Case Summary
| Case ID | 25F-H070-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | — |
| Tribunal | — |
| Decision Date | 2025-10-29 |
| Administrative Law Judge | VMT |
| Outcome | complete |
| Filing Fees Refunded | — |
| Civil Penalties | — |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Sally Magana | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Wynstone Park Homeowners Association | Counsel | — |
Alleged Violations
No violations listed
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
25F-H070-REL Decision – 1350920.pdf
25F-H070-REL Decision – 1352025.pdf
25F-H070-REL Decision – 1355826.pdf
25F-H070-REL Decision – 1363586.pdf
Briefing Document: Magana v. Wynstone Park Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision in case number 25F-H070-REL, Sally Magana v. Wynstone Park Homeowners Association. The petitioner, Sally Magana, filed a two-issue petition alleging the Homeowners Association (HOA) improperly fined her for a public nuisance related to parking and mischaracterized necessary property maintenance as an unauthorized architectural modification.
The respondent, Wynstone Park HOA, countered that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) lacked jurisdiction over the alleged city ordinance violation and that the work performed by the petitioner was, in fact, an unapproved “alteration” under the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The HOA maintained its enforcement actions were authorized and appropriate.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately dismissed the petitioner’s case in its entirety. The decision was based on two key findings: 1) The OAH does not have the jurisdiction to rule on violations of a municipal (City of Mesa) ordinance, and 2) The petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof to establish that the HOA violated its own governing documents. The ALJ concluded that the work performed—which included removing the original paver base, installing a new gravel surface, and altering the slope of the driveway—constituted a “change or alteration” requiring prior approval under CC&R Section 7.1, which the petitioner did not obtain.
Case Overview
Entity / Individual
Petitioner
Sally Magana (Homeowner)
Respondent
Wynstone Park Homeowners Association (HOA)
Presiding Judge
Velva Moses-Thompson, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
Case Number
25F-H070-REL
Hearing Date
October 9, 2025
Decision Date
October 29, 2025
Timeline of Key Events
July 3, 2019
HOA granted a variance allowing Ms. Magana to park anywhere on her driveway extension.
Feb 26, 2021
HOA sent a notice to Ms. Magana for parking past the garage, citing nuisance under CC&R Section 8.4.
Jan 27, 2025
Ms. Magana submitted a Design Review Application to modify drainage under her paver extension.
Feb 11, 2025
HOA’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) disapproved the application, citing the 50% lot coverage rule and nuisance complaints from a neighbor.
March 12, 2025
The HOA Board met with Ms. Magana at her property to discuss the matter.
May/June 2025
Ms. Magana proceeded with work on the pavers without ARC approval.
June 2, 2025
HOA issued a courtesy notice for an unapproved architectural change under CC&R Section 7.1.
June 11, 2025
HOA issued a Violation Notice with a $25 fine for the unapproved change.
July 14, 2025
HOA issued a second Violation Notice with a $50 fine.
July 17, 2025
Ms. Magana filed her petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Oct 29, 2025
The ALJ issued a decision dismissing the petition.
Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments
Ms. Magana’s case was centered on two primary allegations:
1. Violation of Public Nuisance Ordinance: The petitioner alleged the HOA violated “Title 8, Chapter 6, Article I, 8-6-3: PUBLIC NUISANCES PROHIBITED” of the City of Mesa code by fining her for parking on her driveway extension. She argued that the extension was approved in 1998 and reaffirmed by an HOA variance in 2019, making the fine improper.
2. Violation of CC&R Section 7.1 (Architectural Approval): The petitioner contended that the HOA mischaracterized routine maintenance as an “unauthorized modification.” She argued the work was necessary to correct a drainage issue causing water pooling against her foundation and creating a risk of termites. Her position was that since no new pavers were installed and the layout was not changed, the work did not constitute an architectural change requiring ARC approval. She also raised the issue of selective enforcement, providing photos of other homes with alleged violations that had not been cited.
Respondent’s Position and Defense
The HOA’s defense, presented by attorney Ashley Turner and Board President Andrew Hancock, rested on the following points:
1. Jurisdictional Challenge: The HOA argued that the OAH does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the association violated a City of Mesa ordinance, and that this issue should be dismissed on that basis alone.
2. The Work Was an “Alteration,” Not “Maintenance”: The HOA asserted that the work performed went beyond simple maintenance. Testimony revealed that the original play sand base was removed, a new decomposed granite base was installed, and the grade of the surface was altered to change the slope and water flow. The HOA considered these actions a “change or alteration” as defined in CC&R Section 7.1, which explicitly requires prior written approval from the ARC.
