**Case Summary: MacLeod v. Mogollon Airpark, Inc.**
**Case Number:** 19F-H1919070-REL
**Forum:** Arizona Department of Real Estate / Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date of Decision:** December 2, 2019

**Procedural Background**
Petitioner Mangus (AKA Gary) L.D. MacLeod filed a petition alleging that Respondent Mogollon Airpark, Inc. violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding access to association records. The hearing was conducted before Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden on October 23 and November 14, 2019.

**Facts and Main Issues**
In April and May 2019, Mr. MacLeod requested to examine and copy records dating back to 2017 concerning four Certificates of Deposit (CDs) held by the Respondent. The Respondent, through its Board president and management company, provided Mr. MacLeod with all responsive records in its possession on April 22, 2019.

Mr. MacLeod contended that the production was incomplete because he sought a "history trail" for the CDs. The Respondent informed him that neither the association nor its management company possessed 2017 records in hardcopy or electronic format and suggested he contact the banks directly. Although the Respondent voluntarily attempted to assist by soliciting records from the banks, Mr. MacLeod argued that it was the Respondent's legal responsibility to obtain these records.

**Key Legal Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Position:** Mr. MacLeod argued that A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), which governs access to "financial and other records," essentially mandates that the Association obtain records listed in its retention policy even if it does not currently possess them. He asserted the statute requires the Respondent to acquire third-party records (e.g., from banks) to fulfill a member's request.
* **Respondent’s Position:** The Respondent maintained that it had fully complied by producing all records actually in its possession.

**Tribunal Findings and Conclusions**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the Respondent had provided all responsive records it possessed. Mr. MacLeod failed to identify any records actually in the Respondent’s possession that were withheld.

Legally, the ALJ concluded that:
1. **Burden of Proof:** The Petitioner bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, which Mr. MacLeod failed to meet.
2. **Statutory Interpretation:** Statutes must be interpreted to provide "fair and sensible" results. The ALJ ruled that interpreting A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) to require an association to obtain and produce records it does not have is not a reasonable reading of the law.
3. **No Expansion of Statute:** Adopting the Petitioner’s argument would impermissibly expand the statute to include requirements not expressly provided within its provisions.

**Outcome**
The ALJ determined that the Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The petition was dismissed.