Tag Archives: Ashley N. Moscarello

Deborah L. Masear v. Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H053-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-07-10
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Deborah L. Masear Counsel —
Respondent Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association Counsel Ashley N. Moscarello

Alleged Violations

Article II Section 3 of Respondent’s bylaws

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the Petitioner's claim, finding that the HOA violated Article II Section 3 of its bylaws by failing to hold the Annual Meeting on the second Monday of March (March 13, 2023). The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee, but a request for a civil penalty was denied.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to hold an annual meeting as required by bylaws

The HOA failed to hold the mandatory annual meeting on March 13, 2023, as explicitly required by the amended bylaws (Article II Section 3). The meeting was subsequently scheduled for May 8, 2023, 56 days late, constituting a violation, even though the later meeting failed to meet quorum.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is affirmed. Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00. Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Condominium, Annual Meeting, Bylaw Violation, Filing Fee Refund
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H053-REL Decision – 1072068.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:32 (115.3 KB)





Study Guide – 23F-H053-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H053-REL”, “case_title”: “Deborah L. Masear v. Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-07-10”, “alj_name”: “Brian Del Vecchio”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If the bylaws state a specific date for the annual meeting, can the HOA board reschedule it to a different month?”, “short_answer”: “No. If the bylaws use mandatory language like “shall,” the HOA cannot change the date.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ determined that when bylaws state a meeting “shall be held” on a specific date, this language is mandatory and not permissive. The HOA does not have the discretion to change the date of the annual meeting if the governing documents specify exactly when it must occur.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent’s Bylaws state, ‘[t]he annual meeting of the members shall be held,’ at the designated date and time annually. The phrase ‘shall be held’ is not permissive; there is no changing the date of the annual meeting.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws Article II Section 3”, “topic_tags”: [ “Annual Meetings”, “Bylaws Interpretation”, “HOA Obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Does a meeting count as being ‘held’ if the HOA schedules it but fails to reach a quorum?”, “short_answer”: “No. If a quorum is not present, the meeting is legally considered not to have been held.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if the HOA sends notice and attempts to convene, the failure to achieve a quorum means the meeting cannot conduct business. The ALJ ruled that in such cases, the meeting was not actually held, resulting in a violation if the bylaws required a meeting on that date.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent attempted to hold an annual meeting on May 8, 2023, and but for the lack of quorum, the meeting was not held.”, “legal_basis”: “Findings of Fact”, “topic_tags”: [ “Quorum”, “Annual Meetings”, “Procedural Requirements” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my dispute against the HOA, will I get my $500 filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The ALJ has the authority to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee to the prevailing homeowner.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this decision, after ruling in favor of the homeowner regarding the failure to hold the annual meeting, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee the homeowner paid to initiate the case.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Remedies”, “Filing Fees”, “Costs” ] }, { “question”: “Will the HOA automatically be fined a civil penalty if they are found to have violated the bylaws?”, “short_answer”: “No. The ALJ may deny a request for civil penalties even if they find that a violation occurred.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the homeowner in this case requested a civil penalty be levied against the HOA for the violation, the ALJ explicitly denied this request in the final order, despite ruling that the HOA had violated the bylaws.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Discretion”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Remedies”, “Enforcement” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove that the HOA violated the rules?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing before the OAH, the person bringing the complaint must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence.’ It is not up to the HOA to prove they are innocent; the homeowner must prove the violation occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Article II Section 3 of the Bylaws.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Standards”, “Hearing Procedures” ] }, { “question”: “What kind of HOA disputes can I file with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?”, “short_answer”: “You can file petitions regarding violations of community documents (CC&Rs, bylaws) or state statutes regulating planned communities.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Department has jurisdiction to hear disputes between owners and associations specifically concerning violations of the community’s governing documents or the relevant Arizona statutes regulating these communities.”, “alj_quote”: “The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities…”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq.”, “topic_tags”: [ “Jurisdiction”, “ADRE”, “Filing a Complaint” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 23F-H053-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H053-REL”, “case_title”: “Deborah L. Masear v. Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-07-10”, “alj_name”: “Brian Del Vecchio”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If the bylaws state a specific date for the annual meeting, can the HOA board reschedule it to a different month?”, “short_answer”: “No. If the bylaws use mandatory language like “shall,” the HOA cannot change the date.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ determined that when bylaws state a meeting “shall be held” on a specific date, this language is mandatory and not permissive. The HOA does not have the discretion to change the date of the annual meeting if the governing documents specify exactly when it must occur.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent’s Bylaws state, ‘[t]he annual meeting of the members shall be held,’ at the designated date and time annually. The phrase ‘shall be held’ is not permissive; there is no changing the date of the annual meeting.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws Article II Section 3”, “topic_tags”: [ “Annual Meetings”, “Bylaws Interpretation”, “HOA Obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Does a meeting count as being ‘held’ if the HOA schedules it but fails to reach a quorum?”, “short_answer”: “No. If a quorum is not present, the meeting is legally considered not to have been held.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if the HOA sends notice and attempts to convene, the failure to achieve a quorum means the meeting cannot conduct business. The ALJ ruled that in such cases, the meeting was not actually held, resulting in a violation if the bylaws required a meeting on that date.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent attempted to hold an annual meeting on May 8, 2023, and but for the lack of quorum, the meeting was not held.”, “legal_basis”: “Findings of Fact”, “topic_tags”: [ “Quorum”, “Annual Meetings”, “Procedural Requirements” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my dispute against the HOA, will I get my $500 filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The ALJ has the authority to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee to the prevailing homeowner.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this decision, after ruling in favor of the homeowner regarding the failure to hold the annual meeting, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee the homeowner paid to initiate the case.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Remedies”, “Filing Fees”, “Costs” ] }, { “question”: “Will the HOA automatically be fined a civil penalty if they are found to have violated the bylaws?”, “short_answer”: “No. The ALJ may deny a request for civil penalties even if they find that a violation occurred.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the homeowner in this case requested a civil penalty be levied against the HOA for the violation, the ALJ explicitly denied this request in the final order, despite ruling that the HOA had violated the bylaws.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Discretion”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Remedies”, “Enforcement” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove that the HOA violated the rules?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing before the OAH, the person bringing the complaint must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence.’ It is not up to the HOA to prove they are innocent; the homeowner must prove the violation occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Article II Section 3 of the Bylaws.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Standards”, “Hearing Procedures” ] }, { “question”: “What kind of HOA disputes can I file with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?”, “short_answer”: “You can file petitions regarding violations of community documents (CC&Rs, bylaws) or state statutes regulating planned communities.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Department has jurisdiction to hear disputes between owners and associations specifically concerning violations of the community’s governing documents or the relevant Arizona statutes regulating these communities.”, “alj_quote”: “The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities…”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq.”, “topic_tags”: [ “Jurisdiction”, “ADRE”, “Filing a Complaint” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Deborah Masear (petitioner)
    Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II HOA Member
    Also referred to as Deborah Maer

Respondent Side

  • Ashley Moscarello (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Law Group
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent
  • Carl Westlund (witness)
    Management Trust
    Community Manager for the HOA

Neutral Parties

  • Brian Del Vecchio (ALJ)
    OAH
    Also referred to as Judge Delio
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of decision
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of decision
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of decision
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of decision

Senol Pekin v. Artesian Ranch Community Association (ROOT)

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H034-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-04-10
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $2,500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Senol Pekin Counsel —
Respondent Artesian Ranch Community Association Counsel Ashley N. Moscarello

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article II Paragraph 2.3
Bylaws Article III Section A Paragraph 3.5, Section B Paragraph 3.7, and Article IV Paragraph 4.2
Bylaws Article III Section B, Article IV Section 6.7(b), Article I Paragraph 1.3
A.R.S. 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. 33-1804

Outcome Summary

Petitioner succeeded on two issues regarding the HOA's failure to hold its annual meeting at the prescribed time and improperly prohibiting the recording of an open session meeting. Respondent prevailed on the remaining three issues, as the ALJ found the bylaws did not require a separate organizational meeting, the community manager acted as an authorized agent to call a meeting, and Petitioner was not denied the opportunity to speak despite being muted at times during a videoconference. Respondent was ordered to refund $1,000 for the two successful issues.

Why this result: Petitioner lost on three issues because the bylaws did not strictly require the organizational meeting to be held separately, the community manager had authority as an agent to organize a meeting, and evidence demonstrated Petitioner was afforded multiple opportunities to speak during the Zoom meeting.

Key Issues & Findings

Annual Meetings

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to hold its annual meeting at the prescribed time in April 2022.

Orders: Petitioner deemed prevailing party. Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner filing fee of $500 for this issue.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Organizational Meetings

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to hold a separate organizational meeting to elect officers.

Orders: Respondent deemed prevailing party.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Authority to Call Board Meeting

Petitioner alleged the HOA manager was not authorized to organize or call a board meeting.

Orders: Respondent deemed prevailing party.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Open Meeting Recording

Petitioner alleged the HOA illegally prohibited homeowners from recording an open board meeting.

Orders: Petitioner deemed prevailing party. Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner filing fee of $500 for this issue.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Open Meeting Opportunity to Speak

Petitioner alleged the HOA muted participants during a Zoom meeting, preventing them from speaking.

