# Briefing Document: Steven Schmidt v. Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc.

## Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative hearing and subsequent decision regarding a dispute between Steven Schmidt (Petitioner) and the Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc. (Respondent/Association). The central conflict involved the interpretation of the Association's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) specifically concerning the allowable square footage of a detached accessory structure.

The Petitioner sought to construct a 1,441-square-foot detached garage, arguing that the CC&Rs allowed for a size based on 40% of his "Dwelling Unit," which he interpreted as the total structure including his existing attached garage and porches. The Association denied the application, contending that "Dwelling Unit" refers only to the livable square footage of the home. Following a formal hearing on June 23, 2022, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark ruled in favor of the Association, concluding that the Petitioner failed to prove a violation of the CC&Rs.

---

## Case Overview and Procedural History

| Item | Details |
| :--- | :--- |
| **Case Number** | 22F-H2222040-REL (ADRE Case # HO22-22/040) |
| **Petitioner** | Steven Schmidt (Homeowner, Lot 9) |
| **Respondent** | Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc. |
| **Administrative Law Judge** | Jenna Clark |
| **Primary Issue** | Interpretation of CC&Rs Article 7, Section 7 (Accessory Structure size) |
| **Petition Date** | March 21, 2022 |
| **Hearing Date** | June 23, 2022 |
| **Decision Date** | July 13, 2022 |

### Background
In May 2019, the Petitioner submitted plans to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) for a detached garage project. The Association issued three separate denial letters between July 2019 and February 2020. The primary reason for denial was that the proposed 1,441-square-foot structure exceeded the allowable size limits dictated by the CC&Rs.

---

## Analysis of Key Themes

### 1. The Definition of "Dwelling Unit"
The crux of the legal dispute was the definition of the term "Dwelling Unit" as used in CC&Rs Article 7, Section 7. 

*   **The Provision:** "Accessory structures shall be limited to 5% of the lot area or forty percent (40%) of the main Dwelling Unit, whichever is less."
*   **Petitioner's Interpretation:** Argued that a "Dwelling Unit" is the entire physical structure. Under this view, his dwelling unit totaled 4,438 square feet (2,820 livable + 1,002 attached garage + 616 porches). This would allow an accessory structure of up to 1,775 square feet.
*   **Respondent's Interpretation:** Maintained that "Dwelling Unit" is a defined term separate from garages and porches. Under this view, the Petitioner’s dwelling unit was only the 2,820 square feet of livable space, limiting the accessory structure to 1,128 square feet.

### 2. Contractual Hierarchy and Internal Consistency
The Association’s counsel, Michael Shupe, argued that the CC&Rs must be read as a whole. He pointed to specific definitions in Article I:
*   **Section 1.15:** Defines "Dwelling Unit" as a building or portion of a building designed for use as a "Residence."
*   **Section 1.29:** Defines "Residence" as a lot together with the "residential Dwelling Unit, garage, patio and other Improvements."

By listing "Dwelling Unit" separately from "garage" and "patio" in the definition of "Residence," the Association argued the drafters intended these to be distinct categories.

### 3. Lay Interpretation vs. Legal Precision
The Petitioner, appearing on his own behalf, emphasized a "lay interpretation" of the documents. He argued that as a non-lawyer, he perceived the dwelling unit to be the total structure. He contended that if "Dwelling Unit" only meant livable space, other sections of the CC&Rs—such as those regarding solar panels or antennas being permitted on a "Dwelling Unit"—would imply those items could not be placed on garages or porches, which he deemed "nonsense."

---

## Important Quotes with Context

### From Petitioner Steven Schmidt
> "The clear intent of the CC&Rs is to treat the dwelling unit as an entire structure, including the garage and porches... The Association has ignored the language of their own CC&Rs and design guidelines."
*   **Context:** Closing argument during the June 23 hearing, where Schmidt emphasized that the physical architecture of the home should dictate the calculation.

> "I read the CC&Rs. I perceive them in good taste to mean what I have defined that they mean... The CC&Rs do not begin by [saying] 'you must get a contract expert to read and interpret for you, Mr. Owner.'"
*   **Context:** Rebuttal argument addressing the Association's reliance on technical legal definitions found in the "Definitions" section of the CC&Rs.

### From Respondent’s Counsel (Michael Shupe)
> "As a matter of contract interpretation, you look at the entire contract... one of the principal ideas is to look at the express language and find out if there's any ambiguity."
*   **Context:** Arguments made during the hearing to justify why the ARC looked at the "Definitions" section of the CC&Rs rather than just Section 7.7.

### From Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
> "It is clear from the record that a 'Dwelling Unit' can only consist of a portion of a building that is distinct from other structures and improvements like garages and patios."
*   **Context:** Found in the "Conclusions of Law" section of the final decision, explaining why the Petitioner’s calculation was rejected.

---

## Data Points and Square Footage Calculations

The following table reflects the data used by the ALJ to reach the final decision:

| Structure Component | Square Footage |
| :--- | :--- |
| **Livable Area (Home)** | 2,820 |
| **Attached Garage** | 1,002 |
| **Covered Front Porch** | 289 |
| **Covered Rear Porch** | 327 |
| **Petitioner's Claimed "Dwelling Unit" Total** | **4,438** |
| **Calculated "Dwelling Unit" per ALJ Decision** | **2,820** (Livable Only) |
| **Petitioner's Proposed Detached Garage** | **1,441** |
| **Max Allowable Size (40% of 2,820)** | **1,128 (Approx.)** |

*Note: The ALJ decision explicitly noted that with a livable area of 2,820, the maximum allowable square footage for an accessory structure is capped at 1,141.2 (though 40% of 2,820 is 1,128, the decision mentions 2,853 as a figure in one instance, leading to the 1,141.2 cap).*

---

## Actionable Insights

*   **Definition Primacy:** Homeowners and Associations must prioritize the "Definitions" section of their governing documents. Even if a specific section (like Article 7.7) seems clear in isolation, defined terms carry their specific meaning throughout the entire document.
*   **Burden of Proof:** In administrative hearings of this nature, the Petitioner bears the burden of proving a violation by a "preponderance of the evidence." Lay interpretations, however logical they may seem from a spatial or architectural perspective, often fail to overcome specific contractual definitions.
*   **Consistency in Denials:** The Association's success in this matter was supported by their consistent application of the 2,500-square-foot minimum livable space requirement (Section 7.6) and the consistent separation of "livable" space from "garages/patios" in both the CC&Rs and Design Guidelines.
*   **Administrative Process:** The case highlights the utility of prehearing conferences to identify stipulated facts, which streamlined this hearing by removing factual disputes and focusing solely on the legal interpretation of terms.