Tag Archives: Nicole Payne

Joshua M Waldvogel v. Sycamore Estate Parcel 13 Community Association

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

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121044-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-12-15
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge, upon rehearing, affirmed the denial of the petition, concluding that the Respondent HOA timely denied the Petitioner's architectural application. The timeline for a decision did not start until October 6, 2020, when the application was considered complete, making the November 19, 2020, denial valid.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Joshua M. Waldvogel Counsel —
Respondent Sycamore Estate Parcel 13 Community Association Counsel Nicole Payne

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(3); CC&Rs Article VI, Section 6.5

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge, upon rehearing, affirmed the denial of the petition, concluding that the Respondent HOA timely denied the Petitioner's architectural application. The timeline for a decision did not start until October 6, 2020, when the application was considered complete, making the November 19, 2020, denial valid.

Why this result: Petitioner lost because the interpretation of the CC&Rs stipulated that the 60-day timeline starts only upon receipt of a complete application, which the ALJ determined was October 6, 2020.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the architectural application for a casita was deemed approved due to the HOA missing the 60-day denial deadline.

Petitioner claimed his architectural application, submitted September 15, 2020, was deemed approved because the Denial Notice (November 19, 2020) occurred after the 60-day deadline (November 14, 2020). The ALJ determined that the 60-day period did not begin until the Application was complete with supporting information (October 6, 2020), making the deadline December 5, 2020, and the denial timely.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119
  • Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association
  • Powell v. Washburn
  • A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • Grubb & Ellis Management Services, Inc. v. 407417 B.C., L.L.C.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Architectural Review, Deemed Approval, HOA Timeline Compliance, CC&R Interpretation, Rehearing
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119
  • Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • Grubb & Ellis Management Services, Inc. v. 407417 B.C., L.L.C.

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121044-REL-RHG Decision – 933158.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:31 (106.1 KB)

21F-H2121044-REL-RHG Decision – ../21F-H2121044-REL/900658.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:34 (103.7 KB)

Briefing on Waldvogel v. Sycamore Estate Parcel 13 Community Association

Executive Summary

This briefing synthesizes the findings and conclusions from two administrative law judge decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Joshua M. Waldvogel (Petitioner) and the Sycamore Estate Parcel 13 Community Association (Respondent). The core of the conflict was the Petitioner’s application to build a second house, or “casita,” on his property, which was denied by the association’s Architectural Committee (ARC).

The central legal question was procedural: the timing of the association’s denial. The Petitioner argued that the 60-day review period stipulated in the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) began when he submitted his initial application on September 15, 2020. By this calculation, the association’s November 19, 2020 denial was late, and his application should have been “deemed approved.”

The Respondent countered that the 60-day clock only began after the Petitioner provided a response to a request for additional information on October 6, 2020, making the application complete on that date. This would make the November 19 denial timely.

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer presided over both an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing. In both instances, the Judge ruled in favor of the Respondent, finding that the application was not complete until the requested information was provided. The denial was therefore timely and valid. The Petitioner failed to prove that the association violated its governing documents, and his petition was denied in both the initial decision and the final, binding decision on rehearing.

Case Background

• Case Numbers: 21F-H2121044-REL & 21F-H2121044-REL-RHG

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

• Petitioner: Joshua M. Waldvogel, owner of Lot 228 at 11208 North 164th Lane, Surprise, Arizona 85388.

• Respondent: Sycamore Estate Parcel 13 Community Association (Sycamore Estates), a homeowners association in Surprise, Arizona.

• Core Issue: Petitioner sought approval from the Sycamore Estates Architectural Committee (ARC) to build a casita on his property. The ARC denied the application. The dispute centers on whether the denial was issued within the 60-day timeframe mandated by the community’s CC&Rs.

Chronology of Key Events

September 15, 2020

Petitioner submits an architectural application to build a casita.

October 5, 2020

Sycamore Estates requests additional information, specifically the required permits for the construction.

October 6, 2020

Petitioner emails a response, stating his architect verified compliance with city “laws” but does not provide permits.

November 13, 2020

The ARC reviews the application and decides to deny it based on CC&Rs Article V, Section 5.2.

November 14, 2020

The date the Petitioner asserts the 60-day deadline for a decision expired.

November 19, 2020

Sycamore Estates issues the official Denial Notice to the Petitioner.

December 5, 2020

The date the Respondent asserts the 60-day deadline for a decision expired.

July 12, 2021

Initial administrative hearing is held.

August 2, 2021

Initial decision is issued, denying the Petitioner’s petition.

November 29, 2021

A rehearing is held at the Petitioner’s request.

December 15, 2021

Final decision on rehearing is issued, again denying the Petitioner’s petition.

Central Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Position (Joshua M. Waldvogel)

• The 60-day timeline for the ARC to approve or deny the application began on the initial submission date of September 15, 2020.

• The deadline for the ARC’s decision was therefore November 14, 2020.

• The association’s request for additional information on October 5, 2020, did not “reset” or pause this timeline.

• Because the Denial Notice was not issued until November 19, 2020, five days after the deadline, the application should be considered “deemed approved” as per the CC&Rs.

• During the rehearing, the Petitioner also argued that Sycamore Estates could only require information listed on the standard submission form.

Respondent’s Position (Sycamore Estates)

• The application was not considered complete until the Petitioner responded to the request for additional information.

• The response, received on October 6, 2020, marked the start of the 60-day review period.

• The deadline for a decision was therefore December 5, 2020.

• The Denial Notice, issued on November 19, 2020, was well within this timeframe and was therefore valid.

Governing Documents and Legal Principles

The case revolved around the interpretation of the Sycamore Estates CC&Rs, which function as a binding contract between the homeowner and the association.

Key CC&R Provisions

• Article VI, Section 6.5 (Application for Approval): This section contains the critical language that formed the basis of the Judge’s decision. It states that the 60-day review period begins:

• Article V, Section 5.2 (Building Type and Size): This section provided the substantive basis for the ARC’s denial of the casita, as it specifies:

Legal Standard

• Burden of Proof: The Petitioner, as the party asserting the claim, had the burden of proof.

• Standard of Proof: The standard was a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as evidence with “the most convincing force” that is “sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

• Contract Interpretation: In Arizona, unambiguous restrictive covenants (like the CC&Rs) are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties.

Rulings and Judicial Rationale

The Administrative Law Judge consistently sided with the Respondent’s interpretation of the CC&Rs in both the initial hearing and the rehearing.

Initial Hearing and Decision (August 2, 2021)

• Finding: The Judge concluded that the application was not complete until the Petitioner provided his response on October 6, 2020.

• Rationale: Based on the language in Article VI, Section 6.5, the 60-day clock does not start until the application and all supporting information have been submitted. The association’s request for permits was a reasonable part of gathering this supporting information.

• Conclusion: The November 19, 2020 Denial Notice was issued prior to the December 5, 2020 deadline and was therefore valid. The Judge ordered that the “Petitioner’s petition is denied.”

Rehearing and Final Decision (December 15, 2021)

• Basis for Rehearing: The Petitioner requested a rehearing, alleging the initial decision was an “abuse of discretion.” His written basis was:

• Rehearing Arguments: During the rehearing, the Petitioner acknowledged that the Findings of Fact in the initial decision were not in error and presented the same legal arguments as before.

