Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
19F-H1918001-REL
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2019-03-25
Administrative Law Judge
Jenna Clark
Outcome
total
Filing Fees Refunded
$500.00
Civil Penalties
$250.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Jay A. Janicek
Counsel
Jake Kubert
Respondent
Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association
Counsel
Evan Thompson
Alleged Violations
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B); Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4; Association Bylaws Article VIII, Section 1
Outcome Summary
The ALJ granted the petition, concluding that the HOA Board’s unilateral amendment of the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, was an invalid action taken without the required vote of the Association members and without statutory notice, violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and the Association’s governing documents. The amendment was invalidated, and the Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's filing fee and pay a $250.00 civil penalty.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4 and Article VIII, Section 1 in an action taken by the board on November 20, 2017.
The Board of Directors attempted a third amendment to the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, specifically changing the requirements for the Association's financial review (audit, review, or compilation). The ALJ concluded that this action was invalid because it was taken in the absence of a quorum of Association members voting in favor of the amendment, violating both the Bylaws and statutory notice requirements.
Orders: The petition was granted. The third amendment to the Association Bylaws taken on November 20, 2017, was invalidated. Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner the filing fee required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01 and pay a civil penalty of $250.00 to the Planned Community Hearing Office Fund.
Briefing Document: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and legal conclusions from the administrative hearings regarding a dispute between Jay A. Janicek (“Petitioner”) and the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (“Respondent” or “the Association”). The central issue was whether the Association’s Board of Directors acted outside its authority by unilaterally amending the Association’s Bylaws during a Board meeting on November 20, 2017, without a vote from the general membership.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the Board’s action violated both the Association’s governing documents and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1804). The ruling emphasized that the term “members” in the Bylaws refers specifically to the body of property owners, not the Board of Directors. Consequently, the third amendment to the Bylaws was invalidated, and the Association was ordered to pay a civil penalty and refund the Petitioner’s filing fees. A rehearing in March 2019 reconfirmed these findings, underscoring the necessity of transparency and membership participation in homeowners’ association governance.
The Department of Real Estate referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) following a petition filed by Mr. Janicek on July 25, 2018. The Respondent initially declined to present witnesses or exhibits, choosing to rely on a dispute over textual interpretation. Following an initial ruling in favor of the Petitioner, the Respondent requested a rehearing, which was granted but ultimately resulted in the same conclusion.
The Core Dispute: Bylaw Amendment Authority
The conflict arose from a Board meeting held on November 20, 2017. During this meeting, the Board voted to approve a third amendment to the Association’s Bylaws.
The Specific Amendment
The Board modified Article VIII, Section 6(d). The original text required the Board to:
• “…cause an annual audit of the Association books to be made by a public accountant at the completion of each fiscal year.”
The Board replaced this with language allowing for:
• “…an annual audit, review, or compilation of the Associations financial records to be made by a public accountant within 180 days after the end of the HOA’s fiscal year.”
Conflicting Interpretations of “Members”
The primary legal dispute centered on the interpretation of Bylaws Article XIII, Section 1, which states:
“These Bylaws may be amended at a regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Association by a vote of a majority of a quorum of members present in person or by proxy.” (Emphasis added).
• Petitioner’s Position: “Members” refers to the general membership of the Association (property owners), as defined in Article II, Section 7 and the Declaration. Petitioner argued that the use of “proxy” in this section further proves it refers to members, as Board Directors are not permitted to vote by proxy.
• Respondent’s Position: “Members” refers to the members of the Board of Directors. The Association argued that because the word was not capitalized in Article XIII, it authorized the Board to amend Bylaws at their own meetings, provided a quorum of Directors was present.
Legal Analysis and Evidence
Governing Statutes and Case Law
The ALJ’s decision was informed by Arizona law and established legal principles:
• A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Open Meeting Law): This statute requires that notice of any meeting where a bylaw amendment is proposed must be sent to all members 10 to 50 days in advance. It also mandates that meetings of the board and association be open to all members.
• A.R.S. § 33-1804(F): The legislative intent of the Open Meeting Law is to promote transparency. Petitioner cited a message from Governor Ducey stating that such laws “provide residents the opportunity to resolve issues as a community rather than seek government intervention.”
• Powell v. Washburn (2006): The Arizona Supreme Court held that restrictive covenants (including Bylaws) must be interpreted to give effect to the intention of the parties based on the document in its entirety.
Findings of Fact regarding Authority
The ALJ identified several factors that invalidated the Board’s unilateral action:
1. Differentiated Terminology: The Bylaws consistently use “Directors” when referring to the Board and “Members” when referring to the homeowners. Article VI, Section 3 explicitly uses “Directors” to define a quorum for the Board, while Article XIII uses “members.”
2. Absence of Express Power: Article VII, which outlines the “Powers and Duties of the Board of Directors,” does not expressly grant the Board the authority to amend Bylaws. This power is reserved for the membership.
3. Lack of Notice: No Association members were present at the November 20, 2017, meeting, and no notice was provided to the general membership regarding a proposed amendment to the Bylaws as required by A.R.S. § 33-1804(B).
Conclusions of Law
The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner sustained the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The final legal determinations were:
• Avoidance of Absurdity: Bylaws must be construed to avoid an absurdity. The ALJ stated, “The voices of few cannot speak for all, unless all have bestowed those few with the power and authority to speak on their behalf.”
• Violation of Statute: The Board’s action violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) due to the lack of transparency and failure to provide notice of a bylaw amendment.
• Violation of Governing Documents: The Board acted outside the authority granted to it by the Bylaws, specifically Article III and Article XIII.
Final Order and Penalties
The Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders:
1. Invalidation: The third amendment to the Association Bylaws, enacted on November 20, 2017, is null and void.
2. Restitution of Fees: The Respondent must pay the Petitioner the cost of his filing fee.
3. Civil Penalty: The Respondent was ordered to pay a sum of $250.00 to the Planned Community Hearing Office Fund as a penalty for the violations.
4. Binding Nature: Following the rehearing, the order became binding, with the only further recourse being judicial review in the Superior Court within 35 days.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918001-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the legal proceedings between Jay A. Janicek and the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association. It examines the interpretation of governing documents, the application of Arizona Revised Statutes regarding homeowners’ associations, and the limits of a Board of Directors’ authority to amend bylaws.
——————————————————————————–
Part I: Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the provided legal documents.
1. Who are the primary parties involved in this administrative hearing, and what is their relationship?
2. What specific action taken by the Board of Directors on November 20, 2017, triggered this dispute?
3. How did the Petitioner define the term “member” according to the Association’s governing documents?
4. What was the Respondent’s primary argument regarding the interpretation of Article XIII, Section 1 of the Bylaws?
5. According to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B), what must a notice of a membership meeting include if a bylaw amendment is proposed?
6. Why did the Petitioner argue that the use of the word “proxy” in the Bylaws supported his interpretation that only general members could amend the Bylaws?
7. What is the legal significance of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) in the context of the relationship between an HOA and a property owner?
8. What was the “preponderance of the evidence” standard used by the Administrative Law Judge to reach a decision?
9. What specific penalties and orders were issued against the Respondent in the final decision?
10. What reason did the Administrative Law Judge give for concluding that the Board’s interpretation of the Bylaws was incorrect?
——————————————————————————–
Part II: Answer Key
1. Who are the primary parties involved in this administrative hearing, and what is their relationship? The Petitioner is Jay A. Janicek, a property owner and member of the Sycamore Vista subdivision. The Respondent is the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association, the entity responsible for governing the residential development where the Petitioner’s property is located.
2. What specific action taken by the Board of Directors on November 20, 2017, triggered this dispute? The Board voted to approve a third amendment to the Association’s Bylaws during a regular meeting. This amendment replaced a requirement for a full annual audit by a public accountant with a choice of an audit, review, or compilation to be completed within 180 days of the fiscal year-end.
3. How did the Petitioner define the term “member” according to the Association’s governing documents? The Petitioner asserted that “Member” refers to those persons entitled to membership as defined in the Declaration, specifically every lot owner. He argued that this definition distinguishes general property owners from the “Directors” who serve on the Board.
4. What was the Respondent’s primary argument regarding the interpretation of Article XIII, Section 1 of the Bylaws? The Respondent argued that the term “members” in Article XIII referred specifically to members of the Board of Directors rather than the general membership. They contended that since the word was not capitalized, it authorized the Board to amend Bylaws at any meeting where a quorum of directors was present.
5. According to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B), what must a notice of a membership meeting include if a bylaw amendment is proposed? The statute requires that notice be sent to every owner 10 to 50 days in advance of the meeting, stating the date, time, and place. Crucially, the notice must also state the purpose of the meeting, including the general nature of any proposed amendments to the declaration or bylaws.
6. Why did the Petitioner argue that the use of the word “proxy” in the Bylaws supported his interpretation that only general members could amend the Bylaws? The Petitioner noted that the Bylaws allow for voting by “proxy,” a mechanism defined in Article III as applying to votes of the general membership. He argued that because Board members are legally prohibited from voting by proxy, the inclusion of the term in the amendment section proved the section applied to general members.
7. What is the legal significance of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) in the context of the relationship between an HOA and a property owner? The CC&Rs constitute an enforceable contract between the Association and each individual property owner. By purchasing a residential unit within the development, the buyer agrees to be bound by the terms, powers, and restrictions outlined in these recorded documents.
8. What was the “preponderance of the evidence” standard used by the Administrative Law Judge to reach a decision? This standard requires the Petitioner to prove that his contention is “more probably true than not.” It is defined as the greater weight of the evidence or evidence that possesses the most convincing force, rather than the absolute removal of all doubt.
9. What specific penalties and orders were issued against the Respondent in the final decision? The Administrative Law Judge invalidated the third amendment to the Bylaws and ordered the Respondent to pay a $250.00 civil penalty to the Planned Community Hearing Office Fund. Additionally, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner for his initial filing fee.
10. What reason did the Administrative Law Judge give for concluding that the Board’s interpretation of the Bylaws was incorrect? The Judge ruled that bylaws must be construed to avoid “absurdity” and that the “voices of few cannot speak for all” without express authority. The governing documents clearly differentiated between “members” (owners) and “directors,” and the Board lacked the power to act where authority was reserved for the membership.
——————————————————————————–
Part III: Essay Questions
Instructions: Use the provided source context to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.
1. The Distinction Between “Members” and “Directors”: Analyze how the specific terminology used in the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Bylaws (Articles II, III, VI, and XIII) influenced the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. How does the consistent use of these terms throughout the document prevent the Board from claiming the powers of the general membership?
2. Statutory Compliance and Transparency: Discuss the importance of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 (the Open Meeting Law) as it relates to this case. Use Governor Ducey’s message regarding H.B. 2411 to explain the legislative intent behind ensuring transparency and participation in HOA governance.
3. The Role of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH): Explain the procedural path of this dispute, from the initial petition to the Department of Real Estate to the final rehearing. What is the scope of the OAH’s authority in interpreting contracts between homeowners and associations?
4. Contractual Interpretation and the “Powell v. Washburn” Precedent: Discuss the significance of the Arizona Supreme Court’s holding in Powell v. Washburn regarding restrictive covenants. How does the requirement to give effect to the “intention of the parties” apply to the interpretation of HOA Bylaws?
5. Limits of Board Authority: Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, evaluate the boundaries of a Board of Directors’ power. Under what circumstances can a Board exercise “all powers, duties, and authority” of the Association, and what serves as the definitive limit to that power?
——————————————————————————–
Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
A presiding officer who hears evidence and issues decisions in contested cases involving state agencies.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
The Arizona statute governing open meetings, notice requirements, and transparency for planned community associations.
Bylaws
The internal rules and regulations that govern the administration and management of an association.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the recorded legal documents that establish the rules for a planned community and create a contract between owners and the HOA.
Civil Penalty
A financial fine imposed by a government agency or tribunal as a punishment for a violation of statutes or regulations.
Declarant
The original developer or entity that established the residential subdivision and its governing documents.
Declaration
The primary governing document that defines membership and property rights within a homeowners’ association.
Member
Defined in the source context as a property owner within the Sycamore Vista subdivision who is entitled to membership in the Association.
The Office of Administrative Hearings; an independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for contested cases.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action or petition (in this case, Jay A. Janicek).
Preponderance of the Evidence
The legal standard of proof required in this case, meaning a contention is “more probably true than not.”
A written authorization allowing one person to act or vote on behalf of another, specifically used by Association members.
Quorum
The minimum number of members or directors required to be present at a meeting to legally transact business.
Respondent
The party against whom a legal action or petition is filed (in this case, Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA).
