Robert A. White vs. Aspen Shadows Condominium Association

Posted on April 2, 2016 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	16F-H1616001-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2016-04-01
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$2,000.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Robert A. White	Counsel	—
Respondent	Aspen Shadows Condominium Association	Counsel	Maria R. Kupillas

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1253
A.R.S. § 33-1247
CC&Rs 4.23
A.R.S. § 33-1260

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed all claims. The HOA was found to be in compliance with insurance and records statutes. The maintenance issue involved a Limited Common Element for which the owner was responsible. The noise issue was barred by CC&R waivers and timing.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof on all counts. The HOA demonstrated compliance with statutes (electronic records, reasonably available insurance) and the CC&Rs (Limited Common Element responsibility, noise waivers).

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to Maintain All-Risk Insurance

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to maintain required insurance coverage because the insurer denied a claim for a slow leak/construction defect.

Orders: Dismissed. Respondent maintained a policy; exclusions for slow leaks/defects are common and reasonably available.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Failure to Maintain Common Elements (Grinder Pump)

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to repair a grinder pump damaged by storm runoff and improper installation.

Orders: Dismissed. Petitioner failed to prove the pump was defective. As a Limited Common Element, costs were assessable to Petitioner anyway.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Failure to Enforce Floor Covering Restrictions

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to enforce prohibitions against hard floor coverings in the unit above him, causing noise.

Orders: Dismissed. The flooring was installed years prior to Petitioner's purchase. Petitioner assumed risk of noise under CC&Rs.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Failure to Provide Records (Resale Disclosure)

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to provide paper copies of governing documents upon purchase, offering electronic versions instead.

Orders: Dismissed. The statute permits electronic delivery.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Decision Documents

16F-H1616001-BFS Decision – 488610.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:47 (203.0 KB)

16F-H1616001-BFS Decision – 495160.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:47 (59.8 KB)

Here is a concise summary of the hearing proceedings for Case No. 16F-H1616001-BFS.

**Case Overview**
**Petitioner:** Robert A. White (Owner of Unit 41)
**Respondent:** Aspen Shadows Condominium Association
**Hearing Date:** March 24, 2016
**Decision Date:** April 1, 2016 (Certified Final May 9, 2016)

The Petitioner filed a complaint alleging the Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding insurance coverage, common element maintenance, noise enforcement, and document delivery,.

**Key Issues and Arguments**

**1. Insurance Coverage (Water Damage)**
* **Issue:** The Petitioner alleged the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1253 and CC&R Article 8.1 by denying coverage for water damage caused by a leak from the unit above (Unit 42).
* **Arguments:** The Petitioner claimed the Association withdrew the claim, denying him protection. The Respondent argued it submitted the claim to Farmers Insurance, but the carrier denied it because the damage resulted from a "long-term" slow leak, a policy exclusion,.
* **Finding:** The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the Association maintained the required insurance. The insurer's denial based on standard exclusions for maintenance issues (like slow leaks) did not constitute a violation by the Association,.

**2. Grinder Pump Liability**
* **Issue:** The Petitioner sought reimbursement for a grinder pump ($1,697.50) serving his unit, alleging it was damaged by storm runoff due to an improper diversion wall (a common element).
* **Arguments:** The Respondent contended the pump is a "Limited Common Element" serving only Unit 41. Evidence suggested the pump was previously functional and damage resulted from a dislodged lid allowing debris inside.
* **Finding:** The pump is a Limited Common Element. Under the CC&Rs, the Association may assess repair costs for such elements to the specific unit owner benefiting from them. The Petitioner failed to prove the pump was defective or that the Association was liable for the replacement.

**3. Hard Floor Noise Violation**
* **Issue:** The Petitioner alleged the unit above (Unit 42) had prohibited hard flooring, violating CC&R Article 4.23, and the Association failed to enforce the rule.
* **Arguments:** The Respondent noted the flooring was installed in 2008 (six years prior to the Petitioner's purchase) and argued the Petitioner assumed the risk of noise,.
* **Finding:** The CC&Rs contain a specific provision (Section 13.20) where owners assume the risk of noise and vibrations from adjacent units,. The Petitioner failed to establish the Association was liable for the potential violation or the resulting noise.

