Gregory L Smith v. Mountain Bridge Community Association

Posted on June 11, 2021 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	21F-H2121037-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-06-11
Administrative Law Judge	Adam D. Stone
Outcome	The Petitioner prevailed on the claim of violating CC&R Article 11.3.2 (failure to negotiate in good faith) but was denied relief on the claim of violating A.R.S. § 33-1811 (conflict of interest). Petitioner was ordered reimbursed $500.00 for the filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded	$1,500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Gregory L. Smith	Counsel	—
Respondent	Mountain Bridge Community Association	Counsel	Nicole Payne, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1811
CC&R Article 11.3.2

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner prevailed on the claim of violating CC&R Article 11.3.2 (failure to negotiate in good faith) but was denied relief on the claim of violating A.R.S. § 33-1811 (conflict of interest). Petitioner was ordered reimbursed $500.00 for the filing fee.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the A.R.S. § 33-1811 violation because the statute was interpreted by the Tribunal to require the action to involve compensation.

Key Issues & Findings

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1811 because the HOA President failed to disclose a conflict of interest during the approval of his own flagpole. The Tribunal found the statute requires the decision to involve compensation, and Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof.

Orders: Petition denied as to a violation of A.R.S. 33-1811. Tribunal declined to award a civil penalty.

Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Failure to Negotiate Claim Resolution in Good Faith

Petitioner claimed Mountain Bridge failed to negotiate a resolution in good faith after he filed a claim notice. Mountain Bridge failed to communicate until approximately 35 days after the claim was noticed. The Tribunal found Respondent failed to negotiate in good faith.

Orders: Petitioner is deemed the prevailing party as to his claim of an Article 11 violation. Respondent must reimburse the $500.00 filing fee within 30 days. Tribunal declined to award a civil penalty.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

CC&R Article 11.3.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Conflict of Interest, Failure to Negotiate, Flagpole, Filing Fee

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1811
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121037-REL Decision – 887461.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:33:55 (121.4 KB)

21F-H2121037-REL Decision – 887461.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:47 (121.4 KB)

This is a summary of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of *Gregory L. Smith v. Mountain Bridge Community Association*.

Key Facts and Proceedings

Petitioner Gregory L. Smith, a homeowner and member of the Mountain Bridge Community Association (HOA/Respondent), filed a petition alleging the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R’s) and Arizona statute. The core dispute centered on the HOA’s failure to take enforcement action against Smith’s backyard neighbor—who was also the HOA President (Mr. Riggs)—for installing a flagpole that impacted Smith’s property view. Smith believed the HOA’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) had an obligation to consider the view from his property when approving the flagpole. The hearings occurred on April 22, 2021, and June 2, 2021.

Main Issues and Arguments

The Tribunal focused on two primary issues after addressing a moot point regarding attorney’s fees:

Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811 (Conflict of Interest): Smith argued that the HOA violated the statute because the Board President failed to make proper disclosures regarding the flagpole approval, as it was a board decision.
Violation of CC&R Article 11.3.2 (Good Faith Negotiation): Smith argued that the HOA violated the requirement to negotiate in good faith after he filed a formal claim notice on September 8, 2020. The credible evidence showed the HOA or its attorneys failed to communicate with Smith until October 13, 2020, approximately 35 days after the claim notice.

Legal Conclusions and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge rendered a decision based on whether Smith met his burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

A.R.S. § 33-1811 Claim Denied: The Tribunal found that A.R.S. § 33-1811, concerning board conflicts of interest, applies only when the "contract, decision or other action" involves compensation. Since the decision regarding the flagpole was not found to involve compensation, the Tribunal held that Smith had not sustained his burden of proof regarding the statutory violation.
CC&R Article 11.3.2 Claim Upheld: The Tribunal found that Mountain Bridge failed to negotiate in good faith and violated Article 11.3.2 of the CC&R’s. Although the dispute occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, the lack of any communication until 35 days post-notice, thereby exceeding the negotiation period, constituted a violation.

Final Decision

The Petitioner’s request regarding the violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811 was denied. Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party solely on the claim that Mountain Bridge violated CC&R Article 11 (failure to negotiate in good faith). As the prevailing party, the Petitioner is entitled to the reimbursement of his $500.00 filing fee from the Respondent within 30 days. The Tribunal declined to award a civil penalty.

Questions

Question

Does a board member violate conflict of interest laws by voting on their own architectural request if no money is exchanged?

Short Answer

Likely not. The ALJ ruled that the conflict of interest statute (A.R.S. § 33-1811) applies specifically to decisions involving compensation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ interpreted A.R.S. § 33-1811 narrowly. While acknowledging that abstaining from voting on one's own request is 'best practice,' the Judge determined that the phrase 'contract, decision or other action for compensation' implies that the decision must involve compensation to trigger the statutory violation. Since the architectural approval was not for compensation, the statute was not violated.

Alj Quote

However, the word “other” would indicate that the contract or decision would involve compensation. … Therefore, the Tribunal finds that Mr. Smith has not sustained his burden in demonstrating that Mountain Bridge violated A.R.S. § 33-1811.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

Conflict of Interest
Board Conduct
Architectural Review

Question

If the CC&Rs require the HOA to negotiate a dispute within a certain time, can they simply ignore it?