Restrictive Covenants
Provisions in a deed or other recorded document that limit the use of property and are interpreted to give effect to the intention of the parties.
{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “19F-H1918001-REL-RHG”,
“case_title”: “Jay A. Janicek, Petitioner, vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (FKA New Tucson Unit No. 8 Homeowners Association, Inc.), Respondent.”,
“decision_date”: “March 25, 2019”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Jay A. Janicek”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Appeared on his own behalf at initial hearing; observed rehearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Jenna Clark”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “OAH”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Evan Thompson”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Thompson Krone, P.L.C.”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Dennis Legere”,
“role”: “observer”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Observer present at initial hearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Becky Nutt”,
“role”: “observer”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Observer present at initial hearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Caleb Rhodes”,
“role”: “observer”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Observer present at initial hearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Jake Kubert”,
“role”: “petitioner attorney”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: “Dessaules Law Group”,
“notes”: “Appeared on behalf of Petitioner at rehearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Judy Lowe”,
“role”: “Commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Andrew F. Vizcarra”,
“role”: “property manager”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Tucson Realty & Trust Co. Management”,
“notes”: “Listed as representative for service of process for Respondent HOA.”
},
{
“name”: “Maxwell T. Riddiough”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Thompson Krone, P.L.C.”,
“notes”: null
}
]
}
{ “case”: { “agency”: “ADRE”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “docket_no”: “19F-H1918001-REL”, “case_title”: “Jay A. Janicek vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2019-03-25”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark” }, “parties”: [ { “party_id”: “P1”, “role”: “petitioner”, “name”: “Jay A. Janicek”, “party_type”: “homeowner”, “email”: null, “phone”: null, “attorney_name”: “Jake Kubert”, “attorney_firm”: “Dessaules Law Group”, “attorney_email”: null, “attorney_phone”: null }, { “party_id”: “R1”, “role”: “respondent”, “name”: “Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association”, “party_type”: “HOA”, “email”: null, “phone”: null, “attorney_name”: “Evan Thompson”, “attorney_firm”: “Thompson Krone, P.L.C.”, “attorney_email”: null, “attorney_phone”: null } ], “issues”: [ { “issue_id”: “ISS-001”, “type”: “statute_and_bylaws”, “citation”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B); Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4; Association Bylaws Article VIII, Section 1”, “caption”: “Whether Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4 and Article VIII, Section 1 in an action taken by the board on November 20, 2017.”, “violation(s)”: “Violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and Association Bylaws Article III by amending the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, without proper notice and a vote of the Association membership.”, “summary”: “The Board of Directors attempted a third amendment to the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, specifically changing the requirements for the Association’s financial review (audit, review, or compilation)12. The ALJ concluded that this action was invalid because it was taken in the absence of a quorum of Association members voting in favor of the amendment, violating both the Bylaws and statutory notice requirements34.”, “outcome”: “petitioner_win”, “filing_fee_paid”: 500.0, “filing_fee_refunded”: true, “civil_penalty_amount”: 250.0, “orders_summary”: “The petition was granted. The third amendment to the Association Bylaws taken on November 20, 2017, was invalidated. Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner the filing fee required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01 and pay a civil penalty of $250.00 to the Planned Community Hearing Office Fund56.”, “why_the_loss”: null, “cited”: [ “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B)”, “Association Bylaws Article III” ] } ], “money_summary”: { “issues_count”: 1, “total_filing_fees_paid”: 500.0, “total_filing_fees_refunded”: 500.0, “total_civil_penalties”: 250.0 }, “outcomes”: { “petitioner_is_hoa”: false, “petitioner_win”: “total”, “summarize_judgement”: “The ALJ granted the petition, concluding that the HOA Board’s unilateral amendment of the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, was an invalid action taken without the required vote of the Association members and without statutory notice, violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and the Association’s governing documents47. The amendment was invalidated, and the Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner’s filing fee and pay a $250.00 civil penalty56.”, “why_the_loss”: null }, “analytics”: { “cited”: [ “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B)”, “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05”, “Powell v. Washburn, 125 P.3d 373 (Ariz. 2006)”, “Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)” ], “tags”: [ “HOA Governance”, “Bylaws Amendment”, “Open Meeting Law”, “ARS 33-1804”, “Membership Vote”, “Filing Fee Refund” ] } }
{ “rehearing”:{ “is_rehearing”:true, “base_case_id”:”19F-H1918001-REL”, “original_decision_status”:”affirmed”, “original_decision_summary”:”The original ALJ decision, issued on September 25, 2018, granted the Petitioner’s request, finding that the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association Board violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and Association Bylaws by unilaterally amending the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, without first calling for a vote by the Association members1,2,3. The order invalidated the amendment, required the Respondent to refund the Petitioner’s filing fee, and imposed a civil penalty of $250.004,5.”, “rehearing_decision_summary”:”The Department granted Respondent’s request for a rehearing, which was held on March 5, 20196,7. The ALJ affirmed the original decision, concluding that the Board’s action on November 20, 2017, violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and Article III of the Association Bylaws because the action was taken in the absence of a quorum of Association members voting in favor of the proposed amendment8. The rehearing order re-granted the petition, invalidated the third amendment, and reaffirmed the orders for the filing fee refund and the $250.00 civil penalty8,9.”, “issues_challenged”:[ { “issue_id”: “ISS-001”, “summary”: “Whether the HOA Board violated Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4 and Article VIII, Section 1, and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) in an action taken to amend the Bylaws on November 20, 201710.”, “outcome”: “affirmed_petitioner_win” } ] } }
The matter, Jay A. Janicek vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (Case No. 19F-H1918001-REL-RHG), involves a dispute over the validity of a Bylaw amendment passed by the homeowners’ association (HOA) Board of Directors12. The inclusion of ‘RHG’ in the case number confirms that the final decision resulted from a rehearing requested by the Respondent Association23.
Procedural History: The initial evidentiary hearing was held on September 5, 201824. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision on September 24, 2018, granting the Petitioner’s request35. The Respondent requested and was granted a rehearing by the Department of Real Estate on November 7, 201836. The rehearing was held on March 5, 2019, where no new evidence was introduced, and the parties presented legal briefs and closing arguments2….
Key Facts and Core Issue: The dispute centered on the validity of the Board’s third amendment to the Association Bylaws, approved on November 20, 2017910. This amendment changed the financial oversight requirement from an annual audit by a public accountant to an annual audit, review, or compilation of financial records1112.
The main legal issue was whether the Board had the authority to unilaterally amend the Bylaws without a vote of the general membership and whether the Board violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B), concerning notice requirements for member meetings3…. The determination hinged on the interpretation of Bylaws Article XIII, Section 1, which permits amendments “by a vote of a majority of a quorum of members present in person or by proxy”1617.
Key Arguments: Petitioner Jay Janicek argued that the term “members” in Article XIII referred exclusively to the Association owners, as supported by the Bylaws’ definition of “Member” and the use of the term “proxy” (which applies to owners, not directors)14…. Petitioner asserted that since the Board acted without calling for a member vote and without statutory notice of the proposed amendment, the action was invalid and violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)14….
The Association argued that, based on reading the Bylaws in their entirety, the term “members” in Article XIII referred to the Board of Directors, particularly since the amendment was to occur at a meeting of the Board of Directors24….
Rehearing Decision and Outcome: In both the original decision and the rehearing decision, the ALJ reached the same conclusion, finding that the Petitioner sustained the burden of proof2728. The ALJ determined that the Association’s governing documents clearly differentiate between “members” (the body of owners) and “directors” (the elected Board)28…. The Board lacked the power to amend the Bylaws when that authority was delegated to the membership2930.
The ALJ concluded that the Board’s action on November 20, 2017, violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and Article III of the Association Bylaws because the amendment was adopted in the absence of a quorum of Association members voting in favor3132.
The final outcome of the rehearing was that the Petitioner’s petition was granted32. The Board’s third amendment to the Bylaws was invalidated532. Additionally, the Respondent Association was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee and a civil penalty of $250.00 for the violation533.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Jay A. Janicek(petitioner) Appeared on own behalf at initial hearing; Observed at rehearing.
Jake Kubert(petitioner attorney) Dessaules Law Group
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
19F-H1918001-REL
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2019-03-25
Administrative Law Judge
Jenna Clark
Outcome
total
Filing Fees Refunded
$500.00
Civil Penalties
$250.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Jay A. Janicek
Counsel
Jake Kubert
Respondent
Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association
Counsel
Evan Thompson
Alleged Violations
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B); Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4; Association Bylaws Article VIII, Section 1
Outcome Summary
The ALJ granted the petition, concluding that the HOA Board’s unilateral amendment of the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, was an invalid action taken without the required vote of the Association members and without statutory notice, violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and the Association’s governing documents. The amendment was invalidated, and the Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's filing fee and pay a $250.00 civil penalty.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4 and Article VIII, Section 1 in an action taken by the board on November 20, 2017.
The Board of Directors attempted a third amendment to the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, specifically changing the requirements for the Association's financial review (audit, review, or compilation). The ALJ concluded that this action was invalid because it was taken in the absence of a quorum of Association members voting in favor of the amendment, violating both the Bylaws and statutory notice requirements.
Orders: The petition was granted. The third amendment to the Association Bylaws taken on November 20, 2017, was invalidated. Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner the filing fee required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01 and pay a civil penalty of $250.00 to the Planned Community Hearing Office Fund.
Briefing Document: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and legal conclusions from the administrative hearings regarding a dispute between Jay A. Janicek (“Petitioner”) and the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (“Respondent” or “the Association”). The central issue was whether the Association’s Board of Directors acted outside its authority by unilaterally amending the Association’s Bylaws during a Board meeting on November 20, 2017, without a vote from the general membership.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the Board’s action violated both the Association’s governing documents and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1804). The ruling emphasized that the term “members” in the Bylaws refers specifically to the body of property owners, not the Board of Directors. Consequently, the third amendment to the Bylaws was invalidated, and the Association was ordered to pay a civil penalty and refund the Petitioner’s filing fees. A rehearing in March 2019 reconfirmed these findings, underscoring the necessity of transparency and membership participation in homeowners’ association governance.
The Department of Real Estate referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) following a petition filed by Mr. Janicek on July 25, 2018. The Respondent initially declined to present witnesses or exhibits, choosing to rely on a dispute over textual interpretation. Following an initial ruling in favor of the Petitioner, the Respondent requested a rehearing, which was granted but ultimately resulted in the same conclusion.
The Core Dispute: Bylaw Amendment Authority
The conflict arose from a Board meeting held on November 20, 2017. During this meeting, the Board voted to approve a third amendment to the Association’s Bylaws.
The Specific Amendment
The Board modified Article VIII, Section 6(d). The original text required the Board to:
• “…cause an annual audit of the Association books to be made by a public accountant at the completion of each fiscal year.”
The Board replaced this with language allowing for:
• “…an annual audit, review, or compilation of the Associations financial records to be made by a public accountant within 180 days after the end of the HOA’s fiscal year.”
Conflicting Interpretations of “Members”
The primary legal dispute centered on the interpretation of Bylaws Article XIII, Section 1, which states:
“These Bylaws may be amended at a regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Association by a vote of a majority of a quorum of members present in person or by proxy.” (Emphasis added).
• Petitioner’s Position: “Members” refers to the general membership of the Association (property owners), as defined in Article II, Section 7 and the Declaration. Petitioner argued that the use of “proxy” in this section further proves it refers to members, as Board Directors are not permitted to vote by proxy.
• Respondent’s Position: “Members” refers to the members of the Board of Directors. The Association argued that because the word was not capitalized in Article XIII, it authorized the Board to amend Bylaws at their own meetings, provided a quorum of Directors was present.
Legal Analysis and Evidence
Governing Statutes and Case Law
The ALJ’s decision was informed by Arizona law and established legal principles:
• A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Open Meeting Law): This statute requires that notice of any meeting where a bylaw amendment is proposed must be sent to all members 10 to 50 days in advance. It also mandates that meetings of the board and association be open to all members.
• A.R.S. § 33-1804(F): The legislative intent of the Open Meeting Law is to promote transparency. Petitioner cited a message from Governor Ducey stating that such laws “provide residents the opportunity to resolve issues as a community rather than seek government intervention.”
• Powell v. Washburn (2006): The Arizona Supreme Court held that restrictive covenants (including Bylaws) must be interpreted to give effect to the intention of the parties based on the document in its entirety.
Findings of Fact regarding Authority
The ALJ identified several factors that invalidated the Board’s unilateral action:
1. Differentiated Terminology: The Bylaws consistently use “Directors” when referring to the Board and “Members” when referring to the homeowners. Article VI, Section 3 explicitly uses “Directors” to define a quorum for the Board, while Article XIII uses “members.”
