Tag Archives: Scott Humble

Johnson, Robert and Cynthia -v- Starlight Pines Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 08F-H078007-BFS
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2008-02-04
Administrative Law Judge Brian Brendan Tully
Outcome false
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Robert and Cynthia Johnson Counsel —
Respondent Starlight Pines Homeowners Association Counsel Scott Humble

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1803; CC&Rs 3.7, 4.3, 10.8, 11.3

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding that the Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1803 or the CC&Rs. The architectural approval Petitioners relied upon was deemed invalid because the committee members granting it lacked authority.

Why this result: The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Architectural Committee members acted without valid authority when issuing approvals for permanent parking of livable trailers, rendering the approval invalid.

Key Issues & Findings

RV Parking and Architectural Committee Authority

Petitioners alleged the HOA enforced an illegal rule limiting RV units and ignored a prior approval for their trailer. The HOA argued the approval was granted by a committee acting without authority.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • CC&Rs 3.7
  • CC&Rs 4.3
  • CC&Rs 10.8
  • CC&Rs 11.3

Decision Documents

08F-H078007-BFS Decision – 184842.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:21:12 (89.7 KB)





Briefing Doc – 08F-H078007-BFS


Administrative Hearing Briefing: Johnson v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative decision in Case No. 08F-H078007-BFS, involving Robert and Cynthia Johnson (Petitioners) and the Starlight Pines Homeowners Association (Respondent). The dispute centered on the enforcement of rules regarding the parking of livable recreational vehicles (RVs) on private property within the association.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that a former Architectural Committee—which included one of the Petitioners—had acted without valid authority when it attempted to revoke existing property rules and grant itself permanent parking approvals. The ALJ concluded that the Respondent did not violate state statutes or its own governing documents. Consequently, the Petitioners’ claims were dismissed, and the original enforcement of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) was upheld.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview and Regulatory Framework

Parties and Jurisdiction

• Petitioners: Robert and Cynthia Johnson, members of the Starlight Pines Homeowners Association.

• Respondent: Starlight Pines Homeowners Association, located in Happy Jack, Arizona.

• Adjudicating Body: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, acting on a referral from the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Brian Brendan Tully.

Governing Documents and Statutes

The matter was adjudicated based on the following authorities:

• CC&Rs: The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions dated April 3, 1984. Specifically sections 3.7 (recreational vehicle use), 4.3 (rule-making authority), 10.8, and 11.3.

• A.R.S. § 33-1803: Arizona Revised Statute governing planned communities.

• A.A.C. R2-19-119: Administrative rules regarding the burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence).

——————————————————————————–

Factual Analysis of the Dispute

The Core Conflict

The dispute originated from the Petitioners parking a “livable recreational vehicle” in open view on their property. On April 5, 2007, the Respondent’s Architectural Committee issued a Non-Compliance Report, citing a violation of Section 3.7 of the CC&Rs and demanding the removal of the unit.

Actions of the Former Architectural Committee

The case revealed a significant internal conflict regarding the authority of the Architectural Committee between late 2006 and early 2007. At that time, the committee consisted of Petitioner Robert Johnson, David Anderson, and Evert Bondurant.

The following timeline details the committee’s actions:

Oct 18, 2006

Petitioner Robert Johnson submitted a request to his own committee for the permanent storage of a travel trailer.

Oct 25, 2006

The committee (signed by Anderson and Bondurant) approved Johnson’s request, despite the committee’s October report not reflecting this approval.

Jan 19, 2007

The committee issued a “rule change,” declaring the Architectural Rules associated with CC&R 3.7 “prejudicial and discriminatory” and purported to revoke them.

Jan 20, 2007

The HOA Board of Directors removed Johnson, Anderson, and Bondurant from the committee for refusing to enforce Section 3.7 policies.

Feb 15, 2007

The Board notified members that only the Board had the authority to revoke policies or procedures.

