitioner's claim against the Association.

---

## IV. Glossary of Important Terms

| Term | Definition |
| :--- | :--- |
| **CC&Rs** | Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules and responsibilities within a planned community. |
| **Common Elements** | Areas of the property (like roofs and exterior walls) maintained by the Association and funded through common expenses. |
| **Exclusive Use Area** | Portions of the property (like balconies or patios) that are for the sole use of a specific owner, typically making that owner responsible for maintenance. |
| **Flashing** | Thin pieces of impervious material installed to prevent the passage of water into a structure from a joint or as part of a roof-resistant barrier. |
| **Preponderance of the Evidence** | The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases; evidence that is more convincing than the evidence offered in opposition. |
| **Petitioner** | The party who initiates a lawsuit or petition (in this case, Carla J. Snyder). |
| **Respondent** | The party against whom a petition is filed (in this case, Las Hadas Villas Association). |
| **Underlayment** | A water-resistant or waterproof barrier material that is installed directly onto a roof deck before the tiles or shingles are applied. |
| **Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)** | An official who presides over an administrative hearing and issues a decision based on facts and law. |

Who Pays for the Leak? Lessons from a Recent HOA Maintenance Dispute

# Who Pays for the Leak? Lessons from a Recent HOA Maintenance Dispute

### 1. Introduction: The $11,000 Question
Discovering water damage, mold, and wood rot is a homeowner’s nightmare. The situation quickly escalates from a maintenance headache to a legal conflict when the question of financial responsibility arises: Is the damage caused by a failure of the Association’s common roof, or is it the result of a homeowner’s "exclusive use" area?

This was the central conflict in the case of *Snyder v. Las Hadas Villas Association* (No. 21F-H2121032-REL). The petitioner, Carla J. Snyder, sought $11,476.00 in damages, alleging that her home suffered significant wood rot and mold due to a "serious flaw" in the roof's construction—specifically, a lack of metal flashing. This case serves as a vital case study in how "exclusive use" clauses in community documents and contemporaneous maintenance logs determine the outcome of high-stakes HOA disputes.

### 2. The Homeowner’s Claim: A "Serious Flaw"
Petitioner Carla J. Snyder argued that the water damage permeating her garage and patio was the direct result of an ill-constructed roof. Her claim centered on the absence of roof flashing and plastic sheathing, which she alleged allowed water to seep into the wood and stucco, leading to extensive rot and mold.

To support her case, Snyder presented testimony from two expert witnesses:
* **Ray Odom:** A general contractor who performed the mold remediation. Odom testified that the lack of flashing was a "design flaw" and asserted that property management companies generally "cut corners."
* **Dr. John Gilderbloom:** A professor with housing experience who testified that installing flashing is standard industry practice.

As a legal analyst, it is critical to note two factors that impacted the weight of this testimony. First, Dr. Gilderbloom was identified as the Petitioner’s fiancé, a relationship that inherently introduces the potential for bias. Second, the Petitioner’s primary objective was to obtain a finding of negligence to pave the way for a civil lawsuit. However, Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella clarified that a finding of negligence was outside the jurisdictional purview of the administrative hearing; the tribunal’s power was strictly limited to ordering compliance with community documents or issuing civil penalties.

### 3. Decoding the CC&Rs: 14.1 vs. 14.2
The resolution of the dispute rested on the interpretation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The following table outlines the division of responsibility defined in the Las Hadas Villas Association documents:

| Owner’s Responsibility (Section 14.1) | Association’s Responsibility (Section 14.2) |
| :--- | :--- |
| **Scope:** Maintenance, repair, and replacement within the Unit (windows, doors, fixtures, utility lines). | **Scope:** Maintenance and repair of Common Elements (exterior surfaces including building walls, trim, and roofs). |
| **Exclusive Use Areas:** Responsible for areas under exclusive control, such as **balconies, patios, and fenced yard areas.** | **Exclusions:** The Association is not responsible for doors or windows. |
| **Finality:** The Board’s decision regarding an owner's responsibility for a particular area is **conclusive.** | **Liability:** Owners may be held liable for damage to common elements caused by their intentional acts or negligence. |

The central legal pivot point was whether the water damage originated from the "roof" (an Association responsibility under 14.2) or the "patio and pergola" (an exclusive use area under 14.1).

