John & Debborah Sellers vs. The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA

Case Summary

Case ID 16F-H1616013-BFS
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2016-08-22
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John & Debborah Sellers Counsel
Respondent The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA Counsel Joshua M. Bolen

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted summary judgment in favor of the Petitioners because the Respondent admitted to violating A.R.S. § 33-1804 by appointing board members without a public meeting. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the filing fee, but civil penalties were declined because the violation was based on a mistake of law rather than intentional misconduct.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Open Meeting Law (Board Appointments)

Petitioners alleged the remaining board member appointed new directors to fill vacancies without a public meeting. Respondent admitted the violation but claimed exigent circumstances due to lack of quorum and expiring management contract.

Orders: Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioners' filing fee. No civil penalty imposed as the violation was not intentional or repeated.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • Dennis J. Legere and Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA

Decision Documents

16F-H1616013-BFS Decision – 505356.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:13:22 (77.4 KB)

16F-H1616013-BFS Decision – 513402.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:13:22 (60.0 KB)

**Case Summary: Sellers v. The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA**
**Case No. 16F-H1616013-BFS**

**Proceedings and Key Facts**
Petitioners John and Debborah Sellers filed a motion for summary judgment against The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA (Respondent) regarding actions taken by the HOA board,. The dispute arose after three of the Respondent's four board members resigned in July 2015. The sole remaining board member continued to conduct business and appointed new members to serve the remaining terms in January 2016.

**Main Issues and Arguments**
The central legal issue was whether the remaining board member's actions violated A.R.S. § 33-1804, which governs public meetings for homeowners' associations.

* **Petitioners' Position:** They argued the Respondent violated the statute and legal precedent established in *Dennis J. Legere and Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA* regarding open meetings. They requested reimbursement of their filing fee and the imposition of sanctions,.
* **Respondent's Position:** The Respondent acknowledged that the "emergency" exception to A.R.S. § 33-1804 did not apply to this situation and admitted to the violation,. However, the Respondent argued against civil penalties, claiming the violation was not intentional. They asserted the remaining board member acted under a mistaken belief of necessity due to a lack of directors and an expiring management contract.

**Legal Analysis**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) distinguished this case from *Legere*, where a board had routinely violated open meeting laws for convenience. In this instance, the ALJ found the Respondent did not routinely violate the law but acted due to "exigent circumstances based upon a mistake about the law’s requirements",. Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A), the Director has discretion to levy civil penalties. The ALJ determined that while the statute was violated, the lack of malicious intent meant a civil penalty was not warranted,.

**Final Decision and Outcome**
On July 7, 2016, ALJ Diane Mihalsky issued an Amended Administrative Law Judge Decision:
1. **Summary Judgment:** Granted in favor of the Petitioners because the Respondent admitted to violating A.R.S. § 33-1804.
2. **Reimbursement:** Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioners for their filing fee.
3. **Penalties:** No civil penalty was levied. The Respondent was placed on notice that future violations would result in penalties,.
4. **Hearing:** The hearing scheduled for August 10, 2016, was vacated as unnecessary.

The Department of Real Estate did not reject or modify the decision within the statutory timeframe. Consequently, on August 22, 2016, the decision was certified as the final administrative decision,.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John Sellers (petitioner)
  • Debborah Sellers (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Joshua M. Bolen (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Attorney for The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the decision
  • Debra Blake (Interim Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of electronic transmission
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of final certification
  • Louis Dettorre (Agency Staff)
    Department of Real Estate
    Attn line for Commissioner Lowe
  • F. Del Sol (Administrative Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed transmission for ALJ
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (Administrative Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed transmission for Director Hanchett

Sellers, John & Debborah vs. Crossings at Willow Creek Property

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1212002-BFS, 12F-H1212009-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2013-01-17
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John and Debborah Sellers Counsel
Respondent Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association Counsel Joshua M. Bolen