——————————————————————————–

Legal Findings and Conclusions

Authority and Validity of Approvals

The ALJ found that the Architectural Committee composed of Johnson, Anderson, and Bondurant “acted without valid authority” when it issued approvals for permanent trailer parking. The following legal determinations were made:

• Invalid Approval: The approval granted to Petitioner Robert Johnson by his fellow committee members was ruled invalid.

• Disregard for Rules: Testimony from Evert Bondurant admitted that the committee had intentionally disregarded the Association’s Property Rules.

• Board Supremacy: Under Section 4.3 of the CC&Rs, the Association Board—not the Architectural Committee—retains the authority to adopt, amend, and repeal rules by a majority vote.

Failure to Meet Burden of Proof

The Petitioners alleged that the Board was enforcing an “illegal rule” in violation of state law (A.R.S. § 33-1803) and the CC&Rs. However, the ALJ concluded:

1. Statutory Compliance: The Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1803.

2. Contractual Compliance: The Respondent did not violate CC&R Sections 3.7, 4.3, 10.8, or 11.3.

3. Evidentiary Failure: The Petitioners failed to sustain the burden of proof required to support their allegations.

——————————————————————————–

Final Decision and Order

The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Starlight Pines Homeowners Association, designating them the prevailing party.

Key Outcomes:

• Dismissal: The Petition was dismissed in its entirety.

• Finality: Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-2198.04(A), the order is the final administrative decision and is not subject to a request for rehearing.

• Financial Liability: The Petitioners were not entitled to a refund of their $550.00 filing fee.

• Enforcement: The order is enforceable through contempt of court proceedings.






Study Guide – 08F-H078007-BFS


Case Study: Johnson v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between Robert and Cynthia Johnson and the Starlight Pines Homeowners Association. It examines the legal dispute regarding property use restrictions, the authority of association committees, and the final decision rendered by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the provided source context.

1. Who are the primary parties involved in Case No. 08F-H078007-BFS, and what is the nature of their relationship?

2. What specific action by the homeowners did the Starlight Pines Homeowners Association claim was a violation of the community rules?

3. What was the core legal allegation made by Robert and Cynthia Johnson in their petition against the association?

4. What role does the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety play in disputes between homeowners and associations in Arizona?

5. What conflict of interest was present when Robert Johnson’s request for permanent trailer storage was approved in October 2006?

6. Why did the Starlight Pines Board of Directors remove the members of the Architectural Committee on January 20, 2007?

7. What did the Architectural Committee attempt to do regarding the rules associated with CC&R paragraph 3.7 on January 19, 2007?

8. According to the Board of Directors’ letter dated February 15, 2007, who holds the ultimate authority to revoke policies or procedures?

9. What is the “burden of proof” required in this matter, and which party was responsible for meeting it?

10. What was the final outcome regarding the $550.00 filing fee paid by the Petitioners?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Robert and Cynthia Johnson (the Petitioners) and the Starlight Pines Homeowners Association (the Respondent). The Johnsons are members of the Association, which is located in Happy Jack, Arizona.

2. The dispute centered on the Johnsons parking a “livable/sleeper type” recreational vehicle in open view on their property. The Association issued a Non-Compliance Report stating this violated Section 3.7 of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

3. The Johnsons alleged that the Board of Directors was enforcing an “illegal rule” that limited the types of RV units allowed in Starlight Pines. They claimed this enforcement violated various sections of their CC&Rs as well as Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) Title 33.

4. The Department is authorized by statute to receive Petitions for Hearing from members of homeowner associations. Once received, the Department refers these petitions to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a formal evidentiary hearing.

5. At the time the approval was granted, Robert Johnson was himself a member of the three-person Architectural Committee. Although the other two members signed the approval, the committee was essentially ruling on a request submitted by one of its own members.

6. The Board removed the committee members because they refused to enforce the established policies and procedures applicable to Section 3.7 of the CC&Rs. The Board subsequently notified the membership that the committee had acted without valid authority.