### 4. The Evidence Trail: Repairs, Reports, and Hidden Rot
In legal proceedings, contemporaneous business records often carry more weight than retrospective expert opinions. The Association effectively rebutted the Petitioner’s *prima facie* case using a documented evidence trail:

* **The 2015 Roof Log:** This was the **dispositive evidence** in the case. The Association produced records from Westside Roofing showing that in October 2015, the roof of the unit had been stripped and repaired. Crucially, the log noted the installation of "new valley metal and metal flashings as needed," directly contradicting the claim that the roof lacked flashing.
* **The 2019 Inspection:** Following the Petitioner's complaint, Payne Roofing inspected the unit. Their report stated the underlayment was in good condition and the leak appeared to be an "old issue," suggesting the roof itself was sound.
* **The "Cover-Up":** Testimony from 99 Home Improvements revealed a critical pre-existing condition. In April 2019, the previous owner noticed the stucco "pulling away from the pergola." Despite being informed of underlying wood rot, the previous owner directed the contractor not to replace the rotted material, but instead to simply patch the stucco over the decay to hide the damage.

### 5. The Tribunal’s Ruling: Why the Petition was Dismissed
Judge Vanella dismissed the petition, ruling that the Association had not violated Section 14.2. The decision was based on the **"Preponderance of the Evidence"** standard, which requires the Petitioner to prove that their claim is **"more probably true than not."**

The judge concluded that while the Association is responsible for the roof, the 2015 maintenance records proved the Association had fulfilled its duties. The evidence established that the damage was actually located within the patio and pergola. Because these are "exclusive use" areas under Section 14.1 of the CC&Rs, the legal and financial burden for repair fell solely on the homeowner.

### 6. Key Takeaways for HOA Members
1. **The Importance of Pre-Purchase Diligence:** The "Residential Seller Disclosure Advisory" failed to mention the hidden wood rot. However, the HOA is a **third party** to the real estate transaction and generally cannot be held liable for a seller’s failure to disclose material facts. A buyer’s recourse in such cases is typically a separate lawsuit against the seller.
2. **Understanding "Exclusive Use":** Homeowners often confuse "exterior" with "Association responsibility." Exclusive use areas are legal hybrids: they are exterior portions of the common area reserved for one owner. Under most CC&Rs, the maintenance of these hybrids—including patios and pergolas—is the owner's obligation.
3. **The Power of Maintenance Logs:** Factual business records (like the 2015 Roof Log) are incredibly difficult to overcome. They provide a "snapshot in time" that can neutralize even the most confident retrospective expert testimony.

### 7. Conclusion: The Final Verdict
The *Snyder* case underscores the necessity of a thorough legal review of CC&Rs before starting expensive repairs. Under Section 14.1, the Board is granted the authority to make "conclusive" decisions regarding maintenance boundaries. Once the Board determines an area falls under "exclusive use," the homeowner faces a high evidentiary bar to prove otherwise. Understanding these definitions is the only way to avoid an $11,000 surprise.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Carla J. Snyder (Petitioner)
Appeared on her own behalf
Ray Odom (Witness)
General contractor
John Gilderbloom (Witness)
University of Louisville
Professor and Petitioner's fiancé

Respondent Side

David Potts (Attorney)
Las Hadas Villas Association
Represented Respondent
Tonia Reynolds (Witness)
Las Hadas Villas Association
Property Manager

