Tag Archives: Joseph Tadano

Santomarco, Cynthia & Bruce vs. Mountainview Lake Estates Homeowner Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1212012-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-10-04
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Cynthia & Bruce Santomarco Counsel —
Respondent Mountainview Lake Estates Homeowner Association Counsel Joseph Tadano

Alleged Violations

Article VI; Article VII, Section 4

Outcome Summary

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioners failed to establish a violation. The damage to the roofs did not constitute 'substantial destruction' requiring homeowner insurance claims; therefore, the HOA acted correctly in performing maintenance.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to prove the roofs were 'substantially destroyed' as required by Article VII to shift responsibility to homeowners.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to require insurance claims for roof damage

Petitioners alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs by using HOA funds to repair roofs ($500/unit) instead of requiring individual owners to file insurance claims for 'substantial destruction'.

Orders: The Petition is dismissed; no action is required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Decision Documents

12F-H1212012-BFS Decision – 309332.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:24 (106.3 KB)

12F-H1212012-BFS Decision – 313668.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:24 (59.2 KB)

**Case Summary: Santomarco v. Mountainview Lake Estates Homeowner Association**
**Case Number:** 12F-H1212012-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety)

**Overview**
This case involved a dispute between Petitioners Cynthia and Bruce Santomarco and Respondent Mountainview Lake Estates Homeowner Association (MLE). The Petitioners alleged that MLE violated the community's Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding the handling of roof repairs following a severe weather event.

**Key Facts**
* **The Incident:** On October 5, 2010, a severe hailstorm damaged roofs within the MLE community, which consists of 68 units.
* **Maintenance Responsibility:** Under the CC&Rs, MLE is generally responsible for the maintenance and repair of unit roofs.
* **Repair Proposal:** Following the storm, USA Roofing offered to repair the hail damage for approximately $500 per unit.
* **Legal Advice:** MLE obtained a legal opinion stating that owners were only obligated to use their personal insurance proceeds for repairs if the roofs were "substantially destroyed". Because the damage was minor ($500 to repair), MLE determined it was appropriate for the Association to perform the repairs.
* **HOA Action:** MLE informed homeowners they could voluntarily file insurance claims or have the Association complete the repairs. Fourteen owners filed claims; the remainder had their roofs repaired by USA Roofing.

**The Dispute**
The Petitioners filed a complaint alleging that MLE violated the CC&Rs by failing to *require* all homeowners to file claims against their insurance policies for the storm damage.

**Legal Arguments and Analysis**
The hearing focused on the interpretation of Articles VI and VII of the CC&Rs:

1. **"Act of God" Defense:** The Petitioners argued that the hailstorm constituted an "Act of God" under Article VI. They contended this relieved MLE of its maintenance duties and shifted the burden to the homeowners.
2. **"Substantially Destroyed" Threshold:** The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) noted that while Article VI excludes "Acts of God" from standard maintenance, it specifically refers such cases to Article VII, Section 4 for governance. Article VII, Section 4 mandates that owners repair their lots using insurance proceeds only if the structure is "**substantially destroyed**".
3. **Evidence of Damage:** The ALJ found that repairs costing $500 per unit did not constitute substantial destruction. Although one witness recommended roof replacement, other evidence showed the repairs were compliant with Registrar of Contractors standards, and no homeowners reported leaks following the work.

**Decision and Outcome**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Respondent (MLE), concluding the following:
* Because the roofs were not "substantially destroyed," the provision requiring owners to use insurance proceeds was not triggered.
* Therefore, it remained MLE's responsibility to repair and maintain the roofs under the CC&Rs.
* The Petitioners failed to prove a violation of the CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.

**Final Order:** The Petition was dismissed on October 4, 2012. The decision was certified as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on November 13, 2012.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Cynthia Santomarco (petitioner)
    Appeared on own behalf
  • Bruce Santomarco (petitioner)
    Appeared on own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Joseph Tadano (attorney)
    Represented Mountainview Lake Estates Homeowner Association
  • Adrianne A. Speas (attorney)
    Ekmark & Ekmark, L.L.C.
    Provided legal opinion letter to Respondent regarding roof repairs

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ decision
  • Holly Textor (Agency Contact)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety

Steadman, Lorinda and John -v- Esquire Village Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 11F-H1112004-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-04-09
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Lorinda and John Steadman Counsel J. Roger Wood
Respondent Esquire Village Homeowners Association Counsel Joseph Tadano

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1808

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioners, finding that the Gadsden flag is a protected flag under A.R.S. § 33-1808 as it was historically an official flag of the Marine Corps. The HOA's determination of a violation was improper, and the fines were ordered withdrawn. The HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioners' filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Restriction on flying the Gadsden flag

Petitioners challenged the HOA's assessment of fines for flying the Gadsden flag. The HOA argued the flag was not protected under A.R.S. § 33-1808. The ALJ determined that because the Gadsden flag was historically an official flag of the U.S. Marine Corps, it fell under the statutory protection for official service flags, regardless of whether it is currently used as the primary official flag.