7. The committee issued a rule change declaring that the Architectural Rules associated with CC&R paragraph 3.7 were “prejudicial and discriminatory.” Based on this determination, they claimed the rules were revoked effective January 19, 2007.

8. The Board clarified that only the Board of Directors has the authority to revoke any policy or procedure that the Board has previously approved. This established that the Architectural Committee exceeded its jurisdiction when it attempted to unilaterally revoke rules.

9. Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-19-119, the Petitioners (the Johnsons) bore the burden of proof. The legal standard they were required to meet was a “preponderance of the evidence.”

10. The Petitioners were not entitled to an award of their $550.00 filing fee because they were not the prevailing party. Since the Judge dismissed the petition and ruled in favor of the Association, the Johnsons remained responsible for the cost.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the case details to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. The Limits of Committee Authority: Analyze the legal distinction between the powers of the Board of Directors and the powers of the Architectural Committee as presented in the case. Why was the committee’s attempt to revoke rules deemed invalid?

2. Conflict of Interest and Governance: Discuss the ethical and legal implications of Robert Johnson serving on the Architectural Committee while seeking a personal variance for his travel trailer. How did this conflict impact the validity of the committee’s decisions?

3. The Role of CC&Rs in Planned Communities: Explain how the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) serve as a contract between the Association and its members. Use specific sections (e.g., 3.7, 4.3) from the document to illustrate your points.

4. Administrative Hearing Procedures: Describe the path of a homeowner dispute in Arizona, from the filing of a petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety to the issuance of a final order by an Administrative Law Judge.

5. The Preponderance of Evidence Standard: Evaluate why the Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof in this case. What evidence or lack thereof led the Administrative Law Judge to conclude that the Association did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1803?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S. § 33-1803

The Arizona Revised Statute governing the assessment of penalties and the enforcement of community documents within planned communities.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A presiding official (in this case, Brian Brendan Tully) who conducts hearings and issues decisions for independent government agencies.

Architectural Committee

A body appointed by the Board of Directors to oversee and enforce specific property and building standards defined in the CC&Rs.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the legal documents that dictate the rules and limitations for property use within a homeowners association.

Livable/Sleeper Type Unit

A recreational vehicle or trailer designed for habitation, which was the specific type of unit restricted under the Starlight Pines rules.

Non-Compliance Report

A formal notification issued to a property owner stating they have violated a specific rule or provision of the association’s documents.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent Arizona agency where formal evidentiary hearings are held regarding disputes involving state departments or associations.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or petition (in this case, Robert and Cynthia Johnson).

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases, requiring that a claim is more likely to be true than not true.

Respondent

The party against whom a legal action or petition is filed (in this case, Starlight Pines Homeowners Association).






Blog Post – 08F-H078007-BFS


Case Study: Johnson v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between Robert and Cynthia Johnson and the Starlight Pines Homeowners Association. It examines the legal dispute regarding property use restrictions, the authority of association committees, and the final decision rendered by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the provided source context.

1. Who are the primary parties involved in Case No. 08F-H078007-BFS, and what is the nature of their relationship?

2. What specific action by the homeowners did the Starlight Pines Homeowners Association claim was a violation of the community rules?

3. What was the core legal allegation made by Robert and Cynthia Johnson in their petition against the association?

4. What role does the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety play in disputes between homeowners and associations in Arizona?

5. What conflict of interest was present when Robert Johnson’s request for permanent trailer storage was approved in October 2006?

6. Why did the Starlight Pines Board of Directors remove the members of the Architectural Committee on January 20, 2007?

7. What did the Architectural Committee attempt to do regarding the rules associated with CC&R paragraph 3.7 on January 19, 2007?

8. According to the Board of Directors’ letter dated February 15, 2007, who holds the ultimate authority to revoke policies or procedures?

