Case Summary
| Case ID | 22F-H2222063-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2023-04-13 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Sondra J. Vanella |
| Outcome | The ALJ affirmed the Petitioner's position that the HOA's denial of artificial turf violated CC&Rs Section 8.8. The ALJ found that because maintenance was shared and the HOA's CC&Rs cannot contradict the superior McCormick Ranch rules (which allow artificial turf), the denial was improper and the HOA failed to meet the exemption requirements under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B). |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $500.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Smoot Carl-Mitchell | Counsel | Stewart F. Gross, Esq. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Los Reyes Homeowners Association Inc. | Counsel | Michael S. McLeran, Esq. |
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1819; CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8
Outcome Summary
The ALJ affirmed the Petitioner's position that the HOA's denial of artificial turf violated CC&Rs Section 8.8. The ALJ found that because maintenance was shared and the HOA's CC&Rs cannot contradict the superior McCormick Ranch rules (which allow artificial turf), the denial was improper and the HOA failed to meet the exemption requirements under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B).
Key Issues & Findings
Architectural disapproval of landscaping plans to install artificial turf
Petitioner alleged Respondent's disapproval of his landscaping plans to install artificial turf violated the CC&Rs and was unreasonable under Arizona law. The ALJ concluded the disapproval violated CC&Rs Section 8.8 because the maintenance responsibility was shared, not exclusive to the HOA, and the HOA's CC&Rs must not contradict McCormick Ranch's Rules, which permit artificial turf.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition is affirmed. Respondent must reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee. Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of CC&Rs Section 8.8 going forward.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
- A.R.S. § 33-1819
- CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8
- CC&Rs Article 9.4
- CC&Rs Article 6.2
Analytics Highlights
- A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
- A.R.S. § 33-1819
- A.A.C. R2-19-119
- CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8
- CC&Rs Article 9.4
- CC&Rs Article 6.2
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1005074.pdf
22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1005155.pdf
22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1023283.pdf
22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1029871.pdf
22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1049042.pdf
22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 992691.pdf
22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 992789.pdf
22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1005074.pdf
22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1005155.pdf
22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1023283.pdf
22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1029871.pdf
22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1049042.pdf
22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 992691.pdf
22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 992789.pdf
The hearing concerned the matter of Carl-Mitchell Smoot (Petitioner) versus Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc. (Respondent), conducted before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The proceedings took place over two dates: January 25, 2023, and a further hearing on March 29, 2023.
Key Facts and Main Issue
The main issue was whether the Respondent HOA’s architectural disapproval of Petitioner’s plans to install artificial turf in his front yard violated Los Reyes CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8, and was unreasonable under Arizona law. Los Reyes is a sub-association of the McCormick Ranch Property Owners Association ("McCormick Ranch"). Petitioner sought the redesign for water conservation and aesthetic improvement.
Key Arguments
- Respondent's Position: The HOA justified the denial primarily based on A.R.S. § 33-1819(B), which allows an association to prohibit artificial turf if it is installed in an area the association is "required to maintain or irrigate". Respondent cited its CC&Rs Section 6.2, which states the HOA "shall maintain the landscaping in the front yards of the Lots". Respondent also argued that its CC&Rs referenced the "growth of turf" (Section 8.8), anticipating only natural grass, and that artificial turf would disrupt the harmony and uniformity of the community, where all front yards consist of natural grass. Additionally, early denials cited the plans as being "conceptual" and lacking vital information.
- Petitioner's Position: Petitioner argued that the Los Reyes CC&Rs are silent regarding the prohibition of artificial turf. Petitioner emphasized that the Los Reyes CC&Rs Article 9.4 incorporates the superior McCormick Ranch Restrictions and Architectural Control Criteria, stipulating that Los Reyes’ rules "shall not contradict them". McCormick Ranch criteria explicitly permit artificial turf subject to quality standards and limits (e.g., typically not more than 30% of the front yard area), a condition Petitioner claimed his plan met. Petitioner further argued that the A.R.S. § 33-1819(B) exemption did not apply because maintenance responsibility is shared: while the HOA handles mowing and trimming (Section 6.2), the owner pays for and controls the irrigation water (Section 8.8).
Outcome and Legal Points
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella issued a decision on April 13, 2023, affirming Petitioner’s petition.
The ALJ concluded that Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the disapproval violated the CC&Rs. Key legal findings included:
- The maintenance of the front yards is shared between the homeowners (who pay for and control irrigation) and the Respondent HOA.
- Respondent’s CC&Rs are silent as to artificial turf and do not prohibit it.
- Los Reyes cannot contradict the McCormick Ranch Rules and Regulations, which permit artificial turf, as mandated by Los Reyes CC&Rs Article 9.4.
- The ALJ found that the installation of artificial turf, under the circumstances, would not be contrary to the "overall goal of harmony of external design".
The Order required Respondent to comply with the CC&Rs Section 8.8 going forward and to reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.