Orders: Respondent deemed prevailing party.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H034-REL Decision – 1044665.pdf

Uploaded 2026-03-14T16:46:54 (166.9 KB)

23F-H034-REL Decision – 1048179.pdf

Uploaded 2026-03-14T16:47:02 (105.1 KB)





Briefing Doc – 23F-H034-REL


Briefing on the Dispute Between Senol Pekin and the Artesian Ranch Community Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key arguments, evidence, and outcomes from a consolidated administrative hearing concerning five allegations brought by homeowner and board member Senol Pekin against the Artesian Ranch Community Association (HOA). The dispute centers on alleged violations of the association’s bylaws and Arizona state statutes regarding the scheduling and conduct of board meetings.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the HOA in violation on two of the five issues: failing to hold its 2022 annual meeting on the date prescribed by the bylaws and improperly prohibiting the recording of an open board meeting in October 2022. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the petitioner’s filing fees of $1,000 for these violations.

The ALJ found in favor of the HOA on the remaining three issues. It concluded that the organizational meeting process was compliant with the bylaws, that a September 2022 board meeting was properly called by the HOA manager acting as an agent of the board, and that the petitioner failed to prove he was denied the opportunity to speak during the October 2022 meeting despite being muted at times. No civil penalties were deemed appropriate.

——————————————————————————–

I. Allegation 1: Improper Annual Meeting Date

Outcome: Violation Found

The petitioner prevailed on the allegation that the HOA violated its bylaws by holding the 2022 annual meeting in May, rather than on the mandated date.

Aspect

Details

Petitioner’s Allegation

The HOA violated Bylaws Article II, Paragraph 2.3, which requires the annual meeting to be held on the second Wednesday of April each year.

Respondent’s Defense

The Community Manager, Mandy Rogers, testified that upon taking over the account in January 2022, she presented a draft calendar to the prior board. The board chose the May date, following a “cadence” established in previous years. She noted the 2021 meeting was moved to August due to COVID-19, and the 2019 meeting was also not in April.

Supporting Testimony

– Mandy Rogers: Acknowledged awareness that the annual meeting is supposed to be in April. She stated, “Your annual meeting for the past 3 years was on the wrong date per the bylaw.” She confirmed the 2023 meeting was correctly scheduled for April.
– Mandy Rogers: Explained her process for the 2022 calendar: “I looked at when their last annual meeting was and it was in August of 2021. So on that draft calendar, I said, ‘Do you want your meeting in August of 2022?’ And they said, ‘No, we traditionally have it in May.’ And I said, ‘Okay, you guys choose a date and a time that works for you.'”

ALJ Conclusion

The evidence showed the HOA failed to hold its meeting on the required date. The ALJ noted that while A.R.S. § 10-3701(e) states that failure to hold a timely meeting does not invalidate corporate action, it “does not provide an exception to the adherence to Bylaws that require a set time for an annual meeting.”

II. Allegation 2: Improper Organizational Meeting

Outcome: Violation Not Found

The petitioner failed to prove that the HOA violated bylaws regarding the scheduling and format of the organizational meeting.

Aspect

Details

Petitioner’s Allegation

The HOA did not elect officers in an “exclusively and timely scheduled Organizational Meeting” as required by its bylaws (Article III, Section 3.5 and 3.7). The petitioner argued the meeting should be a standalone event held shortly after directors take office on January 1st.

Respondent’s Defense

The organizational meeting was held during the August 2022 board meeting, which was the next scheduled open session after the May election. This delay was to allow for new board member training to be completed, as required by the bylaws. The bylaws mandate a meeting “within a reasonable time” and do not require it to be “exclusive.”

Supporting Testimony

– Mandy Rogers: “Your organizational meeting was specifically scheduled for the next open session board meeting which was in August. That was also to satisfy that your bylaws say that all board training should be done prior to that meeting.” She confirmed that the new director (Pekin) received training via Zoom and was provided a board book and access to the online platform.
– Susanne Roskens (Board President): Confirmed that officer positions were discussed and voted on by the three present directors during the August meeting.

ALJ Conclusion

The bylaws do not require the organizational meeting to be held separately from a regular board meeting. The ALJ also noted that the Community Manager may act as an agent of the board.

Sub-Issue: Director Term Start Date

A significant point of contention was a bylaw provision (Section 3.5) stating that elected directors take office on January 1st of the following year.

• Mandy Rogers’ Testimony: She described this provision as highly unusual and professionally unheard of. “I’ve never seen governing documents that call out that you have an election in April and don’t take office until January. That’s unheard of.” She stated the association attorney was reviewing the provision.

• Association Practice: Board President Susanne Roskens testified that the association has never had directors wait until January to take office.

III. Allegation 3: Improperly Called September 2022 Board Meeting

Outcome: Violation Not Found

The petitioner failed to prove that the September 22, 2022 board meeting was improperly called by the HOA Manager.

Aspect

Details

Petitioner’s Allegation

The HOA Manager, Mandy Rogers, who is not a board member, was not authorized to call a board meeting. An email from her stated, “I’m scheduling a board meeting.”

Respondent’s Defense

The meeting was necessary to approve a time-sensitive landscaping and overseeding contract, as unanimous email approval could not be achieved. Board President Susanne Roskens verbally directed Mandy Rogers to schedule the meeting. The petitioner himself had requested a meeting on the topic in prior emails, and the third director, Dennis Burger, confirmed his support for the meeting in writing.

Supporting Testimony

– Mandy Rogers: “I spoke to your board president and at your request to schedule a meeting… I was given the directive to schedule it.”
– Susanne Roskens: “I discussed it with Mandy via a phone call and asked if we could have a meeting to get clarification so that we could move forward.”
– Exhibit I (Email Chain): This exhibit shows the petitioner requesting a meeting to discuss the topic, Mandy Rogers subsequently scheduling the meeting, the petitioner objecting to her authority, and Dennis Burger responding, “I’m confused meaning [Susanne] wants the meeting and ask her to set it up.”

ALJ Conclusion

The meeting was properly initiated. Ms. Rogers, as an employee of the Community Manager, may act as an agent of the Board.

IV. Allegation 4: Prohibition of Recording (October 24, 2022)

Outcome: Violation Found

The petitioner prevailed on the allegation that the HOA violated Arizona statute by prohibiting the recording of an open session meeting.

Aspect

Details

Petitioner’s Allegation

The HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by prohibiting the recording of the open session meeting on October 24, 2022.

Respondent’s Defense

Mandy Rogers stated she made the announcement based on advice from the association attorney following a contentious executive session that preceded the open meeting. She also testified that the board requires advance notice of recording. The defense also argued the issue was moot because the petitioner recorded the meeting regardless.

Supporting Testimony

– Mandy Rogers: “A statement was made at the beginning of the session so the board could handle board business.” When asked who gave the direction to prohibit recording, she stated it was the attorney.
– Shelly Nelson (Witness): Confirmed she remembered the association prohibiting recording of the open meeting.
– Sherry Swanson (Witness): Confirmed, “The meeting started that way that she said you should not record.”

ALJ Conclusion

The preponderance of evidence shows that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 when it informed homeowners they were not allowed to record the board meeting.

V. Allegation 5: Muting and Silencing Opposition (October 24, 2022)

Outcome: Violation Not Found

The petitioner failed to prove that he was prevented from speaking for the opposing side during the October 24, 2022 meeting.

Aspect

Details

Petitioner’s Allegation

During the Zoom meeting, the HOA muted the petitioner, preventing him from voicing opposition on issues, in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Respondent’s Defense

Mandy Rogers admitted to muting the petitioner but justified it on several grounds: he was being “combative,” speaking over others, and bringing up confidential executive session topics in an open forum. His camera was off and he was self-muted at times, creating confusion about his presence and participation.

Witness Testimony

– Shelly Nelson: Did not perceive the petitioner’s behavior as combative. She described the overall tone of the meeting as “antagonistic” and felt “decisions were foregone conclusions.”
– Sherry Swanson: Perceived both the petitioner and Mandy Rogers as “very argumentative.” She stated the petitioner “did come across very argumented from the beginning of the meeting” and came in “hotheaded.”

ALJ Conclusion

Petitioner failed to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The ALJ noted, “the evidence shows that Petitioner had several times to speak during the board meeting.”


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Senol Pekin (petitioner/board member)
    Director of Artesian Ranch Community Association Board
  • Julie Willowby (witness)
    Testified for Petitioner; Former Board President
  • Shelley Nelson (witness)
    Testified for Petitioner; Resident, daughter of homeowners John and Muriel Nelson
  • Sherry Swanson (witness)
    Testified for Petitioner; Homeowner

Respondent Side

  • Ashley N. Moscarello (HOA attorney)
    goodlaw.legal
  • Mandy Rogers (property manager)
    AAM, LLC
    Community Manager for Artesian Ranch
  • Susanne Easterday Roskens (board member)
    Director/Board President of Artesian Ranch Community Association Board
  • Dennis Burger (board member)
    Director of Artesian Ranch Community Association Board
  • Danielle Rancher (property manager)
    AM/AAM
    Mandy Rogers' manager/boss
  • Sandra Carlson (administrative staff)
    AAM
    Takes meeting minutes
  • Amanda Sha (CEO/President)
    AAM
    Founder of AAM; filed annual report update

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE

Other Participants

  • Brock (resident/prior board member)
  • John Nelson (homeowner)
    Artesian Ranch
    Father of Shelley Nelson
  • Muriel Nelson (homeowner)
    Artesian Ranch
    Mother of Shelley Nelson
  • Rick Beaver (homeowner/candidate)
    Artesian Ranch
    Homeowner appealing decision and running for board
  • Brandon (vendor)
    Terra Verde

Senol Pekin v. Artesian Ranch Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H034-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-04-10
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $2,500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Senol Pekin Counsel —
Respondent Artesian Ranch Community Association Counsel Ashley N. Moscarello

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article II Paragraph 2.3
Bylaws Article III Section A Paragraph 3.5, Section B Paragraph 3.7, and Article IV Paragraph 4.2
Bylaws Article III Section B, Article IV Section 6.7(b), Article I Paragraph 1.3
A.R.S. 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. 33-1804

Outcome Summary

Petitioner succeeded on two issues regarding the HOA's failure to hold its annual meeting at the prescribed time and improperly prohibiting the recording of an open session meeting. Respondent prevailed on the remaining three issues, as the ALJ found the bylaws did not require a separate organizational meeting, the community manager acted as an authorized agent to call a meeting, and Petitioner was not denied the opportunity to speak despite being muted at times during a videoconference. Respondent was ordered to refund $1,000 for the two successful issues.

