**Case Summary: James Dutton vs. Cielo Noche Community Association**
**Case No.** 19F-H1918014-REL
**Forum:** Office of Administrative Hearings (Arizona Department of Real Estate)
**Administrative Law Judge:** Jenna Clark

**Overview and Main Issues**
This case involved a dispute between Petitioner James Dutton, a homeowner and former Board President, and the Respondent, Cielo Noche Community Association. The central legal issue was whether the Association violated **A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Open Meeting Law)** by failing to provide notice of Board meetings and conducting business in secret executive sessions between November 2017 and May 2018,.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Position:** Dutton argued that the Board improperly utilized executive sessions to make significant financial and operational decisions without community input. Specifically, he presented evidence that the Board voted to replace the management company (Trestle with Tri-City) and the landscaping vendor (Peak) during closed sessions,,. Dutton noted that the new management contract cost the community 3% more than the previous one. He further alleged that the Board failed to read minutes from emergency meetings held in September and November 2018 at subsequent open meetings, as required by law,.
* **Respondent’s Position:** The Association contended that the closed sessions were necessary and privileged. Witnesses testified that discussions regarding the management company involved "employee performance" and that other closed sessions concerned pending litigation and settlement negotiations with the developer, K. Hovnanian Homes (KHOV), regarding construction defects,,.
* **Testimony on Compliance:** Kari Moyer, the community manager from Tri-City, admitted that a July 2018 meeting was not noticed due to a miscommunication. She also testified that she subsequently had to inform the Board that they were not permitted to hold executive sessions for the reasons they had been using and instructed them to hold such discussions in open session moving forward.

**Legal Analysis**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) evaluated the evidence under **A.R.S. § 33-1804**. This statute mandates that all meetings of a planned community association be open to members, with limited exceptions for legal advice, pending litigation, and personnel matters,. The law also requires that minutes from emergency meetings be read and approved at the next regularly scheduled meeting.

The Tribunal found that while the Board claimed privilege regarding the developer negotiations, the Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent held at least one closed meeting that should have been open. Furthermore, the lack of proper notice for these meetings constituted a violation of the state's Open Meeting Law.

**Final Decision and Order**
* **Ruling:** The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner, concluding that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by failing to properly notice meetings and holding discussions in closed sessions that required open deliberation,.
* **Financial Outcome:** The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00.
* **Civil Penalties:** The Tribunal declined to assess a civil penalty against the Association. The Judge determined that the record did not reflect that the Board’s conduct was intentional, negligent, or committed in bad faith.

**Date of Order:** April 05, 2019.