Questions
Question
Can my HOA prohibit artificial turf if the CC&Rs don't specifically ban it?
Short Answer
Likely not. If the CC&Rs are silent regarding artificial turf and do not explicitly prohibit it, the HOA may not be able to enforce a ban, especially if a master association permits it.
Detailed Answer
The Administrative Law Judge ruled that because the HOA's CC&Rs were silent regarding artificial turf and did not explicitly prohibit it, they could not ban it. This was further reinforced because the master association's rules, which the sub-association could not contradict, explicitly permitted artificial turf.
Alj Quote
Although Respondent’s CC&Rs are silent as to artificial turf, they do not prohibit artificial turf and they shall not contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Construction; A.R.S. § 33-1819
Topic Tags
- artificial turf
- CC&Rs interpretation
- architectural requests
Question
Can a sub-association ban artificial turf if the master association allows it?
Short Answer
No, generally a sub-association cannot contradict the master association's rules if its own governing documents prohibit such contradictions.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the sub-association's CC&Rs incorporated the master association's rules and stated they could not contradict them. Since the master association allowed artificial turf, the sub-association could not prohibit it.
Alj Quote
McCormick Ranch allows artificial turf, and Respondent cannot contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations according to Respondent’s CC&Rs Section 9.4.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Section 9.4; Governing Documents Hierarchy
Topic Tags
- master association
- sub-association
- conflicting rules
Question
Does the HOA mowing my front lawn give them the exclusive right to ban artificial turf under state law?
Short Answer
Not necessarily, if the maintenance is shared. If the homeowner is responsible for irrigation and replacing plants, the HOA does not have exclusive maintenance rights to prohibit turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B).
Detailed Answer
The HOA argued that because they mowed the lawn, they could prohibit artificial turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B). However, the judge found that because the homeowner paid for water and was responsible for keeping plants healthy (shared maintenance), the HOA could not use the maintenance statute to completely ban turf.
Alj Quote
In this case, it is undisputed that Petitioner pays for and can control the irrigation of his property. It is also undisputed that the maintenance of the front yards of the homes within Respondent is shared between the individual homeowners and Respondent.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1819(B); CC&Rs Section 8.8
Topic Tags
- maintenance responsibility
- artificial turf
- state statute
Question
Can an HOA deny an architectural request claiming it disrupts the 'harmony' of the neighborhood?
Short Answer
They can claim it, but a judge may overrule them if the evidence shows the improvement (like artificial turf) wouldn't actually violate the goal of harmony.
Detailed Answer
The HOA denied the request based on the 'overall goal of harmony,' arguing that artificial turf would look different from the natural grass in the neighborhood. The judge reviewed the evidence and concluded that installing artificial turf would not actually be contrary to the goal of harmony.
Alj Quote
The Administrative Law Judge further concludes based on the evidence presented at hearing, that the installation of artificial turf would not be contrary to the “overall goal of harmony of external design” as asserted by Respondent.
Legal Basis
Subjective Standards; Harmony Provisions
Topic Tags
- architectural control
- harmony
- aesthetics
Question
Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner challenges an HOA decision?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The decision explicitly states that in these administrative hearings, the Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proving that the HOA violated its governing documents.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
- burden of proof
- legal procedure
Question
If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
Upon ruling in favor of the homeowner, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee the homeowner paid to bring the case.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.
Legal Basis
Administrative Remedy
Topic Tags
- fees
- reimbursement
- penalties
Question
Can the HOA deny my plans for being 'conceptual' if I provided specific details?
Short Answer
No. If the plans include specific information like plant types, numbers, and dimensions, the HOA cannot validly deny them as merely 'conceptual'.
Detailed Answer
The HOA denied the application claiming plans were 'conceptual.' The judge noted the plans contained specific types and numbers of plants, dimensions, and detailed renderings, and ultimately ruled the disapproval was a violation.
Alj Quote
Those plans contain the types and number of plants proposed, and the dimensions and shape of the area of artificial turf, and detailed renderings.
Legal Basis
Reasonableness of Approval Process
Topic Tags
- architectural plans
- application denial
- reasonableness
Case
- Docket No
- 22F-H2222063-REL
- Case Title
- Smoot Carl-Mitchell v. Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
- Decision Date
- 2023-04-13
- Alj Name
- Sondra J. Vanella
- Tribunal
- OAH
- Agency
- ADRE
Questions
Question
Can my HOA prohibit artificial turf if the CC&Rs don't specifically ban it?
Short Answer
Likely not. If the CC&Rs are silent regarding artificial turf and do not explicitly prohibit it, the HOA may not be able to enforce a ban, especially if a master association permits it.
Detailed Answer
The Administrative Law Judge ruled that because the HOA's CC&Rs were silent regarding artificial turf and did not explicitly prohibit it, they could not ban it. This was further reinforced because the master association's rules, which the sub-association could not contradict, explicitly permitted artificial turf.