Why this result: Petitioner lost on three issues because the bylaws did not strictly require the organizational meeting to be held separately, the community manager had authority as an agent to organize a meeting, and evidence demonstrated Petitioner was afforded multiple opportunities to speak during the Zoom meeting.

Key Issues & Findings

Annual Meetings

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to hold its annual meeting at the prescribed time in April 2022.

Orders: Petitioner deemed prevailing party. Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner filing fee of $500 for this issue.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Organizational Meetings

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to hold a separate organizational meeting to elect officers.

Orders: Respondent deemed prevailing party.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Authority to Call Board Meeting

Petitioner alleged the HOA manager was not authorized to organize or call a board meeting.

Orders: Respondent deemed prevailing party.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Open Meeting Recording

Petitioner alleged the HOA illegally prohibited homeowners from recording an open board meeting.

Orders: Petitioner deemed prevailing party. Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner filing fee of $500 for this issue.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Open Meeting Opportunity to Speak

Petitioner alleged the HOA muted participants during a Zoom meeting, preventing them from speaking.

Orders: Respondent deemed prevailing party.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Decision Documents

23F-H037-REL Decision – 1037672.pdf

Uploaded 2026-03-14T16:47:37 (49.3 KB)

23F-H037-REL Decision – 1041383.pdf

Uploaded 2026-03-14T16:47:38 (50.6 KB)

23F-H037-REL Decision – 1044671.pdf

Uploaded 2026-03-14T16:47:38 (166.9 KB)

23F-H037-REL Decision – 1044839.pdf

Uploaded 2026-03-14T16:47:38 (36.5 KB)

23F-H037-REL Decision – 1048179.pdf

Uploaded 2026-03-14T16:47:38 (105.1 KB)

23F-H037-REL Decision – 1054714.pdf

Uploaded 2026-03-14T16:47:38 (47.2 KB)

**Case Overview**
**Case Title:** Consolidated Docket Nos. 23F-H034-REL and 23F-H037-REL
**Parties:** Senol Pekin (Petitioner) vs. Artesian Ranch Community Association (Respondent)
**Hearing Date:** March 20, 2023
**Judge:** Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson, Office of Administrative Hearings

**Main Issues**
The Petitioner brought five central allegations against the Respondent (the Homeowners' Association or HOA), claiming violations of the HOA's Bylaws and Arizona state law (A.R.S. § 33-1804):
1. The HOA failed to hold its 2022 annual meeting on the required date (the second Wednesday of April).
2. The HOA failed to hold an exclusively scheduled organizational meeting to elect officers.
3. The HOA held a board meeting on September 22, 2022, that was unlawfully organized by the HOA Manager rather than the Board.
4. The HOA prohibited the recording of an open board session on October 24, 2022, violating A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).
5. The HOA unfairly silenced opposing sides by muting attendees during the October 24 Zoom meeting.

**Key Facts and Legal Arguments**
* **Annual Meeting Timing:** The HOA admitted it held the 2022 annual meeting in May instead of April, arguing it was merely a technical violation without harm, relying on A.R.S. § 10-3701(e). The Judge ruled that while corporate actions may remain valid under that statute, the HOA still directly violated its own Bylaws which mandate a specific timeline.
* **Organizational and Manager-Called Meetings:** The Judge found no requirement in the Bylaws that an organizational meeting to elect officers must be separate from a regular board meeting. Regarding the September meeting, the Judge determined that the HOA Manager acted lawfully as an agent of the Board at the request of the Board President.
* **Recording Prohibition and Muting:** Evidence confirmed the HOA Manager instructed homeowners not to record the October open meeting and required advance notice to do so. The Judge ruled this was a clear violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804, which explicitly guarantees members the right to record open meetings without providing advance notice. However, the Judge dismissed the claim regarding muting; evidence showed the Manager muted the Petitioner due to aggressive behavior, but the Petitioner was still given ample opportunity to speak during the meeting.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
The Administrative Law Judge issued a split decision on April 10, 2023:
* **Petitioner Prevailed:** The Petitioner won on Issues 1 (failure to hold the annual meeting on time) and 4 (unlawfully prohibiting the recording of an open meeting) [

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Senol Pekin (petitioner)
    Testified on his own behalf
  • Julie Willoughby (witness)
    Also spelled Julie Willowby in transcript
  • Shelley Nelson (witness)
    Also spelled Shelly Nelson in transcript
  • Sherry Swanson (witness)

Respondent Side

  • Ashley N. Moscarello (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Law Group
    Represented the respondent
  • Daniel S. Francom (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Law Group
  • Mandy Rogers (property manager)
    AAM, LLC
    Community Manager; testified as a witness for respondent
  • Susanne Easterday Roskens (board member)
    Artesian Ranch Community Association
    Director/President of Respondent's Board; testified as a witness for respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Assigned Administrative Law Judge
  • Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Dennis Berger (subpoenaed individual)
    Subpoena for this individual was quashed
  • Brock O’Neal (subpoenaed individual)
    Motion to quash subpoena for this individual was denied
  • Rick Beaver (homeowner)
    Artesian Ranch Community Association
    Had an appeal reviewed during a board meeting; candidate for the board
  • Sandra Carlson (unknown)
    Copied on board packet email

David & Brenda Norman v. Rancho Del Lago Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919051-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-05-28
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner David and Brenda Norman Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Del Lago Community Association Counsel Ashley N. Moscarello

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs § 3.11(D)(1) / Common Project Guidelines § 3.11(D)(1)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition filed by David and Brenda Norman against Rancho Del Lago Community Association, finding that the Department of Real Estate did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute, as it was essentially a conflict between neighboring owners (Petitioners and Hendersons) regarding a wall.

Why this result: The Department lacked jurisdiction over the dispute among or between owners, per A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation by HOA approving a block wall built by neighbors (Hendersons)

Petitioners alleged that Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs § 3.11(D)(1) by approving a block wall built by their next-door neighbors, the Hendersons, and requested the Department require the Hendersons to permit Petitioners to connect to the wall or require the Hendersons to tear the wall down.

Orders: The petition was dismissed because the Department lacked jurisdiction to hear a dispute primarily among or between owners to which the association is not a party, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1).

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Jurisdiction, HOA Governance, Architectural Review Committee (ARC), Party Wall, Neighbor Dispute, CC&Rs
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919051-REL Decision – 710478.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:29:06 (150.0 KB)

19F-H1919051-REL Decision – 711115.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:29:10 (149.9 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1919051-REL


Case Briefing: Norman v. Rancho Del Lago Community Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1919051-REL, involving homeowners David and Brenda Norman (Petitioners) and the Rancho Del Lago Community Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute centers on the Petitioners’ allegation that the Respondent’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) violated community guidelines by approving a wall built by the Petitioners’ neighbors, the Hendersons.

The Petitioners claimed the Henderson’s wall, constructed 6 inches inside the property line, created a situation where any wall they might build on their property would be a “closely parallel wall,” which is prohibited by the community’s Common Project Guidelines § 3.11(D)(1). They requested that the Respondent either force the Hendersons to allow the Petitioners to connect to their wall, effectively making it a shared “party wall,” or compel the Hendersons to demolish it.

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition entirely. The primary legal basis for the dismissal was a lack of jurisdiction; under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1), the Arizona Department of Real Estate cannot hear disputes solely between homeowners in which the association is not a party. The judge concluded this was fundamentally a neighbor-versus-neighbor conflict. Furthermore, the judge characterized the wall the Petitioners sought to build as an “archetypical spite fence” and noted that the Petitioners had failed to prove the Respondent had violated any community documents.

Case Overview

Parties and Key Entities

Name/Entity

Description

Petitioners

David and Brenda Norman

Homeowners in the Rancho Del Lago Community.

Respondent

Rancho Del Lago Community Association

The homeowners’ association (HOA) for the community.

Neighbors

The Hendersons

The Petitioners’ next-door neighbors who built the disputed wall.

Management Co.

Management Solutions

The company managing the Respondent HOA.

Witness (Respondent)

Spencer Brod

Employee of Management Solutions overseeing the Respondent’s affairs.

Administrative Law Judge

Diane Mihalsky

Presiding judge from the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Regulating Body

Arizona Department of Real Estate

State agency authorized to hear certain HOA disputes.

Adjudicating Body

Office of Administrative Hearings

Independent state agency that conducted the evidentiary hearing.

Procedural Details

Detail

Information

Case Number

19F-H1919051-REL

Petition Filed

On or about February 28, 2019

Hearing Date

May 8, 2019

Amended Decision Date

May 28, 2019

Timeline of Key Events

• December 2003: The Respondent’s ARC adopts the Common Project Guidelines, which govern all exterior improvements.