Neutral Parties

Sondra J. Vanella (Administrative Law Judge)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Tom Reynolds (Affiant)
99 Home Improvements
Lead for 99 Homes Improvements
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Thomas Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on July 2, 2018 by [email protected]

Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID	18F-H1817008-REL
Agency	Arizona Department of Real Estate
Tribunal	—
Decision Date	2018-07-02
Administrative Law Judge	—
Outcome	complete
Filing Fees Refunded	—
Civil Penalties	—

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Thomas Barrs	Counsel	—
Respondent	Desert Ranch Homeowners Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Decision Documents

18F-H1817008-REL-RHG Decision – 643955.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:08:02 (92.8 KB)

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Thomas Barrs (Petitioner)
Appeared on behalf of himself [1]. Provided testimony at the hearing [2].
Abraham Barrs (Witness)
Presented testimony on behalf of the Petitioner [2].
Stephen Barrs (Witness)
Presented testimony on behalf of the Petitioner [2].

Respondent Side

Brian Schoeffler (Representative / Witness)
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Appeared on behalf of Respondent [1]. Presented testimony at the hearing [2].
Catherine Overby (Board President / Witness)
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
President of Desert Ranch's board [5]. Presented testimony at the hearing [2].
Patrick Rice (Board Member)
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Board member who possessed a late ballot from the April 29, 2017 board election [5].
Kate Merolo (Unknown)
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Provided documents regarding the March 18, 2017 election to Mr. Barrs [6].

Neutral Parties

Velva Moses-Thompson (Administrative Law Judge)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Presided over the hearing and issued the decision [3, 4].
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Received the administrative law judge decision electronically [4].

Sanders, Stanton S. and Joan L. -v- Florence Gardens Mobile Home Association

Posted on May 13, 2008 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	08F-H088007-BFS
Agency	—
Tribunal	—
Decision Date	2008-05-13
Administrative Law Judge	MGW
Outcome	complete
Filing Fees Refunded	—
Civil Penalties	—

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Stanton S. Sanders	Counsel	Self-represented
Respondent	Florence Gardens Mobile Home Association, Inc.	Counsel	Mark A. Holmgren, Esq.

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

08F-H088007-BFS Decision – 190931.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:33:36 (100.1 KB)

08F-H088007-BFS Decision – 190931.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:22:34 (100.1 KB)

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

# 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.

---

Study Guide: Sanders v. Florence Gardens Mobile Home Association

# Study Guide: Sanders v. Florence Gardens Mobile Home Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative law case *Stanton S. Sanders v. Florence Gardens Mobile Home Association* (Case No. 08F-H088007-BFS). It examines the legal dispute regarding assessment levies on adjacent lots, the interpretation of governing documents, and the standards of proof in administrative hearings.

---

## I. Case Overview and Core Themes

The central issue in this case is whether a homeowners' association (HOA) has the legal authority to rescind a long-standing policy of waiving assessments for vacant lots adjacent to improved lots when both are owned by the same member.

### Key Entities
* **Petitioner:** Stanton S. Sanders, owner of two adjacent lots (1164 and 1165) in the Florence Gardens Mobile Home Community.
* **Respondent:** Florence Gardens Mobile Home Association, the governing body of the community.
* **The Tribunal:** The Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, presided over by Administrative Law Judge Michael G. Wales.

### Governing Documents and Statutes
The case relies on the interpretation of several internal and state legal instruments:
1. **Articles of Incorporation (July 27, 1971):** Specifically Article V, Section F, granting assessment powers.
2. **Bylaws:** Specifically the Fourth Amended and Restated Bylaws (February 14, 2006).
3. **Declaration of Restrictions:** Paragraph 24 regarding the definition of a single lot.
4. **Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs):** Section 4A regarding landscaping requirements.
5. **Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.):** Including § 33-1802 (definitions), § 41-2198.01(B) (petition filing), and § 12-341.01 (attorney's fees).