9. What is the “burden of proof” required in this matter, and which party was responsible for meeting it?

10. What was the final outcome regarding the $550.00 filing fee paid by the Petitioners?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Robert and Cynthia Johnson (the Petitioners) and the Starlight Pines Homeowners Association (the Respondent). The Johnsons are members of the Association, which is located in Happy Jack, Arizona.

2. The dispute centered on the Johnsons parking a “livable/sleeper type” recreational vehicle in open view on their property. The Association issued a Non-Compliance Report stating this violated Section 3.7 of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

3. The Johnsons alleged that the Board of Directors was enforcing an “illegal rule” that limited the types of RV units allowed in Starlight Pines. They claimed this enforcement violated various sections of their CC&Rs as well as Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) Title 33.

4. The Department is authorized by statute to receive Petitions for Hearing from members of homeowner associations. Once received, the Department refers these petitions to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a formal evidentiary hearing.

5. At the time the approval was granted, Robert Johnson was himself a member of the three-person Architectural Committee. Although the other two members signed the approval, the committee was essentially ruling on a request submitted by one of its own members.

6. The Board removed the committee members because they refused to enforce the established policies and procedures applicable to Section 3.7 of the CC&Rs. The Board subsequently notified the membership that the committee had acted without valid authority.

7. The committee issued a rule change declaring that the Architectural Rules associated with CC&R paragraph 3.7 were “prejudicial and discriminatory.” Based on this determination, they claimed the rules were revoked effective January 19, 2007.

8. The Board clarified that only the Board of Directors has the authority to revoke any policy or procedure that the Board has previously approved. This established that the Architectural Committee exceeded its jurisdiction when it attempted to unilaterally revoke rules.

9. Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-19-119, the Petitioners (the Johnsons) bore the burden of proof. The legal standard they were required to meet was a “preponderance of the evidence.”

10. The Petitioners were not entitled to an award of their $550.00 filing fee because they were not the prevailing party. Since the Judge dismissed the petition and ruled in favor of the Association, the Johnsons remained responsible for the cost.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the case details to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. The Limits of Committee Authority: Analyze the legal distinction between the powers of the Board of Directors and the powers of the Architectural Committee as presented in the case. Why was the committee’s attempt to revoke rules deemed invalid?

2. Conflict of Interest and Governance: Discuss the ethical and legal implications of Robert Johnson serving on the Architectural Committee while seeking a personal variance for his travel trailer. How did this conflict impact the validity of the committee’s decisions?

3. The Role of CC&Rs in Planned Communities: Explain how the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) serve as a contract between the Association and its members. Use specific sections (e.g., 3.7, 4.3) from the document to illustrate your points.

4. Administrative Hearing Procedures: Describe the path of a homeowner dispute in Arizona, from the filing of a petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety to the issuance of a final order by an Administrative Law Judge.

5. The Preponderance of Evidence Standard: Evaluate why the Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof in this case. What evidence or lack thereof led the Administrative Law Judge to conclude that the Association did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1803?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S. § 33-1803

The Arizona Revised Statute governing the assessment of penalties and the enforcement of community documents within planned communities.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A presiding official (in this case, Brian Brendan Tully) who conducts hearings and issues decisions for independent government agencies.

Architectural Committee

A body appointed by the Board of Directors to oversee and enforce specific property and building standards defined in the CC&Rs.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the legal documents that dictate the rules and limitations for property use within a homeowners association.

Livable/Sleeper Type Unit

A recreational vehicle or trailer designed for habitation, which was the specific type of unit restricted under the Starlight Pines rules.

Non-Compliance Report

A formal notification issued to a property owner stating they have violated a specific rule or provision of the association’s documents.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent Arizona agency where formal evidentiary hearings are held regarding disputes involving state departments or associations.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or petition (in this case, Robert and Cynthia Johnson).

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases, requiring that a claim is more likely to be true than not true.

Respondent

The party against whom a legal action or petition is filed (in this case, Starlight Pines Homeowners Association).