3. Proper Denial and Enforcement: The HOA’s denial of Ms. Magana’s initial application was based on established Design Guidelines, specifically that the total parking area “may not exceed… fifty percent (50%) of the lot width.” The denial also cited ongoing nuisance complaints from a neighbor regarding noise and access issues caused by vehicles parked on the extension. The subsequent fines were issued in accordance with the HOA’s enforcement policy after Ms. Magana completed the work without approval.
4. Authority to Enforce: The HOA cited CC&R Section 10.1, which grants it the right to enforce all covenants and restrictions in the governing documents.
Key Testimonies and Evidence
Witness Testimony
• Rita Elizalde (Petitioner’s Witness; Owner, JLE Heartscape and Design):
◦ Testified that the initial proposal, which included drains, was not executed due to the HOA’s denial.
◦ Characterized the work performed as “a maintenance on what you already had” to correct sinking pavers and water pooling against the foundation.
◦ Confirmed that the previous installer had used an improper “play sand base,” which her company removed.
◦ Stated they installed a new base of “decomposite granite,” replaced the original pavers in the same design, and added polymeric sand to lock them in.
◦ Confirmed the ground “had to be sloped back a little bit” to ensure water ran toward the street and not toward the neighbor’s property or the house foundation.
• Andrew Hancock (Respondent’s Witness; HOA Board President):
◦ Testified that the board considered the work a “change to the design of the pavers” because it addressed slope and drainage issues, which is more than basic maintenance.
◦ Stated that the board denied the initial application due to the 50% lot coverage rule and nuisance complaints from the neighbor, which included “the sound of the vehicle’s wake child” and the car blocking the neighbor’s access for taking out trash cans.
◦ Clarified that the board offered Ms. Magana two potential compromises: stopping the pavers at the garage line or bringing her fence/gate forward to be in line with the garage.
◦ Testified that photos of the work in progress (Exhibit G) showed all pavers removed and the base grading “manipulated.” He also noted what appeared to be new PVC piping.
◦ Referencing a photo of the pre-maintenance water pooling (Exhibit E), he testified that it showed water flowing “over the end border into the gravel and the neighbor’s yard.”
Key Exhibits
Exhibit #
Description & Significance
Respondent
The HOA’s CC&Rs, establishing the rules for architectural approval (Sec 7.1) and enforcement (Sec 10.1).
Respondent
Ms. Magana’s initial Design Review Application (denied) and a photo showing significant water pooling on the pavers and onto the neighboring lot.
Petitioner
Before and after photos of the paver extension, intended to show no visual change in design.
Respondent
Photos taken during the project showing all pavers removed, piled up, and the underlying base exposed and re-graded.
H, I, K
Respondent
The series of enforcement letters: Courtesy Notice (June 2), $25 Fine (June 11), and $50 Fine (July 14) for the unapproved alteration.
Petitioner
The HOA’s Design Guidelines, which include the 50% lot width limitation for parking areas.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ’s final decision dismissed Ms. Magana’s petition. The ruling was grounded in the following conclusions of law:
• Lack of Jurisdiction over Municipal Ordinance: The ALJ determined that “The OAH does not have jurisdiction to determine whether a planned community organization has violated a City of Mesa Code Ordinance.” This effectively dismissed the first issue of the petition without ruling on its merits.
• Petitioner’s Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: For the second issue, the ALJ found that the petitioner bore the burden of proving the HOA violated its CC&Rs and failed to do so. The decision noted:
◦ CC&R Section 7.1 regulates homeowners, requiring them to obtain prior approval for any “exterior addition, change, or alteration.”
◦ The preponderance of evidence, including testimony from the petitioner’s own witness (Ms. Elizalde), showed that changes were made to the surface under the pavers and to the slope of the driveway.
◦ These actions constitute an “alteration” under the CC&Rs.
◦ Because Ms. Magana made these changes without prior approval, she did not establish that the HOA mischaracterized her actions or violated Section 7.1.
• HOA’s Authority to Enforce: The decision affirmed that CC&R Section 10.1 authorizes the respondent to enforce its governing documents.
The final order concluded: “Petitioner has failed to meet her burden to establish that Respondent violated Respondent’s CC&Rs, governing document, or any statutes that regulate planned communities. Petitioner’s petition should be dismissed.”