---

## II. Key Concepts and Legal Findings

### 1. The Source of Assessment Power
A critical finding in the case is that the power to levy assessments is not universal across all governing documents. The Judge determined that the Association’s authority to charge assessments stems specifically from:
* **Article V, Section F of the Articles of Incorporation.**
* **Article XIII, Section 2 of the Bylaws.**

Restrictions found in the Declaration of Restrictions or the CC&Rs (such as those regarding landscaping or general "single lot" status) do not supersede the assessment authority granted in the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws.

### 2. Definition of a "Lot"
Under Article II, Section 11 of the Bylaws, a "Lot" is defined as any separate parcel of real property shown on the plat. Because the recorded Plat for Florence Gardens, Unit D, listed lots 1164 and 1165 as separate and distinct, they are subject to individual assessments regardless of whether they are adjacent or owned by the same person.

### 3. Burden of Proof: Preponderance of the Evidence
In administrative hearings, the Petitioner (Sanders) carries the burden of proof. The standard used is "preponderance of the evidence," which means:
* The evidence must persuade the finder of fact that the claim is "more likely true than not."
* The evidence must be of "greater weight" or "more convincing" than the evidence offered in opposition.

### 4. Interpretation of State Statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1802)
The Petitioner argued that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1802. However, the ALJ ruled that this statute simply sets forth statutory definitions. It does not impose specific duties, rights, or obligations, and therefore cannot be "violated" in the context of the Petitioner's claims.

### 5. Attorney’s Fees in Administrative Proceedings
The Respondent (the Association) requested an award of attorney's fees as the prevailing party. The tribunal denied this based on *Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc.*, which established:
* An administrative agency is not characterized as a "court."
* Proceeding before an agency is not an "action" for the purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01.
* The legislature did not intend for certain attorney fee statutes to apply to administrative proceedings.

---

## III. Short-Answer Practice Questions

**Q1: Why did the Association end its practice of waiving assessments for vacant adjacent lots?**
*Answer:* According to the Findings of Fact, the Board of Directors rescinded Policies 1-96 and 3-98 (which allowed the waiver) on June 6, 2006, and informed owners in April 2007 that assessments for both improved and vacant lots would begin in 2008.

**Q2: How does Paragraph 24 of the Declaration of Restrictions define "single holdings" of adjoining lots?**
*Answer:* It states that parts of two adjoining lots in single ownership shall be deemed a "single lot," but the ALJ ruled this definition is strictly limited to the deed restrictions within that Declaration and does not apply to assessment powers.

**Q3: What was the significance of the "Plat of record" in this case?**
*Answer:* The Plat recorded at Book 18 of Maps, Page 37, established lots 1164 and 1165 as separate and distinct parcels. Since no amendments to the Plat were presented, they remained individual lots for assessment purposes.

**Q4: Under what conditions would the CC&Rs (Section 4A) consider combined lots as one?**
*Answer:* Section 4A states combined lots are considered one lot specifically for landscaping requirements. It does not extend this "single lot" status to assessments.

**Q5: What was the outcome regarding the Petitioner's $550.00 filing fee?**
*Answer:* Because the Respondent was the prevailing party, the Petitioner was not entitled to an award of the filing fee under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02.

---

## IV. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

1. **Hierarchy of Governing Documents:** Analyze how the Administrative Law Judge prioritized the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws over the Declaration of Restrictions and CC&Rs. Discuss the legal implications of having conflicting definitions of a "lot" across different governing documents.
2. **The Rescission of Policy:** The Association maintained a "long standing practice" of waiving fees before changing its policy. Evaluate the Association's right to rescind prior policies (specifically Policies 1-96 and 3-98) and discuss whether the timeline of the rescission provided adequate notice to members.
3. **Administrative vs. Judicial Proceedings:** Using the denial of attorney's fees and the *Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc.* precedent, compare the powers of an Administrative Law Judge with those of a traditional court judge. Why might the legislature limit the ability of an administrative agency to award attorney's fees?