Short Answer

No. Ignoring a request for negotiation beyond the mandated timeframe can be considered a violation of the duty to negotiate in good faith.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the CC&Rs required the parties to make a reasonable effort to meet and confer. The HOA failed to communicate with the homeowner until 35 days after the claim was noticed (past the 30-day negotiation period). The ALJ found this lack of communication to be a violation of the specific CC&R article requiring good faith negotiation.

Alj Quote

The credible evidence presented demonstrated that Mountain Bridge, or its attorneys, did not communicate with Mr. Smith until October 13, 2020, approximately 35 days after the claim was noticed. … Therefore, the Tribunal finds that Mountain Bridge failed to negotiate in good faith and violated Article 11.3.2 of the CC&R’s.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article 11.3.2

Topic Tags

Dispute Resolution
Good Faith
HOA Obligations

Question

Can the HOA use the COVID-19 pandemic as a valid excuse for failing to communicate with me?

Short Answer

Not if they fail to send any updates. The HOA must at least inform the homeowner of potential delays.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ rejected the HOA's implicit defense that the pandemic justified the delay in communication. The ruling stated that even if the pandemic caused issues, the HOA had an obligation to at least inform the homeowner that delays were occurring. Total silence was not justified.

Alj Quote

While this dispute occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, certainly communications could have been sent to Mr. Smith informing him there may be some delays in communication. However, there were none, and thus no valid justification for the Board not entering into negotiations with the Smiths.

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion / Good Faith

Topic Tags

Communication
Delays
Good Faith

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the rules during a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning they must show it is more likely than not that the violation occurred. The HOA does not have to disprove the claim initially; the burden starts with the homeowner.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated CC&R § 3.1 by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

Legal Procedure
Burden of Proof
Evidence

Question

Can I claim the HOA violated a definition in the CC&Rs, such as 'Visible from Neighboring Property'?

Short Answer

No. You cannot violate a definition; you can only violate the rules that use the definition.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner argued the HOA violated the definition of 'Visible from Neighboring Property.' The ALJ ruled that a definition is descriptive and cannot be violated in and of itself. Violations must be tied to specific covenants or restrictions.

Alj Quote

Further, because “Visible from Neighboring Property” as mentioned in Article 1 is a definition, it is impossible for Mountain Bridge to violate the same.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation

Topic Tags

CC&R Interpretation
Definitions
Legal Standards

Question

If I win my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, if you prevail on a claim, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ deemed the homeowner the prevailing party regarding the 'failure to negotiate' claim (even though other claims were denied) and ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee within 30 days.

Alj Quote

Thus, Petitioner is entitled to his filing fee of $500.00 and Respondent must reimburse the same with 30 days.

Legal Basis

Administrative Remedy

Topic Tags

Remedies
Fees
Reimbursement

Case

Docket No: 21F-H2121037-REL
Case Title: Gregory L. Smith vs. Mountain Bridge Community Association
Decision Date: 2021-06-11
Alj Name: Adam D. Stone
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Questions

Question

Does a board member violate conflict of interest laws by voting on their own architectural request if no money is exchanged?

Short Answer

Likely not. The ALJ ruled that the conflict of interest statute (A.R.S. § 33-1811) applies specifically to decisions involving compensation.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

Conflict of Interest
Board Conduct
Architectural Review

Question

If the CC&Rs require the HOA to negotiate a dispute within a certain time, can they simply ignore it?

Short Answer

No. Ignoring a request for negotiation beyond the mandated timeframe can be considered a violation of the duty to negotiate in good faith.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

CC&R Article 11.3.2

Topic Tags

Dispute Resolution
Good Faith
HOA Obligations

Question

Can the HOA use the COVID-19 pandemic as a valid excuse for failing to communicate with me?

Short Answer

Not if they fail to send any updates. The HOA must at least inform the homeowner of potential delays.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion / Good Faith

Topic Tags

Communication
Delays
Good Faith

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the rules during a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated CC&R § 3.1 by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

Legal Procedure
Burden of Proof
Evidence

Question

Can I claim the HOA violated a definition in the CC&Rs, such as 'Visible from Neighboring Property'?

Short Answer

No. You cannot violate a definition; you can only violate the rules that use the definition.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Further, because “Visible from Neighboring Property” as mentioned in Article 1 is a definition, it is impossible for Mountain Bridge to violate the same.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation

Topic Tags

CC&R Interpretation
Definitions
Legal Standards

Question

If I win my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, if you prevail on a claim, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fee.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Thus, Petitioner is entitled to his filing fee of $500.00 and Respondent must reimburse the same with 30 days.

Legal Basis

Administrative Remedy

Topic Tags

Remedies
Fees
Reimbursement

Case

Docket No: 21F-H2121037-REL
Case Title: Gregory L. Smith vs. Mountain Bridge Community Association
Decision Date: 2021-06-11
Alj Name: Adam D. Stone
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Gregory L. Smith (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf
Christa Smith (witness)
Called by Petitioner

Respondent Side

Nicole Payne (HOA attorney)
Carpenter Hazlewood
Appeared on behalf of Respondent
Amber Martin (community manager)
Mountain Bridge Community Association
Also testified as a witness
Jim Rayment (ARC Chair)
Mountain Bridge Community Association
Approved the flagpole; also testified as a witness
Mr. Riggs (HOA President)
Mountain Bridge Community Association
Petitioner's backyard neighbor

Neutral Parties

Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
OAH
Administrative Law Judge
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of decision transmission

Michael J Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

Posted on August 3, 2020 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2020049-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-03-08
Administrative Law Judge	Jenna Clark
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Michael J Stoltenberg	Counsel	—
Respondent	Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association	Counsel	Nicole Payne, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Section 14.8

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Association did not violate CC&Rs Section 14.8. The provision was determined to be inapplicable, governing the Association’s obligation to provide notice, not the methods homeowners must use to send payments.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. CC&Rs Section 14.8 was inapplicable, and Petitioner's chosen restricted delivery method for assessment payments caused delays, which were not the responsibility of the Respondent.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the Association violated CC&Rs 14.8 concerning notice obligations.