2. Absence of Express Power: Article VII, which outlines the “Powers and Duties of the Board of Directors,” does not expressly grant the Board the authority to amend Bylaws. This power is reserved for the membership.
3. Lack of Notice: No Association members were present at the November 20, 2017, meeting, and no notice was provided to the general membership regarding a proposed amendment to the Bylaws as required by A.R.S. § 33-1804(B).
Conclusions of Law
The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner sustained the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The final legal determinations were:
• Avoidance of Absurdity: Bylaws must be construed to avoid an absurdity. The ALJ stated, “The voices of few cannot speak for all, unless all have bestowed those few with the power and authority to speak on their behalf.”
• Violation of Statute: The Board’s action violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) due to the lack of transparency and failure to provide notice of a bylaw amendment.
• Violation of Governing Documents: The Board acted outside the authority granted to it by the Bylaws, specifically Article III and Article XIII.
Final Order and Penalties
The Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders:
1. Invalidation: The third amendment to the Association Bylaws, enacted on November 20, 2017, is null and void.
2. Restitution of Fees: The Respondent must pay the Petitioner the cost of his filing fee.
3. Civil Penalty: The Respondent was ordered to pay a sum of $250.00 to the Planned Community Hearing Office Fund as a penalty for the violations.
4. Binding Nature: Following the rehearing, the order became binding, with the only further recourse being judicial review in the Superior Court within 35 days.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918001-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the legal proceedings between Jay A. Janicek and the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association. It examines the interpretation of governing documents, the application of Arizona Revised Statutes regarding homeowners’ associations, and the limits of a Board of Directors’ authority to amend bylaws.
——————————————————————————–
Part I: Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the provided legal documents.
1. Who are the primary parties involved in this administrative hearing, and what is their relationship?
2. What specific action taken by the Board of Directors on November 20, 2017, triggered this dispute?
3. How did the Petitioner define the term “member” according to the Association’s governing documents?
4. What was the Respondent’s primary argument regarding the interpretation of Article XIII, Section 1 of the Bylaws?
5. According to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B), what must a notice of a membership meeting include if a bylaw amendment is proposed?
6. Why did the Petitioner argue that the use of the word “proxy” in the Bylaws supported his interpretation that only general members could amend the Bylaws?
7. What is the legal significance of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) in the context of the relationship between an HOA and a property owner?
8. What was the “preponderance of the evidence” standard used by the Administrative Law Judge to reach a decision?
9. What specific penalties and orders were issued against the Respondent in the final decision?
10. What reason did the Administrative Law Judge give for concluding that the Board’s interpretation of the Bylaws was incorrect?
——————————————————————————–
Part II: Answer Key
1. Who are the primary parties involved in this administrative hearing, and what is their relationship? The Petitioner is Jay A. Janicek, a property owner and member of the Sycamore Vista subdivision. The Respondent is the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association, the entity responsible for governing the residential development where the Petitioner’s property is located.
2. What specific action taken by the Board of Directors on November 20, 2017, triggered this dispute? The Board voted to approve a third amendment to the Association’s Bylaws during a regular meeting. This amendment replaced a requirement for a full annual audit by a public accountant with a choice of an audit, review, or compilation to be completed within 180 days of the fiscal year-end.
3. How did the Petitioner define the term “member” according to the Association’s governing documents? The Petitioner asserted that “Member” refers to those persons entitled to membership as defined in the Declaration, specifically every lot owner. He argued that this definition distinguishes general property owners from the “Directors” who serve on the Board.
4. What was the Respondent’s primary argument regarding the interpretation of Article XIII, Section 1 of the Bylaws? The Respondent argued that the term “members” in Article XIII referred specifically to members of the Board of Directors rather than the general membership. They contended that since the word was not capitalized, it authorized the Board to amend Bylaws at any meeting where a quorum of directors was present.
5. According to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B), what must a notice of a membership meeting include if a bylaw amendment is proposed? The statute requires that notice be sent to every owner 10 to 50 days in advance of the meeting, stating the date, time, and place. Crucially, the notice must also state the purpose of the meeting, including the general nature of any proposed amendments to the declaration or bylaws.
6. Why did the Petitioner argue that the use of the word “proxy” in the Bylaws supported his interpretation that only general members could amend the Bylaws? The Petitioner noted that the Bylaws allow for voting by “proxy,” a mechanism defined in Article III as applying to votes of the general membership. He argued that because Board members are legally prohibited from voting by proxy, the inclusion of the term in the amendment section proved the section applied to general members.
7. What is the legal significance of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) in the context of the relationship between an HOA and a property owner? The CC&Rs constitute an enforceable contract between the Association and each individual property owner. By purchasing a residential unit within the development, the buyer agrees to be bound by the terms, powers, and restrictions outlined in these recorded documents.
8. What was the “preponderance of the evidence” standard used by the Administrative Law Judge to reach a decision? This standard requires the Petitioner to prove that his contention is “more probably true than not.” It is defined as the greater weight of the evidence or evidence that possesses the most convincing force, rather than the absolute removal of all doubt.
9. What specific penalties and orders were issued against the Respondent in the final decision? The Administrative Law Judge invalidated the third amendment to the Bylaws and ordered the Respondent to pay a $250.00 civil penalty to the Planned Community Hearing Office Fund. Additionally, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner for his initial filing fee.
10. What reason did the Administrative Law Judge give for concluding that the Board’s interpretation of the Bylaws was incorrect? The Judge ruled that bylaws must be construed to avoid “absurdity” and that the “voices of few cannot speak for all” without express authority. The governing documents clearly differentiated between “members” (owners) and “directors,” and the Board lacked the power to act where authority was reserved for the membership.
——————————————————————————–
Part III: Essay Questions
Instructions: Use the provided source context to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.
1. The Distinction Between “Members” and “Directors”: Analyze how the specific terminology used in the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Bylaws (Articles II, III, VI, and XIII) influenced the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. How does the consistent use of these terms throughout the document prevent the Board from claiming the powers of the general membership?
2. Statutory Compliance and Transparency: Discuss the importance of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 (the Open Meeting Law) as it relates to this case. Use Governor Ducey’s message regarding H.B. 2411 to explain the legislative intent behind ensuring transparency and participation in HOA governance.
3. The Role of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH): Explain the procedural path of this dispute, from the initial petition to the Department of Real Estate to the final rehearing. What is the scope of the OAH’s authority in interpreting contracts between homeowners and associations?
4. Contractual Interpretation and the “Powell v. Washburn” Precedent: Discuss the significance of the Arizona Supreme Court’s holding in Powell v. Washburn regarding restrictive covenants. How does the requirement to give effect to the “intention of the parties” apply to the interpretation of HOA Bylaws?
5. Limits of Board Authority: Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, evaluate the boundaries of a Board of Directors’ power. Under what circumstances can a Board exercise “all powers, duties, and authority” of the Association, and what serves as the definitive limit to that power?
——————————————————————————–
Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
A presiding officer who hears evidence and issues decisions in contested cases involving state agencies.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
The Arizona statute governing open meetings, notice requirements, and transparency for planned community associations.
Bylaws
The internal rules and regulations that govern the administration and management of an association.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the recorded legal documents that establish the rules for a planned community and create a contract between owners and the HOA.
Civil Penalty
A financial fine imposed by a government agency or tribunal as a punishment for a violation of statutes or regulations.
Declarant
The original developer or entity that established the residential subdivision and its governing documents.
Declaration
The primary governing document that defines membership and property rights within a homeowners’ association.
Member
Defined in the source context as a property owner within the Sycamore Vista subdivision who is entitled to membership in the Association.
The Office of Administrative Hearings; an independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for contested cases.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action or petition (in this case, Jay A. Janicek).
Preponderance of the Evidence
The legal standard of proof required in this case, meaning a contention is “more probably true than not.”
A written authorization allowing one person to act or vote on behalf of another, specifically used by Association members.
Quorum
The minimum number of members or directors required to be present at a meeting to legally transact business.
Respondent
The party against whom a legal action or petition is filed (in this case, Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA).
Restrictive Covenants
Provisions in a deed or other recorded document that limit the use of property and are interpreted to give effect to the intention of the parties.
{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “19F-H1918001-REL-RHG”,
“case_title”: “Jay A. Janicek, Petitioner, vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (FKA New Tucson Unit No. 8 Homeowners Association, Inc.), Respondent.”,
“decision_date”: “March 25, 2019”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Jay A. Janicek”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Appeared on his own behalf at initial hearing; observed rehearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Jenna Clark”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “OAH”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Evan Thompson”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Thompson Krone, P.L.C.”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Dennis Legere”,
“role”: “observer”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Observer present at initial hearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Becky Nutt”,
“role”: “observer”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Observer present at initial hearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Caleb Rhodes”,
“role”: “observer”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Observer present at initial hearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Jake Kubert”,
“role”: “petitioner attorney”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: “Dessaules Law Group”,
“notes”: “Appeared on behalf of Petitioner at rehearing.”
},
{
“name”: “Judy Lowe”,
“role”: “Commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Andrew F. Vizcarra”,
“role”: “property manager”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Tucson Realty & Trust Co. Management”,
“notes”: “Listed as representative for service of process for Respondent HOA.”
},
{
“name”: “Maxwell T. Riddiough”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Thompson Krone, P.L.C.”,
“notes”: null
}
]
}
{ “case”: { “agency”: “ADRE”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “docket_no”: “19F-H1918001-REL”, “case_title”: “Jay A. Janicek vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2019-03-25”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark” }, “parties”: [ { “party_id”: “P1”, “role”: “petitioner”, “name”: “Jay A. Janicek”, “party_type”: “homeowner”, “email”: null, “phone”: null, “attorney_name”: “Jake Kubert”, “attorney_firm”: “Dessaules Law Group”, “attorney_email”: null, “attorney_phone”: null }, { “party_id”: “R1”, “role”: “respondent”, “name”: “Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association”, “party_type”: “HOA”, “email”: null, “phone”: null, “attorney_name”: “Evan Thompson”, “attorney_firm”: “Thompson Krone, P.L.C.”, “attorney_email”: null, “attorney_phone”: null } ], “issues”: [ { “issue_id”: “ISS-001”, “type”: “statute_and_bylaws”, “citation”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B); Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4; Association Bylaws Article VIII, Section 1”, “caption”: “Whether Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4 and Article VIII, Section 1 in an action taken by the board on November 20, 2017.”, “violation(s)”: “Violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and Association Bylaws Article III by amending the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, without proper notice and a vote of the Association membership.”, “summary”: “The Board of Directors attempted a third amendment to the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, specifically changing the requirements for the Association’s financial review (audit, review, or compilation)12. The ALJ concluded that this action was invalid because it was taken in the absence of a quorum of Association members voting in favor of the amendment, violating both the Bylaws and statutory notice requirements34.”, “outcome”: “petitioner_win”, “filing_fee_paid”: 500.0, “filing_fee_refunded”: true, “civil_penalty_amount”: 250.0, “orders_summary”: “The petition was granted. The third amendment to the Association Bylaws taken on November 20, 2017, was invalidated. Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner the filing fee required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01 and pay a civil penalty of $250.00 to the Planned Community Hearing Office Fund56.”, “why_the_loss”: null, “cited”: [ “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B)”, “Association Bylaws Article III” ] } ], “money_summary”: { “issues_count”: 1, “total_filing_fees_paid”: 500.0, “total_filing_fees_refunded”: 500.0, “total_civil_penalties”: 250.0 }, “outcomes”: { “petitioner_is_hoa”: false, “petitioner_win”: “total”, “summarize_judgement”: “The ALJ granted the petition, concluding that the HOA Board’s unilateral amendment of the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, was an invalid action taken without the required vote of the Association members and without statutory notice, violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and the Association’s governing documents47. The amendment was invalidated, and the Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner’s filing fee and pay a $250.00 civil penalty56.”, “why_the_loss”: null }, “analytics”: { “cited”: [ “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B)”, “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05”, “Powell v. Washburn, 125 P.3d 373 (Ariz. 2006)”, “Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)” ], “tags”: [ “HOA Governance”, “Bylaws Amendment”, “Open Meeting Law”, “ARS 33-1804”, “Membership Vote”, “Filing Fee Refund” ] } }
{ “rehearing”:{ “is_rehearing”:true, “base_case_id”:”19F-H1918001-REL”, “original_decision_status”:”affirmed”, “original_decision_summary”:”The original ALJ decision, issued on September 25, 2018, granted the Petitioner’s request, finding that the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association Board violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and Association Bylaws by unilaterally amending the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, without first calling for a vote by the Association members1,2,3. The order invalidated the amendment, required the Respondent to refund the Petitioner’s filing fee, and imposed a civil penalty of $250.004,5.”, “rehearing_decision_summary”:”The Department granted Respondent’s request for a rehearing, which was held on March 5, 20196,7. The ALJ affirmed the original decision, concluding that the Board’s action on November 20, 2017, violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and Article III of the Association Bylaws because the action was taken in the absence of a quorum of Association members voting in favor of the proposed amendment8. The rehearing order re-granted the petition, invalidated the third amendment, and reaffirmed the orders for the filing fee refund and the $250.00 civil penalty8,9.”, “issues_challenged”:[ { “issue_id”: “ISS-001”, “summary”: “Whether the HOA Board violated Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4 and Article VIII, Section 1, and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) in an action taken to amend the Bylaws on November 20, 201710.”, “outcome”: “affirmed_petitioner_win” } ] } }
The matter, Jay A. Janicek vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (Case No. 19F-H1918001-REL-RHG), involves a dispute over the validity of a Bylaw amendment passed by the homeowners’ association (HOA) Board of Directors12. The inclusion of ‘RHG’ in the case number confirms that the final decision resulted from a rehearing requested by the Respondent Association23.