• March 8, 2017: The Hendersons submit an Architectural Variance Request (AVR) to extend the common wall between their property and the Petitioners’. Mrs. Norman signs the request, giving consent. The ARC approves this request.

• April 27, 2017: The Hendersons submit a new AVR to build a wall extension 6 inches inside their property line, making it a private wall rather than a shared party wall. The record suggests Mrs. Norman may have rescinded her earlier approval for the common wall.

• May 10, 2017: The ARC approves the Hendersons’ request to build the wall 6 inches inside their property line.

• September 5, 2017: The Petitioners submit an AVR to build an 11-foot wide concrete driveway. The ARC denies the request.

• Post-September 5, 2017: Despite the denial, the Petitioners construct the 11-foot wide driveway and are subsequently issued a Notice of Violation by the Respondent.

• September 7, 2017: The Petitioners submit an AVR to build a wall extension on their property, positioned at least 3 feet away from the Hendersons’ wall.

• October 13, 2017: The ARC approves the Petitioners’ wall extension request.

• Post-October 13, 2017: The Petitioners decide not to build the approved wall, stating their contractor advised them against “giving up” the 3 feet of property that would lie between the two walls.

• By November 2017: The Hendersons’ wall appears to have been constructed.

• February 28, 2019: The Petitioners file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the Respondent violated community rules.

• March 27, 2019: The Petitioners file a new AVR to build a wall directly on the property line. This request did not include the Hendersons’ required consent and was still pending at the time of the hearing.

Governing Documents and Key Provisions

The dispute and subsequent legal decision referenced several specific articles from the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and the Common Project Guidelines.

Document

Provision

Description

Article I § (p)

Defines “Party Walls” built on a property line, establishing equal right of use, joint responsibility for maintenance and repair, and a process for the Board to resolve disputes over construction or cost-sharing.

Article II § 2(a)

Requires prior written approval from the ARC for any improvements that alter the exterior appearance of a property.

Article XII § 1

Establishes the ARC, noting that its decisions are “sole, absolute and final on all matters submitted to it.”

Common Project Guidelines

Section 3.11(D)(1)

States that “Closely parallel walls shall be disapproved.” The term “closely parallel” is not defined in the guidelines. This provision was the central focus of the Petitioners’ complaint.

Common Project Guidelines

Section 4.21

Grants the ARC the right “to waive, vary, or otherwise modify any of the standards or procedures set forth herein at its discretion, for good cause shown.”

Summary of Testimony and Evidence

Testimony of Brenda Norman (Petitioner)

• Motivation for Wall: Stated that she and her husband are in law enforcement and want to enclose their side yard to protect utility meters from potential vandalism.

• Reason for Not Building Approved Wall: Explained that their contractor advised them it was “crazy to give up the 3’ of property” that would be inaccessible between their proposed wall and the Hendersons’ wall.

• Relationship with Neighbors: Acknowledged that the Petitioners “do not get along very well with the Hendersons” and therefore never asked for their consent for a wall on the property line.

• Belief Regarding Parallel Walls: Believes that if she submitted a plan for a wall just inside her property line, it would be denied under the “close parallel wall” rule.

• Requested Action: Opined that the Respondent should force the Hendersons to tear down their wall because it is not uniformly 6 inches from the property line.

Testimony of Spencer Brod (for Respondent)

• HOA Policy: Testified that the HOA “never gets involved in disputes between neighbors” and that it is the homeowner’s responsibility to obtain neighbor consent for common wall projects.

• Party vs. Private Walls: Explained that neighbor consent is required only for “party walls” on the property line due to shared maintenance liability. The Hendersons’ wall was approved because it was on their own property and therefore not a party wall.

• Enforcement and Inspection: Admitted that the Hendersons’ wall may not be uniformly 6 inches from the line but stated the Respondent has no one to perform a “thorough inspection” and had not sent a violation letter.

• “Closely Parallel Walls” Interpretation: Testified that while the term is undefined, the ARC’s approval of the Petitioners’ plan for a wall 3 feet away indicates that “closely parallel” means a distance of less than 3 feet.

• Petitioners’ Unauthorized Construction: Confirmed that the Respondent sent the Petitioners a Notice of Violation for building a driveway that the ARC had explicitly denied.

Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions of Law

The judge’s decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence, governing documents, and relevant state law.

1. Jurisdictional Failure: The primary reason for dismissal was a lack of jurisdiction. The judge cited A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1), which explicitly states, “The department does not have jurisdiction to hear [a]ny dispute among or between owners to which the association is not a party.” The judge determined this was a quintessential neighbor dispute, not a dispute with the HOA.

2. Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: The Petitioners bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent violated its own rules. The judge found they failed to do so.

3. Characterization as a “Spite Fence”: The decision describes the wall the Petitioners wish to build as an “archetypical spite fence between neighbors who cannot agree to mutually work for the improvement of their adjacent properties.”

4. HOA’s Limited Role: The judge affirmed that neither the CC&Rs nor the Common Project Guidelines compel the HOA to mediate or resolve disputes between neighbors by taking a side.

5. Distinction of Wall Types: The analysis distinguished between a party wall on a property line, which requires neighbor consent, and a private wall built entirely on one owner’s property, which does not. The Hendersons’ wall was approved as the latter.

6. Hypothetical Outcome: A concluding footnote in the decision states that even if the Department had jurisdiction, the Petitioners had not established that Guideline 3.11(D)(1) would authorize or require the Respondent to grant the relief they requested.

Final Order

IT IS ORDERED that the petition filed by David and Brenda Norman against the Respondent, Rancho Del Lago Community Association, is dismissed. The dismissal is based on the finding that the Arizona Department of Real Estate does not have jurisdiction to hear their dispute with the Hendersons.






Study Guide – 19F-H1919051-REL


Study Guide: Norman v. Rancho Del Lago Community Association

This guide is designed to review the administrative legal case between homeowners David and Brenda Norman and their homeowners’ association, the Rancho Del Lago Community Association, concerning a dispute over a neighbor’s wall.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing only from the information provided in the case documents.

1. What was the central violation of the homeowners’ association rules alleged by the Petitioners in their February 28, 2019, petition?

2. Identify the three main groups of individuals or entities involved in the dispute: the Petitioners, the Respondent, and the neighbors.

3. According to the Respondent’s CC&Rs, what is a “Party Wall” and what primary responsibility does it create for adjacent homeowners?

4. Describe the two separate wall-related Architectural Variance Requests (AVRs) submitted by the Hendersons in March and April of 2017.

5. Why did the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) initially deny the Petitioners’ request to build a new driveway, and what was the outcome of this denial?

6. What is the role of the “Declarant” within the Rancho Del Lago Community Association, and what influence do they hold over the board and the ARC?

7. The ARC approved a wall proposal for the Petitioners on October 13, 2017. Why did the Petitioners choose not to build this approved wall?

8. According to the CC&Rs, what is the ultimate authority of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) in rendering its decisions?

9. On what legal grounds did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismiss the Petitioners’ case?

10. Who bore the “burden of proof” in this hearing, and what does this legal standard require?

——————————————————————————–

Quiz Answer Key

1. The Petitioners alleged that the Respondent (the homeowners’ association) violated Section 3.11(D)(1) of the Common Project Guidelines. This section states that “closely parallel walls shall be disapproved,” and the Petitioners argued that the association violated this rule by approving the wall built by their neighbors, the Hendersons.

2. The Petitioners were homeowners David and Brenda Norman. The Respondent was the Rancho Del Lago Community Association. The neighbors, who were central to the dispute but not a party to the case, were the Hendersons.

3. A “Party Wall” is a wall situated on the property line between two or more contiguous lots. It creates a shared right of use and a joint obligation for all adjoining owners to rebuild and repair the wall at their shared expense.

4. The Hendersons first submitted an AVR on March 8, 2017, to extend the existing common party wall, for which Mrs. Norman gave consent. On April 27, 2017, they submitted a different AVR to build a new wall located entirely on their property, 6 inches inside the property line, which did not require the Normans’ consent.

5. The ARC denied the Petitioners’ September 5, 2017, request for an 11-foot wide driveway because a driveway already existed on the opposite side of the house where the garage was located. Despite the denial, the Petitioners built the driveway anyway, which resulted in the Respondent issuing them a Notice of Violation.

6. The “Declarant” is the original developer that built the subdivision. At the time of the hearing, the Respondent association was still under the control of the Declarant, who appointed all three directors of the board and was also a member of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC).

7. The Petitioners did not build the approved wall because the plan required it to be built at least 3 feet inside their property line to avoid being a party wall. Their contractor advised them they would be “crazy to give up the 3’ of property” that would lie between their new wall and the Hendersons’ wall.

8. According to Article XII, § 1 of the CC&Rs, “the decision of the [ARC] shall be sole, absolute and final on all matters submitted to it pursuant to this Declaration and/or the Design Guidelines.”

9. The judge dismissed the case due to a lack of jurisdiction. According to Arizona statute A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1), the Arizona Department of Real Estate does not have jurisdiction to hear disputes between owners to which the association is not a party. The judge framed the issue as a private dispute between the Normans and the Hendersons.

10. The Petitioners (the Normans) bore the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated the community rules. This standard, known as a “preponderance of the evidence,” requires presenting evidence that is more convincing and more likely true than not.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more analytical understanding of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each prompt, citing specific facts and rules from the case documents to support your arguments.

1. Analyze the concept of a “Party Wall” versus a privately-owned wall within the context of this case. How did the distinction between these two types of walls become the central point of contention and influence the decisions made by the Hendersons, the Normans, and the ARC?