Petitioner alleged the Association violated CC&Rs 14.8 by improperly handling or failing to receive his monthly assessment payments, which he sent via restricted delivery to a board member despite receiving instructions to mail payments to the Association's designated P.O. Box address.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied because he failed to sustain his burden of proof that the Association violated CC&Rs Section 14.8.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
CC&Rs 14.8

Analytics Highlights

Topics: homeowner assessments, CC&Rs interpretation, restricted delivery, jurisdiction, notice provision, rehearing

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842
CC&Rs 14.8
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020049-REL Decision – 861466.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:25:54 (145.6 KB)

20F-H2020049-REL Decision – 811290.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:25:59 (131.7 KB)

Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro HOA: Case Analysis and Legal Findings

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative legal case Michael J Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Case No. 20F-H2020049-REL). The central dispute arose when Mr. Stoltenberg, a homeowner, was assessed late fees on his monthly dues after unilaterally altering his payment method. He began sending payments via restricted U.S. Postal Service delivery to a specific volunteer board member, which resulted in significant processing delays and non-deliveries.

The petitioner alleged the Association was acting in “bad faith” and violating Section 14.8 of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conclusively found that Section 14.8, which governs notices sent from the Association to its members, was entirely inapplicable to payments sent by a member to the Association. The ALJ determined that the petitioner’s own “volitionally took” actions were the direct cause of the payment delays and subsequent late fees.

The petitioner’s initial petition was denied. A subsequent request for rehearing was granted, but the rehearing affirmed the original decision. The ALJ reiterated that the cited CC&R section was inapplicable, noted a lack of jurisdiction over other statutes the petitioner raised, and concluded that the petitioner had failed to meet his burden of proof in either proceeding.

Case Background and Procedural History

Parties and Governing Documents

• Petitioner: Michael J. Stoltenberg, a condominium owner within the Rancho Del Oro development and a member of the homeowners’ association.

• Respondent: Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (“the Association”), a condominium association in Yuma, Arizona, governed by its CC&Rs and overseen by a Board of Directors.

• Governing Authority: The CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner. The specific provision at the center of the dispute is Section 14.8 of the Bylaws, titled “Notices.” This section has remained unamended since the original CC&Rs were recorded on August 30, 1985.

Initial Petition and Jurisdictional Scope

On March 2, 2020, Mr. Stoltenberg filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the Association “fail to do their job, and are acting in bad faith.” The petition cited violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) §§ 10-3842 and 10-801, as well as Section 14.8 of the Association’s CC&Rs. Mr. Stoltenberg sought an order compelling the Association to comply with these regulations and the issuance of a civil penalty.

Upon filing, the Department advised the petitioner that the HOA Dispute Process lacks jurisdiction over disputes arising from Title 10 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Consequently, the case was narrowed to a single issue, and the petitioner was assessed a $500 filing fee. The sole issue for the hearing was formally defined as: “Whether the Association violated CC&Rs 14.8.”

Chronology of Legal Proceedings

Outcome

March 2, 2020

Petition filed by Michael Stoltenberg.

The case is initiated.

July 14, 2020

Initial evidentiary hearing is held.

Both parties present arguments.

August 3, 2020

Amended ALJ Decision is issued.

The petitioner’s petition is denied.

August 28, 2020

Petitioner submits a rehearing request.

Grounds cited: errors of law and an arbitrary decision.

September 9, 2020

Rehearing request is granted.

A new hearing is scheduled.

February 16, 2021

Rehearing is held.

The same issue is re-examined.

March 8, 2021

Final ALJ Decision is issued.

The petitioner’s petition is denied again; the order is binding.

Factual Analysis of the Dispute

Payment Instructions and Petitioner’s Actions

On January 4, 2016, the petitioner was advised that the Association’s “primary address for receiving all correspondence and all assessment payments from its members” was PO Box 4333, Yuma, Arizona 85366. The correspondence explicitly stated, “Please send your payments to the above address.”

Despite these clear instructions, beginning in November 2019, the petitioner began sending his monthly assessment payments to this P.O. Box via restricted delivery through the United States Postal Service (USPS), designated for pickup by board member Rhea Carlisle only.

The petitioner’s stated rationale for this change was a belief that an agent of the Association’s property management company (PMC) had previously thrown away one of his mailed payments. However, the petitioner was aware of several key facts:

• The Association employed a PMC to pick up its mail.

• Ms. Carlisle was an unpaid volunteer board member, not an employee of the PMC.

• Diana Crites was the Association’s listed Statutory Agent for 2019 and 2020.

Consequences of Restricted Delivery

The petitioner’s unilateral decision to restrict delivery caused significant disruption to the receipt of his payments. This led to his assessments being recorded as untimely, which in turn resulted in the Association assessing late fees against his account. Additionally, each late payment occurrence placed his residence “in danger of foreclosure by the Association.”

A timeline of payment delivery issues presented as evidence includes:

Payment Period

USPS Action

December 2019

Picked up.