Procedural History: The initial evidentiary hearing was held on September 5, 201824. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision on September 24, 2018, granting the Petitioner’s request35. The Respondent requested and was granted a rehearing by the Department of Real Estate on November 7, 201836. The rehearing was held on March 5, 2019, where no new evidence was introduced, and the parties presented legal briefs and closing arguments2….
Key Facts and Core Issue: The dispute centered on the validity of the Board’s third amendment to the Association Bylaws, approved on November 20, 2017910. This amendment changed the financial oversight requirement from an annual audit by a public accountant to an annual audit, review, or compilation of financial records1112.
The main legal issue was whether the Board had the authority to unilaterally amend the Bylaws without a vote of the general membership and whether the Board violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B), concerning notice requirements for member meetings3…. The determination hinged on the interpretation of Bylaws Article XIII, Section 1, which permits amendments “by a vote of a majority of a quorum of members present in person or by proxy”1617.
Key Arguments: Petitioner Jay Janicek argued that the term “members” in Article XIII referred exclusively to the Association owners, as supported by the Bylaws’ definition of “Member” and the use of the term “proxy” (which applies to owners, not directors)14…. Petitioner asserted that since the Board acted without calling for a member vote and without statutory notice of the proposed amendment, the action was invalid and violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)14….
The Association argued that, based on reading the Bylaws in their entirety, the term “members” in Article XIII referred to the Board of Directors, particularly since the amendment was to occur at a meeting of the Board of Directors24….
Rehearing Decision and Outcome: In both the original decision and the rehearing decision, the ALJ reached the same conclusion, finding that the Petitioner sustained the burden of proof2728. The ALJ determined that the Association’s governing documents clearly differentiate between “members” (the body of owners) and “directors” (the elected Board)28…. The Board lacked the power to amend the Bylaws when that authority was delegated to the membership2930.
The ALJ concluded that the Board’s action on November 20, 2017, violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and Article III of the Association Bylaws because the amendment was adopted in the absence of a quorum of Association members voting in favor3132.
The final outcome of the rehearing was that the Petitioner’s petition was granted32. The Board’s third amendment to the Bylaws was invalidated532. Additionally, the Respondent Association was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee and a civil penalty of $250.00 for the violation533.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Jay A. Janicek(petitioner) Appeared on own behalf at initial hearing; Observed at rehearing.
Jake Kubert(petitioner attorney) Dessaules Law Group
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B); Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4; Association Bylaws Article VIII, Section 1
Outcome Summary
The ALJ granted the petition, concluding that the HOA Board’s unilateral amendment of the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, was an invalid action taken without the required vote of the Association members and without statutory notice, violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B) and the Association’s governing documents. The amendment was invalidated, and the Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's filing fee and pay a $250.00 civil penalty.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated Association Bylaws Article III, Sections 3 & 4 and Article VIII, Section 1 in an action taken by the board on November 20, 2017.
The Board of Directors attempted a third amendment to the Bylaws on November 20, 2017, specifically changing the requirements for the Association's financial review (audit, review, or compilation). The ALJ concluded that this action was invalid because it was taken in the absence of a quorum of Association members voting in favor of the amendment, violating both the Bylaws and statutory notice requirements.
Orders: The petition was granted. The third amendment to the Association Bylaws taken on November 20, 2017, was invalidated. Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner the filing fee required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01 and pay a civil penalty of $250.00 to the Planned Community Hearing Office Fund.
Topics: HOA Governance, Bylaws Amendment, Open Meeting Law, ARS 33-1804, Membership Vote, Filing Fee Refund
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
Powell v. Washburn, 125 P.3d 373 (Ariz. 2006)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
19F-H1918001-REL Decision – 661797.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:25:37 (143.2 KB)
19F-H1918001-REL Decision – 696205.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:25:40 (169.8 KB)
Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918001-REL
Briefing Document: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in the case of Jay A. Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (No. 19F-H1918001-REL-RHG). The central issue was the validity of a bylaw amendment enacted by the Association’s Board of Directors on November 20, 2017, without a vote of the general homeowner membership.
The ALJ ruled decisively in favor of the Petitioner, Jay Janicek, finding that the Board’s action was invalid. The decision hinged on a critical interpretation of the Association’s governing documents, concluding that the term “members” in the context of bylaw amendments unambiguously refers to the homeowner membership, not the Board of Directors. The ruling established that the Board does not have the authority to amend bylaws where that power is reserved for the membership.
Furthermore, the ALJ concluded that the Board’s action violated Arizona’s Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 33-1804) by failing to provide the required notice to homeowners for a meeting concerning a proposed bylaw amendment. As a result, the amendment was invalidated, and the Association was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee and a civil penalty of $250.
Case Background and Procedural History
Parties and Jurisdiction
• Petitioner: Jay A. Janicek, a property owner within the Sycamore Vista subdivision and a member of the Respondent Association.
• Respondent: Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (“the Association”), a homeowners’ association in Tucson, Arizona, governed by its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and overseen by a Board of Directors.
• Adjudicating Body: The Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), an independent state agency, which received the case on referral from the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
The Central Dispute
The core of the dispute was an action taken by the Association’s Board of Directors during a regular meeting on November 20, 2017. At this meeting, the Board, with three of five directors present, voted to approve a third amendment to the Association’s Bylaws. The amendment altered Article VIII Section 6(d), changing the requirement for an annual financial check from:
“cause an annual audit of the Association books to be made by a public accountant at the completion of each fiscal year”
“cause an annual audit, review, or compilation of the Associations financial records to be made by a public accountant within 180 days after the end of the HOA’s fiscal year.”
The Petitioner contended this action was invalid because it was undertaken without a vote of the general Association membership, as he believed the governing documents required.
Timeline of Adjudication
1. July 25, 2018: Petitioner files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
2. September 05, 2018: An initial evidentiary hearing is held before the OAH.
3. September 25, 2018: The OAH issues an ALJ Decision in the Petitioner’s favor.
4. October 23, 2018: The Respondent submits a Request for Rehearing.
5. November 07, 2018: The Department grants the rehearing request and refers the matter back to the OAH.
6. March 05, 2019: A rehearing is conducted, based on legal briefs and closing arguments without new evidence.
7. March 25, 2019: The final ALJ Decision is issued, reaffirming the initial ruling in favor of the Petitioner.
Analysis of Governing Documents and Statutes
The case decision rested on the interpretation of specific articles within the Association’s Bylaws and relevant Arizona state statutes.
Key Bylaw Provisions
Article
Section
Description
Article IV
Section 1
States that the “affairs of this Association shall be managed by a Board of not less than three (3) nor more than five (5) directors.”
Article VI
Section 1
Establishes that regular meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held monthly without notice.
Article VI
Section 2
Governs special meetings of the Board, requiring not less than three days’ notice to each Director.
Article VI
Section 3
Defines a quorum for Board meetings as “a majority of the number of Directors.”
Article VII
Section 1
Outlines the Powers and Duties of the Board of Directors. This section does not explicitly grant the Board the power to amend the Bylaws.
Article XIII
Section 1
(The central provision in the dispute) States: “These Bylaws may be amended at a regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Association by a vote of a majority of a quorum of members present in person or by proxy.”
Relevant Arizona Statutes
• A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Open Meeting Law): This statute was central to the Petitioner’s argument and the ALJ’s final decision.
◦ Subsection (A): Requires that all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors be open to all members of the association.
◦ Subsection (B): Mandates specific notice requirements for any meeting of the members, stating that notice “shall also state the purpose for which the meeting is called, including the general nature of any proposed amendment to the declaration or bylaws.”
◦ Subsection (F): The ALJ noted that this section codifies the legislative intent of the statute, which, as cited from a Governor’s message, is to “promote transparency and participation for all residents in homeowners’ association governance.”
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Position (Jay Janicek)
The Petitioner’s case was built on a textual interpretation of the Bylaws and adherence to state law.
• Interpretation of “Members”: The Petitioner argued that the word “members” in Article XIII, Section 1 refers to the general homeowner membership of the Association, not the members of the Board of Directors.
• Textual Differentiation: The drafters of the Bylaws intentionally used the words “members” and “directors” distinctly throughout the document. Where the intent was to refer to the Board, the word “Director” was specifically used (e.g., Article VI).
• Proxy Voting: The inclusion of the term “proxy” in Article XIII supports the argument that the vote is for the general membership, as Board members are not permitted to vote by proxy.
• Lack of Explicit Power: Article VII, which details the Board’s powers, does not grant the authority to amend the Bylaws, implying such power is reserved for the membership.
• Statutory Violation: The Board’s action violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 because the required notice for a meeting concerning a bylaw amendment was not provided to the general membership.
• Legal Precedent: The Petitioner cited Powell v. Washburn, an Arizona Supreme Court case holding that restrictive covenants (which he argued include the Bylaws) should be interpreted to give effect to the intention of the parties as determined from the entire document.
Respondent’s Position (Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA)
The Association argued that its actions were a valid exercise of the Board’s authority.
• Broad Authority: The Respondent cited Article IV, which states the “affairs of this Association shall be managed by a Board,” to assert its general authority.
• Valid Board Meeting: The amendment occurred at a regular monthly Board meeting as allowed by Article VI. The meeting had three directors present, which constituted a valid quorum for transacting business.
• Interpretation of Article XIII: The Respondent argued that the phrase “at a regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors” in Article XIII indicates that the Board is the body empowered to make the amendment, and the word “members” in that context refers to the members of the Board.
• No Open Meeting Law Violation: The Respondent contended its conduct was not a violation because the action occurred during a regular Board meeting with a proper quorum of directors.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ’s conclusions were unequivocal, fully adopting the Petitioner’s interpretation of the governing documents and state law.
Conclusions of Law
• Burden of Proof: The ALJ found that the Petitioner successfully sustained his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804.
• Interpretation of “Members” vs. “Directors”: The decision states that the governing documents are clear: “‘members’ refers to the body of owners who make up the membership of the Association, and ‘directors’ refers to the few who are elected to the membership’s Board.” The ALJ found the differentiation to be intentional by the drafters.
• Avoiding Absurdity: The decision holds that construing the Bylaws to allow the Board to amend them would create an absurdity. The ALJ wrote, “The voices of few cannot speak for all, unless all have bestowed those few with the power and authority to speak on their behalf.”
• Violation of Statute and Bylaws: The ALJ concluded that the Board’s action on November 20, 2017, violated both A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) due to a lack of notice and Article III of the Association Bylaws.
• Rejection of Respondent’s Argument: The decision explicitly states, “The Tribunal is not swayed by Respondent’s closing arguments.”
Final Order
Based on the findings and conclusions, the ALJ issued the following binding order:
1. Petition Granted: The Petitioner’s petition was officially granted.
2. Amendment Invalidated: The third amendment to the Association Bylaws, as enacted on November 20, 2017, was invalidated.
3. Fees and Penalties: The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee and a civil penalty of $250.00 to the Planned Community Hearing Office Fund.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918001-REL
Study Guide: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association
Short-Answer Quiz
1. Who were the primary parties in the case No. 19F-H1918001-REL-RHG, and what were their respective roles?
2. What specific action taken by the Respondent on November 20, 2017, prompted the Petitioner to file a complaint?
3. According to the Petitioner, what was the crucial difference in meaning between the terms “members” and “directors” as used in the Association’s Bylaws?
4. What was the Respondent’s central argument for why the Board of Directors had the authority to amend the Bylaws at its regular meeting?