**4. Document Delivery**
* **Issue:** The Petitioner claimed the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260 by failing to provide paper copies of the CC&Rs and Bylaws before escrow closed.
* **Arguments:** The Respondent argued compliance by providing documents in electronic format, which the Petitioner refused to accept.
* **Finding:** A.R.S. § 33-1260 permits delivery in "either paper or electronic format". The Respondent’s use of electronic delivery was legal, and the Petitioner’s refusal to accept that format did not make the Association's actions a violation.

**Final Decision**
The ALJ determined the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated any statutes or CC&Rs,. The petition was **dismissed**, and no action was required of the Respondent. The decision became the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on May 9, 2016.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Robert A. White (Petitioner)
Owner of Unit 41

Respondent Side

Maria R. Kupillas (attorney)
Choate & Seletos
Represented Respondent
Melanie Lashlee (community manager)
Testified for Respondent
Ty Hart (engineer)
Flagstaff Ranch
Facilities Engineer
Faith Johnson (escrow officer)
Respondent's escrow officer, initials 'f.j.'

Neutral Parties

Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Kenji Cassady (witness)
Royal Plumbing, Inc.
Plumber who repaired leak in Unit 42
Nicolas Boley (claims representative)
Farmers Insurance
Senior Field Claims Representative
Tyler (contractor)
DC Restoration
Mitigation contractor
Jacqueline Martinez (contractor)
Damage Control AZ
Sent email confirming leak duration
Dave Taylor (unit owner)
Owner of Unit 42
Debra Blake (Interim Director)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Agency head
Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed Certification of Decision
Joni Cage (staff)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Recipient of decision copy
Rosella J. Rodriguez (clerk)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Mailed/transmitted decision

Dennis J. Legere vs. Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA

Posted on April 23, 2015 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	14F-H1414001-BFS-rhg
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date	2015-04-23
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	yes
Filing Fees Refunded	$2,000.00
Civil Penalties	$2,000.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Dennis J. Legere	Counsel	—
Respondent	Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA	Counsel	Maria R. Kupillas

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner on Rehearing. The Tribunal found that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by preventing members from speaking before board votes, failing to notice committee meetings, and using email unanimous consent (A.R.S. § 10-3821) to bypass open meeting requirements. The ALJ determined that A.R.S. § 33-1804 constitutes a specific statute that prevails over the general non-profit corporation statute allowing action without a meeting, and that the HOA cannot use Title 10 to impliedly repeal Title 33 open meeting mandates.

Key Issues & Findings

Open Meeting Law Violations

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting laws by preventing members from speaking on agenda items, holding unannounced architectural committee meetings, and using email/unanimous consent to conduct business in closed sessions.

Orders: HOA ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1804(A); pay filing fee of $2,000 to Petitioner; pay civil penalty of $2,000 to the Department.

Filing fee: $2,000.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $2,000.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. § 10-3821

Decision Documents

14F-H1414001-BFS-rhg Decision – 437956.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:51 (228.9 KB)

14F-H1414001-BFS-rhg Decision – 443321.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:51 (62.7 KB)

**Case Summary: Dennis J. Legere v. Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA**
**Case No. 14F-H1414001-BFS-rhg**

**Procedural History and Context**
This matter involves a dispute between Dennis J. Legere (Petitioner) and Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA (Respondent) regarding alleged violations of Arizona’s Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 33-1804),. The case includes an initial Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision issued in August 2014 and a subsequent **Decision on Rehearing** issued in April 2015,.

**Original Proceedings (July–August 2014)**
In the original hearing, the Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting laws by conducting business via "email meetings" (closed sessions), failing to provide notice for architectural committee meetings, and preventing members from speaking before Board votes,,.

The HOA argued that A.R.S. § 10-3821 (Title 10) and its Bylaws permitted the Board to take action without a meeting if they obtained unanimous written consent, a practice they adopted for efficiency,.

In the original decision, the ALJ ruled that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 regarding speaking rights and committee notices,. However, the ALJ declined to rule on the "email meeting" issue, stating the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine violations of Title 10 (Corporations) or resolve conflicts between Title 10 and Title 33.

**Rehearing Proceedings (March 2015)**
The Petitioner requested a rehearing, arguing the ALJ erroneously declined jurisdiction over the "email meeting" issue. The Petitioner asserted the issue was not whether the HOA violated Title 10, but whether complying with Title 10 allowed the HOA to evade the open meeting mandates of Title 33. The Department granted the rehearing.