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed both petitions (consolidated). The judge ruled that the Architectural Review Committee meetings were not regularly scheduled and thus not subject to open meeting notice requirements. Additionally, the judge ruled that the records requested by Petitioners were properly withheld under attorney-client privilege.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated statutes or governing documents; specific exceptions for non-regularly scheduled meetings and privileged records applied.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to notice and conduct publicly ARC Meetings

Petitioners alleged that the ARC failed to notice and conduct meetings publicly. The HOA argued ARC meetings are not regularly scheduled and occur only as necessary, thus not requiring notice.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Failure to provide requested HOA records

Petitioners requested attorney invoices and communications. The HOA denied the request based on attorney-client privilege.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Decision Documents

12F-H1212002-BFS Decision – 321619.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:16 (129.8 KB)

12F-H1212002-BFS Decision – 327760.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:16 (58.9 KB)

**Case Summary: Sellers v. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association**
**Case Nos:** 12F-H1212002-BFS and 12F-H1212009-BFS (Consolidated)
**Forum:** Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Arizona
**Administrative Law Judge:** M. Douglas

**Overview**
Petitioners John and Debborah Sellers filed two petitions against the Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association ("Crossings"). The matters were consolidated for hearings held on September 26, 2012, and January 4, 2013,. The proceedings addressed allegations regarding the conduct of Architectural Review Committee (ARC) meetings and the withholding of association records.

**Main Issues and Arguments**

**1. Public Conduct of ARC Meetings (Case No. 12F-H1212002-BFS)**
* **Petitioner Allegation:** The Petitioners alleged that Crossings failed to notice and conduct ARC meetings publicly, violating A.R.S. § 33-1804 and community documents.
* **Respondent Defense:** Crossings argued that it complied with state law and bylaws. Witnesses testified that the ARC did not hold "regularly scheduled" meetings. Instead, meetings occurred "on demand" or "as necessary" depending on when architectural applications were submitted,.
* **Key Legal Point:** A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) mandates that "regularly scheduled committee meetings" be open to members.
* **Finding:** The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that credible testimony established ARC meetings were not regularly scheduled. Consequently, the notice requirements for regularly scheduled meetings under the statute and Crossings’ CC&Rs did not apply to these irregular occurrences.

**2. Production of Records (Case No. 12F-H1212009-BFS)**
* **Petitioner Allegation:** The Petitioners claimed Crossings failed to provide requested records, specifically invoices from the HOA’s attorneys and communications between the attorneys and third parties.
* **Respondent Defense:** Crossings denied the allegations, asserting that the refusal to release documents was based on privilege. Testimony indicated the association was involved in civil litigation with the City of Prescott and that communications often related to potential insurance claims or legal advice,.
* **Key Legal Point:** A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) permits an association to withhold

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John Sellers (petitioner)
    Homeowner
    appeared through John Sellers
  • Debborah Sellers (petitioner)
    Homeowner
    Testified; interior designer

Respondent Side

  • Joshua M. Bolen (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Attorney for Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
  • Brenda Doziar (board member)
    Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
    ARC member
  • Robert Balzano (witness)
    Former statutory agent and manager of Crossings
  • Kenneth Burnett (board member)
    Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • G. Eugene Neil (witness)
    City of Prescott
    Interim City Attorney
  • Larry Harding (witness)
    Commercial insurance agent for Crossings
  • Gene Palma (agency director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Cliff J. Vanell (agency director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Director who certified the decision
  • Joni Cage (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of decision copy

Sellers, John & Debborah vs. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1212002-BFS; 12F-H1212009-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date 2013-01-17
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John and Debborah Sellers Counsel
Respondent Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association Counsel Joshua M. Bolen

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed both petitions. Regarding the ARC meetings, the judge ruled they were not regularly scheduled and thus notice was not required. Regarding the records request, the judge ruled the withheld documents were protected by attorney-client privilege.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated statutes or CC&Rs; applicable laws provide exceptions for irregular meetings and privileged records.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to notice and conduct publicly ARC Meetings