5. What is Arizona’s Open Meeting Law, and how did the Petitioner argue that the Respondent violated it?
6. What was the financial concern that the Petitioner argued could potentially impact him as a homeowner due to the Board’s amendment?
7. Describe the procedural history of this case after the initial Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision on September 25, 2018.
8. What case did the Petitioner cite regarding the interpretation of restrictive covenants, and what principle did it establish?
9. What is the legal standard of proof required in this proceeding, and how is it defined in the document?
10. What was the final outcome of the case, including the specific orders issued by the Administrative Law Judge?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Jay A. Janicek, the Petitioner, and the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association, the Respondent. The Petitioner is a property owner and member of the Association who brought the legal action, while the Respondent is the homeowners’ association governed by a Board of Directors.
2. On November 20, 2017, the Respondent’s Board of Directors held a regular meeting where they voted to approve a third amendment to the Association’s Bylaws. This amendment changed the requirement for an “annual audit…by a public accountant” to an “annual audit, review, or compilation” of financial records.
3. The Petitioner argued that the term “members” in Article XIII of the Bylaws refers to the entire body of property owners in the Association, not the Board of Directors. He contended that if the drafter had intended to give amendment power to the Board, the specific word “directors” would have been used, as it was in other sections of the Bylaws.
4. The Respondent argued that its actions were proper because the Bylaws empower the Board to manage the Association’s affairs at regular monthly meetings. They contended that since a quorum of three directors was present at the November 20, 2017 meeting, the Board was empowered to transact business, which they interpreted to include amending the bylaws as described in Article XIII.
5. Arizona’s Open Meeting Law is ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804, which requires meetings of a homeowners’ association’s board and members to be open to all members. The Petitioner argued the Respondent violated this by amending a bylaw without proper notice to the full membership, which is required for any proposed bylaw amendment, thus undermining the law’s legislative intent of transparency.
6. The Petitioner was concerned that the amendment weakened the financial oversight of the Association. It modified a requirement for a third-party audit to a less stringent “review, or compilation,” creating a risk that the Association could perform its own financial checks, and as a homeowner, he had an interest in ensuring the Association’s financials were correct.
7. After the initial decision in the Petitioner’s favor on September 25, 2018, the Respondent submitted a Request for Rehearing on October 23, 2018. The Department of Real Estate granted this request on November 7, 2018, and the matter was referred back to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a rehearing, which ultimately took place on March 5, 2019.
8. The Petitioner cited Powell v. Washburn. This case established the principle that restrictive covenants should be interpreted to give effect to the intention of the parties, as determined from the language of the entire document and the purpose for which the covenants were created.
9. The legal standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence.” The document defines this as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and as evidence with the most “convincing force” that inclines an impartial mind to one side of an issue.
10. The final outcome was a ruling in favor of the Petitioner. The ALJ granted the petition, invalidated the third amendment to the Bylaws that was passed on November 20, 2017, and ordered the Respondent to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee and a civil penalty of $250.00.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s reasoning in differentiating between the terms “members” and “directors.” How did the principle of avoiding absurdity and considering the drafter’s intent, as seen throughout the Bylaws, contribute to the final decision?
2. Discuss the interplay between the Association’s governing documents (CC&Rs and Bylaws) and state law (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804). Explain which authority took precedence in this case and why the Board’s actions were found to violate both.
3. Evaluate the legal strategy employed by the Petitioner, Jay A. Janicek. Consider his use of specific Bylaw articles, the citation of Powell v. Washburn, and his argument regarding the legislative intent of the Open Meeting Law.
4. Examine the arguments presented by the Respondent, Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association. Why did the Judge find their interpretation of the Bylaws unconvincing, despite their claims that the Board was empowered to transact business with a quorum present?
5. Based on the text, discuss the broader implications of this ruling for homeowners’ associations in Arizona. How does this decision reinforce the principles of transparency and the limitations of a Board’s power relative to the association’s general membership?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge, in this case Jenna Clark, who presides over administrative hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
A section of the Arizona Revised Statutes, also known as Arizona’s Open Meeting Law, which mandates that meetings of an HOA’s members and board of directors must be open to all members and requires specific notice for meetings where bylaw amendments will be considered.
Bylaws
A set of rules that govern the internal operations of the homeowners’ association. In this case, key articles discussed include Article VI (Meeting of Directors), Article VII (Powers of the Board), and Article XIII (Amendments).
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are governing documents that form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, empowering the Association to control certain aspects of property use.
Member
As defined in the Association’s documents, a person entitled to membership by virtue of being a property owner within the Sycamore Vista subdivision. The Judge concluded this term refers to the body of owners, not the Board of Directors.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency in Arizona, unaffiliated with the parties, responsible for conducting evidentiary hearings and making legal decisions in disputes like this one.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal case. In this matter, the Petitioner was Jay A. Janicek, a homeowner in the Association.
Preponderance of the evidence
The burden of proof in this case. It is defined as evidence that is more likely true than not and has the most convincing force, sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of an issue.
The authority to represent someone else, especially in voting. The document notes that the term “proxy” applies to votes of the members, as members of the Board are not permitted to vote by proxy.
Quorum
The minimum number of members of a deliberative assembly necessary to conduct the business of that group. For the Respondent’s Board of Directors, a quorum is defined as a majority of the number of Directors.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the Respondent was the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association.
Restrictive Covenants
Legal obligations imposed in a deed to real property to do or not do something. The Petitioner argued this term included the CC&Rs, Bylaws, and rules of the Association.
Tribunal
A body established to settle certain types of dispute. In this document, it refers to the Administrative Law Judge at the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918001-REL
Select all sources
696205.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
19F-H1918001-REL-RHG
1 source
The provided text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute between Jay A. Janicek (Petitioner) and the Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core issue of the case, designated No. 19F-H1918001-REL-RHG, revolves around whether the Homeowners Association violated its Bylaws and Arizona state statute (§ 33-1804) when its Board of Directors unilaterally amended the Bylaws on November 20, 2017. The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Board’s action was invalid because the power to amend the Bylaws was delegated to the Association’s general membership, not the Board of Directors, and the Board failed to provide the required notice for such an amendment. Consequently, the Petitioner’s request was granted, the amendment was invalidated, and the Association was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee and a civil penalty.
What central conflict drove the administrative hearing and subsequent rehearing process?
How did governing documents and Arizona statutes shape the final legal decision?
What ultimate implications does this ruling have for homeowners association governance and member rights?
Based on 1 source
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Jay A. Janicek(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf at initial hearing; Observed rehearing
Jake Kubert(petitioner attorney) Dessaules Law Group Appeared at rehearing
The ALJ found that the Petitioner did not establish a violation of the Respondent's CC&Rs and recommended the petition be denied. The ALJ specifically noted the lack of proof that fees were inappropriate and that Petitioner failed to provide legal authority requiring equal benefit. The petition was denied, and the Respondent was not ordered to pay the Petitioner's filing fee.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish a violation of the CC&Rs.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of CC&Rs regarding disproportionate assessment fees
Petitioner alleged Respondent was in violation of its CC&Rs because Master HOA fees were disproportionately borne by existing homeowners and did not benefit the whole development equally. Petitioner failed to establish a violation because required evidentiary documents (plat attached as 'Exhibit B') were missing, and Petitioner offered no legal authority requiring fees to be equally beneficial or even-handed.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied. Respondent shall not pay the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01 to the Petitioner.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(D)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: CC&Rs, Master HOA, Assessment Fees, Common Areas, Burden of Proof, Rule Against Perpetuities
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
17F-H1717033-REL Decision – 575166.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:20:21 (39.1 KB)
17F-H1717033-REL Decision – 582189.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:20:24 (69.4 KB)
17F-H1717033-REL Decision – 584918.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:20:27 (674.1 KB)
Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717033-REL
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes the key findings and legal proceedings in case number 17F-H1717033-REL, wherein Petitioner Jay Janicek filed a complaint against Respondent Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA. The petition was ultimately denied by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), a decision formally adopted and finalized by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
The core of the dispute centered on the Petitioner’s allegation that the HOA’s fee structure violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Specifically, Janicek argued that payments made by his first-level association to a master association for common area expenses—most egregiously for a roadway loan—were improper because the benefits were not distributed equally among all homeowners.
The denial of the petition hinged on a critical failure of proof by the Petitioner. The CC&Rs define “Common Areas” by referencing a plat map (“Exhibit B”) that was not submitted into evidence by the Petitioner. Without this crucial document, it was impossible to prove that the fees collected by the HOA were for purposes outside the scope of the CC&Rs. Furthermore, the Petitioner failed to provide any legal authority or provision within the governing documents requiring that association fees be “even-handed or equally beneficial to all homeowners.” A secondary argument regarding the “rule against perpetuities,” introduced post-hearing, was also addressed and dismissed by the ALJ as legally inapplicable to the matter.
Case Overview
The following table outlines the principal parties and details of the administrative hearing.
Case Detail
Information
Petitioner
Jay Janicek
Respondent
Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA
Respondent’s Counsel
Evan Thompson, Thompson Krone PLC
Respondent’s Representative
Steve Russo
Case Number
17F-H1717033-REL
Docket Number
17F-H1717033-REL
Hearing Date
July 12, 2017
Presiding Judge
Dorinda M. Lang, Administrative Law Judge
Hearing Observers
John Shields, Margery and Mathew Janicek
Petitioner’s Allegations
The petition filed by Jay Janicek alleged that Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA was in violation of its governing CC&Rs. The central arguments presented were:
• Unequal Distribution of Costs and Benefits: The Petitioner contended that expenses paid by the Respondent association to the Sycamore Vista Master Home Owner’s Association (“Master HOA”) did not benefit all homeowners equally. The most “egregious” example cited was the payment toward a loan for a roadway within the master development.
• Violation of CC&Rs: The Petitioner argued that this unequal cost burden was a direct violation of Article 11, Section 11.5 of the Respondent’s CC&Rs. This section stipulates:
• Discrepancy Among Associations: The Petitioner asserted that another first-level association within the master development receives more benefit from the common areas but does not pay into the Master HOA.
• Rule Against Perpetuities: In a post-hearing submission, the Petitioner introduced a new argument that a “rule against perpetuities” was at stake in the matter.
Adjudication and Findings of Fact
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was based on the Petitioner’s failure to meet the required burden of proof through a preponderance of the evidence.
Evidentiary Failure
The Petitioner’s case failed primarily due to a lack of sufficient evidence to prove a violation of the CC&Rs.
• Missing ‘Exhibit B’: The definition of “Common Areas” was essential to the case. According to Article 1, Section 1.6 of the CC&Rs, these areas are delineated on a plat that was supposed to be attached as “Exhibit B.”
• Critical Finding: The ALJ noted, “Unfortunately, there was no plat attached to the document that was offered into evidence and it was not to be found among the other exhibits. Therefore, Petitioner was unable to establish that Respondent’s fees pay for anything that is not provided for in the CC&Rs.”
• Petitioner’s Concession: The Petitioner did not dispute the Respondent’s argument that the Master HOA fees, including those for roads, were for Common Areas.
Lack of Legal Authority
The Petitioner’s core premise—that fees must be proportional to benefits received—was not substantiated by legal or documentary support.
• The ALJ found that the “Petitioner offered no legal authority that requires that all first level associations must pay the same into a master association or that all homeowners must receive the same benefit from or contribute the same amount (or even a proportionate share) to the common areas.”
• The argument that association fees were “disproportionately heavy” was not established to be a violation of any provision in the CC&Rs.
Post-Hearing Submissions
The record was held open until August 1, 2017, allowing for additional documentation from both parties.
• Petitioner (Exhibit 6): Submitted financial documentation, emails, and the argument concerning the rule against perpetuities.
• Respondent (Exhibit H): Submitted a Notice of Lien and attachments. This exhibit demonstrated that, regarding a lien for water services on properties not part of the Respondent HOA, the “Respondent’s homeowners are not responsible for it.”
Conclusions of Law and Final Decision
Based on the evidence and arguments presented, the ALJ denied the petition, a decision later finalized by the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Denial of Petition
• The primary conclusion of law was that the “Petitioner has not established that Respondent is in violation of its CC&Rs.”
• The payment for Common Areas was found to be in comportment with the CC&Rs.
Rejection of Key Arguments
• Equal Benefit: The ALJ explicitly concluded: “Petitioner has offered no legal authority or provision of the CC&Rs that requires the association fees to be even-handed or equally beneficial to all homeowners.”
• Rule Against Perpetuities: While this argument was not part of the original petition, the ALJ addressed it to “lay a concern to rest.” The judge explained that the rule, which states that property ownership must vest within a lifetime plus 21 years, evolved from estate law and does not apply to HOA property sales where ownership vests immediately in the developer or a new owner. The judge concluded, “the rule against perpetuities does not apply to a homeowner’s association and it clearly does not apply in this matter.”
