**Case Summary: R.L. Whitmer vs. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners (No. 23F-H036-REL)**

**Key Facts**
The dispute involves R.L. Whitmer (Petitioner) and the Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners (Respondent), an association of 29 condominium owners in Arizona. Under Section 17.1 of the association's Declaration, the Council may employ a management entity "subject to prior approval of any such management contract by a majority of the Owners". On October 9, 2020, the Respondent's board unanimously voted to enter into a management contract with Arizona Community Management Services, LLC (AZCMS), effective December 1, 2020, without obtaining this required prior approval from the majority of the owners. In December 2022, the Petitioner filed a petition citing this violation. Subsequently, on January 26, 2023, the Owners retroactively ratified the AZCMS contract via absentee ballots.

**Main Issue**
The central legal issue was whether the Respondent violated Section 17.1 of the Declaration by executing the management contract without prior approval, and whether the subsequent retroactive ratification by the Owners cured this initial breach of contract.

**Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments**
During a pre-hearing conference on March 29, 2023, Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer reviewed the parties' pending motions.
* **Respondent's Position:** The Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing the issue was moot because the community overwhelmingly ratified the contract in January 2023, demonstrating they were content with the management company's work. The Respondent asserted that further litigation was an unnecessary waste of the association members' funds.
* **Petitioner's Position:** The Petitioner filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that the governing documents function as a strict legal contract. The Petitioner maintained that retroactive approval does not cure the failure to obtain the explicitly required *prior* approval. The Petitioner also attempted to raise an issue regarding board member eligibility, but the judge excluded this argument from consideration as it was not included in the original petition.

**Final Decision and Outcome**
On July 10, 2023, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner, granting the Motion for Summary Judgment and denying the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss.

* **Legal Reasoning:** The judge established that an association's governing documents constitute a binding contract, which must be interpreted according to its plain language when unambiguous. The plain language of Section 17.1 explicitly requires *prior* approval of a management contract by a majority of owners. The judge concluded that the January 2023 ratification did not constitute prior approval for a contract that was entered into more than two years earlier.
* **Orders:** Finding that the Respondent failed to comply with Section 17.1 of the Declaration, the judge ordered the Respondent to strictly comply with this section going forward. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee, though the Petitioner's request for an additional civil penalty was denied.