Tag Archives: Respondent Chdb Law Llp

Briefing Document: Jill Faucher v. Redfield Park Unit Owners Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

The matter of Jill Faucher v. Redfield Park Unit Owners Association, Inc. (Case No. 26F-H056-REL) centers on a dispute regarding the classification of a failed roof drainage pipe and the subsequent responsibility for interior damage caused by water intrusion. The Petitioner, Jill Faucher, alleged that the Association violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 33-1212 and 33-1253, as well as several sections of the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

The core of the conflict involves a leak discovered in late September 2025. While the Association eventually repaired the failed drainage pipe, it denied responsibility for the resulting interior damage to the Petitioner's unit and refused to file a claim under its master insurance policy. The Association contended the pipe was a "limited common element" serving only the Petitioner’s unit, whereas the Petitioner and her expert witness argued it was a "common element" serving a shared monolithic roof. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark presided over the hearing on June 12, 2026, to determine whether the Association’s actions constituted a breach of statutory or governing document obligations.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Classification of the Infrastructure: Common vs. Limited Common Element

The primary technical dispute involves whether the failed drainage pipe is a "common element" (Association responsibility) or a "limited common element" (Owner responsibility for costs).

• Petitioner’s Position: The roof is a monolithic, shared structure with no partitions between units. Because the drainage system serves this shared structure, any failure within it affects the entire building infrastructure. The Petitioner cited CC&R Section 2.4(6), which states that items serving more than a single unit are common elements.
• Respondent’s Position: The Association argued that while the pipe is part of the common elements, it is specifically a "limited common element" because it serves only Unit 1009 and the adjacent unit, rather than the entire 68-unit community. They maintained that under Section 7.3, the maintenance of such elements—and certainly the interior damage resulting from their failure—is the owner's burden.

2. Timeliness of Response and Mitigation

A significant portion of the testimony focused on the 15-day interval between the initial report of the leak and the final repair.

The Petitioner argued that the 12-day delay in getting a contractor to the site caused a "visual stain" to evolve into significant ceiling collapse and mold growth. The Association defended the delay, citing the "inclement weather" of the rainy season and the unavailability of preferred vendors.

3. Insurance Obligations and A.R.S. § 33-1253

The dispute regarding the master insurance policy involves the Association's refusal to tender a claim.

• The Denial: The Association issued a written denial stating the damage was caused by "ordinary wear and tear," which they classified as a non-insurable event.
• The Deductible Factor: The Association further noted that the total cost of the pipe repair ($6,245) did not exceed the $10,000 water damage deductible.
• Statutory Compliance: Under A.R.S. § 33-1253, an Association must provide a written decision within 10 business days of a loss report. The Association argued they met this by providing the written denial and reasons on November 7 and November 21, 2025.

4. Expert Testimony on Causation and Standards

Christopher Ackerlund, a licensed contractor and public adjuster, provided testimony regarding the physical state of the property. He confirmed the "monolithic urethane foam roof" covered multiple units without separation. He argued that the failure occurred at a connection point (Fernco fitting) within the common area space (above the interior ceiling boundary). He emphasized that the lack of prompt mitigation allowed microbial growth and exacerbated structural damage.

Important Quotes with Context

On Component Classification

"The evidence will show that the failed pipe is part of the roof drainage system serving a shared roof structure and therefore constitutes a common element under the association's governing documents… the failure occurred outside my maintenance responsibilities." — Jill Faucher, Petitioner (Context: Opening statement regarding why the Association should be liable for all damages).

On Professional Observations

"Flat roofs are so pertinent because there's no pitch so the water doesn't shed off naturally… It is a shared drainage system on a monolithic non-division roof… the damages got exacerbated by not mitigating the water damage." — Christopher Ackerlund, Expert Witness (Context: Describing the roof's function and the necessity of immediate drying).

On the Association’s Legal Defense

"The association agrees that the roof and drainage pipe are a portion of the common elements but more particularly a limited common element… the amount of the repair did not exceed the water deductible amount of $10,000. The damage… was not caused by an insurable event." — Ashley Turner, Esq., Respondent Counsel (Context: Closing argument justifying the denial of the insurance claim and interior repairs).

On Maintenance Boundaries

"Such policy will provide coverage of the common elements only to the edge of the vertical stud walls… everything within the bounds of the planes just described is the responsibility of the owner of the unit." — Sandra Palaich, Board President (Context: Quoting CC&R Section 8.2B to support the "bare walls" insurance policy argument).

Actionable Insights

For Homeowners in Similar Disputes

• Documentation is Critical: The Petitioner’s use of time-stamped photographs (Exhibits 6.10–6.25) and a comprehensive email log (Exhibit 3.1) was essential in establishing the timeline of worsening damage.
• Expert Corroboration: Engaging a licensed professional early to provide a written report on causation can counter an Association’s "wear and tear" or "limited common element" designations.
• Understand the Deductible: If the cost of damage is lower than the Association's master policy deductible, the likelihood of a claim being tendered is minimal, shifting the focus to whether the Association was negligent in its maintenance duties.

For Association Boards and Management

• Statutory Timelines: To comply with A.R.S. § 33-1253, Boards must respond in writing within 10 business days regarding insurance decisions. Failure to do so, regardless of the merits of the claim, can be a statutory violation.
• Vendor Availability: Relying solely on "preferred vendors" during peak seasons can lead to delays that exacerbate damages. Having "vetted" secondary options may mitigate claims of negligence.
• Clarity in CC&Rs: The distinction between "Common Elements" and "Limited Common Elements" often leads to litigation. Boards should ensure that definitions of "utility fixtures" and "pipes" serving one vs. multiple units are clearly communicated to owners before incidents occur.

Legal Jurisdictional Note

The Administrative Law Judge noted that claims for "breach of contract" or "negligence" related to the interior of the unit may fall outside the specific jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal and might require separate civil litigation, though the tribunal can rule on the statutory and CC&R violations themselves.