January 25, 2020

Returned to petitioner by USPS.

January 30, 2020

Picked up.

February 26, 2020

Picked up.

April 17, 2020

Picked up.

June 8, 2020

Returned to petitioner by USPS.

Legal Rulings and Core Arguments

Central Legal Text: CC&Rs Section 14.8 (“Notices”)

The entire case hinged on the interpretation of Section 14.8 of the Association’s Bylaws. The text reads:

“Any notice permitted or required by this Declaration or the Bylaws may be delivered either personally or by mail. If delivery is by mail, it shall be deemed to have been delivered seventy-two (72) hours after a copy of the same has been deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each person at the current address given by such person to the secretary of the Board or addressed to the Unit of such person if no address has been given to the secretary.”

ALJ’s Interpretation: In both the initial decision and the rehearing decision, the ALJ found the language of Section 14.8 to be clear, “neither vague nor ambiguous,” and definitively inapplicable to the case. The ruling stated that the “language of Section 14.8 speaks specifically to the Association’s notice obligation to its members when mailing them information. Section 14.8 has no binding authority or control over homeowners sending mail to the Association.”

Arguments Presented

• He had always technically mailed his monthly payments on time to the correct P.O. Box.

• He filed the petition out of concern over incurring late fees and the potential loss of his home.

• During the rehearing, he argued that the initial decision failed to properly interpret Section 14.8 and should have also applied ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842 (concerning standards of conduct for nonprofit officers).

• Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs was entirely inapplicable to the facts presented, as it governs the Association’s outbound notice obligations, not a member’s inbound payments.

• The Department and the Office of Administrative Hearings lack jurisdiction under Title 10 of the ARIZ. REV. STAT.

• The petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof required to show a violation.

Final Conclusions and Order

The Administrative Law Judge’s decisions in both the initial hearing and the rehearing were definitive. The core conclusions of law were as follows:

1. Burden of Proof: The petitioner bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the CC&Rs and failed to meet this burden.

2. Inapplicability of CC&Rs Section 14.8: The provision cited by the petitioner was found to be wholly irrelevant to the matter of a homeowner mailing payments to the Association.

3. Assignment of Responsibility: The ALJ concluded that the petitioner’s own choices were the cause of the issue. The decision states, “By restricting the delivery of his monthly assessment payments, Petitioner inadvertently caused delay in their ability to be picked up by the Association.” There was “no credible evidence in the record to suggest that the action(s) Petitioner volitionally took are Respondent’s responsibility.”

4. Rehearing Findings: In the final decision, the ALJ noted that the petitioner “did not introduce any evidence tending to suggest that there was an ‘error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law…'” or that the prior decision was arbitrary or capricious.

Final Order: Based on the foregoing, the ALJ ordered that the petitioner’s petition be denied. The order issued on March 8, 2021, was binding on the parties, with any further appeal requiring judicial review in superior court within 35 days.

Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case Michael J Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, Case No. 20F-H2020049-REL, including the initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing. It is designed to test and deepen understanding of the facts, legal arguments, procedures, and outcomes presented in the official decisions.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Please answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing information exclusively from the provided legal documents.

1. Who were the primary parties in this legal dispute, and what was their relationship to one another?

2. What was the specific allegation Michael Stoltenberg made against the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association in his petition?

3. What specific action did the Petitioner take regarding his monthly assessment payments starting in November 2019?

4. According to the Association, why was Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs not applicable to the Petitioner’s complaint?

5. What were the negative consequences the Petitioner faced as a result of his payments being received late by the Association?

6. What was the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and did the judge find he had met it?

7. What were the two grounds upon which the Petitioner requested a rehearing after the initial decision?

8. Why was the Petitioner’s citation of Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 10-3842 dismissed during the proceedings?

9. What was the final ruling in the Administrative Law Judge Decision issued on March 08, 2021, following the rehearing?

10. After the final order was issued, what was the Petitioner’s sole remaining avenue for appeal?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Michael J Stoltenberg, the Petitioner, and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, the Respondent. Mr. Stoltenberg was a condominium owner and a member of the Association, which governed the residential development where he lived.

2. In his petition filed on March 2, 2020, Stoltenberg alleged the Association violated Section 14.8 of its CC&Rs and Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 10-3842 and 10-801. He specifically claimed the Association “fail to do their job, and are acting in bad faith.”

3. Beginning in November 2019, the Petitioner began sending his monthly assessment payments to the Association’s P.O. Box via restricted delivery from the United States Postal Service. He specified that the mail was for board member Rhea Carlisle’s pickup only, despite knowing she was a volunteer and not an employee of the property management company that handled mail.

4. The Association argued that Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs was inapplicable because it governs the Association’s notice obligations to its members. The judge agreed, stating the section has no binding authority over how homeowners send mail to the Association.

5. Each time the Petitioner’s monthly assessment was received late, he was assessed a late fee by the Association. Additionally, each late payment occurrence placed his residence in danger of foreclosure.

6. The Petitioner bore the burden of proving his case by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means showing the contention is more probably true than not. The judge concluded in both decisions that the Petitioner failed to sustain this burden of proof.

7. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on the grounds that there was an alleged “Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding” and because “[t]he findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”

8. The citation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842, which concerns standards of conduct for officers of nonprofit corporations, was dismissed because it falls outside the jurisdiction of the Arizona Department of Real Estate’s HOA Dispute Process. The Petitioner was advised of these jurisdictional limitations when he filed his petition.