Timeline of Orders
1. July 12, 2017: An “Order Holding Record Open” was issued by ALJ Dorinda M. Lang.
2. August 14, 2017: The “Administrative Law Judge Decision” was issued, ordering that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.
3. August 21, 2017: A “Final Order” was issued by Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, adopting the ALJ’s decision and officially denying the petition.
Post-Decision Procedures
The Final Order, effective August 21, 2017, concluded the administrative action and outlined the subsequent options available to the parties.
• The order is binding unless a rehearing is granted. A request for rehearing must be filed within 30 days of the service of the final order.
• A rehearing may be granted for the following causes:
1. Irregularity in the proceedings or any order or abuse of discretion that deprived a party of a fair hearing.
2. Misconduct by the Department, ALJ, or the prevailing party.
3. Accident or surprise that could not have been prevented by ordinary prudence.
4. Newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.
5. Excessive or insufficient penalties.
6. Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.
7. The findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
8. The findings of fact or decision is not supported by the evidence or is contrary to law.
• Parties may appeal the final administrative action by filing a complaint for judicial review.
Study Guide – 17F-H1717033-REL
Study Guide: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA
This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative hearing case No. 17F-H1717033-REL, Jay Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a thorough understanding of the case’s facts, arguments, and legal conclusions.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, based on the information provided in the case documents.
1. Who were the primary parties in this legal matter, and what were their designated roles?
2. What was the central allegation made by the Petitioner against the Respondent?
3. Which specific article and section of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) did the Petitioner claim the Respondent had violated?
4. Explain the key piece of evidence that was missing and why its absence was critical to the case’s outcome.
5. What was the Respondent’s main argument regarding the fees paid to the Master HOA?
6. According to the case documents, who held the burden of proof, and what was the required standard of proof?
7. What was the “rule against perpetuities,” and what reason did the Administrative Law Judge give for its inapplicability to this case?
8. What was the ultimate decision of the Administrative Law Judge, and on what date was it issued?
9. After the hearing, the record was held open. What was the purpose of this, and what types of materials were submitted by the parties during this period?
10. What action did the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate take after receiving the Administrative Law Judge’s decision?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Jay Janicek, designated as the Petitioner, and Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA, designated as the Respondent. The Petitioner is the party who filed the complaint, and the Respondent is the party against whom the complaint was filed.
2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA was in violation of its CC&Rs. He argued that the fees his association paid to the Master HOA for a roadway loan did not benefit the whole development equally and were therefore inappropriate expenses for all homeowners to pay.
3. The Petitioner cited Article 11, Section 11.5 of the Respondent’s CC&Rs. This section, titled “Costs of Improvements,” details how the costs for improving Unimproved Lots and Common Areas in Phase 3 and Phase 4 are to be borne by the owners of lots within those specific phases.
4. The key missing evidence was a plat, referred to as “Exhibit B” in the CC&Rs. This plat was supposed to define the “Common Areas,” and without it, the Petitioner was unable to establish that the fees paid by the Respondent were for anything not provided for in the governing documents.
5. The Respondent argued that the Master HOA fees were used to pay for the development’s common areas. They maintained that the CC&Rs permit these payments and that there is no legal authority requiring all homeowners to receive the same benefit or for all first-level associations to contribute equally.
6. Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-19-119(B), the Petitioner, Jay Janicek, had the burden of proof in this matter. The standard of proof was a preponderance of the evidence, as established by A.A.C. R2-19-119(A).
7. The rule against perpetuities states that property ownership must vest within a time frame of an existing lifetime plus 21 years. The Judge ruled it did not apply because it evolved to handle estates bequeathed to a series of heirs and is not generally applicable to property sales where rights transfer at once; in the HOA’s case, ownership of undeveloped lots had already vested in the developer.
8. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. This decision was made on August 14, 2017.
9. The record was held open until August 1, 2017, to allow the Respondent to submit additional documentation and for the Petitioner to submit written objections. During this time, the Petitioner submitted financial documentation, emails, and a new argument about the rule against perpetuities (admitted as Exhibit 6), while the Respondent submitted a Notice of Lien (admitted as Exhibit H).
10. The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. This was formalized in a Final Order dated August 21, 2017, which accepted the ALJ’s recommendation and denied the Petitioner’s petition.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate a detailed essay-style response for each.
1. Analyze the critical evidentiary failure that led to the denial of Jay Janicek’s petition. How did the absence of the plat referred to as “Exhibit B” directly impact his ability to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard of proof?
2. Discuss the legal reasoning behind the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that there is no requirement for HOA fees to be “even-handed or equally beneficial to all homeowners.” How does this principle relate to the hierarchical structure of Master and first-level associations described in the case?
3. Explain the concept of the “rule against perpetuities” as described in the legal decision. Detail why the Administrative Law Judge, despite noting the argument was outside the original petition, addressed it and ultimately found it inapplicable to the case of a homeowner’s association.
4. Trace the procedural path of this case from the initial hearing to the final binding order. Identify the key dates, decisions, and entities involved at each stage, including the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Department of Real Estate.
5. Based on the Final Order, outline the process and potential grounds for requesting a rehearing. What were the eight specific causes listed in the order that could materially affect a moving party’s rights and justify a rehearing or review?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions. In this case, Dorinda M. Lang served as the ALJ.
A.A.C.
Abbreviation for Arizona Administrative Code, a compilation of rules and regulations of Arizona state agencies.
A.R.S.
Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, the collection of all the laws of the state of Arizona.
Areas of Association Responsibility
Locations that the Homeowner’s Association is responsible for maintaining, as defined within its governing documents.
Burden of Proof
The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this case, the burden of proof was on the Petitioner.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community or subdivision.
Common Areas
Areas within a housing development that are owned by the association for the use and benefit of all homeowners. The definition of these areas was a central issue in the case.
Commissioner
The head of a government department. In this context, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, who adopted the ALJ’s decision.
First Level Association
An individual homeowner’s association within a larger development that also has a master association. The Respondent, Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA, is a first level association.
Master HOA
The Sycamore Vista Master Home Owner’s Association. An overarching organization that governs expenses and common areas concerning an entire development composed of multiple first-level associations.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
The state agency that conducts administrative hearings for other state agencies. This case was referred to the OAH by the Department of Real Estate.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition or brings an action in a legal proceeding. In this case, Jay Janicek.
A map, drawn to scale, showing the divisions of a piece of land. The missing plat in this case was intended to show the “Common Areas.”
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in most civil cases. It requires that the evidence shows a claim is more likely to be true than not true.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed or who is responding to a legal action. In this case, Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA.
Rule Against Perpetuities
A legal rule that prevents a property owner from controlling the disposition of their property for an indefinite period after their death. The ALJ found it did not apply in this HOA context.
Unimproved Lot Assessments
Fees imposed on the owners of undeveloped lots to pay for the costs of improving certain areas, as described in Section 6.13 of the CC&Rs.
Unimproved Lots
Parcels of land within the development that have not yet been built upon.
Blog Post – 17F-H1717033-REL
Select all sources
575166.pdf
582189.pdf
584918.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
17F-H1717033-REL
3 sources
These documents chronicle the legal proceedings of a dispute between Jay Janicek, the Petitioner, and Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA, the Respondent, before the Office of Administrative Hearings. The first source is an “Order Holding Record Open,” dated July 12, 2017, which temporarily extends the deadline for submitting additional evidence. The subsequent sources contain the “Administrative Law Judge Decision” issued on August 14, 2017, which outlines the hearing details and the judge’s recommendation to deny the petition because Janicek failed to establish a violation of the HOA’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. Finally, the third document presents the “Final Order” from the Department of Real Estate Commissioner on August 21, 2017, which accepts and affirms the Administrative Law Judge’s decision to deny the petition. Janicek’s core claim argued that certain master association fees were disproportionately applied and did not benefit all homeowners equally, which the judge ultimately dismissed due to a lack of supporting legal authority or CC&R provisions.
Based on 3 sources
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Jay Janicek(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Evan Thompson(HOA attorney) Thompson Krone PLC Attorney for Respondent
Steve Russo(respondent representative)
Neutral Parties
Dorinda M. Lang(ALJ)
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Dan Gardner(HOA Coordinator) Office of Administrative Hearings Addressee for rehearing request
Other Participants
John Shields(observer)
Margery Janicek(observer)
Mathew Janicek(observer)
M. Aguirre(unknown) Thompson Krone PLC Listed on transmittal documents
The ALJ found that the Petitioner did not establish a violation of the Respondent's CC&Rs and recommended the petition be denied. The ALJ specifically noted the lack of proof that fees were inappropriate and that Petitioner failed to provide legal authority requiring equal benefit. The petition was denied, and the Respondent was not ordered to pay the Petitioner's filing fee.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish a violation of the CC&Rs.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of CC&Rs regarding disproportionate assessment fees
Petitioner alleged Respondent was in violation of its CC&Rs because Master HOA fees were disproportionately borne by existing homeowners and did not benefit the whole development equally. Petitioner failed to establish a violation because required evidentiary documents (plat attached as 'Exhibit B') were missing, and Petitioner offered no legal authority requiring fees to be equally beneficial or even-handed.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied. Respondent shall not pay the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01 to the Petitioner.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(D)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: CC&Rs, Master HOA, Assessment Fees, Common Areas, Burden of Proof, Rule Against Perpetuities
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
17F-H1717033-REL Decision – 575166.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:56 (39.1 KB)
17F-H1717033-REL Decision – 582189.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:57 (69.4 KB)
17F-H1717033-REL Decision – 584918.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:58 (674.1 KB)
Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717033-REL
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes the key findings and legal proceedings in case number 17F-H1717033-REL, wherein Petitioner Jay Janicek filed a complaint against Respondent Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA. The petition was ultimately denied by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), a decision formally adopted and finalized by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
The core of the dispute centered on the Petitioner’s allegation that the HOA’s fee structure violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Specifically, Janicek argued that payments made by his first-level association to a master association for common area expenses—most egregiously for a roadway loan—were improper because the benefits were not distributed equally among all homeowners.
The denial of the petition hinged on a critical failure of proof by the Petitioner. The CC&Rs define “Common Areas” by referencing a plat map (“Exhibit B”) that was not submitted into evidence by the Petitioner. Without this crucial document, it was impossible to prove that the fees collected by the HOA were for purposes outside the scope of the CC&Rs. Furthermore, the Petitioner failed to provide any legal authority or provision within the governing documents requiring that association fees be “even-handed or equally beneficial to all homeowners.” A secondary argument regarding the “rule against perpetuities,” introduced post-hearing, was also addressed and dismissed by the ALJ as legally inapplicable to the matter.
Case Overview
The following table outlines the principal parties and details of the administrative hearing.
Case Detail
Information
Petitioner
Jay Janicek
Respondent
Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA
Respondent’s Counsel
Evan Thompson, Thompson Krone PLC
Respondent’s Representative
Steve Russo
Case Number
17F-H1717033-REL
Docket Number
17F-H1717033-REL
Hearing Date
July 12, 2017
Presiding Judge
Dorinda M. Lang, Administrative Law Judge
Hearing Observers
John Shields, Margery and Mathew Janicek
Petitioner’s Allegations
The petition filed by Jay Janicek alleged that Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA was in violation of its governing CC&Rs. The central arguments presented were:
• Unequal Distribution of Costs and Benefits: The Petitioner contended that expenses paid by the Respondent association to the Sycamore Vista Master Home Owner’s Association (“Master HOA”) did not benefit all homeowners equally. The most “egregious” example cited was the payment toward a loan for a roadway within the master development.
• Violation of CC&Rs: The Petitioner argued that this unequal cost burden was a direct violation of Article 11, Section 11.5 of the Respondent’s CC&Rs. This section stipulates:
• Discrepancy Among Associations: The Petitioner asserted that another first-level association within the master development receives more benefit from the common areas but does not pay into the Master HOA.
• Rule Against Perpetuities: In a post-hearing submission, the Petitioner introduced a new argument that a “rule against perpetuities” was at stake in the matter.
Adjudication and Findings of Fact
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was based on the Petitioner’s failure to meet the required burden of proof through a preponderance of the evidence.
Evidentiary Failure
The Petitioner’s case failed primarily due to a lack of sufficient evidence to prove a violation of the CC&Rs.
• Missing ‘Exhibit B’: The definition of “Common Areas” was essential to the case. According to Article 1, Section 1.6 of the CC&Rs, these areas are delineated on a plat that was supposed to be attached as “Exhibit B.”