2. Discuss the powers and limitations of the Rancho Del Lago Community Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) as outlined in the CC&Rs and Common Project Guidelines. How did the ARC’s discretionary authority, particularly under Section 4.21 of the guidelines, impact the events of this dispute?

3. Trace the timeline of Architectural Variance Requests (AVRs) submitted by both the Normans and the Hendersons. Evaluate how the sequence of approvals, denials, and unbuilt projects contributed to the escalation of the dispute and ultimately led to the legal hearing.

4. Explain the legal reasoning behind the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision. Why was the concept of “jurisdiction” more critical to the outcome than the merits of the Normans’ claim regarding “closely parallel walls”? Refer to the specific Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) cited in the decision.

5. The judge described the potential wall the Petitioners wish to build as an “archetypical spite fence.” Based on the testimony and evidence presented in the case, argue for or against this characterization.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Diane Mihalsky, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and renders decisions on disputes involving state agencies.

Architectural Review Committee (ARC)

A committee established by the Declarant and governed by the CC&Rs, responsible for reviewing and approving or denying any proposed improvements that alter the exterior appearance of properties within the community. Its decisions are described as “sole, absolute and final.”

Architectural Variance Request (AVR)

The formal application submitted by a homeowner to the ARC to request approval for an exterior improvement or modification to their property.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (the Department)

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations regarding violations of community documents.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The legal documents that establish the rules, regulations, and obligations for homeowners within a planned community like Rancho Del Lago.

Closely Parallel Walls

A term from Section 3.11(D)(1) of the Common Project Guidelines that are to be disapproved. The term is not explicitly defined, but testimony suggests a wall 3 feet from another would be approved, making the threshold for “close” less than that.

Common Project Guidelines

A set of rules adopted by the ARC in December 2003 that govern all exterior improvements and provide standards for the Design Review Process. These guidelines supplement the CC&Rs.

Declarant

The original developer that built the subdivision. In this case, the Declarant still controlled the association’s Board of Directors and the ARC.

Jurisdiction

The legal authority of a court or agency to hear and decide a case. The petition was dismissed because the Department was found to lack jurisdiction over disputes solely between homeowners.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency in Arizona where evidentiary hearings, like the one in this case, are conducted by an Administrative Law Judge.

Party Wall

As defined in the CC&Rs, a wall on the property line between contiguous lots. Owners have equal rights to use it and share joint financial responsibility for its repair and maintenance.

Petitioners

The party that initiates a legal action or petition. In this case, homeowners David and Brenda Norman.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this civil administrative hearing. It means the evidence presented must be sufficient to convince the judge that a claim is more probably true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Lago Community Association.

Restrictive Covenant

A provision in a deed or community document (like a CC&R) that limits the use of the property. Arizona law holds that unambiguous restrictive covenants are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties.






Blog Post – 19F-H1919051-REL


The Six-Inch Wall That Ignited a Legal Battle: 4 Shocking Lessons from a Brutal HOA War

1.0 Introduction: The Neighbor Next Door

Living next to someone is a universal experience, and it’s remarkable how quickly a small disagreement over a fence or a property line can spiral into a full-blown conflict. For two families in an Arizona HOA, what started as a plan for a backyard wall ended in a formal administrative law hearing, providing a stark case study in property law, association rules, and human nature.

This dispute, involving homeowners David and Brenda Norman and their neighbors, the Hendersons, dissects four critical lessons that challenge common assumptions about homeowner rights and association duties. Their story is a powerful cautionary tale about property lines, HOA authority, and the high cost of a neighborhood war.

2.0 Takeaway 1: The Six-Inch Difference That Changes Everything

1. A Wall on the Property Line Isn’t the Same as a Wall Near It

In property law, inches are everything. The community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) defined a “Party Wall” as a structure sitting directly on the property line between two lots. By this definition, these walls are a shared responsibility, requiring mutual consent from both homeowners for construction and shared costs for maintenance.

This distinction became the pivot on which the entire case turned. Initially, the Hendersons submitted plans to build a shared Party Wall, and the Normans gave their required consent. But then the plan changed. The Hendersons withdrew that request and submitted a new one: to build a wall located just six inches inside their own property line. The record doesn’t state definitively why the Hendersons changed their plan, though testimony suggested the Normans may have rescinded their initial consent.

This was a masterstroke of procedural navigation; by sacrificing a mere six inches of their yard, the Hendersons effectively bought the legal right to build without their neighbors’ consent, turning a potential year-long dispute into a matter of a simple ARC approval. By moving the structure entirely onto their own lot, it was no longer a “Party Wall” but their private property. While the Hendersons had successfully navigated the HOA’s rules, the Normans’ next step was to try and force the HOA to intervene directly—a move that would expose a common misunderstanding about the limits of an association’s power.

3.0 Takeaway 2: Your HOA Isn’t the Neighborhood Referee

2. The HOA’s Power to Intervene Has Surprising Limits

A common assumption among homeowners is that the HOA must mediate any and all disputes between residents. This case proves that assumption is fundamentally incorrect.

When the conflict escalated, the HOA’s position was unwavering. Spencer Brod, an employee of the association’s management company, testified that the association “never gets involved in disputes between neighbors.” Its role is to enforce community rules as they relate to the association, not to take sides in personal conflicts between homeowners.

The Administrative Law Judge presiding over the case reinforced this legal reality, citing Arizona law to clarify the limits of both the HOA’s and the state’s jurisdiction. The judge’s finding was unequivocal:

Neither the CC&Rs nor the Common Project Guidelines require Respondent [the HOA] to mediate or resolve a dispute between neighbors by taking one side or the other. A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1) provides that ‘[t]he department does not have jurisdiction to hear [a]ny dispute among or between owners to which the association is not a party.’

This finding is a crucial lesson: while an HOA enforces its governing documents, it is not a neighborhood court and cannot be compelled to referee personal disagreements.

4.0 Takeaway 3: You Can’t Demand a Neighbor Play by the Rules If You Don’t

3. Coming to the Table with Clean Hands Matters

The case contained a powerful element of irony that proved fatal to the Normans’ petition. The judge’s official Findings of Fact reveal that while demanding the HOA enforce its rules against the Hendersons, the Normans had a significant compliance issue of their own.

In September 2017, the Normans submitted a request to build an 11-foot wide concrete driveway “to provide a solid walking surface because Mrs. Norman was disabled and had difficulty walking.” While the motivation was sympathetic, the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) denied the request. Despite the denial, the Normans built the driveway anyway and were subsequently issued a Notice of Violation by the HOA.

Critically, the Normans’ own rule-breaking occurred after the Hendersons’ wall was approved. In the very midst of their dispute, while formulating a case against their neighbors, they chose to defy the ARC themselves. This is a classic illustration of the “unclean hands” doctrine. In any legal or administrative forum, one’s credibility is paramount. The Normans were asking the HOA to be a strict enforcer of rules they themselves had flagrantly violated, a position that is almost always untenable.

5.0 Takeaway 4: When a Judge Calls It a “Spite Fence”

4. The Court May Look Past the Rules and See Your Intent

Even in a hearing focused on the technicalities of CC&Rs, the underlying human motivations of the conflict did not go unnoticed. The HOA’s ARC had previously approved a plan for the Normans to build their own wall, provided it was located three feet inside their property line. They refused. Brenda Norman testified that their contractor told them they were “crazy to give up the 3’ of property.” Mrs. Norman also argued that a wall on her property would be denied as a prohibited “closely parallel wall,” but this claim was directly contradicted by the ARC’s own actions—they had already approved her wall at the three-foot distance.

The judge’s “spite fence” comment wasn’t just an observation; it was the legal culmination of the Normans’ entire pattern of behavior. Their refusal to accept an approved wall on their own property (losing 3 feet) while demanding their neighbor tear down a wall built on theirs (losing 0 feet) painted a clear picture of animosity, not a genuine need for property protection. The judge saw through the legal arguments to the core of the issue:

The wall that Petitioners testified that they must build to protect their property appears to be an archetypical spite fence between neighbors who cannot agree to mutually work for the improvement of their adjacent properties.

A “spite fence” is a legal term for a structure erected with malicious intent, where the primary purpose is not to improve one’s own property but to annoy, inconvenience, or harm a neighbor. The judge’s use of this term was a powerful signal that, in the court’s view, the dispute was no longer about property rights, but about personal animus.

6.0 Conclusion: A Wall Is a Wall, But a Neighbor Is Forever

This case is a cautionary tale written in concrete and legal filings. It shows how a dispute over six inches of soil can metastasize, fueled by a misunderstanding of HOA rules and an unwillingness to compromise, ultimately costing both parties time, money, and peace of mind. From the critical importance of a few inches of land to the defined limits of an HOA’s authority, the details matter.

Ultimately, the story of the Normans and the Hendersons serves as a powerful reminder that navigating HOA living requires a clear-eyed understanding of the actual rules, not just a sense of what seems “fair.” It leaves us with a critical question to consider.