• Final Ruling: The Judge’s conclusion remained unchanged. Upon consideration of all evidence from the rehearing, the Judge again found that the application was not complete until October 6, 2020, and the denial was timely.

• Final Order: The Judge concluded that the “Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent failed to comply with its CC&Rs” and again ordered that the “Petitioner’s petition is denied.” This order was designated as binding on the parties, with any further appeal requiring judicial review in superior court.

Study Guide: Waldvogel v. Sycamore Estate Parcel 13 Community Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case between homeowner Joshua M. Waldvogel and the Sycamore Estate Parcel 13 Community Association. The materials are derived from the Administrative Law Judge Decisions issued on August 2, 2021, and December 15, 2021.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Short Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following ten questions based on the provided case documents. Each answer should be two to three sentences in length.

1. Who were the petitioner and the respondent in this case, and what specific project was the petitioner seeking approval for?

2. What was the central procedural dispute regarding the timeline for the respondent’s decision on the application?

3. According to the community’s CC&Rs, what is the consequence if the Architectural Committee fails to approve or disapprove an application within the specified timeframe?

4. On what substantive grounds did the Sycamore Estates Architectural Committee ultimately base its decision to deny Mr. Waldvogel’s application?

5. What key date did the petitioner, Mr. Waldvogel, argue was the start of the 60-day review period, and what was his reasoning?

6. What key date did the respondent, Sycamore Estates, argue was the start of the 60-day review period, and what was its reasoning?

7. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion in the initial hearing decision issued on August 2, 2021?

8. On what basis did the petitioner request a rehearing after the initial decision was rendered against him?

9. During the rehearing, did the petitioner introduce new evidence or arguments, or did he challenge the established Findings of Fact?

10. What legal standard of proof was required in this administrative hearing, and which party held the burden of proof?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. The petitioner was Joshua M. Waldvogel, the record owner of Lot 228. The respondent was the Sycamore Estate Parcel 13 Community Association. Mr. Waldvogel was seeking approval for a plan to build a second house, or casita, on his property.

2. The central dispute was determining when the 60-day timeline for the Architectural Committee’s decision officially began. The petitioner argued it started upon the initial application submission, while the respondent contended it began only after a request for additional information was answered, thereby making the application “complete.”

3. Article VI, Section 6.5 of the CC&Rs states that if the committee fails to act within sixty days after a complete application and all supporting information have been submitted, “approval will not be required and this Section will be deemed to have been complied with by the Owner.”

4. The committee denied the application based on Article V, Section 5.2 of the CC&Rs. This section explicitly prohibits the construction of more than “one detached Single Family Residence” on any lot.

5. The petitioner argued the 60-day review period began on September 15, 2020, the date he submitted his initial architectural application. This would have set the deadline at November 14, 2020, making the November 19 Denial Notice late and rendering the application “deemed approved.”

6. The respondent argued the 60-day period began on October 6, 2020, the date the petitioner responded to their request for additional information (permits). Sycamore Estates maintained the application was not complete until that response was received, which would set the deadline at December 5, 2020.

7. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the application was not complete until the petitioner provided a response to the October 5 request for information. Therefore, the Denial Notice issued on November 19, 2020, was timely and valid, and the petitioner’s petition was denied.

8. The petitioner requested a rehearing on the grounds that the initial decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” His written statement argued that the CC&Rs do not explicitly state that the review timeline restarts upon a request for more information.

9. No, the petitioner did not introduce new arguments. He presented the same arguments during the rehearing as he had in the initial hearing and acknowledged that the Findings of Fact from the first decision did not contain any errors, choosing only to argue their legal effect.

10. The standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence.” The petitioner, as the party asserting a claim, had the burden of proof to establish that the respondent violated the governing documents.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for deeper analysis of the case. Formulate comprehensive essay responses that synthesize facts and legal principles from the source documents.

1. Analyze the significance of Article VI, Section 6.5 of the CC&Rs, specifically the clause “together with all supporting information, plans and specifications required by the Design Guidelines have been submitted to it.” How did the interpretation of this specific language become the central legal issue of the case, and why was it determinative of the outcome?

2. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the legal decisions. Explain which party had the burden of proof and evaluate how the Administrative Law Judge applied this standard to the undisputed facts of the case to reach her conclusions in both the initial hearing and the rehearing.

3. The petitioner’s proposed casita was ultimately denied on the substantive grounds that it violated Article V, Section 5.2 of the CC&Rs. Why did the legal proceedings focus almost entirely on the procedural issue of the decision timeline rather than the substantive prohibition of a second residence on the lot?

4. Examine the petitioner’s basis for requesting a rehearing and the Commissioner’s decision to grant it. Despite the rehearing being granted, the Administrative Law Judge’s decision remained unchanged. Discuss the effectiveness of the petitioner’s arguments during the rehearing process as described in the legal documents.

5. The legal decisions state that CC&Rs are a contract between the parties and that unambiguous restrictive covenants must be enforced to give effect to the parties’ intent. Based on the details provided in this case, explain how the principles of contract law were applied to resolve the dispute between Mr. Waldvogel and the Sycamore Estates association.

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues legally binding decisions. In this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer.

Application

The comprehensive and detailed written request submitted by a homeowner to the Architectural Committee for approval of construction, alteration, or other improvements that would alter the exterior appearance of the property.

Architectural Committee (ARC)

The committee within the Sycamore Estates Community Association responsible for reviewing and approving or denying modifications to lots to ensure compliance with the CC&Rs and Design Guidelines.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal case to provide evidence to prove their claims. In this matter, the petitioner had the burden of proof.

Casita

A small, secondary house or guesthouse. This was the type of structure Mr. Waldvogel sought to build on his property.

CC&Rs (Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

A legally binding document that governs a planned community or subdivision. The courts treat it as a contract between the homeowners’ association and the property owners.

Denial Notice

The official written communication from the homeowners’ association (Sycamore Estates) informing a homeowner (Mr. Waldvogel) that their architectural application has been formally denied.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition seeking a legal remedy. In this case, homeowner Joshua M. Waldvogel.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in this matter, 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.”

Property

The specific lot owned by the petitioner, identified as Lot 228 of Sycamore Estates, located at 11208 North 164th Lane, Surprise, Arizona 85388.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who must respond to the claims. In this case, the Sycamore Estate Parcel 13 Community Association.

Restrictive Covenant

A provision within the CC&Rs that limits the use of property. Article V, Section 5.2, which prohibits more than one detached residence per lot, is an example of a restrictive covenant.

He Tried to Use a 60-Day Deadline to Beat His HOA. Here’s What the Judge Decided.

Introduction: The Waiting Game

You’ve done the research, hired the architect, and finally submitted your home improvement plans to the Homeowners Association (HOA). Now, the waiting game begins. The days tick by, and you start wondering: What happens if they miss their own deadline to respond? Can you just start building?

A recent administrative law case in Arizona provides a fascinating and cautionary answer to this very question. It serves as a stark reminder that your community’s governing documents—the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)—are a legally binding contract, and assumptions about deadlines can lead to a losing battle.

——————————————————————————–

The Core of the Dispute: A Casita and a Calendar

The case involved Joshua M. Waldvogel, a homeowner in the Sycamore Estates community in Surprise, Arizona. His goal was to build a second house, or “casita,” on his property.