• Critical Finding: The ALJ noted, “Unfortunately, there was no plat attached to the document that was offered into evidence and it was not to be found among the other exhibits. Therefore, Petitioner was unable to establish that Respondent’s fees pay for anything that is not provided for in the CC&Rs.”
• Petitioner’s Concession: The Petitioner did not dispute the Respondent’s argument that the Master HOA fees, including those for roads, were for Common Areas.
Lack of Legal Authority
The Petitioner’s core premise—that fees must be proportional to benefits received—was not substantiated by legal or documentary support.
• The ALJ found that the “Petitioner offered no legal authority that requires that all first level associations must pay the same into a master association or that all homeowners must receive the same benefit from or contribute the same amount (or even a proportionate share) to the common areas.”
• The argument that association fees were “disproportionately heavy” was not established to be a violation of any provision in the CC&Rs.
Post-Hearing Submissions
The record was held open until August 1, 2017, allowing for additional documentation from both parties.
• Petitioner (Exhibit 6): Submitted financial documentation, emails, and the argument concerning the rule against perpetuities.
• Respondent (Exhibit H): Submitted a Notice of Lien and attachments. This exhibit demonstrated that, regarding a lien for water services on properties not part of the Respondent HOA, the “Respondent’s homeowners are not responsible for it.”
Conclusions of Law and Final Decision
Based on the evidence and arguments presented, the ALJ denied the petition, a decision later finalized by the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Denial of Petition
• The primary conclusion of law was that the “Petitioner has not established that Respondent is in violation of its CC&Rs.”
• The payment for Common Areas was found to be in comportment with the CC&Rs.
Rejection of Key Arguments
• Equal Benefit: The ALJ explicitly concluded: “Petitioner has offered no legal authority or provision of the CC&Rs that requires the association fees to be even-handed or equally beneficial to all homeowners.”
• Rule Against Perpetuities: While this argument was not part of the original petition, the ALJ addressed it to “lay a concern to rest.” The judge explained that the rule, which states that property ownership must vest within a lifetime plus 21 years, evolved from estate law and does not apply to HOA property sales where ownership vests immediately in the developer or a new owner. The judge concluded, “the rule against perpetuities does not apply to a homeowner’s association and it clearly does not apply in this matter.”
Timeline of Orders
1. July 12, 2017: An “Order Holding Record Open” was issued by ALJ Dorinda M. Lang.
2. August 14, 2017: The “Administrative Law Judge Decision” was issued, ordering that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.
3. August 21, 2017: A “Final Order” was issued by Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, adopting the ALJ’s decision and officially denying the petition.
Post-Decision Procedures
The Final Order, effective August 21, 2017, concluded the administrative action and outlined the subsequent options available to the parties.
• The order is binding unless a rehearing is granted. A request for rehearing must be filed within 30 days of the service of the final order.
• A rehearing may be granted for the following causes:
1. Irregularity in the proceedings or any order or abuse of discretion that deprived a party of a fair hearing.
2. Misconduct by the Department, ALJ, or the prevailing party.
3. Accident or surprise that could not have been prevented by ordinary prudence.
4. Newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.
5. Excessive or insufficient penalties.
6. Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.
7. The findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
8. The findings of fact or decision is not supported by the evidence or is contrary to law.
• Parties may appeal the final administrative action by filing a complaint for judicial review.
The ALJ found that the Petitioner did not establish a violation of the Respondent's CC&Rs and recommended the petition be denied. The ALJ specifically noted the lack of proof that fees were inappropriate and that Petitioner failed to provide legal authority requiring equal benefit. The petition was denied, and the Respondent was not ordered to pay the Petitioner's filing fee.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish a violation of the CC&Rs.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of CC&Rs regarding disproportionate assessment fees
Petitioner alleged Respondent was in violation of its CC&Rs because Master HOA fees were disproportionately borne by existing homeowners and did not benefit the whole development equally. Petitioner failed to establish a violation because required evidentiary documents (plat attached as 'Exhibit B') were missing, and Petitioner offered no legal authority requiring fees to be equally beneficial or even-handed.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied. Respondent shall not pay the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01 to the Petitioner.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(D)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: CC&Rs, Master HOA, Assessment Fees, Common Areas, Burden of Proof, Rule Against Perpetuities
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
17F-H1717033-REL Decision – 575166.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:02:10 (39.1 KB)
17F-H1717033-REL Decision – 582189.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:02:11 (69.4 KB)
17F-H1717033-REL Decision – 584918.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:02:11 (674.1 KB)
Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717033-REL
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes the key findings and legal proceedings in case number 17F-H1717033-REL, wherein Petitioner Jay Janicek filed a complaint against Respondent Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA. The petition was ultimately denied by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), a decision formally adopted and finalized by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
The core of the dispute centered on the Petitioner’s allegation that the HOA’s fee structure violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Specifically, Janicek argued that payments made by his first-level association to a master association for common area expenses—most egregiously for a roadway loan—were improper because the benefits were not distributed equally among all homeowners.
The denial of the petition hinged on a critical failure of proof by the Petitioner. The CC&Rs define “Common Areas” by referencing a plat map (“Exhibit B”) that was not submitted into evidence by the Petitioner. Without this crucial document, it was impossible to prove that the fees collected by the HOA were for purposes outside the scope of the CC&Rs. Furthermore, the Petitioner failed to provide any legal authority or provision within the governing documents requiring that association fees be “even-handed or equally beneficial to all homeowners.” A secondary argument regarding the “rule against perpetuities,” introduced post-hearing, was also addressed and dismissed by the ALJ as legally inapplicable to the matter.
Case Overview
The following table outlines the principal parties and details of the administrative hearing.
Case Detail
Information
Petitioner
Jay Janicek
Respondent
Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA
Respondent’s Counsel
Evan Thompson, Thompson Krone PLC
Respondent’s Representative
Steve Russo
Case Number
17F-H1717033-REL
Docket Number
17F-H1717033-REL
Hearing Date
July 12, 2017
Presiding Judge
Dorinda M. Lang, Administrative Law Judge
Hearing Observers
John Shields, Margery and Mathew Janicek
Petitioner’s Allegations
The petition filed by Jay Janicek alleged that Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA was in violation of its governing CC&Rs. The central arguments presented were:
• Unequal Distribution of Costs and Benefits: The Petitioner contended that expenses paid by the Respondent association to the Sycamore Vista Master Home Owner’s Association (“Master HOA”) did not benefit all homeowners equally. The most “egregious” example cited was the payment toward a loan for a roadway within the master development.
• Violation of CC&Rs: The Petitioner argued that this unequal cost burden was a direct violation of Article 11, Section 11.5 of the Respondent’s CC&Rs. This section stipulates:
• Discrepancy Among Associations: The Petitioner asserted that another first-level association within the master development receives more benefit from the common areas but does not pay into the Master HOA.
• Rule Against Perpetuities: In a post-hearing submission, the Petitioner introduced a new argument that a “rule against perpetuities” was at stake in the matter.
Adjudication and Findings of Fact
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was based on the Petitioner’s failure to meet the required burden of proof through a preponderance of the evidence.
Evidentiary Failure
The Petitioner’s case failed primarily due to a lack of sufficient evidence to prove a violation of the CC&Rs.
• Missing ‘Exhibit B’: The definition of “Common Areas” was essential to the case. According to Article 1, Section 1.6 of the CC&Rs, these areas are delineated on a plat that was supposed to be attached as “Exhibit B.”
• Critical Finding: The ALJ noted, “Unfortunately, there was no plat attached to the document that was offered into evidence and it was not to be found among the other exhibits. Therefore, Petitioner was unable to establish that Respondent’s fees pay for anything that is not provided for in the CC&Rs.”
• Petitioner’s Concession: The Petitioner did not dispute the Respondent’s argument that the Master HOA fees, including those for roads, were for Common Areas.
Lack of Legal Authority
The Petitioner’s core premise—that fees must be proportional to benefits received—was not substantiated by legal or documentary support.
• The ALJ found that the “Petitioner offered no legal authority that requires that all first level associations must pay the same into a master association or that all homeowners must receive the same benefit from or contribute the same amount (or even a proportionate share) to the common areas.”
• The argument that association fees were “disproportionately heavy” was not established to be a violation of any provision in the CC&Rs.
Post-Hearing Submissions
The record was held open until August 1, 2017, allowing for additional documentation from both parties.
• Petitioner (Exhibit 6): Submitted financial documentation, emails, and the argument concerning the rule against perpetuities.
• Respondent (Exhibit H): Submitted a Notice of Lien and attachments. This exhibit demonstrated that, regarding a lien for water services on properties not part of the Respondent HOA, the “Respondent’s homeowners are not responsible for it.”
Conclusions of Law and Final Decision
Based on the evidence and arguments presented, the ALJ denied the petition, a decision later finalized by the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Denial of Petition
• The primary conclusion of law was that the “Petitioner has not established that Respondent is in violation of its CC&Rs.”
• The payment for Common Areas was found to be in comportment with the CC&Rs.
Rejection of Key Arguments
• Equal Benefit: The ALJ explicitly concluded: “Petitioner has offered no legal authority or provision of the CC&Rs that requires the association fees to be even-handed or equally beneficial to all homeowners.”
• Rule Against Perpetuities: While this argument was not part of the original petition, the ALJ addressed it to “lay a concern to rest.” The judge explained that the rule, which states that property ownership must vest within a lifetime plus 21 years, evolved from estate law and does not apply to HOA property sales where ownership vests immediately in the developer or a new owner. The judge concluded, “the rule against perpetuities does not apply to a homeowner’s association and it clearly does not apply in this matter.”
Timeline of Orders
1. July 12, 2017: An “Order Holding Record Open” was issued by ALJ Dorinda M. Lang.
2. August 14, 2017: The “Administrative Law Judge Decision” was issued, ordering that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.
3. August 21, 2017: A “Final Order” was issued by Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, adopting the ALJ’s decision and officially denying the petition.
Post-Decision Procedures
The Final Order, effective August 21, 2017, concluded the administrative action and outlined the subsequent options available to the parties.
• The order is binding unless a rehearing is granted. A request for rehearing must be filed within 30 days of the service of the final order.
• A rehearing may be granted for the following causes:
1. Irregularity in the proceedings or any order or abuse of discretion that deprived a party of a fair hearing.
2. Misconduct by the Department, ALJ, or the prevailing party.
3. Accident or surprise that could not have been prevented by ordinary prudence.
4. Newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.
5. Excessive or insufficient penalties.
6. Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.
7. The findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
8. The findings of fact or decision is not supported by the evidence or is contrary to law.
• Parties may appeal the final administrative action by filing a complaint for judicial review.
The ALJ found that the Petitioner did not establish a violation of the Respondent's CC&Rs and recommended the petition be denied. The ALJ specifically noted the lack of proof that fees were inappropriate and that Petitioner failed to provide legal authority requiring equal benefit. The petition was denied, and the Respondent was not ordered to pay the Petitioner's filing fee.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish a violation of the CC&Rs.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of CC&Rs regarding disproportionate assessment fees
Petitioner alleged Respondent was in violation of its CC&Rs because Master HOA fees were disproportionately borne by existing homeowners and did not benefit the whole development equally. Petitioner failed to establish a violation because required evidentiary documents (plat attached as 'Exhibit B') were missing, and Petitioner offered no legal authority requiring fees to be equally beneficial or even-handed.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied. Respondent shall not pay the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01 to the Petitioner.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(D)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: CC&Rs, Master HOA, Assessment Fees, Common Areas, Burden of Proof, Rule Against Perpetuities
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
17F-H1717033-REL Decision – 575166.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:37 (39.1 KB)
17F-H1717033-REL Decision – 582189.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:37 (69.4 KB)
17F-H1717033-REL Decision – 584918.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:37 (674.1 KB)
Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717033-REL
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes the key findings and legal proceedings in case number 17F-H1717033-REL, wherein Petitioner Jay Janicek filed a complaint against Respondent Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA. The petition was ultimately denied by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), a decision formally adopted and finalized by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
The core of the dispute centered on the Petitioner’s allegation that the HOA’s fee structure violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Specifically, Janicek argued that payments made by his first-level association to a master association for common area expenses—most egregiously for a roadway loan—were improper because the benefits were not distributed equally among all homeowners.
The denial of the petition hinged on a critical failure of proof by the Petitioner. The CC&Rs define “Common Areas” by referencing a plat map (“Exhibit B”) that was not submitted into evidence by the Petitioner. Without this crucial document, it was impossible to prove that the fees collected by the HOA were for purposes outside the scope of the CC&Rs. Furthermore, the Petitioner failed to provide any legal authority or provision within the governing documents requiring that association fees be “even-handed or equally beneficial to all homeowners.” A secondary argument regarding the “rule against perpetuities,” introduced post-hearing, was also addressed and dismissed by the ALJ as legally inapplicable to the matter.