# Study Guide: Magana v. Wynstone Park Homeowners Association (No. 25F-H070-REL) This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between Petitioner Sally Magana and Respondent Wynstone Park Homeowners Association. It synthesizes the legal arguments, procedural history, and ultimate judicial determination regarding property maintenance, architectural modifications, and jurisdictional boundaries within a planned community. --- ## 1. Case Overview and Background The dispute centers on a home located at 9926 E. Diamond Avenue in Mesa, Arizona, within the Wynstone Park community. The Petitioner, Sally Magana, sought to overturn fines and violations issued by the Homeowners Association (HOA) regarding her driveway extension. ### Core Issues 1. **Public Nuisance and Parking:** Whether the HOA violated City of Mesa Ordinance (Title 8, Chapter 6, Article I, 8-6-3) by fining the Petitioner for parking on a driveway extension she claimed was approved and "grandfathered." 2. **Maintenance vs. Modification:** Whether the HOA violated CC&R Section 7.1 by characterizing the repair of sinking pavers as an "unauthorized modification" rather than "routine maintenance." ### Procedural History * **July 17, 2025:** Petitioner filed a two-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE). * **September 19, 2025:** Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Velva Moses-Thompson denied the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, moving the case to a full hearing. * **October 9, 2025:** An evidentiary hearing was conducted via Google Meet. * **October 29, 2025:** The ALJ issued a final decision dismissing the petition. --- ## 2. Key Legal and Procedural Concepts ### OAH Jurisdiction The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) is authorized to decide petitions concerning violations of planned community documents under A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16. However, the ALJ explicitly ruled that the OAH **does not have jurisdiction** to determine if a community organization has violated municipal codes, such as the City of Mesa Code Ordinances. ### Burden of Proof In this administrative matter, the Petitioner bears the **burden of proof** to establish violations by a **preponderance of the evidence**. This legal standard requires proof that the contention is "more probably true than not," or carries the "greater weight of the evidence." ### Maintenance vs. Architectural Change The crux of the second issue was the definition of work performed: * **Petitioner's View:** The work was "routine maintenance" involving lifting existing pavers, replacing a "play sand" base with decomposed granite to fix water pooling/termite issues, and relaying the same pavers in the same design. * **Respondent's View:** The work constituted a "change or alteration" because it manipulated the grading/slope and introduced new base materials (PVC piping and gravel) without prior written approval from the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). --- ## 3. Short-Answer Practice Questions **Q1: What specific section of the CC&Rs governs architectural approval in Wynstone Park?** **A:** Section 7.1. It stipulates that no exterior addition, change, or alteration may be made to any unit until plans are approved in writing by the Architectural Committee. **Q2: Why did the HOA Board originally disapprove the Petitioner’s January 2025 Design Review Application?** **A:** The Board cited two main reasons: (1) Community guidelines state pavers should not exceed 50% of the front yard, and (2) parking on those pavers caused nuisances for neighbors (noise and blocking access for trash cans). **Q3: What was the significance of the 2019 e-mail from the Community Manager to the Petitioner?** **A:** It granted a variance allowing the Petitioner to park on the driveway extension, provided no damage was caused to neighboring property (such as excessive water run-off). **Q4: What specific work did the contractor (JLE Hardscape and Design) perform on the pavers?** **A:** They removed the original sand base, altered the slope to prevent water pooling against the foundation, installed a new decomposed granite base, and re-laid the original pavers using polymeric sand. **Q5: What was the ALJ’s final ruling regarding the fines issued to the Petitioner?** **A:** The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof to show the HOA violated its governing documents. --- ## 4. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration ### Prompt 1: Jurisdictional Limits in HOA Disputes Analyze the ALJ's decision regarding the City of Mesa Code Ordinances. Discuss why an Administrative Law Judge for the State might lack the authority to enforce municipal codes and how this affects a homeowner's strategy when filing a petition. What alternative venues might a homeowner use to address municipal code violations? ### Prompt 2: The Definition of "Alteration" The Petitioner argued that because she used the same pavers in the same layout, the work was "maintenance." The HOA argued that changing the subsurface and the slope constituted an "alteration." Using the evidence from the transcript and the final decision, argue which side's interpretation better aligns with the language of CC&R Section 7.1. ### Prompt 3: Selective Enforcement and Evidence During the hearing, the Petitioner alleged "selective enforcement," pointing to the HOA Vice President's home and other neighbors with similar driveway extensions. Evaluate the impact of this testimony on the final decision. Why might an ALJ find such comparisons