9. The final ruling issued on March 8, 2021, denied the Petitioner’s petition once again. The judge affirmed the original findings, concluding there was no violation of Section 14.8 and that the Petitioner had not introduced any evidence to support his grounds for a rehearing.

10. After the final order resulting from the rehearing, the Petitioner’s only remaining recourse was to seek judicial review by filing an appeal with the superior court. This appeal had to be filed within thirty-five days from the date the order was served upon the parties.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis. Formulate a comprehensive essay response for each prompt, using specific evidence and details from the source documents to support your arguments.

1. Analyze the legal reasoning of Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark in her interpretation of Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs. Explain why this section was deemed inapplicable to the Petitioner’s situation and how this interpretation was central to the case’s outcome in both the hearing and rehearing.

2. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied in this case. Explain who held the burden, what the “preponderance of the evidence” standard required, and why the Petitioner ultimately failed to meet this standard in the judgment of the court.

3. Trace the complete procedural history of this case, starting from the initial petition. Detail the key dates, filings (petition, answer, rehearing request), hearings, and decisions, explaining the significance of each step in the administrative legal process from March 2020 to March 2021.

4. Examine the actions of the Petitioner, Michael Stoltenberg, beginning in November 2019. Evaluate his rationale for unilaterally changing his payment method, the specific steps he took, and how his choices directly led to the late fees and risk of foreclosure he sought to avoid.

5. Explain the roles and jurisdictional limitations of the Arizona Department of Real Estate (the Department) and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in this dispute. Why were certain statutes cited by the Petitioner, such as those under Title 10 of the ARIZ. REV. STAT., dismissed by the court as being outside its purview?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge, in this case Jenna Clark, who presides over administrative hearings, reviews evidence, and issues decisions for state agencies.

Answer

The formal written response filed by the Respondent (the Association) on March 24, 2020, denying all items in the Petitioner’s complaint.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings regarding disputes within homeowners’ associations in Arizona.

Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.)

The collection of laws enacted by the Arizona state legislature. Specific statutes were cited by the Petitioner and referenced by the court.

Association

The Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, a condominium association responsible for governing the real estate development and enforcing its CC&Rs.

Board of Directors (the Board)

The governing body that oversees the Homeowners Association.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation of a party in a trial (in this case, the Petitioner) to produce evidence that proves the claims they have made against the other party.

An acronym for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner.

Conclusions of Law

The section of the judge’s decision that applies legal principles and statutes to the established facts of the case to reach a final judgment.

Findings of Fact

The section of the judge’s decision that details the factual background, procedural history, and evidence presented during the hearing.

Hearing

A formal proceeding before an administrative law judge where parties present evidence and arguments. In this case, hearings were held on July 14, 2020, and February 16, 2021.

Jurisdiction

The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The Department’s jurisdiction was limited and did not extend to disputes arising from Title 10 of the Arizona Revised Statutes.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency that provides administrative law judges to conduct hearings for other state agencies, ensuring impartiality.

The final, binding command issued by the judge at the conclusion of the decision. In this case, the order was to deny the Petitioner’s petition.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Michael J Stoltenberg.

Petition

The formal legal document filed by the Petitioner on March 2, 2020, to initiate the hearing process with the Department.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in this civil administrative case. It is defined as evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

Rehearing

A second hearing granted to a party to re-examine the issues of a case, typically requested on grounds of legal error or an unjust decision. The Petitioner’s request for a rehearing was granted.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.

Restricted Delivery

A service offered by the United States Postal Service (USPS) that ensures mail is delivered only to a specific addressee or their authorized agent.

Statutory Agent

An individual or entity designated to receive legal notices and service of process on behalf of a corporation or association. For the Association, this was Diana Crites.

Select all sources

811290.pdf

861466.pdf

No emoji found

20F-H2020049-REL-RHG

2 sources

These documents contain the Administrative Law Judge Decisions stemming from a dispute between a homeowner, Michael J. Stoltenberg, and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association regarding the timely delivery of monthly assessment payments. The initial decision in August 2020 denied the homeowner’s petition, finding that the Association did not violate Section 14.8 of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), as that provision governs the Association’s notice obligation to members, not homeowners’ mail to the Association. Following a granted request for rehearing due to alleged errors of law, the subsequent March 2021 decision affirmed the original ruling, concluding that the homeowner’s self-imposed restriction on mail delivery caused the delays and that the relevant CC&R section was inapplicable to the petitioner’s complaint. Both decisions noted that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) lacked jurisdiction over one of the statutes cited by the petitioner.

What were the legal and procedural reasons for granting the rehearing request?

How did the interpretation of CC&R Section 14.8 resolve the core dispute?

What was the Petitioner’s basis for claiming a violation against the Association?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Michael J Stoltenberg (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Nicole Payne (HOA attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
Appeared telephonically for Respondent
Rhea Carlisle (board member)
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Unpaid volunteer board member
Diana Crites (statutory agent)
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Statutory Agent for 2019 and 2020
Lydia Peirce Linsmeier (attorney contact)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
Recipient of electronic transmission for Respondent in initial decision

Neutral Parties

Jenna Clark (ALJ)
OAH
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
ADRE
Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate
Dan Gardner (HOA coordinator)
ADRE
Transmitted decision electronically (c/o Commissioner Judy Lowe)

Mary J Bartle vs. Saguaro West Owner’s Association

Posted on January 30, 2020 by [email protected]

Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1919059-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2020-01-30
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the original conclusion and dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Association violated Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d) regarding the contested $49,000.50 fund transaction.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Mary J Bartle	Counsel	—
Respondent	Saguaro West Owner's Association	Counsel	Nicole Payne, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the original conclusion and dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Association violated Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d) regarding the contested $49,000.50 fund transaction.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the transactions violated the specific duties of the treasurer set out in Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of Treasurer duties regarding fund transactions

The petitioner alleged the Association violated Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d) by withdrawing and redepositing $49,000.50 from the operating account. The ALJ concluded that Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that these transactions violated the specific duties of the treasurer set forth in that section.