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Robert Johnson (Petitioner)
    Starlight Pines Homeowners Association
    Former Architectural Committee member
  • Cynthia Johnson (Petitioner)
    Starlight Pines Homeowners Association
  • Evert Bondurant (witness)
    Starlight Pines Homeowners Association
    Former Architectural Committee member; testified for Petitioners

Respondent Side

  • Scott Humble (attorney)
    Turley Swan Childers Righi & Torrens, PC
    Represented Starlight Pines Homeowners Association
  • Joseph B. Swan, Jr. (attorney)
    Turley Swan Childers Righi & Torrens, PC
    Listed on mailing list with respondent's attorney

Neutral Parties

  • Brian Brendan Tully (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Robert Barger (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on mailing list
  • Debra Blake (staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on mailing list

Other Participants

  • David Anderson (board member)
    Starlight Pines Homeowners Association
    Former Architectural Committee member

Harrold, Delores -v- Prescott Country Club Property Owner Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 08F-H078003-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2007-10-25
Administrative Law Judge Brian Brendan Tully
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Delores Harrold Counsel —
Respondent Prescott Country Club Property Owner Association Counsel Scott Humble

Alleged Violations

Master Declaration of Amended, Restated Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the HOA did not violate its governing documents by approving a carport construction, as the documents did not prohibit such structures and authorized the committee to approve them.

Why this result: The ALJ determined that the Respondent's approval of the carport was not a variance from the HOA documents because the documents did not restrict carports for single-family homes with attached garages.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged unauthorized variance for carport construction

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated its documents by granting a variance for a carport. The ALJ found the documents did not prohibit approved carports, and the Architectural Control Committee had authority to approve the request, meaning no variance was actually granted.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Decision Documents

08F-H078003-BFS Decision – 178956.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:20:57 (78.5 KB)

08F-H078003-BFS Decision – 179085.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:20:57 (56.0 KB)





Briefing Doc – 08F-H078003-BFS


Briefing Document: Administrative Adjudication of Homeowners Association Disputes

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes findings from administrative proceedings held at the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings regarding disputes between homeowners and property owner associations. The primary focus is the case of Delores Harrold vs. Prescott Country Club Property Owner Association (Case No. 08F-H078003-BFS), which centers on the authority of an association to approve property modifications—specifically carports—under existing Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

The core takeaway is that an association’s approval of a structure does not constitute a “variance” if the governing documents do not explicitly prohibit that structure. Consequently, a petitioner challenging such an approval must provide credible evidence of a specific violation of the Master Declaration or related bylaws. Additionally, this briefing outlines the procedural grounds upon which administrative hearings may be vacated or remanded.

——————————————————————————–

Analysis of Harrold vs. Prescott Country Club Property Owner Association

Background and Petitioner Claims

The Petitioner, Delores Harrold, filed a single-violation petition against the Prescott Country Club Property Owner Association on August 14, 2007. The dispute originated from the Association’s decision to allow a neighbor at 11573 Turquoise Circle to construct a two-car carport.

The Petitioner’s arguments were based on two primary assertions:

• The Association lacked the authority under its governing “HOA Documents” (CC&Rs, Bylaws, and Articles of Incorporation) to grant a variance for a carport.

• The Association violated its documents by granting said variance on or about June 18, 2007.

Findings of Fact

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) established several critical facts that refuted the Petitioner’s claims:

Fact Category

Details

Property Status

The subject property maintained a single-family residence with an attached garage, fulfilling basic HOA requirements.

Approval Process

The Architectural Control Committee (ACC) approved the carport request on February 8, 2007.

Authority

The HOA Documents explicitly grant the ACC the authority to approve such construction requests.

Precedent

Other residences within the Prescott Country Club community already possess carports.

Evidence

The Petitioner failed to present credible evidence that a variance was actually granted on the date alleged (June 18, 2007).

Legal Conclusions and Ruling

The ALJ determined that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof, which is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard under A.A.C. R2-19-119(A).