The conflict centered on a simple timeline. Waldvogel submitted his application on September 15, 2020. He argued the HOA had 60 days to respond, making the deadline November 14. When the HOA sent its denial on November 19, Waldvogel claimed that because the denial was late, his project was automatically “deemed approved.” This dispute over a five-day difference escalated to an administrative law hearing. Here are the key takeaways from the judge’s decision that every homeowner should understand.

1. The 60-Day Clock Doesn’t Start Until Your Application is “Complete”

The homeowner believed the 60-day review clock started the moment he sent his initial application. The judge, however, disagreed based on the precise wording in the HOA’s CC&Rs—the binding contract governing the community.

The power was in the fine print. Article VI, Section 6.5 of the CC&Rs stated:

In the event that the Architectural Committee fails to approve or disapprove an Application for approval within sixty (60) days after the Application, together with all supporting information, plans and specifications required by the Design Guidelines have been submitted to it, approval will not be required…

This single clause was the linchpin of the entire case. On October 5, the HOA requested additional information—specifically, the appropriate permits for the proposed construction. The next day, the homeowner responded, but according to the case findings, he “did not provide any permits as requested.” Instead, he emailed to confirm that his architect had verified the plans complied with city “laws.”

The judge ruled that the 60-day clock never started on September 15 because the application wasn’t yet “complete.” The HOA’s simple request for more information was the pivotal event. It established that the official start date for the review period was October 6, the day the homeowner provided his response. This made the November 19 denial well within the required timeframe. The crucial lesson here is that an HOA’s request for information can determine the official start date of their review, regardless of when you first submitted paperwork.

2. The Underlying Rules Are Your Biggest Hurdle

The entire legal battle focused on the procedural timeline—when the HOA denied the project. But in a twist of irony, the substance of the project—what was being proposed—was a non-starter from the beginning.

Even if the homeowner had won his argument about the deadline, his project was in direct violation of another core rule. Article V, Section 5.2 of the CC&Rs clearly stated:

No building shall be constructed or permitted to remain on any lot other than one detached Single Family Residence…

The homeowner fought and lost a battle over how he was denied, when the rules clearly stated his casita project was never going to be approved in the first place. This highlights a critical point: winning a procedural argument is meaningless if your project fundamentally violates the community’s substantive rules.

3. You Can Appeal, But It’s an Uphill Battle

After losing the initial hearing, the homeowner filed for a rehearing, claiming the judge’s decision was an “abuse of discretion.” The appeal, however, only solidified the original outcome and underscored the difficulty of such challenges.

The legal record from the rehearing is particularly telling. The judge noted two critical facts: first, the petitioner “acknowledged that the Findings of Fact set forth in the underlying decision in this matter did not include any errors.” Second, he “presented the same arguments during the rehearing that he provided during the initial hearing.”

In essence, the homeowner appealed without disputing the established facts and by using the same legal argument that had already failed. Unsurprisingly, the judge’s decision remained the same, and the petition was denied again. This serves as a potent reminder that challenging an HOA’s interpretation of its own governing documents can be a difficult, expensive, and often fruitless endeavor.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Read the Fine Print Before You Dream

This case serves as a powerful lesson for every homeowner living under an HOA. Your community’s CC&Rs are a binding contract, and the specific language within them holds immense power. Assumptions about procedures, deadlines, and what you’re allowed to build can be costly mistakes.

It all boils down to one final, critical question: When was the last time you read your community’s governing documents, and what crucial detail might be waiting in the fine print?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Joshua M. Waldvogel (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Nicole Payne (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP
    Represented Respondent
  • Carlotta L. Turman (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Addressed during initial decision transmission
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Addressed during rehearing decision transmission
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient for case transmission
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient for case transmission
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient for case transmission
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient for case transmission

Michael J Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020059-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-02-12
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs § 5.1; A.R.S. § 10-3842

Outcome Summary

The Petition was dismissed after rehearing because Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs. The ALJ found that Petitioner continually refused Respondent access to his locked back yard for landscaping maintenance, and the CC&Rs requiring landscaping do not mandate pool maintenance.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation due to refusal of access to the back yard and misinterpretation of CC&R obligations regarding pool maintenance.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to maintain landscaping and acting in bad faith

Petitioner alleged Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs by failing to maintain landscaping in 2020 and acting in bad faith, asserting that pool/hardscape maintenance was included in landscaping duties, and requesting the maximum fine. Respondent countered that they consistently maintained the front yard but were denied access to the locked backyard due to Petitioner's pool liability concerns.

Orders: Petitioner's Petition was dismissed/denied as Petitioner failed to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. However, Respondent was ordered, going forward, to communicate the days and times they will be performing back yard landscaping so Petitioner can provide access.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • CC&Rs § 5.1
  • CC&Rs § 5.1(a)
  • A.R.S. § 10-3842
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • 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. § 32-1122(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Duties, Landscaping, Pool Maintenance, CC&Rs, Access Refusal, Rehearing
Additional Citations:

  • CC&Rs § 5.1
  • CC&Rs § 5.1(a)
  • A.R.S. § 10-3842
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • 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. § 32-1122(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020059-REL Decision – 855028.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-02T10:34:27 (139.1 KB)

20F-H2020059-REL Decision – 815480.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-02T10:34:33 (124.1 KB)

20F-H2020059-REL Decision – 855028.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:27:32 (139.1 KB)

20F-H2020059-REL Decision – 815480.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:27:36 (124.1 KB)

20F-H2020059-REL Decision – 815480.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:33:21 (124.1 KB)

Briefing Document: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from two administrative hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg (Petitioner) and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute centers on the scope of landscaping maintenance obligations as defined by the association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

The Petitioner alleged the HOA failed its duties under CC&Rs § 5.1 by not maintaining his property’s unique landscaping, which he argued included replenishing rock, staining paths, and servicing his swimming pool and associated hardscape. He further claimed the HOA was acting in bad faith and failing to comply with a previous court ruling.

The Respondent countered that it had consistently performed standard landscaping on the Petitioner’s front yard since January 2020. However, it was repeatedly denied access to the backyard, a fact the Petitioner admitted, citing liability concerns due to his pool. The HOA provided evidence of multiple attempts to access the yard and testimony that its maintenance duties are uniform across the community and do not include “concierge” services or pool maintenance.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed the petition in both the initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing. The final decision rested on two key points: 1) The Petitioner failed to provide access to the area in question, preventing the HOA from performing its duties. 2) The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the term “landscaping” under the CC&Rs could be reasonably interpreted to include swimming pool maintenance. This conclusion was strongly supported by the separate licensing classifications for landscaping (R-21) and swimming pool service (R-6) issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, which establishes them as distinct services under state regulation.

Case Overview

Parties and Key Personnel

Name/Entity

Affiliation / Title

Petitioner

Michael J. Stoltenberg

Homeowner, 11777 E. Calle Gaudi, Yuma, AZ

Respondent

Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

Respondent Counsel

Nicole Payne, Esq.

Legal Representative

Respondent Witness

Diana Crites

Owner, Crites and Associates (Property Management Co.)

Respondent Witness

Rian Baas

Owner, Mowtown Landscape (HOA Landscaping Contractor)

Presiding Judge

Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

Case Details

Details

Initial Case No.