**Key Legal Issues on Rehearing**
The central legal question was statutory interpretation: Can an HOA utilize A.R.S. § 10-3821 (allowing corporate action by unanimous written consent without a meeting) to bypass the open meeting requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804,.

The HOA maintained that taking action by unanimous written consent via email was a legal right under Title 10 and its Bylaws. The Petitioner argued this practice violated the intent of the Open Meeting Law by precluding member observation and participation.

**Rehearing Analysis and Conclusions**
The ALJ rejected the HOA's reliance on Title 10 to avoid open meetings. The decision established the following legal principles:
* **Statutory Priority:** A.R.S. § 33-1804 unambiguously requires HOA meetings to be open. While Title 10 governs non-profit corporations generally, Title 33 specifically regulates planned communities.
* **Harmonization:** Statutes must be construed together; however, an agency cannot disregard clear legislative directives,.
* **Ruling:** A specific statute (Title 33) prevails over a general statute (Title 10). The ALJ held that HOAs cannot use Title 10 to "impliedly repeal" the open meeting statutes of Title 33.

Consequently, the ALJ ruled that the Board's practice of taking action via email/unanimous consent *violated* A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).

**Final Decision and Order**
The Rehearing Decision affirmed the Petitioner as the prevailing party. The ALJ made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. **Email Meetings:** The use of unanimous written consent via email in lieu of open meetings is a violation of A.R.S. § 33-180

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Dennis J. Legere (petitioner)
Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA
Homeowner and former board member
Tom Rawles (attorney)
Represented Petitioner in original hearing

Respondent Side

Troy Stratman (attorney)
Mack, Watson & Stratman, PLC
Represented Respondent in original hearing; listed as 'Tony Stratman' in service list
Maria R. Kupillas (attorney)
Farley, Seletos & Choate
Represented Respondent in rehearing
Michelle O’Robinson (witness)
Vision Community Management
Property Manager and Field Operations Supervisor
James T. Foxworthy (witness)
Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA
Board President (during original hearing)
John Edgar Schuler (witness)
Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA
Board President (as of March 2015)

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Gene Palma (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Agency Director certifying the decision
Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the final administrative decision
Joni Cage (agency staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Recipient of transmitted decision
Rosella J. Rodriguez (staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed copy distribution

Legere, Dennis vs. Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA

Posted on August 19, 2014 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	14F-H1414001-BFS-rhg
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date	2015-04-23
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	yes
Filing Fees Refunded	$2,000.00
Civil Penalties	$2,000.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Dennis J. Legere	Counsel	Tom Rawles
Respondent	Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA	Counsel	Maria R. Kupillas

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by: 1) preventing members from speaking on agenda items before Board votes; 2) failing to provide notice for architectural committee meetings; and 3) conducting Board business and taking actions via unanimous written consent by email in lieu of open meetings. The ALJ rejected the HOA's defense that A.R.S. § 10-3821 allowed for email actions without meetings, stating that Title 33 open meeting requirements prevail. The HOA was ordered to comply with the statute and pay a $2,000 civil penalty and reimburse $2,000 in filing fees.

Key Issues & Findings

Speaking at Meetings

The Board prevented the petitioner from speaking on action items before the Board took formal action at meetings on November 26, 2013, January 14, 2014, and February 3, 2014.

Orders: HOA ordered to comply with speaking requirements.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Committee Meeting Notices

Pinnacle conducted regularly scheduled architectural committee meetings without providing notice to members of the association.

Orders: HOA ordered to comply with notice requirements.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Email Meetings / Action Without Meeting

The Board utilized an email process to take actions by unanimous written consent without holding a meeting, effectively deliberating and voting without member observation or participation.

Orders: HOA ordered to comply with open meeting statutes; corporate statute A.R.S. § 10-3821 does not override A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $2,000.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Closed Sessions

Petitioner alleged Board conducted non-privileged business in closed sessions. The Tribunal deemed Petitioner the prevailing party and awarded full filing fees.

Orders: Petitioner deemed prevailing party.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Decision Documents

14F-H1414001-BFS Decision – 406623.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:10:48 (172.9 KB)

14F-H1414001-BFS Decision – 437956.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:10:48 (228.9 KB)

14F-H1414001-BFS Decision – 443321.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:10:48 (62.7 KB)

**Case Summary: *Dennis J. Legere vs. Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA***
**Case No. 14F-H1414001-BFS**

**Overview**
This administrative case involves a dispute between Dennis J. Legere (Petitioner) and the Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA (Respondent) regarding violations of Arizona’s planned community open meeting laws. The matter was heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings for the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. The proceedings culminated in a decision on rehearing in April 2015, which was certified as final in June 2015,.

