Case Summary
| Case ID | 25F-H029-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2025-03-12 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Samuel Fox |
| Outcome | loss |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $500.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Debbie Westerman | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Bridgewood Nine 30 Homeowners Association | Counsel | Mark Lines |
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1258
Outcome Summary
The ALJ found that the documents Petitioner requested—specifically bills issued by Respondent’s counsel—were privileged communications under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(1). Because these documents were subject to the statutory exception, the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof that the Respondent violated the records request statute. Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation because the requested records fell under the attorney-client privilege exception defined in A.R.S. § 33-1258(B).
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of member's right to examine financial records regarding legal fees.
Petitioner sought statements from the HOA's law firm (Shaw and Lines) from 2015 onward, specifically seeking the numerical amounts paid in legal fees. The HOA failed to respond within ten business days. The HOA argued the requested bills were privileged communications and therefore exempt from disclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(1).
Orders: Respondent was deemed the prevailing party in this matter.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
- A.R.S. § 33-1805
- A.R.S. § 33-1258
- A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(1)
Analytics Highlights
- A.R.S. § 33-1258
- A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(1)
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
25F-H029-REL Decision – 1282218.pdf
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Westerman vs. Bridgewood 930 POA (Case No. 25F-H029-REL)
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of an administrative hearing (Case No. 25F-H029-REL) held on February 20, 2025, concerning a records request dispute between a homeowner and a condominium association. The petitioner, Debbie Westerman, alleged that the Bridgewood Nine 30 Homeowners Association (the Respondent) violated state law by failing to provide financial records, specifically ten years of legal billing statements from its counsel.
The petitioner’s position was that she made a simple, direct request for the total amount of legal fees paid by the association and did not receive a timely response as required by statute. The respondent countered that the request was procedurally deficient and, more critically, that the specific documents sought—attorney invoices—are explicitly exempt from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege exception within the governing statute.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Samuel Fox, ultimately ruled in favor of the Respondent. While acknowledging that the association’s initial response was outside the ten-day statutory window, the dispositive factor was the nature of the records requested. The ALJ accepted the respondent’s counsel’s representation that the documents were privileged. Based on this, the decision concluded that because the records were exempt from disclosure under the statute’s privilege exception, the ten-day requirement to produce them did not apply. The petitioner therefore failed to meet her burden of proof that a violation had occurred, and the association was deemed the prevailing party.
I. Case Overview
Case Number
25F-H029-REL
Hearing Date
February 20, 2025
Decision Date
March 12, 2025
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Samuel Fox
Petitioner
Debbie Westerman
Respondent
Bridgewood Nine 30 Homeowners Association
Respondent’s Counsel
Mark Lines, Shaw & Lines, LLC
Respondent’s Witnesses
Michael Brubaker (Board President)
Core Issue
Alleged violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1258, concerning a member’s right to access and examine association records.
II. The Initial Request and Petition
The dispute originated from a discussion at an association annual meeting regarding a $50,000 legal expenditure in 2018. Following this, the petitioner initiated a formal request for records.
• November 26, 2024: Ms. Westerman sent an email to the association with the following request:
• December 16, 2024: Having received no substantive response, Ms. Westerman filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The petition stated:
• Statutory Discrepancy: The initial petition incorrectly cited A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Planned Community statutes). During the hearing, both parties and the ALJ agreed that the correct governing statute was A.R.S. § 33-1258 (Condominium Act). The ALJ ruled to proceed under the correct statute, stating, “I don’t think that there’s any undue prejudice in just referring to the correct statute.”
III. Petitioner’s Position and Testimony
Ms. Westerman framed her action as a straightforward attempt to gain financial transparency from the association’s board.
• Stated Goal: The primary objective was to ascertain the total amount of money the association had paid in legal fees over the preceding decade.
◦ “Basically, your honor, I would just like to know how much money our association has paid in legal fees in the last decade.”
◦ “The only thing I am looking for are numbers… I don’t care who it’s for. I don’t care what it was about. I just want the figures because I want to make sure that our community Our board at that time okay these expenditures.”
• Primary Complaint: The association violated the statutory ten-day requirement to fulfill a request for examination of records.
• Admissions Under Cross-Examination:
◦ Ms. Westerman confirmed her November 26 email did not specifically request a time to physically “inspect and copy records.”
◦ She acknowledged the email did not cite a specific statute granting her the right to the records.
◦ She admitted to not reviewing documents that were eventually sent by the respondent on January 18, 2025, stating that the email did not describe the contents of its attachments.