• Distinction Between Approval and Variance: The ALJ concluded that because the HOA Documents do not prohibit the construction of carports for residences with attached garages, the Association’s action was a standard approval rather than a variance from the rules.

• Prevailing Party: The Respondent (the Association) was deemed the prevailing party.

• Financial Implications: Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A), the Petitioner was denied reimbursement of the $550.00 filing fee.

• Attorney Fees: While the Association prevailed, the ALJ did not award attorney fees because the Respondent failed to provide legal authority for such a grant.

• Final Order: The petition was dismissed on October 25, 2007.

——————————————————————————–

Administrative Procedures for Vacating Hearings

Source documentation also clarifies the conditions under which the Office of Administrative Hearings may issue a “Minute Entry Vacating Hearing.” A matter may be removed from the docket and remanded for several specific reasons:

• Mootness: Occurs if the Respondent changes their position regarding the subject of the appeal.

• Voluntary Withdrawal: The party that originally requested the hearing chooses to retract their request.

• Resolution: The involved parties reach an independent settlement or agreement to dismiss the matter.

• Agency Action: The oversight agency may dismiss the matter or deem allegations admitted, subsequently issuing its own Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion

The administrative record indicates that the Office of Administrative Hearings maintains a strict adherence to the written CC&Rs of property associations. In the absence of an explicit prohibition within HOA Documents, the Architectural Control Committee retains broad discretionary authority to approve property modifications. For a member to successfully challenge an association’s decision, they must demonstrate a clear violation of the governing documents rather than a disagreement with a permitted approval.






Study Guide – 08F-H078003-BFS


Study Guide: Administrative Law and HOA Dispute Resolution

This study guide examines the administrative hearing process within the state of Arizona, specifically focusing on disputes between homeowners and property owner associations. The primary case study involves a petition regarding architectural variances and the interpretation of governing documents.

Part 1: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions using two to three sentences based on the provided administrative documents.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in Case No. 08F-H078003-BFS and what were their respective roles?

2. What specific action by the Respondent did the Petitioner allege was a violation of the homeowners association (HOA) documents?

3. How did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) characterize the authority of the Architectural Control Committee regarding the subject property?

4. According to the Findings of Fact, why was the approval of the carport not considered a “variance”?

5. Which Arizona Revised Statute grants a member of a homeowners association the right to file a petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety?

6. What is the legal “standard of proof” required for a petitioner to succeed in this administrative forum?

7. Why was the Petitioner denied reimbursement for the $550.00 filing fee?

8. What was the ALJ’s ruling regarding the Respondent’s request for attorney fees and costs?

9. Based on the Findings of Fact, what evidence existed regarding the presence of other carports within the community?

10. According to the “Minute Entry Vacating Hearing” template, what is one reason a matter might be remanded and vacated from the docket?

——————————————————————————–

Part 2: Quiz Answer Key

1. Who were the primary parties involved in Case No. 08F-H078003-BFS and what were their respective roles? The Petitioner was Delores Harrold, a member of the association who filed the complaint. The Respondent was the Prescott Country Club Property Owner Association, represented by attorney Scott Humble.

2. What specific action by the Respondent did the Petitioner allege was a violation of the homeowners association (HOA) documents? The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated its HOA documents by granting a neighbor a variance to construct a two-car carport at 11573 Turquoise Circle. She contended that the association did not have the authority to grant such a variance under its governing documents.

3. How did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) characterize the authority of the Architectural Control Committee regarding the subject property? The ALJ found that the HOA documents specifically give the Architectural Control Committee the authority to grant requests for additions such as carports. The committee had approved the homeowner’s request to build the carport on February 8, 2007.

4. According to the Findings of Fact, why was the approval of the carport not considered a “variance”? The approval was not a variance because the HOA documents do not prohibit the construction of approved carports for single-family residences with attached garages. Since no restriction was bypassed, the approval was a standard exercise of committee authority rather than a deviation from the rules.