irrelevant to the specific violation of Section 7.1? --- ## 5. Glossary of Important Terms | Term | Definition | | :--- | :--- | | **Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)** | A judge who trios and decides disputed matters for state agencies. In this case, Velva Moses-Thompson of the OAH. | | **ARC / Architectural Committee** | The body within an HOA responsible for reviewing and approving changes to the exterior of properties. | | **CC&Rs** | Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules of a planned community. | | **Decomposed Granite (DG)** | A base material used under pavers, also referred to in the hearing as "quarter minus." | | **Design Review Application** | The formal request a homeowner must submit to the HOA before starting exterior modifications. | | **Minute Entry** | A brief written record of the proceedings or a specific order issued by a court/tribunal before a final decision. | | **Petitioner** | The party who brings the case to the tribunal; in this matter, Sally Magana. | | **Preponderance of the Evidence** | The standard of proof in civil/administrative cases, meaning a fact is more likely than not to be true. | | **Respondent** | The party responding to the petition; in this matter, Wynstone Park Homeowners Association. | | **Variance** | An official exception to the standard rules or CC&Rs granted by the HOA Board. |
# When Maintenance Becomes a Modification: Lessons from a Real-World HOA Legal Battle ### 1. Introduction: The High Stakes of Home Improvements For most homeowners, property upkeep is an act of stewardship—a necessary defense against termite damage, foundation shifts, and the desert’s unpredictable drainage patterns. However, within a Common Interest Community, these restorative efforts are often viewed through the strict lens of community standards. The line between "routine maintenance" and "unauthorized modification" is frequently where neighborly cooperation ends and legal conflict begins. The case of *Sally Magana v. Wynstone Park Homeowners Association* serves as a quintessential cautionary tale. What the homeowner viewed as an essential repair to protect her 70-year-old investment from water damage, the Board viewed as an unapproved engineering overhaul. This dispute, which culminated in a formal hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), highlights the significant legal risks homeowners face when they attempt "workarounds" after an architectural denial. ### 2. The Core Conflict: Pavers, Drainage, and the "M" Word In early 2025, Sally Magana sought to address a persistent issue: pooling water and termite concerns on her existing driveway extension. After the Board denied her initial proposal for a new drainage system, Magana’s contractor, JLE Hardscape, suggested a "maintenance" approach: lifting the existing pavers, replacing the failing base, and relaying the same stones. The homeowner’s advocate position is understandable here: the contractor discovered the original installer had used improper "play sand," a fundamental error that caused the pavers to sink. Correcting this installer error felt like restoring the property to its intended state. However, the Board viewed the removal of the sand and the introduction of new engineering elements as a bridge too far. | Petitioner’s Argument (Sally Magana) | Respondent’s Argument (Wynstone Park HOA) | | :--- | :--- | | **Maintenance & Protection:** JLE Hardscape testified that the work was "essential" to prevent foundation and termite damage. No new pavers were purchased; the original stones were simply reset to fix sinking caused by "play sand." | **Unauthorized Alteration:** Board President Andrew Hancock testified that the project constituted a "change" or "alteration" under CC&R Section 7.1 because it involved more than just cleaning or resetting. | | **No Structural Change:** The homeowner argued that because the layout remained identical, no architectural review was triggered. The goal was restoration, not innovation. | **Engineering Overhaul:** The Association argued that manipulating the grade/slope and replacing sub-surface materials (adding PVC piping and gravel) changed the lot's engineering. | **The "Smoking Gun" Materials:** While Magana argued she was simply replacing "play sand" with "decomposed granite" (DG) to provide a stable base, the Board presented evidence that **PVC piping** had been added to the sub-grade. This addition proved to the court that the project was a modification of the home's drainage system rather than simple maintenance. ### 3. The Parking Puzzle: Variances and Nuisances The conflict was exacerbated by a long-standing dispute over the use of the driveway extension. While Magana pointed to a variance granted in 2019 as her "right" to park there, the Association noted a critical legal caveat: **the variance was conditional.** It was permitted only "so long as no damage is caused to the neighboring property." When neighbors began complaining, the HOA determined the conditions of the variance were being violated. The "Nuisance" complaints included: * **Vehicular Noise:** Neighbors testified that engine noise and car doors near the property line woke their children. * **Obstruction of Services:** To move trash cans to the curb, neighbors were forced to walk through gravel to bypass vehicles parked on the extension. * **Water Runoff:** Most damagingly, Exhibit E showed that the extension was causing water to pool and runoff onto the neighbor’s lot, effectively voiding the 2019 variance. Furthermore, the Board enforced the **"50% Rule"** from the Wynstone Park Design Guidelines, which dictates that the total parking area (original driveway plus extension) cannot exceed 50% of the lot width. ### 4. Inside the Hearing: The Legal Thresholds During the OAH hearing, the legal strategy of the Association outmatched the homeowner’s anecdotal evidence. A major factor was the homeowner's failure to provide an **expert engineering report** to counter the Board’s claims about slope changes—a strategic error that left the Board’s technical testimony unchallenged. > **Jurisdictional Limits of the OAH** > **Homeowners must recognize that the OAH has a narrow scope of authority. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) explicitly ruled that the OAH does NOT have jurisdiction over City of Mesa Code Ordinances. The tribunal’s power is strictly limited to the Arizona Planned Community Act and the Association's governing documents (CC&Rs, Bylaws, and Design Guidelines).** The evidence that swayed the Judge included "before and after" photos (Exhibits 4, 5, and G). While the homeowner saw "the same pavers," Board President Hancock pointed to **Exhibit G**, which showed that the pavers were now at a different height relative to the home's **rock fascia and pillars**. This physical marker, combined with the presence of new PVC piping, provided the "preponderance of evidence" required to prove a modification had occurred. ### 5. The Final Verdict: Why the HOA Prevailed In a decision dated **October 29, 2025**, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed Sally Magana’s petition. The ruling rested on three primary pillars: 1. **Burden of Proof:** The homeowner, as the Petitioner, bore the burden of proving the HOA violated its documents. Without an expert witness or engineer, she could not legally disprove the Board’s claim that the drainage grade had been altered. 2. **Broad Definition of Section 7.1:** The Judge interpreted "exterior addition, change, or alteration" to include the sub-surface work and the manipulation of the slope. 3. **Failure of the "Selective Enforcement" Defense:** Magana attempted to argue selective enforcement by pointing to the Board Vice President’s own driveway. However, the Board successfully rebutted this by showing that the Vice President had adhered to a **compromise** (shortening the extension) that Magana had refused. ### 6. Key Takeaways for Homeowners and HOA Boards This case clarifies the murky waters between maintenance and modification. **For Homeowners:** * **Maintenance vs. Modification:** In a legal sense, "maintenance" is generally restorative—returning an item to its original state. Once you change the underlying engineering (the base material, the slope, or adding PVC pipes), you have moved into "modification," which requires ARC approval. * **Expertise Matters:** If you are challenging a Board’s claim regarding drainage or grading, a contractor’s testimony may not be enough. An engineering report is often the only way to meet your burden of proof in an administrative hearing. * **Conditional Variances are Fragile:** A variance is not a permanent right; it is a permission slip that can be revoked if the conditions (like not bothering neighbors or causing runoff) are not met. **For HOA Boards:** * **The "Invitation to Resubmit":** The Board’s legal position was strengthened because they didn't just say "no"—they offered multiple alternatives (moving the gate or adding landscaping). This insulated them from claims of being "arbitrary or unreasonable." * **Documentation is King:** The Association won because of specific, dated photographic evidence (like the March 2025 site visit) that used static physical markers (the rock fascia) to prove a change in height and slope. ### 7. Conclusion: The Value of Clarity The *Magana v. Wynstone Park* dispute is a sobering reminder that even well-intentioned home repairs can lead to costly legal defeats if the architectural review process is bypassed. While the homeowner felt she was doing the "right thing" by fixing a drainage error, the legal reality is that the Association has a mandate to oversee any change that affects the community's engineering and aesthetics. To avoid fines and legal fees, homeowners should view the ARC process not as a hurdle to be cleared, but as a collaborative process. Seeking compromises and documenting every step of a project is far more effective—and significantly cheaper—than attempting to re-label a modification as "maintenance" after the work is done.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Sally Magana (Petitioner)
Homeowner at Wynstone Park - Rita Elizalde (Witness)
JLE Hardscape and Design
Contractor hired by petitioner for driveway work - Jesus Ortiz (Witness)
Testified on behalf of the petitioner - Adeline Escudero-Mendoza (Witness)
Testified on behalf of the petitioner
Respondent Side
- Ashley Turner (Attorney)
CHDB Law
Counsel representing the Wynstone Park Homeowners Association - Andrew Hancock (Board President and Witness)
Wynstone Park Homeowners Association
Testified on behalf of the respondent - Dawn Feigert (Community Manager)
Trestle Management Group
Issued variance notice in 2019 and a courtesy notice in 2021 - Lea Austin (Community Manager)
Trestle Management Group
Issued a courtesy notice regarding unapproved architectural changes in 2025 - Jennifer Irving (Board Vice President)
Wynstone Park Homeowners Association
Neutral Parties
- Velva Moses-Thompson (Administrative Law Judge)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Presiding judge for the hearing - Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