Orders: Petitioner Mary J. Bartle’s petition is dismissed and Respondent is deemed the prevailing party in this matter.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section and title 12, chapter 7, article 6
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Bylaws, Treasurer Duties, Dismissal, Burden of Proof, Rehearing

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section and title 12, chapter 7, article 6
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 12-904(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919059-REL-RHG Decision – 767041.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:29:24 (94.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Bartle vs. Saguaro West Owner’s Association (Case No. 19F-H1919059-REL-RHG)

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the matter of Mary J. Bartle vs. Saguaro West Owner’s Association. The final order, issued on January 30, 2020, dismissed the petition brought by Ms. Bartle. The core of the case revolved around a financial transaction where $49,000.50 was withdrawn from the Association’s operating account on October 22, 2018, and redeposited on November 30, 2018.

The petitioner, Ms. Bartle, alleged this transaction violated a specific provision of the Association’s bylaws—Article VIII, section 8(d)—which outlines the duties of the Treasurer. Despite two hearings, the Administrative Law Judge consistently concluded that Ms. Bartle failed to meet her burden of proof. The central finding was that while evidence suggested the transaction “may have been in violation of the law or otherwise improper,” the petitioner did not demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, how this transaction specifically violated any of the enumerated duties of the Treasurer as set forth in the cited bylaw. The decision underscores a critical legal distinction between a potentially improper act and a proven violation of the specific bylaw under which the complaint was filed.

Case Overview

Case Name

Mary J. Bartle, Petitioner, vs. Saguaro West Owner’s Association, Respondent

Case Number

19F-H1919059-REL-RHG

Jurisdiction

Arizona Department of Real Estate, Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden

Petitioner

Mary J. Bartle (representing herself)

Respondent

Saguaro West Owner’s Association (represented by Nicole Payne, Esq.)

Rehearing Date

January 14, 2020

Final Decision Date

January 30, 2020

Procedural History and Core Allegation

The case proceeded through an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing, following a specific timeline of events:

• April 22, 2019: Ms. Bartle filed the initial petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• August 29, 2019: The first hearing was held. At the outset, a discussion was held to narrow the scope of the hearing. Ms. Bartle agreed to limit her petition to a single issue.

• The Single Issue: Whether the Association violated Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d) through a withdrawal of $49,000.50 on October 22, 2018, and a redeposit of the same amount on November 30, 2018.

• September 18, 2019: The initial Administrative Law Judge Decision was issued, dismissing Ms. Bartle’s petition.

• October 23, 2019: Ms. Bartle filed a request for a rehearing, asserting an error in the admission of evidence.

• November 18, 2019: The Department of Real Estate granted the request for a rehearing.

• January 14, 2020: The rehearing was convened. Ms. Bartle testified, while the Respondent presented no witnesses.

• January 30, 2020: The final Administrative Law Judge Decision was issued, reaffirming the dismissal of the petition.

At the rehearing, Ms. Bartle testified “to the effect that laws must have been violated by the withdrawal and redepositing of the $49,000.50 without the Association’s members being provided any notice of these transactions.”

Analysis of Bylaw and Judicial Findings

Bylaw Article VIII, Section 8(d): The Treasurer’s Duties

The entirety of the petitioner’s case rested on proving a violation of the specific duties outlined for the Treasurer in the Association’s bylaws. The text of the bylaw is as follows:

The Treasurer shall receive and deposit in the Association’s bank accounts all monies received by the Association and shall disburse such funds as directed by resolution [of] the Board of Directors; shall properly prepare and sign all checks before presenting them to be co-signed; keep proper books of account; cause an annual audit of the Association’s books to be made by a public accountant at the completion of each fiscal year; and shall prepare an annual budget to be presented to the membership at the annual meeting; to cause all Federal and State reports to be prepared; and shall prepare all monthly statements of finance for the Board of Directors.

Key Judicial Findings and Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision hinged on the petitioner’s failure to connect the disputed financial transaction to a specific violation of the duties listed above. The judge made a clear distinction between the potential impropriety of the transaction and the narrow scope of the legal claim.

• Initial Hearing Conclusion: The decision from the first hearing, which the judge took notice of in the rehearing, established the core finding:

• Rehearing Conclusion: The final decision after the rehearing reinforced this exact point, stating:

Ultimately, the case was dismissed because Ms. Bartle did not meet the legal standard required to prove her specific claim.

Legal Framework and Final Order

Applicable Legal Standards

The decision was grounded in several key legal principles cited by the Administrative Law Judge:

• Jurisdiction: The Arizona Department of Real Estate possesses authority over the matter pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11.

• Burden of Proof: Ms. Bartle, as the petitioner, bore the burden of proof on all issues.

• Standard of Proof: The standard was a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as “The greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

• Contractual Nature of Bylaws: Citing McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., the decision notes that “The Bylaws are a contract between the parties and the parties are required to comply with its terms.”

