**Case Summary: Arnold C. Williams v. Sonoita Ranch Homeowner’s Association Inc.**
**Case No. 15F-H1516007-BFS**

**Overview**
This administrative hearing addressed a petition filed by homeowner Arnold C. Williams (Petitioner) against the Sonoita Ranch Homeowner’s Association Inc. (Respondent). The dispute concerned the Association's failure to enforce specific Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and the Board's attempt to amend governing documents without a homeowner vote,.

**Key Facts and Issues**
The Petitioner alleged the Respondent failed to enforce two specific provisions:
1. **CC&R 7.4:** Pertaining to the screening of service areas, trash accumulation, and the concealment of bins,.
2. **CC&R 7.7:** Prohibiting the parking or storage of boats, trucks, trailers, and RVs on streets or lots unless in an attached carport,.

The Petitioner argued that the Board passed resolutions regarding these rules that contradicted the CC&Rs and violated the requirement for a homeowner vote. He testified that the lack of enforcement led to a sharp decline in the neighborhood's appearance, citing an "onslaught" of RVs and weeds, which hindered his ability to sell his residence,.

**Arguments and Testimony**
* **Petitioner’s Position:** Williams argued the Board illegally altered CC&Rs 7.4 and 7.7 via board resolution rather than the required membership vote. He presented testimony that the neighborhood had deteriorated due to non-enforcement,.
* **Respondent’s Position:** The Association admitted passing resolutions in 2009 and 2012 to "clarify" the CC&Rs. However, the Association conceded these resolutions were invalid and unenforceable because they conflicted with the existing CC&Rs,. Board members testified they had relied on incorrect advice from a previous management company, which claimed the Board could amend CC&Rs by resolution,. The Association’s counsel confirmed that valid amendments require a 75% affirmative vote from homeowners.

**Legal Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) applied the preponderance of the evidence standard. The ALJ concluded:
* The Respondent admitted the resolutions passed to remedy "perceived problems" with the CC&Rs were invalid.
* The Petitioner credibly established that the Association was not enforcing CC&Rs 7.4 and 7.7.
* The Association violated its governing documents by failing to enforce these rules and attempting improper amendments.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner. The Order mandated the following:
1. **Enforcement:** The Respondent must comply with the applicable provisions of CC&R 7.4 and CC&R 7.7.
2. **Amendment Procedure:** Any future amendments to the CC&Rs must be voted on and passed by the homeowner members, as required by the governing documents.
3. **Monetary Award:** The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $2,000.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was assessed.

**Procedural Note**
The ALJ issued the decision on March 9, 2016. The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety did not accept, reject, or modify the decision within the statutory timeframe. Consequently, the ALJ’s ruling was certified as the final administrative decision on April 26, 2016.