Case Overview
The following table outlines the principal parties and details of the administrative hearing.
Case Detail
Information
Petitioner
Jay Janicek
Respondent
Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA
Respondent’s Counsel
Evan Thompson, Thompson Krone PLC
Respondent’s Representative
Steve Russo
Case Number
17F-H1717033-REL
Docket Number
17F-H1717033-REL
Hearing Date
July 12, 2017
Presiding Judge
Dorinda M. Lang, Administrative Law Judge
Hearing Observers
John Shields, Margery and Mathew Janicek
Petitioner’s Allegations
The petition filed by Jay Janicek alleged that Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA was in violation of its governing CC&Rs. The central arguments presented were:
• Unequal Distribution of Costs and Benefits: The Petitioner contended that expenses paid by the Respondent association to the Sycamore Vista Master Home Owner’s Association (“Master HOA”) did not benefit all homeowners equally. The most “egregious” example cited was the payment toward a loan for a roadway within the master development.
• Violation of CC&Rs: The Petitioner argued that this unequal cost burden was a direct violation of Article 11, Section 11.5 of the Respondent’s CC&Rs. This section stipulates:
• Discrepancy Among Associations: The Petitioner asserted that another first-level association within the master development receives more benefit from the common areas but does not pay into the Master HOA.
• Rule Against Perpetuities: In a post-hearing submission, the Petitioner introduced a new argument that a “rule against perpetuities” was at stake in the matter.
Adjudication and Findings of Fact
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was based on the Petitioner’s failure to meet the required burden of proof through a preponderance of the evidence.
Evidentiary Failure
The Petitioner’s case failed primarily due to a lack of sufficient evidence to prove a violation of the CC&Rs.
• Missing ‘Exhibit B’: The definition of “Common Areas” was essential to the case. According to Article 1, Section 1.6 of the CC&Rs, these areas are delineated on a plat that was supposed to be attached as “Exhibit B.”
• Critical Finding: The ALJ noted, “Unfortunately, there was no plat attached to the document that was offered into evidence and it was not to be found among the other exhibits. Therefore, Petitioner was unable to establish that Respondent’s fees pay for anything that is not provided for in the CC&Rs.”
• Petitioner’s Concession: The Petitioner did not dispute the Respondent’s argument that the Master HOA fees, including those for roads, were for Common Areas.
Lack of Legal Authority
The Petitioner’s core premise—that fees must be proportional to benefits received—was not substantiated by legal or documentary support.
• The ALJ found that the “Petitioner offered no legal authority that requires that all first level associations must pay the same into a master association or that all homeowners must receive the same benefit from or contribute the same amount (or even a proportionate share) to the common areas.”
• The argument that association fees were “disproportionately heavy” was not established to be a violation of any provision in the CC&Rs.
Post-Hearing Submissions
The record was held open until August 1, 2017, allowing for additional documentation from both parties.
• Petitioner (Exhibit 6): Submitted financial documentation, emails, and the argument concerning the rule against perpetuities.
• Respondent (Exhibit H): Submitted a Notice of Lien and attachments. This exhibit demonstrated that, regarding a lien for water services on properties not part of the Respondent HOA, the “Respondent’s homeowners are not responsible for it.”
Conclusions of Law and Final Decision
Based on the evidence and arguments presented, the ALJ denied the petition, a decision later finalized by the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Denial of Petition
• The primary conclusion of law was that the “Petitioner has not established that Respondent is in violation of its CC&Rs.”
• The payment for Common Areas was found to be in comportment with the CC&Rs.
Rejection of Key Arguments
• Equal Benefit: The ALJ explicitly concluded: “Petitioner has offered no legal authority or provision of the CC&Rs that requires the association fees to be even-handed or equally beneficial to all homeowners.”
• Rule Against Perpetuities: While this argument was not part of the original petition, the ALJ addressed it to “lay a concern to rest.” The judge explained that the rule, which states that property ownership must vest within a lifetime plus 21 years, evolved from estate law and does not apply to HOA property sales where ownership vests immediately in the developer or a new owner. The judge concluded, “the rule against perpetuities does not apply to a homeowner’s association and it clearly does not apply in this matter.”
Timeline of Orders
1. July 12, 2017: An “Order Holding Record Open” was issued by ALJ Dorinda M. Lang.
2. August 14, 2017: The “Administrative Law Judge Decision” was issued, ordering that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.
3. August 21, 2017: A “Final Order” was issued by Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, adopting the ALJ’s decision and officially denying the petition.
Post-Decision Procedures
The Final Order, effective August 21, 2017, concluded the administrative action and outlined the subsequent options available to the parties.
• The order is binding unless a rehearing is granted. A request for rehearing must be filed within 30 days of the service of the final order.
• A rehearing may be granted for the following causes:
1. Irregularity in the proceedings or any order or abuse of discretion that deprived a party of a fair hearing.
2. Misconduct by the Department, ALJ, or the prevailing party.
3. Accident or surprise that could not have been prevented by ordinary prudence.
4. Newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.
5. Excessive or insufficient penalties.
6. Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.
7. The findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
8. The findings of fact or decision is not supported by the evidence or is contrary to law.
• Parties may appeal the final administrative action by filing a complaint for judicial review.
Study Guide – 17F-H1717033-REL
Study Guide: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA
This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative hearing case No. 17F-H1717033-REL, Jay Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a thorough understanding of the case’s facts, arguments, and legal conclusions.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, based on the information provided in the case documents.
1. Who were the primary parties in this legal matter, and what were their designated roles?
2. What was the central allegation made by the Petitioner against the Respondent?
3. Which specific article and section of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) did the Petitioner claim the Respondent had violated?
4. Explain the key piece of evidence that was missing and why its absence was critical to the case’s outcome.
5. What was the Respondent’s main argument regarding the fees paid to the Master HOA?
6. According to the case documents, who held the burden of proof, and what was the required standard of proof?
7. What was the “rule against perpetuities,” and what reason did the Administrative Law Judge give for its inapplicability to this case?
8. What was the ultimate decision of the Administrative Law Judge, and on what date was it issued?
9. After the hearing, the record was held open. What was the purpose of this, and what types of materials were submitted by the parties during this period?
10. What action did the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate take after receiving the Administrative Law Judge’s decision?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Jay Janicek, designated as the Petitioner, and Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA, designated as the Respondent. The Petitioner is the party who filed the complaint, and the Respondent is the party against whom the complaint was filed.
2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA was in violation of its CC&Rs. He argued that the fees his association paid to the Master HOA for a roadway loan did not benefit the whole development equally and were therefore inappropriate expenses for all homeowners to pay.
3. The Petitioner cited Article 11, Section 11.5 of the Respondent’s CC&Rs. This section, titled “Costs of Improvements,” details how the costs for improving Unimproved Lots and Common Areas in Phase 3 and Phase 4 are to be borne by the owners of lots within those specific phases.
4. The key missing evidence was a plat, referred to as “Exhibit B” in the CC&Rs. This plat was supposed to define the “Common Areas,” and without it, the Petitioner was unable to establish that the fees paid by the Respondent were for anything not provided for in the governing documents.
5. The Respondent argued that the Master HOA fees were used to pay for the development’s common areas. They maintained that the CC&Rs permit these payments and that there is no legal authority requiring all homeowners to receive the same benefit or for all first-level associations to contribute equally.
6. Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-19-119(B), the Petitioner, Jay Janicek, had the burden of proof in this matter. The standard of proof was a preponderance of the evidence, as established by A.A.C. R2-19-119(A).
7. The rule against perpetuities states that property ownership must vest within a time frame of an existing lifetime plus 21 years. The Judge ruled it did not apply because it evolved to handle estates bequeathed to a series of heirs and is not generally applicable to property sales where rights transfer at once; in the HOA’s case, ownership of undeveloped lots had already vested in the developer.
8. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. This decision was made on August 14, 2017.
9. The record was held open until August 1, 2017, to allow the Respondent to submit additional documentation and for the Petitioner to submit written objections. During this time, the Petitioner submitted financial documentation, emails, and a new argument about the rule against perpetuities (admitted as Exhibit 6), while the Respondent submitted a Notice of Lien (admitted as Exhibit H).
10. The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. This was formalized in a Final Order dated August 21, 2017, which accepted the ALJ’s recommendation and denied the Petitioner’s petition.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate a detailed essay-style response for each.
1. Analyze the critical evidentiary failure that led to the denial of Jay Janicek’s petition. How did the absence of the plat referred to as “Exhibit B” directly impact his ability to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard of proof?
2. Discuss the legal reasoning behind the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that there is no requirement for HOA fees to be “even-handed or equally beneficial to all homeowners.” How does this principle relate to the hierarchical structure of Master and first-level associations described in the case?
3. Explain the concept of the “rule against perpetuities” as described in the legal decision. Detail why the Administrative Law Judge, despite noting the argument was outside the original petition, addressed it and ultimately found it inapplicable to the case of a homeowner’s association.
4. Trace the procedural path of this case from the initial hearing to the final binding order. Identify the key dates, decisions, and entities involved at each stage, including the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Department of Real Estate.
5. Based on the Final Order, outline the process and potential grounds for requesting a rehearing. What were the eight specific causes listed in the order that could materially affect a moving party’s rights and justify a rehearing or review?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions. In this case, Dorinda M. Lang served as the ALJ.
A.A.C.
Abbreviation for Arizona Administrative Code, a compilation of rules and regulations of Arizona state agencies.
A.R.S.
Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, the collection of all the laws of the state of Arizona.
Areas of Association Responsibility
Locations that the Homeowner’s Association is responsible for maintaining, as defined within its governing documents.
Burden of Proof
The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this case, the burden of proof was on the Petitioner.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community or subdivision.
Common Areas
Areas within a housing development that are owned by the association for the use and benefit of all homeowners. The definition of these areas was a central issue in the case.
Commissioner
The head of a government department. In this context, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, who adopted the ALJ’s decision.
First Level Association
An individual homeowner’s association within a larger development that also has a master association. The Respondent, Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA, is a first level association.
Master HOA
The Sycamore Vista Master Home Owner’s Association. An overarching organization that governs expenses and common areas concerning an entire development composed of multiple first-level associations.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
The state agency that conducts administrative hearings for other state agencies. This case was referred to the OAH by the Department of Real Estate.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition or brings an action in a legal proceeding. In this case, Jay Janicek.
A map, drawn to scale, showing the divisions of a piece of land. The missing plat in this case was intended to show the “Common Areas.”
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in most civil cases. It requires that the evidence shows a claim is more likely to be true than not true.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed or who is responding to a legal action. In this case, Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA.
Rule Against Perpetuities
A legal rule that prevents a property owner from controlling the disposition of their property for an indefinite period after their death. The ALJ found it did not apply in this HOA context.
Unimproved Lot Assessments
Fees imposed on the owners of undeveloped lots to pay for the costs of improving certain areas, as described in Section 6.13 of the CC&Rs.
Unimproved Lots
Parcels of land within the development that have not yet been built upon.
Blog Post – 17F-H1717033-REL
Select all sources
575166.pdf
582189.pdf
584918.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
17F-H1717033-REL
3 sources
These documents chronicle the legal proceedings of a dispute between Jay Janicek, the Petitioner, and Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA, the Respondent, before the Office of Administrative Hearings. The first source is an “Order Holding Record Open,” dated July 12, 2017, which temporarily extends the deadline for submitting additional evidence. The subsequent sources contain the “Administrative Law Judge Decision” issued on August 14, 2017, which outlines the hearing details and the judge’s recommendation to deny the petition because Janicek failed to establish a violation of the HOA’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. Finally, the third document presents the “Final Order” from the Department of Real Estate Commissioner on August 21, 2017, which accepts and affirms the Administrative Law Judge’s decision to deny the petition. Janicek’s core claim argued that certain master association fees were disproportionately applied and did not benefit all homeowners equally, which the judge ultimately dismissed due to a lack of supporting legal authority or CC&R provisions.
Based on 3 sources
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Jay Janicek(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Evan Thompson(HOA attorney) Thompson Krone PLC Attorney for Respondent
Steve Russo(respondent representative)
Neutral Parties
Dorinda M. Lang(ALJ)
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Dan Gardner(HOA Coordinator) Office of Administrative Hearings Addressee for rehearing request
Other Participants
John Shields(observer)
Margery Janicek(observer)
Mathew Janicek(observer)
M. Aguirre(unknown) Thompson Krone PLC Listed on transmittal documents