20F-H2020059-REL

Initial Hearing

August 3, 2020

Initial Decision

August 17, 2020

Rehearing Case No.

20F-H2020059-REL-RHG

Rehearing

February 2, 2021

Rehearing Decision

February 12, 2021

Core Dispute

The central conflict involved the interpretation of the HOA’s maintenance obligations under its governing documents. The Petitioner argued for an expansive definition of “landscaping” that encompassed his entire property exterior, including a swimming pool. The HOA maintained that its duties were limited to standard, uniform landscaping services and that pool maintenance was explicitly excluded. The dispute was compounded by the Petitioner’s refusal to grant the HOA’s landscaper access to his backyard.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments

Mr. Stoltenberg’s petition, filed on or about April 21, 2020, and subsequent arguments in two hearings, were based on the following claims:

• Violation of CC&Rs: The HOA violated § 5.1 of its CC&Rs by failing “to do their job in 2020 with maintaining landscaping, and are acting in bad faith.”

• Broad Interpretation of “Landscaping”: As the CC&Rs do not define “landscaping,” the Petitioner contended it should include all types of features outside of structures. His specific demands included:

◦ Maintenance of unique xeriscape with geometric patterns.

◦ Replenishment of thin or worn-out rock ground cover.

◦ Staining of walking paths.

◦ Full maintenance of his “water feature,” identified as a swimming pool. This included the pump, filter, chemicals, patio, and all related hardscape.

• Refusal to Grant Access: The Petitioner acknowledged that the gate to his backyard was “always locked.” He stated this was for liability reasons due to the pool and refused access to the HOA’s landscapers. At the rehearing, he argued the HOA failed to communicate its schedule to allow him to provide temporary access.

• Budgetary Failure: He asserted that the HOA did not properly budget for the costs associated with maintaining his unique landscaping.

• Grounds for Rehearing: After the initial denial, the Petitioner requested a rehearing on multiple grounds, including irregularity in proceedings, errors in evidence admission, and claims of “Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues” related to hearing loss.

Respondent’s Position and Evidence

The Rancho Del Oro HOA presented a defense centered on its consistent attempts to fulfill its obligations and the Petitioner’s own actions preventing them from doing so.

• Consistent Front Yard Maintenance: Both the HOA property manager and its landscaping contractor testified that the Petitioner’s front yard had been continuously maintained since landscaping services began in January 2020.

• Denial of Backyard Access: The HOA’s primary defense was that it was physically prevented from servicing the backyard. Evidence presented to support this included:

◦ Testimony from Rian Baas (Mowtown Landscape): His crews were at the property weekly. Between January and March 2020, he or his crew knocked and left notes or business cards four to five times with no response.

◦ Witness Testimony: In March 2020, a woman at the residence (presumably the Petitioner’s wife) explicitly instructed a landscaper that “she does not want anyone in the back yard because she had a pool and that is the reason for the lock on gate.”

◦ Documentary Evidence: A text message dated March 24, 2020, from Mr. Baas to property manager Diana Crites memorialized this interaction. A photograph of the locked gate was also submitted.

• Scope of Services: Ms. Crites testified that HOA landscape services are uniform throughout the community and include front yard maintenance, mowing and blowing in backyards (if access is granted), and sprinkler system upkeep. They do not provide “concierge” services such as maintaining potted plants, driveways, or pools (except for the community pool, which is serviced by a separate contractor).

• Access as a Prerequisite: Ms. Crites explained that backyard maintenance is contingent on homeowners leaving their gates unlocked, and some owners choose not to grant access due to pets or other reasons.

Judicial Findings and Rulings

Initial Decision (August 17, 2020)

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s initial petition based on a clear set of facts.

• Findings of Fact: The judge found the evidence presented by the Respondent to be credible. The Petitioner’s own admission that he refused to allow access to his backyard since January 2020 was a critical factor. The evidence established that the HOA had consistently maintained the front yard and made multiple, documented attempts to access the backyard.

• Conclusions of Law: The judge concluded that while § 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs requires the HOA to maintain yards, “nothing therein requires Respondent to maintain an individual member’s pool.” Because the Petitioner denied access, he could not establish that the Respondent had violated any CC&R.

Rehearing and Final Decision (February 12, 2021)

After the Commissioner for the Department of Real Estate granted a rehearing, the judge again reviewed the case and ultimately dismissed the petition, providing a more detailed legal analysis of the term “landscaping.”

• Burden of Proof: The judge reiterated that the Petitioner bore the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA was legally obligated to maintain his pool and hardscape. The Petitioner failed to offer any definition or legal authority to support his expansive interpretation.

• Analysis of “Landscaping”: The judge found that the common definitions of “landscaping” from various dictionary and legal sources “cannot reasonably be read to include a swimming pool and the associated mechanical equipment.”

• Arizona Registrar of Contractors (ROC) Licensing: The judge’s conclusion was decisively reinforced by the State of Arizona’s contractor licensing classifications:

◦ The R-21 Hardscaping and Irrigation Systems license (formerly Landscaping) is for installing garden walls, irrigation, and other landscape features. It specifically precludes the licensee from contracting for “swimming pools, pool deck coatings.”

◦ The R-6 Swimming Pool Service and Repair license is a separate classification required to service residential pools.

◦ The judge concluded: “The Registrar’s licensing scheme supports a conclusion that landscaping maintenance and pool maintenance are two separate and distinct services.”

• Final Order: The petition was dismissed. The judge noted that because the Petitioner denied access, the Respondent was not in violation. However, the judge provided a forward-looking recommendation: “it is reasonable, going forward, for Respondent to communicate the days and times that it will be performing the landscaping of Petitioner’s back yard so that Petitioner can provide access for that service while maintaining safety precautions.”

Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association. It covers the key arguments, evidence presented, and legal conclusions from two separate hearings. Use the following sections to test and deepen your understanding of the case.

Short-Answer Quiz

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

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

2. What was the core allegation made by the Petitioner against the Respondent in the initial petition filed on April 21, 2020?

3. According to Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs, what is the Association’s primary maintenance obligation regarding individual lots?

4. What specific and unique types of landscaping did the Petitioner claim required maintenance by the HOA?

5. What was the primary reason the Respondent’s landscaping contractor, Mowtown Landscape, was unable to perform maintenance in the Petitioner’s backyard?

6. What evidence did Diana Crites, the property manager, present to demonstrate the landscaper’s attempts to gain access to the backyard?

7. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge initially deny the Petitioner’s petition in the decision dated August 17, 2020?

8. What reasons did the Petitioner give for his request for a rehearing after the initial decision?

9. In the rehearing, how did the Administrative Law Judge legally define “landscaping” to determine the scope of the HOA’s duties?

10. What was the final order in the decision dated February 12, 2021, and what recommendation did the judge make for future interactions?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Michael J. Stoltenberg, the homeowner, who served as the Petitioner, and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, which was the Respondent. The Petitioner brought the complaint alleging the HOA was not fulfilling its duties, while the Respondent defended its actions. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) § 5.1 and Arizona Revised Statutes § 10-3842. Specifically, he claimed the HOA failed “to do their job in 2020 with maintaining landscaping, and are acting in bad faith.” He also referenced a refusal to follow a previous court ruling.

3. Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs states that the Association’s maintenance duties “shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” This clause formed the basis of the Petitioner’s argument that the HOA was responsible for all landscaping on his property.

4. The Petitioner testified that his landscaping was unique, including xeriscape with geometric patterns, “water features” (which was a pool), and walking paths that needed staining. He also contended that when the rock in his front yard wore thin, the Respondent should be responsible for replenishing it.

5. The landscaping contractor could not access the Petitioner’s backyard because the gate was always locked. The Petitioner acknowledged he kept it locked for liability reasons due to the presence of his pool, which he referred to as a “water feature.”

6. Diana Crites presented a text message from the landscaper, Rian Baas, dated March 24, 2020, detailing how a woman at the residence stated she did not want anyone in the backyard because of the pool. Ms. Crites also presented a photograph of the locked gate and read a letter from Mr. Baas explaining his crew had knocked and left business cards weekly for two months without response.

7. The judge denied the petition because the Petitioner’s own admission established that he had refused to allow the Respondent access to his backyard since January 2020. The decision noted that the HOA had made multiple attempts to access the yard and had consistently maintained the front yard landscaping.

8. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on multiple grounds, including alleged irregularity in the proceedings by the judge, newly discovered evidence, errors in the admission of evidence, and that the decision was not supported by evidence. He also asserted that there were Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues related to his hearing loss and privacy issues.

9. The judge referenced multiple online dictionaries (Oxford English Dictionary, Dictionary.com, etc.) and, most significantly, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ license classifications. She noted that landscaping (R-21 license) and swimming pool service (R-6 license) are two separate and distinct services, supporting the conclusion that pool maintenance is not included under the term “landscaping.”

10. The final order was that the Petitioner’s Petition was dismissed. However, the judge recommended that, going forward, it would be reasonable for the Respondent to communicate the days and times for landscaping so the Petitioner could provide access to his backyard while maintaining his safety precautions.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, structuring your answer as a short essay.

1. Analyze the role of “burden of proof” in this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means according to the source text and discuss how the Petitioner’s failure to meet this burden led to the dismissal of his petition in both hearings.

2. Discuss the conflict between the Petitioner’s right to secure his property (the locked gate) and the Respondent’s obligation to perform maintenance. How did the judge’s final recommendation attempt to resolve this practical conflict, even while legally siding with the Respondent?

3. Evaluate the Administrative Law Judge’s legal reasoning in the rehearing for defining “landscaping.” Why was the reference to the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ licensing scheme a particularly persuasive piece of evidence compared to dictionary definitions alone?

4. Trace the evolution of the Petitioner’s arguments from the initial hearing to the rehearing. How did his claims regarding the scope of “landscaping” and his introduction of issues like ADA accommodation and the HOA’s legitimacy reflect a shift in legal strategy?

5. Based on the evidence presented by the Respondent’s witnesses (Diana Crites and Rian Baas), assess the HOA’s efforts to fulfill its maintenance obligations. Were the HOA’s actions reasonable under the circumstances described in the proceedings?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella served as the ALJ for the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The codified laws of the state of Arizona. The Petitioner cited A.R.S. § 10-3842 (Code of Conduct for Board Members) and the proceedings operated under the authority of A.R.S. § 32-2199(B) and other related statutes.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community. The central issue of this case was the interpretation of Section 5.1(a) of the Rancho Del Oro HOA’s CC&Rs regarding maintenance duties.

Concierge Landscape Services

A term used by witness Diana Crites to describe specialized, non-uniform services the HOA does not provide. Examples given included maintaining potted plants, driveways, or walls dividing properties, in contrast to the uniform mowing and blowing provided to all homeowners.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies. This office heard the dispute after it was referred by the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal case. In this matter, the Petitioner was homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioner to win his case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and is considered the “greater weight of the evidence.”

Respondent

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

Xeriscape

A style of landscaping utilizing drought-tolerant plants and rock to minimize water use. The Petitioner mentioned his unique xeriscape with geometric patterns as part of the landscaping he expected the HOA to maintain.

Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association. It covers the key arguments, evidence presented, and legal conclusions from two separate hearings. Use the following sections to test and deepen your understanding of the case.

Short-Answer Quiz

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

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

2. What was the core allegation made by the Petitioner against the Respondent in the initial petition filed on April 21, 2020?

3. According to Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs, what is the Association’s primary maintenance obligation regarding individual lots?

4. What specific and unique types of landscaping did the Petitioner claim required maintenance by the HOA?

5. What was the primary reason the Respondent’s landscaping contractor, Mowtown Landscape, was unable to perform maintenance in the Petitioner’s backyard?

6. What evidence did Diana Crites, the property manager, present to demonstrate the landscaper’s attempts to gain access to the backyard?

7. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge initially deny the Petitioner’s petition in the decision dated August 17, 2020?

8. What reasons did the Petitioner give for his request for a rehearing after the initial decision?

9. In the rehearing, how did the Administrative Law Judge legally define “landscaping” to determine the scope of the HOA’s duties?

10. What was the final order in the decision dated February 12, 2021, and what recommendation did the judge make for future interactions?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Michael J. Stoltenberg, the homeowner, who served as the Petitioner, and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, which was the Respondent. The Petitioner brought the complaint alleging the HOA was not fulfilling its duties, while the Respondent defended its actions. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) § 5.1 and Arizona Revised Statutes § 10-3842. Specifically, he claimed the HOA failed “to do their job in 2020 with maintaining landscaping, and are acting in bad faith.” He also referenced a refusal to follow a previous court ruling.

3. Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs states that the Association’s maintenance duties “shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” This clause formed the basis of the Petitioner’s argument that the HOA was responsible for all landscaping on his property.

4. The Petitioner testified that his landscaping was unique, including xeriscape with geometric patterns, “water features” (which was a pool), and walking paths that needed staining. He also contended that when the rock in his front yard wore thin, the Respondent should be responsible for replenishing it.

5. The landscaping contractor could not access the Petitioner’s backyard because the gate was always locked. The Petitioner acknowledged he kept it locked for liability reasons due to the presence of his pool, which he referred to as a “water feature.”

6. Diana Crites presented a text message from the landscaper, Rian Baas, dated March 24, 2020, detailing how a woman at the residence stated she did not want anyone in the backyard because of the pool. Ms. Crites also presented a photograph of the locked gate and read a letter from Mr. Baas explaining his crew had knocked and left business cards weekly for two months without response.

7. The judge denied the petition because the Petitioner’s own admission established that he had refused to allow the Respondent access to his backyard since January 2020. The decision noted that the HOA had made multiple attempts to access the yard and had consistently maintained the front yard landscaping.

8. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on multiple grounds, including alleged irregularity in the proceedings by the judge, newly discovered evidence, errors in the admission of evidence, and that the decision was not supported by evidence. He also asserted that there were Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues related to his hearing loss and privacy issues.

9. The judge referenced multiple online dictionaries (Oxford English Dictionary, Dictionary.com, etc.) and, most significantly, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ license classifications. She noted that landscaping (R-21 license) and swimming pool service (R-6 license) are two separate and distinct services, supporting the conclusion that pool maintenance is not included under the term “landscaping.”