Alj Quote
Although Respondent’s CC&Rs are silent as to artificial turf, they do not prohibit artificial turf and they shall not contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Construction; A.R.S. § 33-1819
Topic Tags
- artificial turf
- CC&Rs interpretation
- architectural requests
Question
Can a sub-association ban artificial turf if the master association allows it?
Short Answer
No, generally a sub-association cannot contradict the master association's rules if its own governing documents prohibit such contradictions.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the sub-association's CC&Rs incorporated the master association's rules and stated they could not contradict them. Since the master association allowed artificial turf, the sub-association could not prohibit it.
Alj Quote
McCormick Ranch allows artificial turf, and Respondent cannot contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations according to Respondent’s CC&Rs Section 9.4.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Section 9.4; Governing Documents Hierarchy
Topic Tags
- master association
- sub-association
- conflicting rules
Question
Does the HOA mowing my front lawn give them the exclusive right to ban artificial turf under state law?
Short Answer
Not necessarily, if the maintenance is shared. If the homeowner is responsible for irrigation and replacing plants, the HOA does not have exclusive maintenance rights to prohibit turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B).
Detailed Answer
The HOA argued that because they mowed the lawn, they could prohibit artificial turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B). However, the judge found that because the homeowner paid for water and was responsible for keeping plants healthy (shared maintenance), the HOA could not use the maintenance statute to completely ban turf.
Alj Quote
In this case, it is undisputed that Petitioner pays for and can control the irrigation of his property. It is also undisputed that the maintenance of the front yards of the homes within Respondent is shared between the individual homeowners and Respondent.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1819(B); CC&Rs Section 8.8
Topic Tags
- maintenance responsibility
- artificial turf
- state statute
Question
Can an HOA deny an architectural request claiming it disrupts the 'harmony' of the neighborhood?
Short Answer
They can claim it, but a judge may overrule them if the evidence shows the improvement (like artificial turf) wouldn't actually violate the goal of harmony.
Detailed Answer
The HOA denied the request based on the 'overall goal of harmony,' arguing that artificial turf would look different from the natural grass in the neighborhood. The judge reviewed the evidence and concluded that installing artificial turf would not actually be contrary to the goal of harmony.
Alj Quote
The Administrative Law Judge further concludes based on the evidence presented at hearing, that the installation of artificial turf would not be contrary to the “overall goal of harmony of external design” as asserted by Respondent.
Legal Basis
Subjective Standards; Harmony Provisions
Topic Tags
- architectural control
- harmony
- aesthetics
Question
Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner challenges an HOA decision?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The decision explicitly states that in these administrative hearings, the Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proving that the HOA violated its governing documents.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
- burden of proof
- legal procedure
Question
If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
Upon ruling in favor of the homeowner, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee the homeowner paid to bring the case.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.
Legal Basis
Administrative Remedy
Topic Tags
- fees
- reimbursement
- penalties
Question
Can the HOA deny my plans for being 'conceptual' if I provided specific details?
Short Answer
No. If the plans include specific information like plant types, numbers, and dimensions, the HOA cannot validly deny them as merely 'conceptual'.
Detailed Answer
The HOA denied the application claiming plans were 'conceptual.' The judge noted the plans contained specific types and numbers of plants, dimensions, and detailed renderings, and ultimately ruled the disapproval was a violation.
Alj Quote
Those plans contain the types and number of plants proposed, and the dimensions and shape of the area of artificial turf, and detailed renderings.
Legal Basis
Reasonableness of Approval Process
Topic Tags
- architectural plans
- application denial
- reasonableness
Case
- Docket No
- 22F-H2222063-REL
- Case Title
- Smoot Carl-Mitchell v. Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
- Decision Date
- 2023-04-13
- Alj Name
- Sondra J. Vanella
- Tribunal
- OAH
- Agency
- ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Carl-Mitchell Smoot (petitioner)
Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc. (Member)
Former HOA President/Treasurer - Stewart F. Gross (petitioner attorney)
Law Offices of Stewart F. Gross, PLLC
Respondent Side
- Michael S. McLeran (HOA attorney)
Childers Hanlon & Hudson, PLC - Denise Mueller (board member/witness)
Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
HOA Vice President; ALC Member - Dawn Feigert (property manager/witness)
Trestle Management Group
Senior Manager at HOA management company - Timothy Fischer (board member/witness)
Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
HOA Treasurer; ALC Member - Kirk Nelson (board member/witness)
Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
HOA President; ALC Member - Jan Greenfield (board member)
Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
Former ARC Chair
Neutral Parties
- Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
OAH
Presided over hearings and issued final decision - Louis Dettorre (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Listed in transmission records prior to final decision - Susan Nicolson (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Listed in final decision transmission - Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
OAH
Presided over initial continuances - c. serrano (OAH Staff)
OAH
Document processor
Other Participants
- Valerie (McCormick Ranch Staff)
McCormick Ranch Property Owners Association
Contact regarding compliance