**Key Facts and Allegations**
The Petitioner, a homeowner and former board member, alleged that the HOA Board violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 on multiple counts,. The primary allegations included:
* **Closed Sessions via Email:** The Board routinely conducted business and voted on action items via email to avoid holding public meetings, citing efficiency and "unanimous consent" provisions in the Bylaws and corporate statutes,.
* **Denial of Right to Speak:** The Board refused to allow members to speak on agenda items during open meetings (specifically in November 2013, January 2014, and February 2014) prior to the Board taking a vote,.
* **Unnoticed Committee Meetings:** The Architectural Review Committee met regularly without providing notice to members or allowing them to attend,.

**Main Arguments and Legal Issues**
The central legal tension involved a conflict between general corporate statutes and specific HOA statutes.
* **Respondent’s Defense:** The HOA argued that under its Bylaws and A.R.S. § 10-3821 (non-profit corporation statutes), the Board could take action without a meeting if they obtained unanimous written consent from all directors,. They also argued that financial information and delinquency reports required closed sessions.
* **Petitioner’s Argument:** Legere argued that using email votes and unanimous consent provisions to conduct business in secret violated the specific open meeting mandates of A.R.S. § 33-1804, precluding member observation and participation,.
* **Rehearing on Jurisdiction:** The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially declined to rule on the validity of the "email meetings" under A.R.S. § 10-3821. Legere successfully petitioned for a rehearing to resolve whether corporate statutes could legally bypass HOA open meeting requirements.

**Findings and Conclusions of Law**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner, establishing several key legal points:

1. **Conflict of Laws:** The Tribunal ruled that A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Title 33) specifically governs planned communities and mandates open meetings. This specific statute overrides the general non-profit corporate statute (A.R.S. § 10-3821) found in Title 10. The HOA cannot use corporate laws or Bylaws to impliedly repeal the open meeting protections guaranteed to homeowners in Title 33. Therefore, the practice of taking action via email "unanimous consent" violated the law.
2. **Right to Speak:** The ALJ found the HOA violated the law by preventing the Petitioner from speaking *after* the Board discussed items but *before* a vote was taken. While reasonable time restrictions are permitted, members must be allowed to speak before formal action is taken.
3. **Committee Meetings:** The Tribunal ruled that all regularly scheduled committee meetings, such as the Architectural Review Committee, must be noticed and open to members.
4. **Statute of Limitations:** A one-year statute of limitations (A.R.S. § 12-541) applied, barring claims for violations occurring prior to March 9, 2013.

**Outcome and Order**
Dennis J. Legere was deemed the prevailing party. The ALJ ordered the following:
* **Compliance:** The HOA was ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) in the future, effectively ending the practice of secret email meetings.
* **Filing Fee:** The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $2,000 filing fee.
* **Civil Penalty:** The HOA was ordered to pay a $2,000 civil penalty to the Department (which the HOA paid during the rehearing process).

The decision was certified

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Dennis J. Legere (petitioner)
Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA (Member)
Appeared on his own behalf at rehearing; former board member
Tom Rawles (attorney)
Represented Petitioner at the July 31, 2014 hearing

Respondent Side

Troy Stratman (attorney)
Mack, Watson & Stratman, PLC
Represented Respondent at the July 31, 2014 hearing; listed as 'Tony Stratman' in service list
Maria R. Kupillas (attorney)
Farley, Seletos & Choate
Represented Respondent at the March 31, 2015 rehearing
Michelle O’Robinson (witness)
Vision Community Management
Field operations supervisor/manager for HOA
James T. Foxworthy (witness)
Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA (Board)
Board President at time of first hearing
John Edgar Schuler (witness)
Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA (Board)
Board President as of March 10, 2015

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Gene Palma (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Agency Director
Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the decision
Joni Cage (administrative staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Recipient of transmitted decision
Rosella J. Rodriguez (clerk)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed copy distribution

Denapoli, Cindy vs. Southern Ridge Condominium Association

Posted on April 25, 2014 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	13F-H1314006-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2014-04-25
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	yes
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$200.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Cindy Denapoli	Counsel	—
Respondent	Southern Ridge Condominium Association	Counsel	Maria R. Kupillas

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)(2)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner, concluding that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)(2) by paying management fees for the 'Rental Pool' (investor-owned units) out of general funds rather than assessing those costs exclusively to the units benefited. The Association was ordered to correct the practice and pay penalties and costs.