5. Which Arizona Revised Statute grants a member of a homeowners association the right to file a petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety? The right to file such a petition is permitted under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01. This statute ensures that such petitions are heard before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

6. What is the legal “standard of proof” required for a petitioner to succeed in this administrative forum? Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-19-119(A), the standard of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence.” The Petitioner carries the burden of proving their case to this standard.

7. Why was the Petitioner denied reimbursement for the $550.00 filing fee? Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A), filing fees are typically reimbursed to the prevailing party. Because the ALJ concluded that the Respondent was the prevailing party and dismissed the petition, the Petitioner was not entitled to reimbursement.

8. What was the ALJ’s ruling regarding the Respondent’s request for attorney fees and costs? The ALJ did not grant attorney fees or costs to the Respondent. The ruling noted that the Respondent failed to present any legal authority that would allow for the granting of such fees in this specific matter.

9. Based on the Findings of Fact, what evidence existed regarding the presence of other carports within the community? The ALJ noted as a finding of fact that there are already existing carports at other residences within the Respondent’s jurisdiction. This suggests that the carport in question was not an unprecedented addition to the community.

10. According to the “Minute Entry Vacating Hearing” template, what is one reason a matter might be remanded and vacated from the docket? A matter may be vacated and remanded if it becomes moot because the Respondent changed its position concerning the subject of the appeal. Other reasons include the parties resolving the matter or the party requesting the hearing voluntarily withdrawing.

——————————————————————————–

Part 3: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the provided documents to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. The Burden of Proof in Administrative Law: Discuss the significance of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in the context of Case No. 08F-H078003-BFS. Why did the Petitioner fail to meet this burden despite her claims regarding the HOA documents?

2. Architectural Control and HOA Governance: Analyze the role of the Architectural Control Committee as described in the findings. How do the “HOA Documents” (CC&Rs, Bylaws, and Articles of Incorporation) define and limit the scope of the committee’s power?

3. The Concept of a “Variance” vs. “Approved Use”: Based on the ALJ’s decision, contrast a variance with an approved use of property. Explain how the absence of a prohibition in the CC&Rs affects the legal interpretation of an association’s actions.

4. Administrative Remedies and Costs: Examine the financial implications of filing a petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. Detail the rules regarding the $550.00 filing fee and the conditions under which attorney fees may or may not be awarded.

5. Procedural Grounds for Vacating Hearings: Using the “Minute Entry Vacating Hearing” document, identify and explain the various circumstances that lead to the cancellation of a scheduled administrative hearing. Why is “mootness” considered a valid reason for remand?

——————————————————————————–

Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

The Arizona Revised Statute that allows HOA members to file petitions against their association with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact, and issues legal conclusions and orders.

Architectural Control Committee

A specific body within an HOA authorized to review and approve or deny requests for property modifications or additions.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules and limitations for property owners within a specific development.

Findings of Fact

The determinations made by a judge regarding the events and circumstances of a case based on the evidence presented.

A legal status where a matter is no longer subject to determination by a court because the issues involved have been resolved or the circumstances have changed.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or petition (in this case, Delores Harrold).

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases, meaning that a claim is more likely to be true than not true.

Prevailing Party

The party in a lawsuit that wins on the main issues, often entitling them to certain reimbursements or legal remedies.

Remand

To send a case back to a lower court or the original agency for further action or because the hearing is no longer necessary.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed (in this case, the Prescott Country Club Property Owner Association).

Vacate

To cancel or render void a scheduled hearing, order, or entry on a court docket.

Variance

An official permit or approval to depart from the established zoning or building regulations set forth in governing documents.






Blog Post – 08F-H078003-BFS


The Carport Conflict: 3 Essential Lessons from an Arizona HOA Legal Battle

1. Introduction: The Neighborhood Dispute You Never Saw Coming

Imagine the frustration of watching a construction crew break ground on a neighbor’s property for a project you are certain violates your community’s standards. This exact scenario sparked a legal showdown in the case of Harrold vs. Prescott Country Club Property Owner Association.