• Additional Grievances: During her testimony, Ms. Westerman raised several other issues beyond the records request, including financial reports being prepared by board members instead of an accountant, a lack of electronic voting options, and being invited and then “uninvited” by Board President Michael Brubaker to a January 9th board meeting due to her “litigation against the association.”
IV. Respondent’s Position and Arguments
The association, through its counsel Mark Lines and witness Michael Brubaker, presented a multi-faceted defense centered on procedural flaws in the request and a substantive right to withhold the specific documents sought.
• Procedural Deficiencies: The respondent argued that the petitioner’s initial email was “both procedurally and substantively flawed and deficient.” The key deficiencies cited were:
◦ Failure to cite the correct statute.
◦ Failure to give notice that a statutory ten-day deadline was being invoked.
◦ Failure to request a time to come in, inspect records, identify specific documents, and then purchase copies.
• Substantive Defense (Attorney-Client Privilege): This was the central pillar of the respondent’s case. Mr. Lines argued that legal invoices and communications with counsel are explicitly protected from disclosure under the law.
• Timeline of “Substantial Compliance”: The respondent provided a timeline of its actions to demonstrate it had made good-faith efforts to engage with the petitioner.
◦ December 30, 2024: Invited Ms. Westerman to a board meeting scheduled for January 9, 2025.
◦ January 9, 2025: The board met, but Ms. Westerman did not attend.
◦ January 10, 2025: Responded to the November 26th questions.
◦ January 18 & 23, 2025: Sent emails with attached documents, including financial flowcharts and meeting minutes.
• Overburdensome Request: Counsel argued that the request for ten years of records was “overburdensome and beyond the statutory requirements,” stating that associations are only required to maintain records for three years.
• Context of Litigation: The respondent asserted that the petitioner’s request was part of a larger pattern of legal conflict. Counsel claimed that Ms. Westerman’s own history of litigation against the association was the primary driver of the legal fees she was now investigating.
V. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Decision
The ALJ’s final decision focused narrowly on the application of A.R.S. § 33-1258 to the specific facts of the case.
• Key Factual Finding: The decision noted it was “undisputed” that the respondent’s first reply to the November 26, 2024 email was on December 30, 2024, which is outside the ten-business-day window mandated by the statute.
• Key Legal Finding (The Deciding Factor): The judge accepted the representation from the respondent’s counsel that the requested documents—bills from the association’s law firm—were privileged.
• Application of Law: The decision hinged on the introductory clause of the statute, A.R.S. § 33-1258(A), which states: “Except as provided in subsection B of this section, all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available…” The judge reasoned that since the documents fell under the attorney-client privilege exception in subsection B, the ten-day production requirement from subsection A did not apply to them.
• Final Ruling:
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H029-REL”, “case_title”: “Debbie Westerman v. Bridgewood Nine 30 Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-03-12”, “alj_name”: “Samuel Fox”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA withhold legal bills and attorney communications from a records request?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the HOA may withhold records related to privileged attorney-client communications.”, “detailed_answer”: “Under Arizona law, an HOA is permitted to withhold books and records from disclosure if they relate to privileged communication between the association and its attorney. In this case, legal bills were deemed privileged.”, “alj_quote”: “Books and records kept by or on behalf of the association and the board may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: 1. Privileged communication between an attorney for the association and the association.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “attorney-client privilege”, “financial records” ] }, { “question”: “How many days does the HOA have to fulfill a request to examine records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “detailed_answer”: “Statute requires that the association must make financial and other records reasonably available for examination within ten business days of the request.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “deadlines”, “procedural requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Does the 10-day deadline apply if the documents I requested are privileged?”, “short_answer”: “No, the 10-day requirement does not apply to documents that are properly withheld under the privilege exception.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ determined that the statutory requirement to produce documents within ten days applies to all documents except those that are privileged. Therefore, failing to produce privileged documents within ten days is not a violation.”, “alj_quote”: “The production and ten-day requirements apply to all documents ‘[e]xcept as provided in subsection B.'”, “legal_basis”: “Conclusion of Law 8”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “deadlines”, “privilege” ] }, { “question”: “Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing against an HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the violation.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner filing the petition must prove that the HOA violated the statutes or governing documents by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “Conclusion of Law 4”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “burden of proof”, “hearing procedures” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA charge me a fee just to look at the records?”, “short_answer”: “No, the HOA cannot charge a fee for making material available for review.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the HOA can charge for copies, they are statistically prohibited from charging a member for the act of making the material available for review.