Petitioners alleged the HOA failed to notice and conduct publicly Architectural Review Committee (ARC) meetings. The ALJ found that ARC meetings were held 'as necessary' and were not 'regularly scheduled,' and therefore did not require notice under the statute or Bylaws.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804

Failure to provide requested HOA records

Petitioners requested attorney invoices and communications. The HOA refused based on attorney-client privilege. The ALJ found the refusal was justified under statutory exceptions for privileged communication.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 12-2234

Decision Documents

12F-H1212009-BFS Decision – 321619.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:15 (129.8 KB)

12F-H1212009-BFS Decision – 327760.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:15 (58.9 KB)

**Case Summary: Sellers v. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association**
**Case No:** 12F-H1212009-BFS (Consolidated with 12F-H1212002-BFS)

**Overview**
This hearing concerned a dispute between homeowners John and Debborah Sellers (Petitioners) and the Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association (Respondent). The matter was heard by Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas on September 26, 2012, and January 4, 2013. The two cases were consolidated for the hearing.

**Key Issues**
1. **Refusal to Provide Records (Case 12F-H1212009-BFS):** The Petitioners alleged the Association failed to provide requested records, specifically invoices from the HOA’s attorneys and communications between the attorneys and third parties (including settlement correspondence). Petitioners argued these did not constitute attorney-client privileged communications.
2. **Failure to Conduct Public Meetings (Case 12F-H1212002-BFS):** The Petitioners alleged the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) failed to notice and conduct its meetings publicly, violating A.R.S. § 33-1804 and community documents.

**Legal Arguments and Testimony**
* **Records:** The Respondent denied the allegations, asserting the refusal was based on statutory privilege. Relevant statutes A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) and A.R.S. § 12-2234 allow an association to withhold records related to privileged attorney-client communications and pending litigation.
* **Meetings:** Testimony established that the ARC did not hold "regularly scheduled" meetings; instead, meetings occurred "on demand" or "as necessary" based on architectural submissions. The Association's Bylaws mandate the ARC meet "from time to time as necessary" rather than on a fixed schedule. A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) requires that "regularly scheduled committee meetings" be open to members.

**Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) placed the burden of proof on the Petitioners to show a violation by a "preponderance of the evidence".

1. **Regarding Records:** The ALJ found that the Association's refusal to release the requested documents was properly based on statutory exceptions for attorney-client privileged material. The Petitioners failed to prove that the withholding of these documents violated the statute or the CC&Rs.
2. **Regarding

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John Sellers (petitioner)
    Appeared at hearing
  • Debborah Sellers (petitioner)
    Testified regarding ARC service

Respondent Side

  • Joshua M. Bolen (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
  • Brenda Doziar (witness)
    Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
    Board member and ARC member
  • Robert Balzano (witness)
    Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
    Former statutory agent and manager
  • Kenneth Burnett (witness)
    Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
    Board member

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • G. Eugene Neil (witness)
    City of Prescott
    Interim City Attorney; provided public records
  • Larry Harding (witness)
    Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
    Commercial insurance agent for Respondent
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Named as Director for transmittal
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the decision
  • Joni Cage (agency staff)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Copy recipient

Brown, William M. vs. Terravita Country Club Inc.

Case Summary

Case ID 11F-H1112007-BFS
Agency Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-05-08
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner William M. Brown Counsel
Respondent Terravita Country Club, Inc. Counsel Joshua M. Bolen

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) because, although it provided the policy, it did not do so within the mandatory ten business days. The late delivery was attributed to an unintentional computer error. Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party and awarded the $550.00 filing fee, but no civil penalties were assessed against the Respondent.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide records (Directors and Officers Liability Insurance Policy) within ten business days

Petitioner requested a copy of the Respondent's Directors and Officers Liability Insurance Policy. Respondent failed to provide the policy within the statutory ten business day period, allegedly due to a computer error where the email became stuck in an outbox.

Orders: Respondent shall pay Petitioner his filing fee of $550.00. No civil penalty imposed as Respondent attempted to comply.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Brown, William M. vs. Terravita Country Club Inc.