Delores Harrold, a resident of the community, filed a petition challenging the approval of a two-car carport at 11573 Turquoise Circle. She believed the association had overstepped by granting an unauthorized “variance” for the structure.

As a legal specialist, I find this case particularly instructive because it highlights the often-misunderstood boundaries of board authority. The outcome of Petition No. 08F-H078003-BFS offers a masterclass in why the specific language of your governing documents matters more than neighborhood expectations.

2. Takeaway 1: Silence in the CC&Rs Isn’t a Prohibition

A frequent misconception among homeowners is that if a structure isn’t explicitly mentioned as “allowed” in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), it must be prohibited. In this case, the petitioner argued that the association granted a “variance,” which is an exception to an established rule.

However, the judge found that the Architectural Control Committee (ACC) was well within its rights to approve the project because carports were never actually banned. In fact, Finding 11 noted that other carports already existed within the community, proving the structure was consistent with the neighborhood.

When the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) are silent on a specific structure, the Architectural Control Committee often maintains broad authority to approve or deny requests. If the authority to approve exists and no prohibition is written, the approval is simply a standard exercise of power, not a “variance.”

3. Takeaway 2: The “Preponderance of Evidence” Bar

In administrative hearings, the burden of proof lies with the petitioner under A.A.C. R2-19-119(B). To win, a homeowner must meet the Preponderance of Evidence standard as defined in A.A.C. R2-19-119(A).

This means the petitioner must prove it is “more likely than not” that a violation occurred. Delores Harrold failed this test largely because of a mismatch in facts; she alleged a violation occurred on June 18, 2007, but the Architectural Control Committee had already formally approved the carport months earlier on February 8, 2007.

To sustain the burden of proof in an HOA dispute, a petitioner must:

• Identify the specific provision in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or HOA Documents that was allegedly violated.

• Provide credible evidence that a violation actually occurred on or about the specific date alleged in the petition.

• Demonstrate that the action taken (such as an approval) was outside the authority granted to the Architectural Control Committee.

4. Takeaway 3: The Financial Risk of “Losing”

Homeowners should view administrative petitions as a “pay-to-play” legal reality. To initiate her case, the petitioner had to pay a $550.00 filing fee to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A), only the “prevailing party” is entitled to have this filing fee reimbursed. Because the judge dismissed the petition, the homeowner was not eligible to get her money back, resulting in a total loss of the filing costs.

What the Prevailing Party Wins:

• A formal Administrative Law Judge Decision and Order in their favor.

• The right to seek reimbursement of the $550.00 filing fee under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A).

What the Losing Party Forfeits:

• The $550.00 filing fee paid to the Department.

• The legal standing of their claim, resulting in a dismissal of the petition.

5. Conclusion: A Final Thought on Community Governance

The dismissal of Petition No. 08F-H078003-BFS underscores a vital reality: the Architectural Control Committee holds the power to shape the community as long as they stay within the bounds of the HOA Documents. If the rules do not explicitly forbid a structure, the committee’s approval is usually final.

Homeowners must realize that their personal aesthetic preferences do not carry the weight of law. Before you challenge a neighbor’s renovation, you must verify if your Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) actually prohibit the structure or if you are simply assuming a rule exists where there is only silence.

Do you truly know what your HOA’s rules allow—or are you simply assuming the rules match your own expectations?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Delores Harrold (petitioner)
    Appeared personally

Respondent Side

  • Scott Humble (attorney)
    Turley, Swan & Childers, P.C.
    Represented Prescott Country Club Property Owner Association
  • Joseph B. Swan, Jr. (attorney)
    Turley, Swan & Childers, P.C.
    Listed in distribution list with Scott Humble

Neutral Parties

  • Brian Brendan Tully (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Robert Barger (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Copy mailed to
  • Debra Blake (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Attn line for Robert Barger