10. The final order was that the Petitioner’s Petition was dismissed. However, the judge recommended that, going forward, it would be reasonable for the Respondent to communicate the days and times for landscaping so the Petitioner could provide access to his backyard while maintaining his safety precautions.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, structuring your answer as a short essay.

1. Analyze the role of “burden of proof” in this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means according to the source text and discuss how the Petitioner’s failure to meet this burden led to the dismissal of his petition in both hearings.

2. Discuss the conflict between the Petitioner’s right to secure his property (the locked gate) and the Respondent’s obligation to perform maintenance. How did the judge’s final recommendation attempt to resolve this practical conflict, even while legally siding with the Respondent?

3. Evaluate the Administrative Law Judge’s legal reasoning in the rehearing for defining “landscaping.” Why was the reference to the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ licensing scheme a particularly persuasive piece of evidence compared to dictionary definitions alone?

4. Trace the evolution of the Petitioner’s arguments from the initial hearing to the rehearing. How did his claims regarding the scope of “landscaping” and his introduction of issues like ADA accommodation and the HOA’s legitimacy reflect a shift in legal strategy?

5. Based on the evidence presented by the Respondent’s witnesses (Diana Crites and Rian Baas), assess the HOA’s efforts to fulfill its maintenance obligations. Were the HOA’s actions reasonable under the circumstances described in the proceedings?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella served as the ALJ for the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The codified laws of the state of Arizona. The Petitioner cited A.R.S. § 10-3842 (Code of Conduct for Board Members) and the proceedings operated under the authority of A.R.S. § 32-2199(B) and other related statutes.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community. The central issue of this case was the interpretation of Section 5.1(a) of the Rancho Del Oro HOA’s CC&Rs regarding maintenance duties.

Concierge Landscape Services

A term used by witness Diana Crites to describe specialized, non-uniform services the HOA does not provide. Examples given included maintaining potted plants, driveways, or walls dividing properties, in contrast to the uniform mowing and blowing provided to all homeowners.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies. This office heard the dispute after it was referred by the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal case. In this matter, the Petitioner was homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioner to win his case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and is considered the “greater weight of the evidence.”

Respondent

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

Xeriscape

A style of landscaping utilizing drought-tolerant plants and rock to minimize water use. The Petitioner mentioned his unique xeriscape with geometric patterns as part of the landscaping he expected the HOA to maintain.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Michael J. Stoltenberg (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Nicole Payne (HOA attorney)
    Represented Respondent Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
  • Diana Crites (property manager)
    Crites and Associates
    Owner of Respondent’s property management company; appeared as witness
  • Rian Baas (witness)
    Mowtown Landscape
    Owner of landscaping company contracted by Respondent
  • Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
    Listed as recipient of the decision
  • Luis (employee)
    Mowtown Landscape (Implied)
    Crew member mentioned in text message regarding attempted access to petitioner's yard
  • Jill (employee)
    Mowtown Landscape (Implied)
    Printed papers for Luis regarding access to petitioner's yard

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Michael J Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

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

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019005-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-05-05
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition because the controversy was not ripe. The Petitioner admitted that he had denied the HOA permission to enter his property to perform the maintenance he was suing them for not performing.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

Governing Documents

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition because the controversy was not ripe. The Petitioner admitted that he had denied the HOA permission to enter his property to perform the maintenance he was suing them for not performing.

Why this result: The matter was not ripe for determination because the Petitioner had denied the Respondent access to the property.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide landscaping maintenance

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to maintain landscaping. Petitioner admitted he had notified Respondent it was not allowed to enter his property until January 2020.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Decision Documents

20F-H2019005-REL-RHG Decision – 787446.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:17:24 (77.6 KB)

20F-H2019005-REL-RHG Decision – ../20F-H2019005-REL/752939.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:17:25 (58.3 KB)

**Case Summary: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association Case No. 20F-H2019005-REL-RHG Date of Rehearing Decision:** May 5, 2020

Overview This summary details the proceedings of an administrative rehearing before the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The matter involves a dispute regarding landscaping maintenance obligations. It is crucial to distinguish between the original decision (dismissed for lack of ripeness) and the subsequent rehearing (which affirmed the dismissal).

Procedural History: The Original Decision In the initial proceeding (Case No. 20F-H2019005-REL), Petitioner Michael J. Stoltenberg alleged that the Respondent, Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA), failed to comply with a prior ruling requiring it to provide landscaping maintenance.

During the original hearing on October 30, 2019, the Petitioner admitted to the following facts:

  • In 2013, he notified the HOA it was not allowed to enter his property.
  • In April 2019, he notified the HOA that he expected maintenance to resume in January 2020.
  • At the time of the 2019 hearing, the HOA still did not have permission to enter the property.

On November 14, 2019, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Tammy L. Eigenheer dismissed the petition. The ALJ ruled that because the HOA was barred from the property at the time of filing, the allegation that the HOA was violating governing documents was "not ripe for determination".

The Rehearing: Case No. 20F-H2019005-REL-RHG The Petitioner requested a rehearing, arguing he was being "proactive" in seeking a resolution before the anticipated January 2020 violation. He further argued that by the time a rehearing occurred, the HOA would be in violation. The rehearing was granted and held on May 5, 2020.

Key Arguments at Rehearing

  1. Petitioner’s Admissions: The Petitioner reiterated that he had denied the HOA access until January 2020.
  2. New Claims: The Petitioner attempted to expand the scope of the dispute by arguing the HOA failed to maintain his neighbors’ properties.
  3. Current Controversy: The Petitioner argued that the HOA’s ongoing failure to maintain the landscaping after January 2020 created a present controversy.

**Legal Analysis and

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Michael J. Stoltenberg (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Nicole Payne (Respondent Attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
    Represented Respondent at hearing
  • Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier (Respondent Attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
    Listed on distribution list for the rehearing order

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed on distribution list

Michael J Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919068-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-09-04
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome The ALJ found the HOA violated CC&R 4.3 regarding the timing of budget delivery. While the Petitioner prevailed on the violation and was awarded the $500 filing fee, the ALJ denied the request to rescind the dues increase and denied civil penalties.
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

Alleged Violations

CC&R 4.3

Outcome Summary

The ALJ found the HOA violated CC&R 4.3 regarding the timing of budget delivery. While the Petitioner prevailed on the violation and was awarded the $500 filing fee, the ALJ denied the request to rescind the dues increase and denied civil penalties.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to deliver budget 15 days prior to meeting

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&R 4.3 by failing to deliver the budget 15 days before the meeting. The HOA mailed the budget exactly 15 days prior (Jan 2 for Jan 17 meeting), but the ALJ ruled the contract required delivery, not just mailing, 15 days prior.

Orders: Respondent must pay to Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919068-REL Decision – 735330.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:21:24 (80.1 KB)

19F-H1919068-REL Decision – 735330.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:17:02 (80.1 KB)

Administrative Decision Briefing: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative law decision in Case No. 19F-H1919068-REL, involving Petitioner Michael J. Stoltenberg and Respondent Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association. The central dispute concerned whether the Association complied with its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding the timely delivery of budget documentation to members.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Thomas Shedden, determined that the Association violated CC&R section 4.3 by failing to deliver the 2019 budget to the Petitioner at least fifteen days before the annual meeting. While the Petitioner was declared the prevailing party and awarded a refund of his $500 filing fee, the court declined to rescind the 2019 dues increase or issue civil penalties.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Interpretation of Delivery Timelines

The core of the legal dispute rested on the distinction between "mailing" and "delivery." CC&R section 4.3 stipulates that the Board must cause a copy of the budget and assessment amounts to be delivered to each unit owner at least fifteen days prior to the meeting where the budget is presented.