---

## V. Glossary of Important Terms

| Term | Definition |
| :--- | :--- |
| **A.R.S. § 33-1802** | A state statute providing definitions for planned communities; it does not establish specific legal duties or rights. |
| **Articles of Incorporation** | The primary document filed with the State (Arizona Corporation Commission) that grants an association the power to exist and levy assessments. |
| **Bylaws** | The rules adopted by an association to govern its internal management; in this case, they defined "Lot" and granted assessment power. |
| **CC&Rs** | Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; recorded documents that limit or require certain actions by property owners (e.g., landscaping). |
| **Declaration of Restrictions** | A recorded document setting forth specific limitations on property use within a community. |
| **Plat** | A map, drawn to scale, showing the divisions of a piece of land; the legal record of lot boundaries. |
| **Preponderance of the Evidence** | The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases requiring that a fact is more likely than not to be true. |
| **Prevailing Party** | The party in a lawsuit or administrative hearing that wins the case. |
| **Rescind** | To revoke, cancel, or repeal a law, order, or agreement. |
| **Tribunal** | A body established to settle disputes; in this context, the Office of Administrative Hearings. |

Understanding HOA Assessments: The "Two-Lot" Legal Dispute in Florence Gardens

# Understanding HOA Assessments: The "Two-Lot" Legal Dispute in Florence Gardens

For many homeowners in planned communities, purchasing an adjacent vacant lot is a common strategy to increase privacy or expand a residential footprint. Historically, some Homeowners Associations (HOAs) have accommodated these owners by waiving assessments on secondary, unimproved lots. However, as governance needs evolve, these associations may choose to end such practices. When they do, the resulting legal friction often centers on a single question: Are two lots truly one?

The case of *Stanton S. Sanders vs. Florence Gardens Mobile Home Association* provides a definitive look at this conflict. The dispute arose when the Association terminated a long-standing practice of waiving assessments on vacant adjacent lots, leading a homeowner to challenge the legality of being billed for two separate parcels.

## The Case Background: Facts of the Dispute

The conflict involved Stanton S. Sanders (the Petitioner), a resident of the Florence Gardens Mobile Home Community in Florence, Arizona. The administrative hearing established several foundational facts:

* **Property Ownership:** Mr. Sanders was the owner of record for two adjacent parcels: Lots 1164 and 1165.
* **The Policy Change:** On April 12, 2007, the Association’s Board of Directors issued a letter to members announcing that its practice of waiving assessments for vacant lots adjacent to improved lots owned by the same member would end. Starting in 2008, both lots would be assessed individually.
* **The Legal Challenge:** Mr. Sanders filed a petition alleging that the Association violated several governing documents and state statutes, specifically:
* **Paragraph 24 of the Declaration of Restrictions** (Recorded August 15, 1974).
* **Section 4A of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs)** (Dated April 1998).
* **Rules 9(b) and 16(c)** of the Association's Rules and Regulations.
* **Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1802**.

## The Petitioner's Argument: When Two Lots Become One

The Petitioner’s primary defense rested on the theory that his two parcels had effectively merged into a single entity for all purposes, including financial obligations. He relied on specific language within the community's land-use documents:

* **Paragraph 24 of the Declaration of Restrictions:** This clause stated that any ownership comprising parts of two adjoining lots "shall for the purpose of this Declaration... be deemed to constitute a single lot."
* **Section 4A of the CC&Rs:** This section noted that "combined lots will be considered as one lot" and would be subject to the same landscaping requirements as a single lot.

To a homeowner, these clauses appear to create a universal "single lot" status. However, as the legal findings would show, definitions in community governance are often context-specific rather than absolute.