When it comes to our homes and neighbors, is it more important to be right, or to find a way to live in peace?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • David Norman (petitioner)
    Appeared telephonically on own behalf
  • Brenda Norman (petitioner)
    Testified on Petitioners' behalf

Respondent Side

  • Ashley N. Moscarello (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Law Group
    Represented Rancho Del Lago Community Association
  • Spencer Brod (property manager/witness)
    Management Solutions
    Employee of Respondent's management company; testified

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Felicia Del Sol (administrative staff)
    Transmitted decision electronically

Other Participants

  • Anthony Henderson (homeowner/neighbor)
    Next-door neighbor who built the wall in dispute
  • Mabel Gummere (property manager predecessor)
    Predecessor to Spencer Brod

David & Brenda Norman v. Rancho Del Lago Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919051-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-05-28
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner David and Brenda Norman Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Del Lago Community Association Counsel Ashley N. Moscarello

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs § 3.11(D)(1) / Common Project Guidelines § 3.11(D)(1)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition filed by David and Brenda Norman against Rancho Del Lago Community Association, finding that the Department of Real Estate did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute, as it was essentially a conflict between neighboring owners (Petitioners and Hendersons) regarding a wall.

Why this result: The Department lacked jurisdiction over the dispute among or between owners, per A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation by HOA approving a block wall built by neighbors (Hendersons)

Petitioners alleged that Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs § 3.11(D)(1) by approving a block wall built by their next-door neighbors, the Hendersons, and requested the Department require the Hendersons to permit Petitioners to connect to the wall or require the Hendersons to tear the wall down.

Orders: The petition was dismissed because the Department lacked jurisdiction to hear a dispute primarily among or between owners to which the association is not a party, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1).

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Jurisdiction, HOA Governance, Architectural Review Committee (ARC), Party Wall, Neighbor Dispute, CC&Rs
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919051-REL Decision – 710478.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:10 (150.0 KB)

19F-H1919051-REL Decision – 711115.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:10 (149.9 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1919051-REL


Case Briefing: Norman v. Rancho Del Lago Community Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1919051-REL, involving homeowners David and Brenda Norman (Petitioners) and the Rancho Del Lago Community Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute centers on the Petitioners’ allegation that the Respondent’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) violated community guidelines by approving a wall built by the Petitioners’ neighbors, the Hendersons.

The Petitioners claimed the Henderson’s wall, constructed 6 inches inside the property line, created a situation where any wall they might build on their property would be a “closely parallel wall,” which is prohibited by the community’s Common Project Guidelines § 3.11(D)(1). They requested that the Respondent either force the Hendersons to allow the Petitioners to connect to their wall, effectively making it a shared “party wall,” or compel the Hendersons to demolish it.

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition entirely. The primary legal basis for the dismissal was a lack of jurisdiction; under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1), the Arizona Department of Real Estate cannot hear disputes solely between homeowners in which the association is not a party. The judge concluded this was fundamentally a neighbor-versus-neighbor conflict. Furthermore, the judge characterized the wall the Petitioners sought to build as an “archetypical spite fence” and noted that the Petitioners had failed to prove the Respondent had violated any community documents.

Case Overview

Parties and Key Entities

Name/Entity

Description

Petitioners

David and Brenda Norman

Homeowners in the Rancho Del Lago Community.

Respondent

Rancho Del Lago Community Association

The homeowners’ association (HOA) for the community.

Neighbors

The Hendersons

The Petitioners’ next-door neighbors who built the disputed wall.

Management Co.

Management Solutions

The company managing the Respondent HOA.

Witness (Respondent)

Spencer Brod

Employee of Management Solutions overseeing the Respondent’s affairs.

Administrative Law Judge

Diane Mihalsky

Presiding judge from the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Regulating Body

Arizona Department of Real Estate

State agency authorized to hear certain HOA disputes.

Adjudicating Body

Office of Administrative Hearings

Independent state agency that conducted the evidentiary hearing.

Procedural Details

Detail

Information

Case Number

19F-H1919051-REL

Petition Filed

On or about February 28, 2019

Hearing Date

May 8, 2019

Amended Decision Date

May 28, 2019

Timeline of Key Events

• December 2003: The Respondent’s ARC adopts the Common Project Guidelines, which govern all exterior improvements.

• March 8, 2017: The Hendersons submit an Architectural Variance Request (AVR) to extend the common wall between their property and the Petitioners’. Mrs. Norman signs the request, giving consent. The ARC approves this request.

• April 27, 2017: The Hendersons submit a new AVR to build a wall extension 6 inches inside their property line, making it a private wall rather than a shared party wall. The record suggests Mrs. Norman may have rescinded her earlier approval for the common wall.

• May 10, 2017: The ARC approves the Hendersons’ request to build the wall 6 inches inside their property line.

• September 5, 2017: The Petitioners submit an AVR to build an 11-foot wide concrete driveway. The ARC denies the request.

• Post-September 5, 2017: Despite the denial, the Petitioners construct the 11-foot wide driveway and are subsequently issued a Notice of Violation by the Respondent.

• September 7, 2017: The Petitioners submit an AVR to build a wall extension on their property, positioned at least 3 feet away from the Hendersons’ wall.

• October 13, 2017: The ARC approves the Petitioners’ wall extension request.

• Post-October 13, 2017: The Petitioners decide not to build the approved wall, stating their contractor advised them against “giving up” the 3 feet of property that would lie between the two walls.

• By November 2017: The Hendersons’ wall appears to have been constructed.

• February 28, 2019: The Petitioners file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the Respondent violated community rules.

• March 27, 2019: The Petitioners file a new AVR to build a wall directly on the property line. This request did not include the Hendersons’ required consent and was still pending at the time of the hearing.

Governing Documents and Key Provisions

The dispute and subsequent legal decision referenced several specific articles from the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and the Common Project Guidelines.

Document

Provision

Description

Article I § (p)

Defines “Party Walls” built on a property line, establishing equal right of use, joint responsibility for maintenance and repair, and a process for the Board to resolve disputes over construction or cost-sharing.

Article II § 2(a)

Requires prior written approval from the ARC for any improvements that alter the exterior appearance of a property.

Article XII § 1

Establishes the ARC, noting that its decisions are “sole, absolute and final on all matters submitted to it.”

Common Project Guidelines

Section 3.11(D)(1)

States that “Closely parallel walls shall be disapproved.” The term “closely parallel” is not defined in the guidelines. This provision was the central focus of the Petitioners’ complaint.

Common Project Guidelines

Section 4.21

Grants the ARC the right “to waive, vary, or otherwise modify any of the standards or procedures set forth herein at its discretion, for good cause shown.”

Summary of Testimony and Evidence

Testimony of Brenda Norman (Petitioner)

• Motivation for Wall: Stated that she and her husband are in law enforcement and want to enclose their side yard to protect utility meters from potential vandalism.

• Reason for Not Building Approved Wall: Explained that their contractor advised them it was “crazy to give up the 3’ of property” that would be inaccessible between their proposed wall and the Hendersons’ wall.

• Relationship with Neighbors: Acknowledged that the Petitioners “do not get along very well with the Hendersons” and therefore never asked for their consent for a wall on the property line.

• Belief Regarding Parallel Walls: Believes that if she submitted a plan for a wall just inside her property line, it would be denied under the “close parallel wall” rule.

• Requested Action: Opined that the Respondent should force the Hendersons to tear down their wall because it is not uniformly 6 inches from the property line.

Testimony of Spencer Brod (for Respondent)

• HOA Policy: Testified that the HOA “never gets involved in disputes between neighbors” and that it is the homeowner’s responsibility to obtain neighbor consent for common wall projects.

• Party vs. Private Walls: Explained that neighbor consent is required only for “party walls” on the property line due to shared maintenance liability. The Hendersons’ wall was approved because it was on their own property and therefore not a party wall.

• Enforcement and Inspection: Admitted that the Hendersons’ wall may not be uniformly 6 inches from the line but stated the Respondent has no one to perform a “thorough inspection” and had not sent a violation letter.

• “Closely Parallel Walls” Interpretation: Testified that while the term is undefined, the ARC’s approval of the Petitioners’ plan for a wall 3 feet away indicates that “closely parallel” means a distance of less than 3 feet.

• Petitioners’ Unauthorized Construction: Confirmed that the Respondent sent the Petitioners a Notice of Violation for building a driveway that the ARC had explicitly denied.

Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions of Law

The judge’s decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence, governing documents, and relevant state law.

1. Jurisdictional Failure: The primary reason for dismissal was a lack of jurisdiction. The judge cited A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1), which explicitly states, “The department does not have jurisdiction to hear [a]ny dispute among or between owners to which the association is not a party.” The judge determined this was a quintessential neighbor dispute, not a dispute with the HOA.

2. Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: The Petitioners bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent violated its own rules. The judge found they failed to do so.

3. Characterization as a “Spite Fence”: The decision describes the wall the Petitioners wish to build as an “archetypical spite fence between neighbors who cannot agree to mutually work for the improvement of their adjacent properties.”

4. HOA’s Limited Role: The judge affirmed that neither the CC&Rs nor the Common Project Guidelines compel the HOA to mediate or resolve disputes between neighbors by taking a side.

5. Distinction of Wall Types: The analysis distinguished between a party wall on a property line, which requires neighbor consent, and a private wall built entirely on one owner’s property, which does not. The Hendersons’ wall was approved as the latter.

6. Hypothetical Outcome: A concluding footnote in the decision states that even if the Department had jurisdiction, the Petitioners had not established that Guideline 3.11(D)(1) would authorize or require the Respondent to grant the relief they requested.

Final Order

IT IS ORDERED that the petition filed by David and Brenda Norman against the Respondent, Rancho Del Lago Community Association, is dismissed. The dismissal is based on the finding that the Arizona Department of Real Estate does not have jurisdiction to hear their dispute with the Hendersons.