The evidence established that:

  • The annual meeting occurred on January 17, 2019.
  • The Association mailed the budget on January 2, 2019 (exactly fifteen days before the meeting).
  • The Petitioner did not actually receive the budget fifteen days before the meeting.

The ALJ concluded that merely placing the budget in the mail fifteen days prior does not satisfy a requirement for "delivery" by that same date, as the transit time naturally delays the delivery beyond the required window.

2. Contractual Nature of CC&Rs

The decision reinforces the legal principle that CC&Rs constitute a binding contract between a Homeowners Association and its members. The tribunal emphasized that:

  • Both parties are required to comply with the explicit terms of the CC&Rs.
  • The court must give effect to the "clear and unambiguous terms" of these documents.
  • The Association’s failure to meet the specific delivery deadline constituted a breach of its contractual duty under section 4.3.
3. Burden of Proof and Evidentiary Standards

The Petitioner bore the burden of proof under the standard of a "preponderance of the evidence." This case highlights how credible personal testimony, combined with physical evidence (such as a postmarked envelope), can meet this standard. The ALJ found the Petitioner's testimony regarding the receipt of the budget to be credible, which was sufficient to incline the "fair and impartial mind" toward his side of the issue.

4. Remedies and Judicial Discretion

While the Petitioner successfully proved a violation, the court exercised discretion regarding the requested remedies. The decision illustrates a distinction between a procedural violation and the substantive validity of Association actions:

  • Procedural Violation: Confirmed (Late delivery of budget).
  • Awarded Remedy: Refund of the $500 filing fee to the Petitioner.
  • Denied Remedies: The court refused to rescind the 10% dues increase and declined to issue civil penalties, as the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that such measures were appropriate or necessary.

Key Case Data

Category Details
Case Number 19F-H1919068-REL
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Hearing Date August 21, 2019
Decision Date September 4, 2019
Relevant CC&R Section 4.3 (Budget Delivery)
Prevailing Party Michael J. Stoltenberg
Financial Award $500.00 (Filing Fee Reimbursement)

Important Quotes with Context

On the Definition of Preponderance of Evidence

"The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that… is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other." (Citing Black’s Law Dictionary)

Context: This quote establishes the legal threshold the Petitioner had to meet to prove the Association violated the CC&Rs.

On Contractual Compliance

"The CC&Rs are a contract between the parties and the parties are required to comply with its terms… the tribunal must give effect to a contract’s clear and unambiguous terms."

Context: The ALJ used this to explain why the Association could not be excused from the strict 15-day delivery requirement, regardless of their mailing efforts.

On the Specific Violation

"The preponderance of the evidence shows that the Association placed the budget in the mail on January 2, 2019, which is fifteen days before the meeting, but it was not delivered to Mr. Stoltenberg on that date and was not delivered to him fifteen days before the meeting as required."

Context: This finding is the pivot point of the decision, clarifying that mailing a document on the deadline date is insufficient if the requirement is "delivery."

Actionable Insights

For Homeowners Associations
  • Buffer Mailing Dates: When CC&Rs require "delivery" by a certain date, Associations should account for mail transit times. Mailing exactly on the deadline (e.g., 15 days before a meeting for a 15-day requirement) will likely result in a violation if the document is not received on that same day.
  • Review Mandatory Timelines: Associations must strictly adhere to the timelines set in their CC&Rs for budget preparation (60 days prior to fiscal year) and member notification (30 days prior to meetings).
  • Dues Increase Authority: The case notes that dues increases up to 10% do not require membership approval under these specific CC&Rs, though procedural notice requirements still apply.
For Association Members
  • Documenting Receipts: Maintaining evidence of postmarks and arrival dates is crucial when alleging procedural violations by an Association.
  • Single-Issue Petitions: Petitioners should be aware that administrative hearings may require identifying a single issue or paying additional fees for multi-issue hearings.
  • Limited Remedies: Even if a violation is proven, the court may only award the recovery of filing fees rather than the rescission of Association financial decisions (like dues increases) unless a specific harm or lack of authority is demonstrated.

Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative law case Michael J. Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (No. 19F-H1919068-REL). It covers the legal standards, factual findings, and final rulings issued by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.

Core Case Overview

The case centers on a dispute regarding the procedural requirements for notifying homeowners of annual budgets and assessment increases. The Petitioner, Michael J. Stoltenberg, alleged that the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (the Association) failed to comply with its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding the timely delivery of budget documentation.

Key Legal Standards
  • Jurisdiction: The Arizona Department of Real Estate has authority over this matter pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11.
  • Burden of Proof: The Petitioner bears the burden of proof.
  • Standard of Proof: The standard is a "preponderance of the evidence," defined as the greater weight of the evidence or evidence that has the most convincing force.
  • Contractual Nature of CC&Rs: Legal precedent establishes that CC&Rs are a contract between the parties, and the tribunal must give effect to the contract’s clear and unambiguous terms.

Factual Findings and Timeline

The dispute focused on the Association's actions leading up to the 2019 fiscal year and its annual meeting.

2019 Budget and Dues Increase
  • Meeting Date: The Association conducted its annual meeting on January 17, 2019.
  • Dues Adjustment: Monthly dues were increased by 10% to a total of $154 per month. Under the Association's rules, dues increases of up to 10% do not require membership approval.
  • Notice of Increase: The Association informed members of the dues increase in November 2018.
CC&R Section 4.3 Requirements

Section 4.3 of the CC&Rs outlines specific timelines for the Board of Directors:

  1. Preparation: The budget must be prepared at least 60 days before the fiscal year and at least 30 days before the meeting where it is presented.
  2. Delivery: A copy of the budget and assessment amounts must be delivered to each unit owner at least 15 days prior to the meeting.
The Violation

The evidence showed that the Association postmarked the 2019 budget on January 2, 2019. While this was 15 days before the January 17 meeting, the budget was not actually delivered to Mr. Stoltenberg 15 days prior. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that mailing the document on the 15th day did not satisfy the requirement for delivery "at least fifteen days prior" to the meeting.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. Who had the burden of proof in this matter, and what was the required standard?

The Petitioner (Michael J. Stoltenberg) had the burden of proof, and the required standard was a "preponderance of the evidence."

2. Why was the Petitioner required to limit his petition to a single issue?

The Administrative Law Judge informed the Petitioner that his initial petition encompassed multiple issues (violations of CC&R 1.8, 1.9, 2.1, 3.1, etc.). He was required to either identify a single issue for the hearing or pay a fee for a multi-issue hearing.

3. What specific violation did the ALJ find the Association committed?

The Association violated CC&R section 4.3 by failing to deliver a copy of the budget to the Petitioner at least 15 days before the meeting at which the budget was considered.

4. What was the Association’s defense regarding the timing of the budget notification?

The Association postmarked the budget on January 2, 2019, exactly 15 days before the meeting; however, the law requires delivery, not just mailing, by that deadline.