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “fees”, “homeowner rights” ] }, { “question”: “How much can the HOA charge if I ask for copies of the records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA may charge up to fifteen cents per page.”, “detailed_answer”: “If a homeowner requests actual copies of the records rather than just examining them, the association is allowed to charge a specific maximum fee per page.”, “alj_quote”: “An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “fees”, “copies” ] }, { “question”: “Is a statement from the HOA’s lawyer enough to prove documents are privileged?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ALJ may accept the attorney’s representation as sufficient evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this decision, the judge accepted the representation of the HOA’s counsel that the requested documents were privileged as sufficient to meet the preponderance of evidence standard.”, “alj_quote”: “Based upon counsel’s representation that the requested documents were privileged, the Tribunal finds that the preponderance of the evidence supports the requested documents were privileged.”, “legal_basis”: “Conclusion of Law 7”, “topic_tags”: [ “evidence”, “privilege”, “legal representation” ] } ] }
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H029-REL”, “case_title”: “Debbie Westerman v. Bridgewood Nine 30 Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-03-12”, “alj_name”: “Samuel Fox”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA withhold legal bills and attorney communications from a records request?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the HOA may withhold records related to privileged attorney-client communications.”, “detailed_answer”: “Under Arizona law, an HOA is permitted to withhold books and records from disclosure if they relate to privileged communication between the association and its attorney. In this case, legal bills were deemed privileged.”, “alj_quote”: “Books and records kept by or on behalf of the association and the board may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: 1. Privileged communication between an attorney for the association and the association.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “attorney-client privilege”, “financial records” ] }, { “question”: “How many days does the HOA have to fulfill a request to examine records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “detailed_answer”: “Statute requires that the association must make financial and other records reasonably available for examination within ten business days of the request.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “deadlines”, “procedural requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Does the 10-day deadline apply if the documents I requested are privileged?”, “short_answer”: “No, the 10-day requirement does not apply to documents that are properly withheld under the privilege exception.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ determined that the statutory requirement to produce documents within ten days applies to all documents except those that are privileged. Therefore, failing to produce privileged documents within ten days is not a violation.”, “alj_quote”: “The production and ten-day requirements apply to all documents ‘[e]xcept as provided in subsection B.'”, “legal_basis”: “Conclusion of Law 8”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “deadlines”, “privilege” ] }, { “question”: “Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing against an HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the violation.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner filing the petition must prove that the HOA violated the statutes or governing documents by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “Conclusion of Law 4”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “burden of proof”, “hearing procedures” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA charge me a fee just to look at the records?”, “short_answer”: “No, the HOA cannot charge a fee for making material available for review.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the HOA can charge for copies, they are statistically prohibited from charging a member for the act of making the material available for review.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “fees”, “homeowner rights” ] }, { “question”: “How much can the HOA charge if I ask for copies of the records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA may charge up to fifteen cents per page.”, “detailed_answer”: “If a homeowner requests actual copies of the records rather than just examining them, the association is allowed to charge a specific maximum fee per page.”, “alj_quote”: “An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “fees”, “copies” ] }, { “question”: “Is a statement from the HOA’s lawyer enough to prove documents are privileged?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ALJ may accept the attorney’s representation as sufficient evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this decision, the judge accepted the representation of the HOA’s counsel that the requested documents were privileged as sufficient to meet the preponderance of evidence standard.”, “alj_quote”: “Based upon counsel’s representation that the requested documents were privileged, the Tribunal finds that the preponderance of the evidence supports the requested documents were privileged.”, “legal_basis”: “Conclusion of Law 7”, “topic_tags”: [ “evidence”, “privilege”, “legal representation” ] } ] }
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Debbie Westerman (petitioner)
Bridgewood Nine 30 Homeowners Association
Member and party; testified on her own behalf.
Respondent Side
- Michael Brubaker (board president)
Bridgewood Nine 30 Homeowners Association
Also identified as Community Manager; testified as a witness. - Roy Shot (board member)
Bridgewood Nine 30 Homeowners Association - Danny Hudro (secretary)
Bridgewood Nine 30 Homeowners Association
Prepared minutes of the January 9th meeting. - Mark Lines (HOA attorney)
Shaw & Lines, LLC
Represented the Respondent; also identified as Mark Blind in early transcript.
Neutral Parties
- Samuel Fox (ALJ)
OAH
Administrative Law Judge for the matter,. - Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