Study Guide – 19F-H1919051-REL


Study Guide: Norman v. Rancho Del Lago Community Association

This guide is designed to review the administrative legal case between homeowners David and Brenda Norman and their homeowners’ association, the Rancho Del Lago Community Association, concerning a dispute over a neighbor’s wall.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing only from the information provided in the case documents.

1. What was the central violation of the homeowners’ association rules alleged by the Petitioners in their February 28, 2019, petition?

2. Identify the three main groups of individuals or entities involved in the dispute: the Petitioners, the Respondent, and the neighbors.

3. According to the Respondent’s CC&Rs, what is a “Party Wall” and what primary responsibility does it create for adjacent homeowners?

4. Describe the two separate wall-related Architectural Variance Requests (AVRs) submitted by the Hendersons in March and April of 2017.

5. Why did the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) initially deny the Petitioners’ request to build a new driveway, and what was the outcome of this denial?

6. What is the role of the “Declarant” within the Rancho Del Lago Community Association, and what influence do they hold over the board and the ARC?

7. The ARC approved a wall proposal for the Petitioners on October 13, 2017. Why did the Petitioners choose not to build this approved wall?

8. According to the CC&Rs, what is the ultimate authority of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) in rendering its decisions?

9. On what legal grounds did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismiss the Petitioners’ case?

10. Who bore the “burden of proof” in this hearing, and what does this legal standard require?

——————————————————————————–

Quiz Answer Key

1. The Petitioners alleged that the Respondent (the homeowners’ association) violated Section 3.11(D)(1) of the Common Project Guidelines. This section states that “closely parallel walls shall be disapproved,” and the Petitioners argued that the association violated this rule by approving the wall built by their neighbors, the Hendersons.

2. The Petitioners were homeowners David and Brenda Norman. The Respondent was the Rancho Del Lago Community Association. The neighbors, who were central to the dispute but not a party to the case, were the Hendersons.

3. A “Party Wall” is a wall situated on the property line between two or more contiguous lots. It creates a shared right of use and a joint obligation for all adjoining owners to rebuild and repair the wall at their shared expense.

4. The Hendersons first submitted an AVR on March 8, 2017, to extend the existing common party wall, for which Mrs. Norman gave consent. On April 27, 2017, they submitted a different AVR to build a new wall located entirely on their property, 6 inches inside the property line, which did not require the Normans’ consent.

5. The ARC denied the Petitioners’ September 5, 2017, request for an 11-foot wide driveway because a driveway already existed on the opposite side of the house where the garage was located. Despite the denial, the Petitioners built the driveway anyway, which resulted in the Respondent issuing them a Notice of Violation.

6. The “Declarant” is the original developer that built the subdivision. At the time of the hearing, the Respondent association was still under the control of the Declarant, who appointed all three directors of the board and was also a member of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC).

7. The Petitioners did not build the approved wall because the plan required it to be built at least 3 feet inside their property line to avoid being a party wall. Their contractor advised them they would be “crazy to give up the 3’ of property” that would lie between their new wall and the Hendersons’ wall.

8. According to Article XII, § 1 of the CC&Rs, “the decision of the [ARC] shall be sole, absolute and final on all matters submitted to it pursuant to this Declaration and/or the Design Guidelines.”

9. The judge dismissed the case due to a lack of jurisdiction. According to Arizona statute A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1), the Arizona Department of Real Estate does not have jurisdiction to hear disputes between owners to which the association is not a party. The judge framed the issue as a private dispute between the Normans and the Hendersons.

10. The Petitioners (the Normans) bore the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated the community rules. This standard, known as a “preponderance of the evidence,” requires presenting evidence that is more convincing and more likely true than not.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more analytical understanding of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each prompt, citing specific facts and rules from the case documents to support your arguments.

1. Analyze the concept of a “Party Wall” versus a privately-owned wall within the context of this case. How did the distinction between these two types of walls become the central point of contention and influence the decisions made by the Hendersons, the Normans, and the ARC?

2. Discuss the powers and limitations of the Rancho Del Lago Community Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) as outlined in the CC&Rs and Common Project Guidelines. How did the ARC’s discretionary authority, particularly under Section 4.21 of the guidelines, impact the events of this dispute?

3. Trace the timeline of Architectural Variance Requests (AVRs) submitted by both the Normans and the Hendersons. Evaluate how the sequence of approvals, denials, and unbuilt projects contributed to the escalation of the dispute and ultimately led to the legal hearing.

4. Explain the legal reasoning behind the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision. Why was the concept of “jurisdiction” more critical to the outcome than the merits of the Normans’ claim regarding “closely parallel walls”? Refer to the specific Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) cited in the decision.

5. The judge described the potential wall the Petitioners wish to build as an “archetypical spite fence.” Based on the testimony and evidence presented in the case, argue for or against this characterization.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Diane Mihalsky, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and renders decisions on disputes involving state agencies.

Architectural Review Committee (ARC)

A committee established by the Declarant and governed by the CC&Rs, responsible for reviewing and approving or denying any proposed improvements that alter the exterior appearance of properties within the community. Its decisions are described as “sole, absolute and final.”

Architectural Variance Request (AVR)

The formal application submitted by a homeowner to the ARC to request approval for an exterior improvement or modification to their property.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (the Department)

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations regarding violations of community documents.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The legal documents that establish the rules, regulations, and obligations for homeowners within a planned community like Rancho Del Lago.

Closely Parallel Walls

A term from Section 3.11(D)(1) of the Common Project Guidelines that are to be disapproved. The term is not explicitly defined, but testimony suggests a wall 3 feet from another would be approved, making the threshold for “close” less than that.

Common Project Guidelines

A set of rules adopted by the ARC in December 2003 that govern all exterior improvements and provide standards for the Design Review Process. These guidelines supplement the CC&Rs.

Declarant

The original developer that built the subdivision. In this case, the Declarant still controlled the association’s Board of Directors and the ARC.

Jurisdiction

The legal authority of a court or agency to hear and decide a case. The petition was dismissed because the Department was found to lack jurisdiction over disputes solely between homeowners.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency in Arizona where evidentiary hearings, like the one in this case, are conducted by an Administrative Law Judge.

Party Wall

As defined in the CC&Rs, a wall on the property line between contiguous lots. Owners have equal rights to use it and share joint financial responsibility for its repair and maintenance.

Petitioners

The party that initiates a legal action or petition. In this case, homeowners David and Brenda Norman.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this civil administrative hearing. It means the evidence presented must be sufficient to convince the judge that a claim is more probably true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Lago Community Association.

Restrictive Covenant

A provision in a deed or community document (like a CC&R) that limits the use of the property. Arizona law holds that unambiguous restrictive covenants are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties.






Blog Post – 19F-H1919051-REL


The Six-Inch Wall That Ignited a Legal Battle: 4 Shocking Lessons from a Brutal HOA War

1.0 Introduction: The Neighbor Next Door

Living next to someone is a universal experience, and it’s remarkable how quickly a small disagreement over a fence or a property line can spiral into a full-blown conflict. For two families in an Arizona HOA, what started as a plan for a backyard wall ended in a formal administrative law hearing, providing a stark case study in property law, association rules, and human nature.

This dispute, involving homeowners David and Brenda Norman and their neighbors, the Hendersons, dissects four critical lessons that challenge common assumptions about homeowner rights and association duties. Their story is a powerful cautionary tale about property lines, HOA authority, and the high cost of a neighborhood war.

2.0 Takeaway 1: The Six-Inch Difference That Changes Everything

1. A Wall on the Property Line Isn’t the Same as a Wall Near It

In property law, inches are everything. The community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) defined a “Party Wall” as a structure sitting directly on the property line between two lots. By this definition, these walls are a shared responsibility, requiring mutual consent from both homeowners for construction and shared costs for maintenance.

This distinction became the pivot on which the entire case turned. Initially, the Hendersons submitted plans to build a shared Party Wall, and the Normans gave their required consent. But then the plan changed. The Hendersons withdrew that request and submitted a new one: to build a wall located just six inches inside their own property line. The record doesn’t state definitively why the Hendersons changed their plan, though testimony suggested the Normans may have rescinded their initial consent.

This was a masterstroke of procedural navigation; by sacrificing a mere six inches of their yard, the Hendersons effectively bought the legal right to build without their neighbors’ consent, turning a potential year-long dispute into a matter of a simple ARC approval. By moving the structure entirely onto their own lot, it was no longer a “Party Wall” but their private property. While the Hendersons had successfully navigated the HOA’s rules, the Normans’ next step was to try and force the HOA to intervene directly—a move that would expose a common misunderstanding about the limits of an association’s power.

3.0 Takeaway 2: Your HOA Isn’t the Neighborhood Referee

2. The HOA’s Power to Intervene Has Surprising Limits

A common assumption among homeowners is that the HOA must mediate any and all disputes between residents. This case proves that assumption is fundamentally incorrect.

When the conflict escalated, the HOA’s position was unwavering. Spencer Brod, an employee of the association’s management company, testified that the association “never gets involved in disputes between neighbors.” Its role is to enforce community rules as they relate to the association, not to take sides in personal conflicts between homeowners.

The Administrative Law Judge presiding over the case reinforced this legal reality, citing Arizona law to clarify the limits of both the HOA’s and the state’s jurisdiction. The judge’s finding was unequivocal:

Neither the CC&Rs nor the Common Project Guidelines require Respondent [the HOA] to mediate or resolve a dispute between neighbors by taking one side or the other. A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1) provides that ‘[t]he department does not have jurisdiction to hear [a]ny dispute among or between owners to which the association is not a party.’