Final Order and Implications

Based on the failure to meet the burden of proof, the Administrative Law Judge issued a binding order with the following key points:

1. Dismissal: Petitioner Mary J. Bartle’s petition is dismissed.

2. Prevailing Party: The Respondent, Saguaro West Owner’s Association, is deemed the prevailing party.

3. Appeal Rights: A party wishing to appeal the order must seek judicial review with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served, as prescribed by ARIZ. REV. STAT. sections 12-904(A) and Title 12, Chapter 7, Article 6.

Study Guide: Bartle v. Saguaro West Owner’s Association

This guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1919059-REL-RHG. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a comprehensive understanding of the legal matter.

——————————————————————————–

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing all information directly from the case document.

1. Who were the primary parties in this legal matter, and what were their respective roles?

2. What specific financial transaction was the central subject of the petitioner’s complaint?

3. Which specific article and section of the Association’s Bylaws did the petitioner claim was violated?

4. What was the legal standard of proof that the petitioner was required to meet, and who had the burden of proof?

5. On what grounds did Ms. Bartle file her request for a rehearing after the initial decision?

6. According to the judge’s decision, what was the key failure in the petitioner’s argument regarding the financial transaction?

7. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge on January 30, 2020?

8. Although the judge dismissed the petition, what did the decision state about the nature of the financial transactions?

9. Which government department granted the request for a rehearing and has authority over this type of matter?

10. What options does a party have if they wish to appeal the final administrative law judge order?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Mary J. Bartle, and the Respondent, Saguaro West Owner’s Association. Ms. Bartle brought the petition against the Association, alleging a violation of its bylaws.

2. The central subject was the withdrawal of $49,000.50 from the Association’s operating account on October 22, 2018. The same amount was subsequently redeposited into the account on November 30, 2018.

3. The petitioner claimed the Association violated Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d). This section outlines the specific duties and responsibilities of the Association’s Treasurer.

4. The standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence.” The burden of proof was on the petitioner, Ms. Bartle, to demonstrate that the Association had violated the bylaw.

5. Ms. Bartle filed her Rehearing Request on the grounds that there was an error in the admission of evidence. She specifically referenced documents dated July 5, August 6, and September 13, 2019, in her request.

6. The key failure was that Ms. Bartle did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the withdrawal and redeposit specifically violated any of the treasurer’s duties as explicitly listed in Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d). Her claim was too narrow for the evidence she presented.

7. The final order was that Petitioner Mary J. Bartle’s petition be dismissed. The Respondent, Saguaro West Owner’s Association, was deemed to be the prevailing party in the matter.

8. The decision stated that there was evidence to suggest that the withdrawal and redeposit of the $49,000.50 “may have been in violation of the law or otherwise improper.” However, this was not sufficient to prove a violation of the specific bylaw in question.

9. The Arizona Department of Real Estate granted the rehearing on November 18, 2019. This department has authority over the matter as established by ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11.

10. A party wishing to appeal the order must seek judicial review as prescribed by Arizona Revised Statutes. The appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served upon the parties.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: Consider the following questions for a deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response based solely on the information provided in the source document.

1. Analyze the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the decision. Explain why Mary J. Bartle failed to meet this standard, despite the judge’s acknowledgment that the transaction may have been “improper” or in “violation of the law.”

2. Discuss the procedural significance of limiting the hearing to the single issue of Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d). How might the case’s outcome have differed if the scope of the hearing had been broader?

3. Trace the complete timeline of the case from the initial petition filing in April 2019 to the final order in January 2020. What do the key events and dates reveal about the process of administrative hearings and rehearings?

4. Based on the full text of Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d), what specific types of evidence would the petitioner have needed to present to successfully prove that the treasurer’s duties were violated by the $49,000.50 transaction?

5. Evaluate the distinction made by the Administrative Law Judge between a transaction that is potentially illegal or improper and a transaction that specifically violates the duties enumerated in Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d). Why is this distinction critical to the final order of dismissal?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, weighs evidence, and issues decisions on matters under the jurisdiction of a government agency. In this case, the ALJ was Thomas Shedden.

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE

The Arizona Administrative Code, a compilation of rules and regulations of Arizona’s state agencies. Section R2-19-119 is cited as establishing the standard of proof.

ARIZ. REV. STAT.

The Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona. Various sections are cited to establish jurisdiction and the appeals process.

Bylaws

A set of rules established by an organization, such as a homeowners’ association, to regulate itself. In this case, the bylaws are treated as a binding contract between the parties.

Conclusion of Law

The section of a legal decision where the judge applies legal principles and statutes to the established facts of the case.

Finding of Fact

The section of a legal decision that lists the factual determinations made by the judge based on the evidence presented during the hearing.

Judicial Review

The process by which a court of law reviews the decision of a lower court or an administrative agency to determine if the decision was legally sound.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

A state agency that provides a neutral forum for conducting administrative hearings for other state agencies. The hearings in this matter were held at the OAH.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a lawsuit or files a petition seeking a legal remedy. In this case, the petitioner was Mary J. Bartle.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases. It is met when the evidence presented has the most convincing force and is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of an issue over the other.

Prevailing Party

The party in a legal dispute who is successful and in whose favor the judgment is rendered. In this case, the Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case to consider new evidence or to argue against the original decision on the basis of an error. Ms. Bartle’s request for a rehearing was granted.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the respondent was the Saguaro West Owner’s Association.