Orders: Respondent is to take appropriate action to reflect that the flying of the Gadsden flag was not a violation and withdraw the assessment of any fees imposed. Respondent shall pay Petitioners their filing fee of $550.00.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)

Decision Documents

11F-H1112004-BFS Decision – 289742.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:39 (89.7 KB)

11F-H1112004-BFS Decision – 292654.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:39 (60.2 KB)

Based on the provided sources, here is a summary of the hearing proceedings for Case No. 11F-H1112004-BFS.

**Case Overview**
* **Case Title:** *Lorinda and John Steadman v. Esquire Village Homeowners Association*
* **Date of Hearing:** March 22, 2012
* **Judge:** Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
* **Final Decision Date:** Certified May 15, 2012,

**Key Facts**
Petitioners Lorinda and John Steadman received approval in 2008 to install a flagpole in their rear yard, subject to compliance with state statutes regarding flag displays,. In late 2010, a dispute arose when the Petitioners began flying the Gadsden flag,.

In February 2011, the Respondent (Esquire Village Homeowners Association) issued two $50 fines against the Petitioners,. The Association claimed the Gadsden flag was not a protected flag under A.R.S. § 33-1808 as it existed at the time,. The Petitioners appealed these fines to the HOA Board without success before filing a petition with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

**Main Legal Issues**
The central issue was whether the Gadsden flag was protected under the version of A.R.S. § 33-1808 in effect prior to July 2011,. Specifically, the proceedings focused on whether the Gadsden flag qualified as "an official or replica flag of the United States army, navy, air force, marine corps".

**Key Arguments**
* **Respondent’s Position:** The Association argued that the Architectural Review Committee had the authority to regulate aesthetic improvements visible from the street,. The Board President testified that she researched military manuals and consulted informally with legislative counsel, concluding the Gadsden flag was not a "current" official flag and therefore not protected,.
* **Petitioners’ Position:** The Petitioners argued the flag was protected by statute. They presented an Arizona State Senate Issue Brief stating HOAs cannot prohibit U.S. military flags and provided evidence indicating the Gadsden flag’s historical association with the Marine Corps,.

**Legal Analysis and Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that A.R.S. § 33-1808 was determinative over the Association’s aesthetic regulations,.

In analyzing the statute, the Judge noted the text protected "an official or replica flag" of the armed forces. The Judge reasoned that the use of "an" suggested any one of a number of official flags, and the statute notably lacked the word "current". Therefore, to enjoy statutory protection, the Petitioners only needed to prove the Gadsden flag was an official flag of a branch of the armed forces *at some time*.

The ALJ found the preponderance of the evidence showed the Gadsden flag was, at some time, an official flag of the United States Marine Corps.

**Outcome and Order**
The Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioners. The decision included the following orders:
1. **Violation Dismissed:** The Respondent’s determination of

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Lorinda Steadman (petitioner)
    Homeowner
  • John Steadman (petitioner)
    Homeowner
  • L. Roger Wood (attorney)
    The Law Offices of J. Roger Wood, PLLC
    Listed as 'L. Roger Wood' in appearances and 'J. Roger Wood' in service list
  • Pat Haruff (witness)
    Coalition of HomeOwners for Rights and Education
    Director of Coalition; advocate for homeowners

Respondent Side

  • Esquire Village Homeowners Association (respondent)
    Entity named as Respondent
  • Joseph Tadano (attorney)
    Farley Sletos & Choate
  • Kevin Bishop (witness)
    Renaissance Community Partners
    President of the management company
  • Julie Frost (board member)
    Esquire Village Homeowners Association
    Board President; testified at hearing

Neutral Parties

  • Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Gene Palma (agency director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on transmission of decision
  • Cliff J. Vanell (agency director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the decision
  • Beth Soliere (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    ATTN recipient for transmission