Key Issues & Findings

Improper Allocation of Common Expenses

Petitioner alleged that management fees of approximately $9,666/month were being assessed to all owners as part of HOA dues, despite these fees directly benefitting only those units participating in a separate 'Rental Pool'. The ALJ found that the fees benefited fewer than all units and should have been assessed exclusively against the benefited units.

Orders: Respondent must fully comply with A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)(2); Respondent must pay Petitioner $550.00 filing fee; Respondent must pay Department $200.00 civil penalty.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $200.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Decision Documents

13F-H1314006-BFS Decision – 391902.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:35 (103.9 KB)

13F-H1314006-BFS Decision – 396527.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:35 (61.0 KB)

**Case Summary: *Cindy Denapoli vs. Southern Ridge Condominium Association***
**Case No. 13F-H1314006-BFS**

**Proceedings Overview**
This hearing took place on April 10, 2014, before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a petition filed by Cindy Denapoli (Petitioner) against the Southern Ridge Condominium Association (Respondent). The Petitioner appeared on her own behalf, while the Respondent was represented by counsel. The decision was certified as final on June 2, 2014, after the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to modify or reject the Administrative Law Judge's decision.

**Background and Key Facts**
* **Association Structure:** Southern Ridge is a condominium association located in Mesa, Arizona. It is entirely investor-owned with no owner-occupants.
* **The "Rental Pool":** The majority of unit owners (102 of 113) formed a "Rental Pool" to share non-common expenses and distribute net profits,. The Petitioner is a unit owner but is not a member of this Rental Pool.
* **Management:** "Preferred Communities" handles the Association's accounting, while "Professional Equity Management" (PEM) serves as the management company,.
* **The Disputed Practice:** The Association’s accounting firm issued a monthly check of approximately $9,666 for management fees directly to the Rental Pool (aka "Southern Ridge Apartments") rather than to the management company,. The Rental Pool would then pay PEM and distribute remaining funds or profits to Rental Pool members only,.

**Main Issues and Arguments**
The Petitioner alleged that the Association violated **A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)(2)**. She argued that the monthly fees assessed to all owners as "HOA dues" were being paid to the Rental Pool, thereby financially subsidizing the Rental Pool members,. She asserted that the fee benefitted only the Rental Pool units, yet she was required to contribute to it despite receiving no distribution from the Rental Pool,.

The Respondent denied the allegations but admitted through testimony that the $9,666 monthly fee was paid to the Rental Pool,. Mr. Watkins, the Association's treasurer, testified that PEM objected to direct payment from the Association and that the Rental Pool paid PEM for services. He acknowledged that net profits from the Rental Pool were distributed only to its members and not to other owners.

**Legal Analysis**
The Administrative Law Judge focused on **A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)(2)**, which states that "[a]ny common expense or portion of a common expense benefitting fewer than all of the units shall be assessed exclusively against the units benefitted".

The Judge found that:
1. The monthly check was issued to the Rental Pool, which is not a corporate entity or LLC.
2. The Rental Pool used these funds to pay expenses and distributed net profits on a pro-rata basis to its members.
3. No distributions were made to condominium owners who were not part of the Rental Pool.

**Final Decision and Outcome**
The Tribunal concluded that Southern Ridge Condominium Association violated **A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)(2)** by assessing expenses against all units that benefitted only the Rental Pool members.

**Order:**
* The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party.
* The Respondent was ordered to fully comply with A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)(2) in the future.
* The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee of **$550.00**.
* The Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty of **$200.00** to the Department.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Cindy Denapoli (Petitioner)
Southern Ridge Condominium Association (Owner)
Appeared on her own behalf; owner of a unit not in the Rental Pool

Respondent Side

Maria R. Kupillas (attorney)
Farley, Seletos & Choate
Attorney for Southern Ridge Condominium Association
William J. Watkins (witness)
Southern Ridge Condominium Association
Board member and Treasurer; member of the Rental Pool

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge who presided over the hearing and issued the decision
Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the ALJ decision as final
Gene Palma (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Recipient of the transmitted decision
Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Addressed in the mailing list
Rosella J. Rodriguez (Clerk)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed the mailing certificate