## The Association’s Authority: Where Assessment Power Truly Resides

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) looked past the landscaping and deed restrictions to identify the actual source of the Association’s financial authority. In the hierarchy of governing documents, the power to levy assessments is typically found in the Articles of Incorporation and the Bylaws, which carry different weight than specific deed restrictions.

| Document Type | Applicability/Power |
| :--- | :--- |
| **Declaration of Restrictions (Para. 24)** | Provides a "Single Lot" definition **only** for specific deed restrictions; it does not govern or limit assessment power. |
| **CC&Rs Section 4A** | Provides a "Single Lot" definition **only** for landscaping requirements; it does not extend to financial obligations. |
| **Articles of Incorporation (July 27, 1971) & Bylaws (Feb 14, 2006)** | Grants the Association broad, explicit power to levy assessments against the owners of each **"separate parcel"** as identified on the Plat. |

A critical piece of evidence was the **Plat of record for Florence Gardens, Unit D**, recorded in **Book 18 of Maps, Page 37**. This document identifies Lots 1164 and 1165 as "separate and distinct" parcels. Because the **Fourth Amended and Restated Bylaws** define a lot as any separate parcel shown upon the plat, and the **Articles of Incorporation** grant the power to assess each lot, the Association retained the legal right to charge for each parcel individually.

## Procedural Reality: Rescinding Policies and Statutory Limits

The Petitioner also contested the Association’s right to change its long-standing waiver policy. The ALJ, however, clarified the distinction between a permanent right and a discretionary policy:

* **Rescission of Voluntary Waivers:** The Association had previously operated under **Policies 1-96 and 3-98**, which granted the assessment waivers. These were not deeded rights, but rather voluntary, discretionary waivers of the Association's existing assessment power. The Board formally rescinded these policies during a public meeting on June 6, 2006—well before the 2008 assessments were levied.
* **Statutory Limits:** Regarding the alleged violation of **A.R.S. § 33-1802**, the ALJ ruled that this statute merely provides a set of definitions for planned communities. It is not a source of "duties, rights or obligations" and therefore cannot be "violated" by an association in the manner the Petitioner claimed.

## The Final Verdict and Costs

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Association acted within its legal authority, and the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof. The final Order included:

1. **Dismissal:** The Petitioner's complaint was dismissed in its entirety.
2. **Filing Fees:** The Petitioner was not entitled to a refund of the $550.00 filing fee, as he was not the prevailing party.
3. **Attorney’s Fees:** The Association’s request for attorney's fees was denied based on the precedent in ***Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc.*** The judge explained that an administrative agency is not a "court"; therefore, the agency lacks the statutory authority to award attorney's fees in an administrative proceeding of this nature.

## Key Takeaways for Homeowners

The *Sanders vs. Florence Gardens* decision highlights essential principles of community governance that every resident and board member should understand:

1. **Know Your Document Hierarchy:** Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws generally dictate the Association's corporate powers (like assessments), while CC&Rs and Declarations typically govern land use and aesthetics. Financial authority is rarely limited by landscaping definitions.
2. **Definitions are Contextual:** Just because a property is treated as a "single lot" for the purpose of where you can park a trailer or plant a tree does not mean it is a "single lot" for the purpose of the annual budget. The recorded Plat is often the final authority on what constitutes a billable parcel.
3. **Waivers are Not Perpetual:** A board’s decision to waive a fee in the past is often a discretionary policy (like Policies 1-96/3-98). Unless a waiver is written into the CC&Rs as a permanent deed restriction, a board generally has the power to rescind that waiver through proper, public action.

Due diligence is vital when managing multiple properties in an HOA. Homeowners should verify how their lots are recorded on the official Plat and understand that historical "favors" or policies can be changed by a sitting Board of Directors.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Stanton S. Sanders (Petitioner)
Appeared personally

Respondent Side

Mark A. Holmgren (Attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood PLC
Represented Respondent Florence Gardens Mobile Home Association

Neutral Parties

Michael G. Wales (Administrative Law Judge)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Robert Barger (Director)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Debra Blake (Contact)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Listed as ATTN on order transmittal