This finding is a crucial lesson: while an HOA enforces its governing documents, it is not a neighborhood court and cannot be compelled to referee personal disagreements.

4.0 Takeaway 3: You Can’t Demand a Neighbor Play by the Rules If You Don’t

3. Coming to the Table with Clean Hands Matters

The case contained a powerful element of irony that proved fatal to the Normans’ petition. The judge’s official Findings of Fact reveal that while demanding the HOA enforce its rules against the Hendersons, the Normans had a significant compliance issue of their own.

In September 2017, the Normans submitted a request to build an 11-foot wide concrete driveway “to provide a solid walking surface because Mrs. Norman was disabled and had difficulty walking.” While the motivation was sympathetic, the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) denied the request. Despite the denial, the Normans built the driveway anyway and were subsequently issued a Notice of Violation by the HOA.

Critically, the Normans’ own rule-breaking occurred after the Hendersons’ wall was approved. In the very midst of their dispute, while formulating a case against their neighbors, they chose to defy the ARC themselves. This is a classic illustration of the “unclean hands” doctrine. In any legal or administrative forum, one’s credibility is paramount. The Normans were asking the HOA to be a strict enforcer of rules they themselves had flagrantly violated, a position that is almost always untenable.

5.0 Takeaway 4: When a Judge Calls It a “Spite Fence”

4. The Court May Look Past the Rules and See Your Intent

Even in a hearing focused on the technicalities of CC&Rs, the underlying human motivations of the conflict did not go unnoticed. The HOA’s ARC had previously approved a plan for the Normans to build their own wall, provided it was located three feet inside their property line. They refused. Brenda Norman testified that their contractor told them they were “crazy to give up the 3’ of property.” Mrs. Norman also argued that a wall on her property would be denied as a prohibited “closely parallel wall,” but this claim was directly contradicted by the ARC’s own actions—they had already approved her wall at the three-foot distance.

The judge’s “spite fence” comment wasn’t just an observation; it was the legal culmination of the Normans’ entire pattern of behavior. Their refusal to accept an approved wall on their own property (losing 3 feet) while demanding their neighbor tear down a wall built on theirs (losing 0 feet) painted a clear picture of animosity, not a genuine need for property protection. The judge saw through the legal arguments to the core of the issue:

The wall that Petitioners testified that they must build to protect their property appears to be an archetypical spite fence between neighbors who cannot agree to mutually work for the improvement of their adjacent properties.

A “spite fence” is a legal term for a structure erected with malicious intent, where the primary purpose is not to improve one’s own property but to annoy, inconvenience, or harm a neighbor. The judge’s use of this term was a powerful signal that, in the court’s view, the dispute was no longer about property rights, but about personal animus.

6.0 Conclusion: A Wall Is a Wall, But a Neighbor Is Forever

This case is a cautionary tale written in concrete and legal filings. It shows how a dispute over six inches of soil can metastasize, fueled by a misunderstanding of HOA rules and an unwillingness to compromise, ultimately costing both parties time, money, and peace of mind. From the critical importance of a few inches of land to the defined limits of an HOA’s authority, the details matter.

Ultimately, the story of the Normans and the Hendersons serves as a powerful reminder that navigating HOA living requires a clear-eyed understanding of the actual rules, not just a sense of what seems “fair.” It leaves us with a critical question to consider.

When it comes to our homes and neighbors, is it more important to be right, or to find a way to live in peace?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • David Norman (petitioner)
    Appeared telephonically on own behalf
  • Brenda Norman (petitioner)
    Testified on Petitioners' behalf

Respondent Side

  • Ashley N. Moscarello (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Law Group
    Represented Rancho Del Lago Community Association
  • Spencer Brod (property manager/witness)
    Management Solutions
    Employee of Respondent's management company; testified

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Felicia Del Sol (administrative staff)
    Transmitted decision electronically

Other Participants

  • Anthony Henderson (homeowner/neighbor)
    Next-door neighbor who built the wall in dispute
  • Mabel Gummere (property manager predecessor)
    Predecessor to Spencer Brod

David & Brenda Norman vs. Rancho Del Lago Community Association

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

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919051-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-05-28
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner David and Brenda Norman Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Del Lago Community Association Counsel Ashley N. Moscarello

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs § 3.11(D)(1) / Common Project Guidelines § 3.11(D)(1)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition filed by David and Brenda Norman against Rancho Del Lago Community Association, finding that the Department of Real Estate did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute, as it was essentially a conflict between neighboring owners (Petitioners and Hendersons) regarding a wall.

Why this result: The Department lacked jurisdiction over the dispute among or between owners, per A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation by HOA approving a block wall built by neighbors (Hendersons)

Petitioners alleged that Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs § 3.11(D)(1) by approving a block wall built by their next-door neighbors, the Hendersons, and requested the Department require the Hendersons to permit Petitioners to connect to the wall or require the Hendersons to tear the wall down.

Orders: The petition was dismissed because the Department lacked jurisdiction to hear a dispute primarily among or between owners to which the association is not a party, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1).

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Jurisdiction, HOA Governance, Architectural Review Committee (ARC), Party Wall, Neighbor Dispute, CC&Rs
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

David & Brenda Norman vs. Rancho Del Lago Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919051-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-05-28
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner David and Brenda Norman Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Del Lago Community Association Counsel Ashley N. Moscarello

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs § 3.11(D)(1) / Common Project Guidelines § 3.11(D)(1)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition filed by David and Brenda Norman against Rancho Del Lago Community Association, finding that the Department of Real Estate did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute, as it was essentially a conflict between neighboring owners (Petitioners and Hendersons) regarding a wall.

Why this result: The Department lacked jurisdiction over the dispute among or between owners, per A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation by HOA approving a block wall built by neighbors (Hendersons)

Petitioners alleged that Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs § 3.11(D)(1) by approving a block wall built by their next-door neighbors, the Hendersons, and requested the Department require the Hendersons to permit Petitioners to connect to the wall or require the Hendersons to tear the wall down.

Orders: The petition was dismissed because the Department lacked jurisdiction to hear a dispute primarily among or between owners to which the association is not a party, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1).

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Jurisdiction, HOA Governance, Architectural Review Committee (ARC), Party Wall, Neighbor Dispute, CC&Rs
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

David & Brenda Norman vs. Rancho Del Lago Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919051-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-05-28
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner David and Brenda Norman Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Del Lago Community Association Counsel Ashley N. Moscarello

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs § 3.11(D)(1) / Common Project Guidelines § 3.11(D)(1)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition filed by David and Brenda Norman against Rancho Del Lago Community Association, finding that the Department of Real Estate did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute, as it was essentially a conflict between neighboring owners (Petitioners and Hendersons) regarding a wall.

Why this result: The Department lacked jurisdiction over the dispute among or between owners, per A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation by HOA approving a block wall built by neighbors (Hendersons)

Petitioners alleged that Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs § 3.11(D)(1) by approving a block wall built by their next-door neighbors, the Hendersons, and requested the Department require the Hendersons to permit Petitioners to connect to the wall or require the Hendersons to tear the wall down.

Orders: The petition was dismissed because the Department lacked jurisdiction to hear a dispute primarily among or between owners to which the association is not a party, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1).

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Jurisdiction, HOA Governance, Architectural Review Committee (ARC), Party Wall, Neighbor Dispute, CC&Rs
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

David & Brenda Norman vs. Rancho Del Lago Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919051-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-05-28
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner David and Brenda Norman Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Del Lago Community Association Counsel Ashley N. Moscarello

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs § 3.11(D)(1) / Common Project Guidelines § 3.11(D)(1)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition filed by David and Brenda Norman against Rancho Del Lago Community Association, finding that the Department of Real Estate did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute, as it was essentially a conflict between neighboring owners (Petitioners and Hendersons) regarding a wall.

Why this result: The Department lacked jurisdiction over the dispute among or between owners, per A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation by HOA approving a block wall built by neighbors (Hendersons)

Petitioners alleged that Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs § 3.11(D)(1) by approving a block wall built by their next-door neighbors, the Hendersons, and requested the Department require the Hendersons to permit Petitioners to connect to the wall or require the Hendersons to tear the wall down.

Orders: The petition was dismissed because the Department lacked jurisdiction to hear a dispute primarily among or between owners to which the association is not a party, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1).

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Jurisdiction, HOA Governance, Architectural Review Committee (ARC), Party Wall, Neighbor Dispute, CC&Rs
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

David & Brenda Norman vs. Rancho Del Lago Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919051-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-05-28
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner David and Brenda Norman Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Del Lago Community Association Counsel Ashley N. Moscarello

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs § 3.11(D)(1) / Common Project Guidelines § 3.11(D)(1)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition filed by David and Brenda Norman against Rancho Del Lago Community Association, finding that the Department of Real Estate did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute, as it was essentially a conflict between neighboring owners (Petitioners and Hendersons) regarding a wall.

Why this result: The Department lacked jurisdiction over the dispute among or between owners, per A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation by HOA approving a block wall built by neighbors (Hendersons)

Petitioners alleged that Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs § 3.11(D)(1) by approving a block wall built by their next-door neighbors, the Hendersons, and requested the Department require the Hendersons to permit Petitioners to connect to the wall or require the Hendersons to tear the wall down.

Orders: The petition was dismissed because the Department lacked jurisdiction to hear a dispute primarily among or between owners to which the association is not a party, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1).

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Jurisdiction, HOA Governance, Architectural Review Committee (ARC), Party Wall, Neighbor Dispute, CC&Rs
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09