Case Summary

Case ID 11F-H1112007-BFS
Agency Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-05-08
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner William M. Brown Counsel
Respondent Terravita Country Club, Inc. Counsel Joshua M. Bolen

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) because, although it provided the policy, it did not do so within the mandatory ten business days. The late delivery was attributed to an unintentional computer error. Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party and awarded the $550.00 filing fee, but no civil penalties were assessed against the Respondent.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide records (Directors and Officers Liability Insurance Policy) within ten business days

Petitioner requested a copy of the Respondent's Directors and Officers Liability Insurance Policy. Respondent failed to provide the policy within the statutory ten business day period, allegedly due to a computer error where the email became stuck in an outbox.

Orders: Respondent shall pay Petitioner his filing fee of $550.00. No civil penalty imposed as Respondent attempted to comply.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Decision Documents

11F-H125885-BFS Decision – 292130.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:25:36 (81.4 KB)

11F-H125885-BFS Decision – 295358.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:25:36 (60.5 KB)

Based on the provided sources, here is a summary of the administrative hearing for *William M. Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc.* (Case No. 11F-H1112007-BFS). Please note that the case number in the provided documents differs from the one listed in your query.

### Case Overview
**Petitioner:** William M. Brown
**Respondent:** Terravita Country Club, Inc.
**Case Number:** 11F-H1112007-BFS
**Tribunal:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date of Decision:** May 8, 2012 (Certified Final on June 14, 2012),

### Key Facts and Proceedings
The dispute arose from a records request made by the Petitioner, a resident of the Respondent's planned community. On October 21, 2011, the Petitioner emailed the Respondent requesting a copy of the "Directors and Officers Liability Insurance Policy".

The Respondent’s Custodian of Records initially provided a "Certificate of Insurance Liability" rather than the full policy. The Petitioner clarified his request later that day. On November 4, 2011, the Custodian attempted to email the correct policy to the Petitioner. However, she testified that the email became "stuck" in her outbox due to a computer error and was not successfully delivered until November 7, 2011,,.

The Petitioner filed a complaint alleging the Respondent failed to provide the records within the ten-business-day timeframe mandated by Arizona law. During the proceedings, the Petitioner also alleged that the Respondent's witness committed perjury regarding her involvement in other civil litigation and the spelling of her name,.

### Main Legal Issues
1. **Statutory Compliance:** Whether the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), which requires community associations to make records available within ten business days of a request.
2. **Defense of Error:** Whether the Respondent's unintentional "computer error" excused the failure to meet the statutory deadline,.
3. **Witness Credibility:** Whether the Respondent’s witness provided false testimony regarding her personal details,.

### Final Decision and Outcome
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Lewis D. Kowal issued the following ruling:

* **Violation Found:** The ALJ concluded that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). Although the Respondent eventually provided the policy, it failed to do so within the required ten business days,.
* **Sanctions and Penalties:** The ALJ determined that civil penalties were not warranted. The judge accepted the testimony that the Respondent attempted to comply in good faith on November 4, 2011, and that the delay was caused by technical difficulties.
* **Perjury Allegations Dismissed:** The ALJ found the witness's explanations regarding her name and litigation history to be reasonable and truthful, determining that these issues did not impact her credibility,.

### Order
Because the Petitioner prevailed in proving the statutory violation, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee of **$550.00** within 30 days. No further action was required regarding the records, as the policy had already been provided. The decision was certified as the final administrative decision by the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on June 14, 2012.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • William M. Brown (Petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Joshua M. Bolen (Attorney)
    Carpenter Hazelwood, Delgado, & Bolen, PLC
    Representing Terravita Country Club, Inc.
  • Cici Rausch (Custodian of Records)
    Terravita Country Club, Inc.
    Also identified as Celia Anne Rausch; testified at hearing
  • Tom Forbes (General Manager)
    Terravita Country Club, Inc.
  • Raquel Shull (Controller)
    Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Neutral Parties

  • Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the decision
  • Beth Soliere (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of transmitted copy