5. Did the dues increase of 10% require a vote from the membership?

No. Dues increases of up to 10% do not require approval of the membership under the Association's governing documents.

6. What was the final remedy awarded to the Petitioner?

The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party, and the Association was ordered to reimburse his $500 filing fee.

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

1. The Distinction Between Mailing and Delivery in Contractual Obligations Analyze the ALJ’s interpretation of CC&R section 4.3. Discuss why the postmark date of January 2nd was insufficient to meet a "fifteen-day delivery" requirement for a meeting held on January 17th. How does this distinction affect how Homeowners Associations should manage their administrative timelines?

2. Remedies and Limits of Administrative Authority The Petitioner requested that the 2019 dues increase be rescinded and a civil penalty be issued. However, the ALJ denied these requests despite finding a violation. Based on the source context, explore the potential reasons why the procedural violation regarding the budget delivery did not automatically invalidate the dues increase itself.

Glossary of Important Terms

Term Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) A judge who presides over hearings and adjudicates disputes involving government agencies (in this case, the Office of Administrative Hearings).
CC&Rs Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents and rules that constitute a contract between a Homeowners Association and its members.
Filing Fee The cost paid by a petitioner to initiate a legal matter. In this case, the fee was $500.00.
Fiscal Year The 12-month period used by the Association for budgeting and financial reporting.
Preponderance of the Evidence The standard of proof where the evidence is of "superior evidentiary weight" and more "convincing" than the opposing evidence.
Prevailing Party The party in a lawsuit or legal proceeding who succeeds on the main issues.
Petitioner The party who brings a legal petition or complaint to the tribunal (Michael J. Stoltenberg).
Respondent The party against whom a legal action is brought (Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association).
Rescinded To cancel, revoke, or repeal a decision or agreement.

The "Delivery" Deadline: Lessons in HOA Transparency from Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro

1. Introduction: When Procedure Meets Property Rights

For many homeowners, the relationship with their Homeowners Association (HOA) is a balancing act between community standards and personal property rights. However, as any seasoned legal analyst will tell you, this relationship is governed strictly by contract law. When a Board fails to adhere to the procedural requirements of its own governing documents, it risks not only community trust but also a formal administrative remedy.

The case of Michael J. Stoltenberg vs. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association stands as a pivotal cautionary tale. It demonstrates that even when an Association acts in good faith to announce a dues increase, a single procedural oversight regarding the definition of the word "delivered" can result in a legal defeat. This post analyzes how a $500 filing fee refund turned on the precise timing of a budget distribution.

2. The Dispute: A Question of Timing

In early 2019, Petitioner Michael J. Stoltenberg challenged the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association following a budget meeting that resulted in an assessment increase. While Mr. Stoltenberg’s initial petition alleged a wide array of violations—including CC&Rs 1.8, 1.9, 2.1, 3.1, and various parts of Article 4—he ultimately employed a focused legal strategy, narrowing his claim to a single, provable issue of procedural non-compliance.

The conflict centered on the following facts:

  • The Annual Meeting: Conducted on January 17, 2019.
  • The Assessment Change: A 10% increase, raising monthly dues to $154.
  • The Regulatory Conflict: CC&R Section 4.3, which mandates specific timelines for budget distribution.

The Petitioner’s primary allegation was that the Association committed a contractual breach by failing to deliver the 2019 budget within the mandatory 15-day window prior to the meeting.

3. The Legal Threshold: CC&R Section 4.3 Analyzed

The Association’s obligations were not mere suggestions; they were contractual mandates. The Board's failure to distinguish between "mailing" and "delivery" created the grounds for the dispute.

Legal Spotlight: CC&R Section 4.3 Requirements Under the Association’s governing documents, the Board has two distinct temporal duties: 1. Preparation Duties: The Board must prepare a budget at least 60 days before the fiscal year and at least 30 days before the meeting at which it is presented. 2. Delivery Duties: The Board "shall cause a copy of the budget and the amount of the assessments… to be delivered to each unit owner at least fifteen days prior to that meeting."

The Association, represented by the testimony of Diana Crites of Crites Property Management, argued that they had fulfilled their duty by informing members of the increase in November 2018 and mailing the budget on January 2, 2019. However, the legal standard for "delivery" is not met by the mere act of placing an item into the stream of transit.

4. The ALJ’s Decision: Mailing is Not Delivery

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden applied the Preponderance of the Evidence standard to this matter. As defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, this is "the greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other."

The ALJ’s logic focused on the "15-day math." If a meeting is held on the 17th, and the document is mailed on the 2nd, it is physically and legally impossible for the document to be "delivered" (received) on that same day.

HOA's Position The ALJ's Ruling Legal Logic
The Association mailed the budget on January 2, 2019, exactly 15 days prior to the meeting. Mailing on the deadline day is insufficient to satisfy a delivery requirement. "Delivery" implies receipt. Because the document was in transit on the 15th day, it was not delivered "at least 15 days prior."

The Verdict: The ALJ ruled that the Association violated Section 4.3. As a result, the Association was ordered to pay Mr. Stoltenberg $500 to reimburse his filing fee—effectively shifting the cost of litigation to the non-compliant Association.

5. Nuance in the Verdict: Limits to Homeowner Remedies

While the Petitioner secured a victory on the procedural point, the ruling highlights the limitations of administrative remedies. Homeowners should note that a procedural "win" does not always result in a total reversal of Association policy:

  1. Dues Increase Upheld: Because the 10% increase did not exceed the threshold requiring membership approval under the CC&Rs, the ALJ did not rescind the increase. The $154 monthly rate remained valid.
  2. No Civil Penalties: The ALJ determined that while a violation of the CC&Rs occurred, the circumstances did not warrant additional punitive civil penalties beyond the reimbursement of the filing fee.
6. Final Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards

The Stoltenberg case offers three high-impact lessons for community governance:

  • For Boards: Delivery Means Receipt. If governing documents require "delivery" by a specific deadline, mailing the document on that day is a breach of contract. Boards and management companies—such as Crites Property Management in this instance—must account for postal transit times to ensure documents are in the homeowners' hands by the deadline.
  • For Homeowners: Document Everything. Mr. Stoltenberg’s case was won on evidence, not just anecdotally. His presentation of the January 2nd postmark on the envelope was the pivotal "smoking gun" that proved the Association's timeline was flawed.
  • For Both: Contracts Matter. This ruling reinforces the precedent set in Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association (205 Ariz. 485), which establishes that CC&Rs are binding contracts. Tribunals are legally bound to give effect to the clear and unambiguous terms of these documents. Procedural transparency is a contractual obligation, not a courtesy.
7. Conclusion: The Value of Accountability

The Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro decision serves as a vital reminder that in the world of HOAs, details matter. While the Association had notified members of the increase as early as November, their failure to strictly adhere to the 15-day delivery window for the final budget resulted in a financial penalty and a formal finding of violation. Ultimately, strict adherence to procedural deadlines is the only way for a Board to insulate itself from the costs and scrutiny of administrative litigation.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Michael J. Stoltenberg (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Nicole Payne (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
  • Diana Crites (witness)
    Crites Property Management
    Testified for the Association
  • Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
    Listed in transmission block

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmitted order
  • F. Del Sol (clerk/staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed the transmission of the order