A Homeowner Found a Mysterious $49,000 Transaction in Her HOA’s Books. The Reason She Lost in Court Is a Lesson for Everyone.

Introduction: The David-vs-Goliath Fight That Didn’t Go as Planned

For many homeowners, dealing with a Homeowners’ Association (HOA) can feel like a constant battle for transparency and fairness. It’s a common story: a resident raises concerns about financial decisions made behind closed doors, only to be met with resistance or silence. But what happens when a homeowner pushes back and takes that fight to an administrative hearing?

After an initial hearing and a persistent request for a rehearing, the final decision in Mary J. Bartle’s case against the Saguaro West Owner’s Association seemed, on the surface, like a clear-cut quest for accountability. The dispute centered on a single, alarming event: the withdrawal and subsequent redeposit of $49,000.50 from the association’s operating account without any notice to the members. It appeared to be a straightforward case of a concerned resident demanding answers.

However, the ruling from the administrative hearing offers a surprising and crucial lesson in how the legal system operates. The outcome reveals that suspicion, no matter how justified, is not enough to win. This article breaks down the top counter-intuitive takeaways from the judge’s decision and what they mean for any homeowner considering a legal challenge against their HOA.

Takeaway 1: A “Suspicious” Act Isn’t a Guaranteed Win

Feeling Something Is Wrong Isn’t the Same as Proving It.

The core facts of the case were not in dispute. On October 22, 2018, $49,000.50 was withdrawn from the Saguaro West Owner’s Association’s operating account. On November 30, 2018, the exact same amount was redeposited. Members were not notified of these transactions. To any reasonable observer, this activity raises immediate questions.

Even the Administrative Law Judge presiding over the case acknowledged the questionable nature of the transaction. In his final decision, he validated Ms. Bartle’s initial concerns with a striking statement:

The evidence shows that $49,000.50 was withdrawn from the Association’s account in October 2018 and the same amount was deposited in November 2018, and there is evidence to suggest that the transactions may have been in violation of the law.

This is the most stunning part of the case: the judge agreed that the transaction looked suspicious and might have broken the law, yet Ms. Bartle still lost. This reveals a critical distinction in legal proceedings. A judge is not an arbiter of general fairness but an interpreter of specific laws and rules. The judge’s comment shows he understood the spirit of Ms. Bartle’s complaint, but his hands were tied by the letter of her petition. The legal system requires more than a gut feeling; it demands specific proof that a specific rule was violated, which leads directly to the next critical lesson.

Takeaway 2: You Must Prove theExactRule Was Broken

Specificity Is Your Only Weapon.

Ms. Bartle’s case was ultimately narrowed to a single, highly specific issue: whether the $49,000.50 transaction violated Article VIII, section 8(d) of the association’s bylaws. This is a crucial detail because courts and administrative bodies require this rigid specificity to ensure fairness, prevent “moving goalposts,” and keep proceedings focused on the actual claims filed, not a general feeling of grievance.

Her entire case hinged on proving a violation of that specific section and no other. The rule in question outlines the treasurer’s duties, which include the power to: “receive and deposit…all monies,” “disburse such funds as directed,” “sign all checks,” and “keep proper books of account.”

The judge’s conclusion was brutally precise. He found that Ms. Bartle had “not shown by a preponderance of the evidence” that the transaction violated any of those specific, listed duties. She couldn’t prove the treasurer failed to deposit money or keep proper books; she could only prove a strange transaction occurred that wasn’t explicitly forbidden by the rule she cited. This is a critical lesson: it doesn’t matter if an HOA’s action feels wrong; what matters is whether you can prove it violated the precise rule you cited in your petition.

Takeaway 3: The Burden of Proof Rests Entirely on the Accuser

It’s Your Job to Build the Case, Not Theirs to Disprove It.

In a civil administrative hearing like this, the petitioner—Ms. Bartle—carries the “burden of proof.” The standard she had to meet was the “preponderance of the evidence.” The legal definition for this is:

“superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

In simple terms, she had to present enough convincing evidence to make the judge believe that her version of events was more likely true than not. The judge’s decision explicitly states that Ms. Bartle bore this burden and ultimately failed to meet it.

One of the most powerful details from the case file illustrates this point perfectly: the Saguaro West Owner’s Association, though represented by legal counsel, “presented no witnesses.” They didn’t have to. They didn’t need to explain the transaction or justify their actions because Ms. Bartle failed to build a strong enough case to prove her specific claim. The onus was completely on her to prove her argument, and when it fell short, the case was dismissed.

Conclusion: A Sobering Reminder for Homeowners

The case of Mary Bartle is a sobering reminder that winning a legal fight against a well-resourced entity like an HOA is less about moral rightness and more about meticulous legal strategy and precision.

While the judge acknowledged that Ms. Bartle’s concerns about the $49,000.50 transaction were potentially valid, her petition was dismissed not on a simple technicality, but because of a core principle of law: the failure to prove that the specific rule cited had actually been broken. Her case highlights the immense challenge for individual homeowners seeking transparency. It leaves us asking, if the legal bar is this specific, what practical recourse do residents have when they feel something is fundamentally wrong?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Mary J Bartle (petitioner)
Appeared on her own behalf and testified

Respondent Side

Nicole Payne (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Counsel for Saguaro West Owner's Association
Edith Rudder (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Counsel for Saguaro West Owner's Association

Neutral Parties

Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate