The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner met his burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A). Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party, and Respondent was ordered to refund the $500.00 filing fee and comply with the statute in the future.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to provide access to financial and other records within ten business days.
Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) by failing to allow Petitioner to examine original invoices for May 2024 (requested July 9, 2024) and bank statements from four accounts (requested September 23, 2024) within the required ten business days, despite receiving the requests through board members.
Orders: Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days and is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) going forward. No Civil Penalty was found appropriate.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA, records request, A.R.S. 33-1258, prevailing party, condominium association
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
25F-H018-REL Decision – 1263777.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:14:18 (48.3 KB)
25F-H018-REL Decision – 1288586.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:14:22 (105.9 KB)
Briefing Doc – 25F-H018-REL
Briefing Document: Case No. 25F-H018-REL, Allan v. The Springs Condominiums Association
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes the key facts, arguments, and legal conclusions from the administrative hearing and subsequent decision in the matter of Joseph P. Allan (Petitioner) versus The Springs Condominiums Association (Respondent). The central issue was the Respondent’s failure to provide financial records to the Petitioner within the timeframe mandated by Arizona law.
The Petitioner, a homeowner and former board member, formally requested to examine bank statements and original invoices by sending emails directly to the association’s board members. The Respondent, represented by the owner of its property management company, did not fulfill these requests within the statutory ten-business-day period. The primary defense offered was that the requests were not sent to the management company, which is the customary channel for processing such items, and the board failed to forward the requests.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found conclusively in favor of the Petitioner. The decision established that the legal obligation to comply with Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1258 rests with the association itself, and internal procedural preferences or communication failures between the board and its management agent do not absolve the association of this statutory duty. The documents were ultimately provided on the eve of the hearing, well past the legal deadline. The final order deemed the Petitioner the prevailing party, mandated the refund of his $500 filing fee, and directed the association to ensure future compliance with state law.
Case Overview
Case Number
25F-H018-REL
Jurisdiction
Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona
Petitioner
Joseph P. Allan
Respondent
The Springs Condominiums Association
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Hearing Date
March 11, 2025
Decision Date
March 31, 2025
Core Allegation and Legal Framework
The dispute centered on the Petitioner’s allegation that The Springs Condominiums Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1258, which governs a member’s right to access association records.
• Statutory Requirement (A.R.S. § 33-1258 A): The statute mandates that “all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member.” It explicitly states, “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”
• Specific Violations Alleged: The Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate after the association failed to respond to two separate requests for documents:
1. A request for original invoices for May 2024.
2. A request for bank statements from four association accounts.
Chronology of Events
• July 9, 2024: Mr. Allan emails several board members, including the President and Vice President, requesting to examine original invoices for May 2024.
• September 23, 2024: Mr. Allan emails several board members requesting to examine bank statements from four association accounts.
• October 2024 (approx.): After receiving no response, Mr. Allan files a petition with the Department of Real Estate, alleging the violations. The petition incorrectly listed the request dates as July 29 and September 24, a discrepancy clarified and acknowledged by both parties at the hearing.
• January 16, 2025: An “Order Granting Continuance” is issued at the Petitioner’s request, moving the hearing date.
• March 10, 2025: At 6:45 PM, the evening before the scheduled hearing, the Respondent provides the requested documents to Mr. Allan.
• March 11, 2025: The evidentiary hearing is held before ALJ Velva Moses-Thompson.
• March 31, 2025: The ALJ issues the final decision and order.
Analysis of Testimony and Arguments
Petitioner’s Position (Joseph P. Allan)
Mr. Allan, representing himself, argued that he followed the law by submitting his requests directly to the association. His key points were:
• Direct Communication with the Association: He intentionally sent his requests to the board members (President, Vice President, Treasurer, and Director) because he considers them to be the “association” as defined by the statute.
• Investigation of Management Company: He deliberately bypassed the management company because he was actively investigating its conduct.
• Lack of Timely Response: It was undisputed that the association failed to provide the documents within the 10-day period. He confirmed receipt only on March 10, 2025, months after the requests were made.
• Past Experience: As a former board member for three years, he was familiar with the association’s financial documents and was requesting them to ensure everything was correct due to perceived problems.
Respondent’s Position (The Springs Condominiums Association)
The association was represented by Belen Guzman, the owner of its management company, SSC Property Management. Her defense centered on a procedural failure, not a denial of the Petitioner’s right to the documents.
• Improper Channel of Request: The primary defense was that Mr. Allan failed to follow standard practice by not including the management company in his email requests.
• Board’s Failure to Act: Ms. Guzman testified that the board members who received the emails did not forward them or follow up. She stated she was unaware of the requests until after the official complaint was filed and one of the board members, Petri (the president at the time), forwarded an email to her.
• Lack of Written Policy: Ms. Guzman acknowledged that the association has no written policy requiring requests to be sent to the management company, but stated the board had verbally instructed Mr. Allan in a meeting to include management on such communications.
• Knowledge of Procedure: She argued that as a former board member, Mr. Allan was aware that record requests are typically handled by the management company.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
The ALJ’s decision provided a clear legal interpretation of the events and the responsibilities of the parties.
Key Findings of Fact
• It was undisputed that the Petitioner is a member of the Respondent association.
• The Petitioner made formal requests for records via email to board members on July 9, 2024, and September 23, 2024.
• These requests were not sent to the Respondent’s property management company.
• The Respondent did not respond to the requests within the ten-business-day timeframe required by law.
• The Respondent provided the requested documents on March 10, 2025.
• The Respondent’s representative, Ms. Guzman, did not dispute that the board members had received the requests.
Key Conclusions of Law
• The Petitioner successfully met his burden to prove by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).
• The Respondent failed to provide any legal authority supporting its defense that a request must be sent to its property management company to be valid.
• The statutory obligation to provide records lies with the “association.” The failure of the board to forward the requests to its management agent does not excuse the association’s non-compliance.
• The ALJ concluded: “Respondent violated A.R.S. section 33-1258(A) when it failed to allow Petitioner to examine the May 2024 original invoices and bank statements from four of Respondent’s accounts, within ten business days of the date of Petitioner’s requests.”
Final Order and Implications
Based on the findings, the ALJ issued a binding order with the following components:
1. Prevailing Party: The Petitioner, Joseph P. Allan, was deemed the prevailing party.
2. Reimbursement: The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner his $500.00 filing fee within thirty days of the order.
3. Future Compliance: The Respondent was formally directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) going forward.
4. No Civil Penalty: The judge determined that a civil penalty was not appropriate in this matter.
The primary implication of this decision is that a condominium or homeowner association is directly and legally responsible for fulfilling its statutory obligations. It cannot use internal protocols, informal procedures, or communication breakdowns between its board and third-party vendors (like a management company) as a legal defense for failing to comply with state law.
Study Guide – 25F-H018-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H018-REL”, “case_title”: “Allan, Joseph P v. The Springs Condominiums Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-03-31”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If I send a records request to the Board but not the management company, can the HOA ignore it?”, “short_answer”: “No. Sending the request to Board members is sufficient to trigger the HOA’s legal obligation to respond.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if the management company prefers requests to go directly to them, the Association is still obligated to comply with the law if the Board receives the request. In this case, the management company argued they didn’t know about the request because it went to the Board, but the judge ruled the violation still occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent did present any legal authority to establish that it was not obligated to comply with A.R.S. section 33-1258(A), for the reason that the requests were not sent to Respondent’s property management company.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “HOA obligations”, “property management” ] }, { “question”: “How many days does the HOA have to let me examine the records I requested?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA must make records available for examination within 10 business days.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona law grants the Association ten business days to fulfill a request for examination after receiving it.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “timelines”, “records request”, “statutory requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA charge me a fee just to look at the records?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA cannot charge a member for making material available for review.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the HOA can charge for copies (up to 15 cents per page), they are explicitly prohibited from charging a fee for the act of making materials available for review.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “records request”, “homeowner rights” ] }, { “question”: “What happens if I win my hearing against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “You may be deemed the prevailing party and the HOA can be ordered to reimburse your filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “If the judge rules in your favor, they can order the HOA to pay back the filing fee you paid to bring the case. In this decision, the HOA was ordered to pay the homeowner $500.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.”, “legal_basis”: “Order”, “topic_tags”: [ “penalties”, “reimbursement”, “ruling” ] }, { “question”: “Does the HOA have to provide original invoices if I request them?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Financial records, including original invoices, must be made reasonably available.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision confirms that failure to allow examination of original invoices constitutes a violation of the statute governing association records.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent violated A.R.S. section 33-1258(A) when it failed to allow Petitioner to examine the May 2024 original invoices and bank statements”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “invoices”, “financial records”, “transparency” ] }, { “question”: “What is the standard of proof for proving the HOA violated the law?”, “short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must prove their case by showing it is ‘more probably true than not.’ This is the standard evidentiary weight required in these administrative hearings.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 (A) by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “burden of proof”, “hearing procedures” ] }, { “question”: “Will the HOA always be fined a civil penalty if they break the law?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. The judge has discretion on whether to apply a civil penalty.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if a violation is found (as it was in this case regarding the records), the judge may decide that a civil penalty is not appropriate based on the circumstances.”, “alj_quote”: “No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.”, “legal_basis”: “Order”, “topic_tags”: [ “civil penalty”, “fines”, “enforcement” ] } ] }
Blog Post – 25F-H018-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H018-REL”, “case_title”: “Allan, Joseph P v. The Springs Condominiums Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-03-31”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If I send a records request to the Board but not the management company, can the HOA ignore it?”, “short_answer”: “No. Sending the request to Board members is sufficient to trigger the HOA’s legal obligation to respond.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if the management company prefers requests to go directly to them, the Association is still obligated to comply with the law if the Board receives the request. In this case, the management company argued they didn’t know about the request because it went to the Board, but the judge ruled the violation still occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent did present any legal authority to establish that it was not obligated to comply with A.R.S. section 33-1258(A), for the reason that the requests were not sent to Respondent’s property management company.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “HOA obligations”, “property management” ] }, { “question”: “How many days does the HOA have to let me examine the records I requested?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA must make records available for examination within 10 business days.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona law grants the Association ten business days to fulfill a request for examination after receiving it.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “timelines”, “records request”, “statutory requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA charge me a fee just to look at the records?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA cannot charge a member for making material available for review.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the HOA can charge for copies (up to 15 cents per page), they are explicitly prohibited from charging a fee for the act of making materials available for review.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “records request”, “homeowner rights” ] }, { “question”: “What happens if I win my hearing against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “You may be deemed the prevailing party and the HOA can be ordered to reimburse your filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “If the judge rules in your favor, they can order the HOA to pay back the filing fee you paid to bring the case. In this decision, the HOA was ordered to pay the homeowner $500.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.”, “legal_basis”: “Order”, “topic_tags”: [ “penalties”, “reimbursement”, “ruling” ] }, { “question”: “Does the HOA have to provide original invoices if I request them?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Financial records, including original invoices, must be made reasonably available.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision confirms that failure to allow examination of original invoices constitutes a violation of the statute governing association records.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent violated A.R.S. section 33-1258(A) when it failed to allow Petitioner to examine the May 2024 original invoices and bank statements”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “invoices”, “financial records”, “transparency” ] }, { “question”: “What is the standard of proof for proving the HOA violated the law?”, “short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must prove their case by showing it is ‘more probably true than not.’ This is the standard evidentiary weight required in these administrative hearings.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 (A) by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “burden of proof”, “hearing procedures” ] }, { “question”: “Will the HOA always be fined a civil penalty if they break the law?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. The judge has discretion on whether to apply a civil penalty.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if a violation is found (as it was in this case regarding the records), the judge may decide that a civil penalty is not appropriate based on the circumstances.”, “alj_quote”: “No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.”, “legal_basis”: “Order”, “topic_tags”: [ “civil penalty”, “fines”, “enforcement” ] } ] }
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Joseph P. Allan(petitioner) Appeared on behalf of himself. Name also appears as Joseph P. Allen.
Respondent Side
Belen Guzman(property manager) SSC Property Management Owner of the property management company for the Respondent. Appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
Peetri Ahon(board member) The Springs Condominiums Association Was the President of the board at the time of requests, later identified as a member at large.
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) OAH Administrative Law Judge. Name also appears as Fala Moses Thompson.
Susan Nicolson(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Other Participants
Carmen(homeowner) The Springs Condominiums Association A homeowner who was CC'd on an email.
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
20F-H2020064-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2021-03-24
Administrative Law Judge
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome
full
Filing Fees Refunded
$500.00
Civil Penalties
$2,500.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Nancy L. Babington
Counsel
—
Respondent
Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
Counsel
Mark K. Sahl and Scott B. Carpenter
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
Outcome Summary
Following a rehearing based on newly discovered evidence, the Administrative Law Judge found that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) by failing to timely provide records it possessed. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee and pay a $2,500.00 civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to make association financial and other records reasonably available for examination/provide copies within ten business days.
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by failing to provide requested records (including bank statements and contracts) following a formal request on May 1, 2020. The Administrative Law Judge, in the rehearing, found that the evidence showed Respondent was in possession of bank statements and two signed contracts at the time of the request, contradicting prior testimony, thereby establishing a violation of the statute.
Orders: Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee reimbursement and pay a civil penalty of $2,500.00 to the Department of Real Estate, both payments due within 30 days.
Briefing Document: Babington v. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the key findings, arguments, and outcomes from the administrative case of Nancy L. Babington (Petitioner) versus the Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation (Respondent). The dispute centered on the Respondent’s failure to provide association records as required by Arizona state law (A.R.S. § 33-1258).
The case progressed through two distinct phases: an initial hearing that ruled in favor of the Respondent, and a subsequent rehearing that reversed the decision. The initial ruling was based on the Respondent’s testimony that it did not possess the requested records due to a dispute with a former management company. However, the rehearing was granted based on newly discovered evidence proving the Respondent, through its management company and board, did possess key documents at the time of the request.
The final judgment established that the Respondent had violated state law. The Administrative Law Judge rejected the Respondent’s defense, including the argument that records held in a corporate satellite office were not in its possession. As a result, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee and pay a $2,500 civil penalty to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Case Background and Timeline
The dispute arose from a records request made by Petitioner Nancy L. Babington to her condominium association, Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation, and its management company, Associa Arizona. The timeline of key events is as follows:
June-July 2019
Respondent’s prior management company, Community Management & Consulting, LLC (CMC), terminates its agreement.
Post-July 2019
Respondent hires Associa Arizona (Associa). Associa and the Respondent encounter difficulty obtaining records from CMC due to a financial dispute.
April 29, 2020
Petitioner sends a formal email requesting association records from September 1, 2019, to April 28, 2020, citing A.R.S. § 33-1258.
May 1, 2020
Petitioner provides a specific, nine-point list of requested documents, including bank statements, financial statements, and contracts.
May 28, 2020
Having received no documents, Petitioner files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
August 28, 2020
The Office of Administrative Hearings conducts the initial hearing.
September 17, 2020
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues a decision denying the petition.
Post-Sept 2020
Respondent provides some of the requested documents to the Petitioner. Upon review, Petitioner discovers evidence that the documents had been in the Respondent’s possession prior to her request.
Date Unspecified
Petitioner files a request for rehearing based on newly discovered material evidence.
March 4, 2021
A rehearing is held.
March 24, 2021
The ALJ issues a new decision, reversing the original finding and ruling in favor of the Petitioner.
The Initial Hearing: Petition Denied
The initial hearing on August 28, 2020, focused on whether the Respondent had violated its statutory obligation to provide records.
Petitioner’s Allegation
The Petitioner’s case was based on her formal request for records on April 29, 2020, and the Respondent’s failure to produce any documents. Her petition stated:
“After repeated attempts since the beginning of this year to get information, on April 29, 2020 I emailed Associa Arizona and the Board of Directors of Park Scottsdale II formally requesting records per ARS 33-1258 and to date, May 25, 2020, I have not received anything.”
Respondent’s Defense
The Respondent’s primary defense was that it could not provide documents that were not in its possession.
• Withheld Records: Joseph Silberschlag, Secretary of the Board of Directors, testified that due to ongoing issues with the former management company (CMC), neither the association nor Associa had possession of many documents, including previous financial records.
• Inability to Create Documents: Mr. Silberschlag stated that without the starting balances from CMC, it was not possible to create current financial statements.
• No Obligation to Create: The Respondent argued it was “under no statutory obligation to create documents to respond to Petitioner’s request.”
Ruling and Rationale
The ALJ sided with the Respondent in the initial decision. The judge noted that while there was no dispute that the documents were not provided within the 10-day statutory period, the Petitioner had not provided any authority showing the Respondent was required to create a document responsive to her request. The ruling concluded:
“Respondent did not have possession of any of the documents requested at the time of Petitioner’s request… Thus, Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).”
The petition was subsequently denied on September 17, 2020.
The Rehearing: Decision Reversed
A rehearing was granted after the Petitioner discovered that, contrary to the testimony at the initial hearing, the Respondent had possessed several of the requested documents. The rehearing on March 4, 2021, introduced new evidence that fundamentally changed the outcome of the case.
New Evidence and Testimony
The Petitioner presented evidence focusing on three categories of documents she had requested:
• Bank Statements: Petitioner testified that bank statements she received after the initial hearing showed they had been sent to Associa starting in August 2019. Evelyn Shanley, Community Director for Associa, testified that the statements were sent to a national office in Richardson, Texas, and admitted she did not contact that office to obtain them in response to the Petitioner’s request.
• Contracts: Petitioner received two contracts signed by board members on March 27 and March 31, 2020, which were in existence prior to her request. Ms. Shanley admitted these were not provided because the board members had not given them to Associa.
• 1099s: Petitioner noted a document indicating four vendors were eligible for 1099s for 2019. Ms. Shanley denied that any 1099s had been issued.
Respondent’s Evolved Arguments
Faced with the new evidence, the Respondent’s arguments shifted:
• “Immediate Possession”: Counsel argued that the requested documents were not in the “immediate possession” of Associa’s local office.
• Concession on Bank Statements: During closing arguments, Respondent’s counsel acknowledged that “‘one could concede’ the bank statements located in Richardson, Texas were in the possession of Associa and should have been provided to Petitioner in response to her request.”
• Mootness and Penalties: Counsel argued the matter was now moot because the documents had been provided. It was further argued that a civil penalty was inappropriate because the Petitioner did not specifically request one on her initial petition form.
Final Ruling and Rationale
The ALJ found the new evidence compelling and decisive.
• Direct Contradiction: The ruling stated that “the evidence presented during the rehearing was directly contradictory” to the representation made at the initial hearing that Respondent did not have possession of the documents.
• Violation Established: The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner successfully “established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).”
• Authority for Civil Penalty: The ALJ firmly rejected the Respondent’s argument against a civil penalty. The decision cited A.R.S. § 32-2199.02, noting that the plain language of the statute grants the judge the authority to levy a penalty for established violations. The judge wrote, “Nothing in the statute limits the available remedies to those specifically requested by a petitioner.”
Final Order and Penalties
Given the established violation, the ALJ found that a civil penalty was appropriate. The final order, issued March 24, 2021, mandated the following actions by the Respondent within 30 days of the decision’s mailing date:
1. Reimbursement of Filing Fee: Pay the Petitioner, Nancy L. Babington, her filing fee of $500.00.
2. Payment of Civil Penalty: Pay the Arizona Department of Real Estate a civil penalty of $2,500.00.
Study Guide – 20F-H2020064-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Babington v. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case Nancy L. Babington vs. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation. It covers the initial hearing, the subsequent rehearing, the key arguments presented by both parties, and the final legal outcome. The materials are designed to test and deepen understanding of the case’s facts, legal principles, and timeline.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, using only information provided in the case documents.
1. What specific Arizona statute did Petitioner Nancy L. Babington allege that the Respondent, Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation, had violated?
2. What was the Respondent’s primary defense during the initial hearing for not providing the requested documents within the statutory timeframe?
3. What was the official outcome of the first Administrative Law Judge Decision issued on September 17, 2020?
4. On what legal grounds did the Petitioner successfully request a rehearing of the case?
5. What new evidence regarding the requested bank statements was introduced during the rehearing?
6. How did the Respondent’s management company, Associa Arizona, explain its failure to produce the two contracts signed in March 2020?
7. What was the Respondent’s counsel’s argument at the rehearing for why a civil penalty should not be levied?
8. How did the Administrative Law Judge counter the Respondent’s argument regarding the imposition of a civil penalty?
9. What two financial penalties were included in the final order issued on March 24, 2021?
10. What is the standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and what is its definition according to the case file?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had violated A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16, Section 33-1258. This statute requires a condominium owners association to make its financial and other records reasonably available for examination by any member within ten business days of a request.
2. During the initial hearing, the Respondent argued that it was unable to provide the documents because they were not in its possession. This was attributed to a financial disagreement with its former management company, Community Management & Consulting (CMC), which was withholding records.
3. The first decision, issued on September 17, 2020, was in favor of the Respondent. The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition, concluding she had failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the statute, as it was not required to create or provide documents it did not possess.
4. A rehearing was granted based on the Petitioner’s claim of “newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.” After the initial ruling, the Respondent provided some documents, which revealed that it had, in fact, been in possession of them prior to the Petitioner’s formal request.
5. During the rehearing, it was revealed that bank statements were being sent to Associa’s national central office in Richardson, Texas, starting in August 2019. An Associa representative admitted that the local office never contacted the central office to obtain these statements in response to the Petitioner’s request.
6. Associa’s representative, Evelyn Shanley, admitted that two signed contracts existed but had not been provided to the Petitioner. She stated this was because the members of the Board of Directors who signed them had not yet provided the contracts to Associa.
7. The Respondent’s counsel argued that a civil penalty was not appropriate because the Petitioner did not specifically request one by checking the corresponding box on the initial petition. Counsel asserted that the rehearing process was not designed for the Petitioner to change the relief requested.
8. The Judge rejected the Respondent’s argument, stating it was an erroneous interpretation of A.R.S. § 32-2199.02. The Judge clarified that the plain language of the statute allows the Administrative Law Judge to levy a civil penalty for established violations, and nothing in the statute limits available remedies to only those specifically requested by a petitioner.
9. The final order required the Respondent to pay the Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00. Additionally, the Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $2,500.00 to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
10. The required standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence.” The case document defines this as “Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for essay-style responses. Formulate a comprehensive argument using only the evidence and legal reasoning presented in the source documents.
1. Analyze the concept of “possession” as it applied to the association’s records in this case. How did the distinction between Associa’s local Arizona office and its national central office in Texas impact the initial ruling versus the outcome of the rehearing?
2. Trace the evolution of the Respondent’s legal arguments from the first hearing to the second. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of their positions at each stage, including the “mootness” argument, and explain why their defense ultimately failed.
3. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence.” How did the Petitioner fail to meet this standard in the initial hearing but succeed in the rehearing? Use specific examples of evidence related to the bank statements and contracts to support the analysis.
4. Examine the role and authority of the Administrative Law Judge in this case, particularly concerning the decision to grant a rehearing and the authority to levy a civil penalty even when not explicitly requested by the petitioner.
5. Evaluate the significance of A.R.S. § 33-1258 for condominium owners. Using the facts of this case, explain the rights it grants to members and the obligations it places on associations and their management companies regarding record-keeping and transparency.
——————————————————————————–
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 decisions and orders. In this case, the ALJ was Tammy L. Eigenheer.
A.R.S. § 33-1258
The specific Arizona Revised Statute that requires condominium associations to make all financial and other records reasonably available for examination by a member within ten business days of a request.
Associa Arizona (Associa)
The management company hired by Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation after the termination of the previous management agreement. Associa was responsible for handling the Petitioner’s records request on behalf of the association.
Civil Penalty
A monetary penalty levied by a government agency or administrative judge for a violation of a statute or regulation. In this case, a $2,500 penalty was levied against the Respondent for violating A.R.S. § 33-1258.
Community Management & Consulting, LLC (CMC)
The previous management company for Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation. CMC terminated its agreement in 2019 and was withholding records from the association due to a financial disagreement.
Department of Real Estate
The Arizona state agency with jurisdiction to hear disputes between property owners and condominium owners associations. The Petitioner filed her initial petition with this department.
HOA Dispute Rehearing Request
The formal request filed by the Petitioner with the Department of Real Estate to have the case reheard. It was granted based on the discovery of new material evidence.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, the Petitioner was Nancy L. Babington, a member of the condominium association.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent was Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation, the condominium owners association.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020064-REL-RHG
She Sued Her HOA and Lost. What Happened Next Reversed Everything: 4 Lessons from a Homeowner’s Fight for Records
For too many homeowners, the Homeowner’s Association is a black box. Simple requests for financial records or board contracts—information you are legally entitled to—are met with delays, excuses, or outright silence. This isn’t just an annoyance; it’s an abuse of power that can leave residents feeling helpless against a secretive body that controls their property and their money. But what happens when one homeowner refuses to accept the stonewalling?
The case of Nancy L. Babington versus her Scottsdale, Arizona HOA provides a powerful playbook for fighting back. Documented in public legal records, her journey began with a standard request for records, escalated to a legal petition that she initially lost, and ended with a stunning reversal that holds critical lessons for every homeowner in America. Her fight demonstrates how persistence, diligence, and an understanding of the law can turn a seemingly hopeless situation into a victory for transparency.
Here are the four essential lessons from her successful battle for accountability.
1. Lesson One: An Initial Loss Isn’t the Final Word
Nancy Babington’s initial petition against her HOA was denied. At the first hearing on August 28, 2020, the HOA presented a seemingly plausible defense: they couldn’t provide the records because of an ongoing dispute with a former management company, CMC, which they claimed was withholding the documents.
The judge sided with the HOA. In a decision issued on September 17, 2020, the judge ruled against Babington, stating she had not sufficiently proven her case. The official ruling found she “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).” For most people, this would have been the end of the story.
But then the HOA made a critical, almost theatrical, miscalculation. After their victory, they provided Babington with some of the documents she had requested. As she reviewed them, she discovered the bombshell: the records proved the HOA had possessed crucial documents like bank statements and signed board contracts all along. These documents had nothing to do with the former management company, CMC, making the HOA’s initial defense appear to be a deliberate misdirection. This was the “newly discovered material evidence” she needed. The homeowner turned the HOA’s own actions against them, securing a rehearing on March 4, 2021, that would unravel their entire case.
2. Lesson Two: “Possession” Is More Than What’s in the Local Office
During the rehearing, the HOA pivoted to a new excuse, this time concerning bank statements. Their national management company, Associa, had its bank statements sent to a central office in Richardson, Texas. Because the records weren’t physically in the local Arizona office, the HOA argued they were not in their “immediate possession” and therefore not subject to the production deadline.
Under questioning, the Community Director, Evelyn Shanley, admitted she never even contacted the Texas office to get the statements for the homeowner. The HOA’s legal argument rested on the idea that their own corporate geography could shield them from transparency laws.
The judge flatly rejected this logic. An organization is responsible for its own records, no matter where they are stored. The argument was so weak that the HOA’s own lawyer was forced to backpedal during the hearing. The final decision noted:
Counsel acknowledged during closing arguments that “one could concede” the bank statements located in Richardson, Texas were in the possession of Associa and should have been provided to Petitioner in response to her request.
This ruling is a critical precedent: Your HOA cannot hide records in a corporate vault in another state and claim they are out of reach. If the documents belong to the association, they are in its possession, period.
3. Lesson Three: The Board Is the HOA, Not a Separate Entity
The next fight was over two contracts signed by board members in March 2020—documents that were created months after the dispute with the old management company. The excuse for not providing them? The management company claimed the contracts “had not been provided by the members of the Board of Directors to Associa.”
This was an attempt to create a legal fiction—that the Board of Directors and the HOA’s management company are separate entities, and that if the Board withholds a document from its own agent, the HOA can claim ignorance. The court did not buy it. By holding the HOA (the Respondent) responsible for the failure to produce the documents, the judge made it clear that this distinction is invalid.
For the purposes of records law, the Board is the HOA. The lesson is clear: The buck stops with the HOA. Board members cannot play a shell game with documents to evade their legal duty.
4. Lesson Four: Justice Doesn’t Require You to Check the Right Box
Having lost on the facts, the HOA’s counsel made one last-ditch effort to avoid a penalty. They argued that a civil penalty was inappropriate because the petitioner “did not indicate in her petition that she was seeking a civil penalty.” In essence, they claimed that because she hadn’t checked the right box on a form, the judge was powerless to punish them for breaking the law.
The Administrative Law Judge swiftly dismantled this procedural excuse. The judge’s final decision, issued on March 24, 2021, explicitly called out the HOA’s flawed logic:
Respondent erroneously interpreted A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 to require a petitioner to identify the requested relief in the petition when the plain language of the statute provides that the Administrative Law Judge may levy a civil penalty for violations that are established. Nothing in the statute limits the available remedies to those specifically requested by a petitioner.
The final ruling was the tangible consequence of the HOA’s failed arguments and lack of transparency. The judge ordered the HOA to reimburse Babington’s $500 filing fee and levied a separate $2,500 civil penalty payable to the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The message was unmistakable: the law has teeth, and a judge can use them based on the facts, regardless of which boxes were checked on a form.
Conclusion: Knowledge is Power
Nancy Babington’s fight is a masterclass in homeowner advocacy. Her journey from a seemingly hopeless loss to a precedent-setting victory proves that a single resident, armed with facts and relentless persistence, can force an HOA to follow the law. This case affirms that transparency is a legal requirement, not an optional courtesy. It serves as a powerful reminder that while the law is on the side of transparency, it often falls to diligent homeowners to hold their associations accountable.
This case was won because the facts came to light—do you know what your rights are, and what records you’re entitled to see from your own HOA?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Nancy L. Babington(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf at both the initial hearing and the rehearing.,
Respondent Side
Lydia Linsmeier(HOA attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP Represented Respondent at the initial hearing.,
Mark K. Sahl(HOA attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP Represented Respondent at the rehearing.,
Scott B. Carpenter(HOA attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP Represented Respondent at the rehearing.,
Joseph Silberschlag(board member) Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation Secretary of the Board of Directors; testified at the initial hearing; also referred to as 'Joe Silberschlag' in the petition request.,,,
Debbie Schumacher(board member) Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation Named in Petitioner's record request email.,
Marty Shuford(board member) Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation Named in Petitioner's record request email.,
Angelina Rajenovich(board member) Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation Named in Petitioner's record request email.,
Dermot Brown(board member) Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation Named in Petitioner's record request email.,
Lori Nusbaum(board member) Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation Named in Petitioner's record request email.,
Linda Parker(property manager) Associa Arizona Director of Client Services; responded to Petitioner's record requests.,,,
Evelyn Shanley(property manager/witness) Associa Arizona Community Director; previously communicated with Petitioner; testified at the rehearing.,,,
Laura Smith(property manager) Associa Arizona Previously communicated with Petitioner regarding records.,
Neutral Parties
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
c. serrano(admin staff) Transmitted the initial decision.
Other Participants
Stephen Silberschlag(unknown) Petitioner requested proof of his liability insurance.,
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
20F-H2020064-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2021-03-24
Administrative Law Judge
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome
full
Filing Fees Refunded
$500.00
Civil Penalties
$2,500.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Nancy L. Babington
Counsel
—
Respondent
Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
Counsel
Mark K. Sahl, Scott B. Carpenter
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge found Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A). Respondent was ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee and pay a $2,500.00 civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to make financial and other association records reasonably available for examination/provide copies within ten business days
Petitioner formally requested several records on May 1, 2020, but Respondent failed to provide the documents within the 10-day statutory limit. Evidence presented at the rehearing established that Respondent possessed the requested bank statements and contracts prior to the request.
Orders: Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner her $500.00 filing fee and pay a civil penalty of $2,500.00 to the Department of Real Estate.
Briefing Document: Babington v. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the key findings, arguments, and outcomes from the administrative case of Nancy L. Babington (Petitioner) versus the Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation (Respondent). The dispute centered on the Respondent’s failure to provide association records as required by Arizona state law (A.R.S. § 33-1258).
The case progressed through two distinct phases: an initial hearing that ruled in favor of the Respondent, and a subsequent rehearing that reversed the decision. The initial ruling was based on the Respondent’s testimony that it did not possess the requested records due to a dispute with a former management company. However, the rehearing was granted based on newly discovered evidence proving the Respondent, through its management company and board, did possess key documents at the time of the request.
The final judgment established that the Respondent had violated state law. The Administrative Law Judge rejected the Respondent’s defense, including the argument that records held in a corporate satellite office were not in its possession. As a result, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee and pay a $2,500 civil penalty to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Case Background and Timeline
The dispute arose from a records request made by Petitioner Nancy L. Babington to her condominium association, Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation, and its management company, Associa Arizona. The timeline of key events is as follows:
June-July 2019
Respondent’s prior management company, Community Management & Consulting, LLC (CMC), terminates its agreement.
Post-July 2019
Respondent hires Associa Arizona (Associa). Associa and the Respondent encounter difficulty obtaining records from CMC due to a financial dispute.
April 29, 2020
Petitioner sends a formal email requesting association records from September 1, 2019, to April 28, 2020, citing A.R.S. § 33-1258.
May 1, 2020
Petitioner provides a specific, nine-point list of requested documents, including bank statements, financial statements, and contracts.
May 28, 2020
Having received no documents, Petitioner files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
August 28, 2020
The Office of Administrative Hearings conducts the initial hearing.
September 17, 2020
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues a decision denying the petition.
Post-Sept 2020
Respondent provides some of the requested documents to the Petitioner. Upon review, Petitioner discovers evidence that the documents had been in the Respondent’s possession prior to her request.
Date Unspecified
Petitioner files a request for rehearing based on newly discovered material evidence.
March 4, 2021
A rehearing is held.
March 24, 2021
The ALJ issues a new decision, reversing the original finding and ruling in favor of the Petitioner.
The Initial Hearing: Petition Denied
The initial hearing on August 28, 2020, focused on whether the Respondent had violated its statutory obligation to provide records.
Petitioner’s Allegation
The Petitioner’s case was based on her formal request for records on April 29, 2020, and the Respondent’s failure to produce any documents. Her petition stated:
“After repeated attempts since the beginning of this year to get information, on April 29, 2020 I emailed Associa Arizona and the Board of Directors of Park Scottsdale II formally requesting records per ARS 33-1258 and to date, May 25, 2020, I have not received anything.”
Respondent’s Defense
The Respondent’s primary defense was that it could not provide documents that were not in its possession.
• Withheld Records: Joseph Silberschlag, Secretary of the Board of Directors, testified that due to ongoing issues with the former management company (CMC), neither the association nor Associa had possession of many documents, including previous financial records.
• Inability to Create Documents: Mr. Silberschlag stated that without the starting balances from CMC, it was not possible to create current financial statements.
• No Obligation to Create: The Respondent argued it was “under no statutory obligation to create documents to respond to Petitioner’s request.”
Ruling and Rationale
The ALJ sided with the Respondent in the initial decision. The judge noted that while there was no dispute that the documents were not provided within the 10-day statutory period, the Petitioner had not provided any authority showing the Respondent was required to create a document responsive to her request. The ruling concluded:
“Respondent did not have possession of any of the documents requested at the time of Petitioner’s request… Thus, Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).”
The petition was subsequently denied on September 17, 2020.
The Rehearing: Decision Reversed
A rehearing was granted after the Petitioner discovered that, contrary to the testimony at the initial hearing, the Respondent had possessed several of the requested documents. The rehearing on March 4, 2021, introduced new evidence that fundamentally changed the outcome of the case.
New Evidence and Testimony
The Petitioner presented evidence focusing on three categories of documents she had requested:
• Bank Statements: Petitioner testified that bank statements she received after the initial hearing showed they had been sent to Associa starting in August 2019. Evelyn Shanley, Community Director for Associa, testified that the statements were sent to a national office in Richardson, Texas, and admitted she did not contact that office to obtain them in response to the Petitioner’s request.
• Contracts: Petitioner received two contracts signed by board members on March 27 and March 31, 2020, which were in existence prior to her request. Ms. Shanley admitted these were not provided because the board members had not given them to Associa.
• 1099s: Petitioner noted a document indicating four vendors were eligible for 1099s for 2019. Ms. Shanley denied that any 1099s had been issued.
Respondent’s Evolved Arguments
Faced with the new evidence, the Respondent’s arguments shifted:
• “Immediate Possession”: Counsel argued that the requested documents were not in the “immediate possession” of Associa’s local office.
• Concession on Bank Statements: During closing arguments, Respondent’s counsel acknowledged that “‘one could concede’ the bank statements located in Richardson, Texas were in the possession of Associa and should have been provided to Petitioner in response to her request.”
• Mootness and Penalties: Counsel argued the matter was now moot because the documents had been provided. It was further argued that a civil penalty was inappropriate because the Petitioner did not specifically request one on her initial petition form.
Final Ruling and Rationale
The ALJ found the new evidence compelling and decisive.
• Direct Contradiction: The ruling stated that “the evidence presented during the rehearing was directly contradictory” to the representation made at the initial hearing that Respondent did not have possession of the documents.
• Violation Established: The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner successfully “established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).”
• Authority for Civil Penalty: The ALJ firmly rejected the Respondent’s argument against a civil penalty. The decision cited A.R.S. § 32-2199.02, noting that the plain language of the statute grants the judge the authority to levy a penalty for established violations. The judge wrote, “Nothing in the statute limits the available remedies to those specifically requested by a petitioner.”
Final Order and Penalties
Given the established violation, the ALJ found that a civil penalty was appropriate. The final order, issued March 24, 2021, mandated the following actions by the Respondent within 30 days of the decision’s mailing date:
1. Reimbursement of Filing Fee: Pay the Petitioner, Nancy L. Babington, her filing fee of $500.00.
2. Payment of Civil Penalty: Pay the Arizona Department of Real Estate a civil penalty of $2,500.00.
Study Guide – 20F-H2020064-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Babington v. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case Nancy L. Babington vs. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation. It covers the initial hearing, the subsequent rehearing, the key arguments presented by both parties, and the final legal outcome. The materials are designed to test and deepen understanding of the case’s facts, legal principles, and timeline.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, using only information provided in the case documents.
1. What specific Arizona statute did Petitioner Nancy L. Babington allege that the Respondent, Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation, had violated?
2. What was the Respondent’s primary defense during the initial hearing for not providing the requested documents within the statutory timeframe?
3. What was the official outcome of the first Administrative Law Judge Decision issued on September 17, 2020?
4. On what legal grounds did the Petitioner successfully request a rehearing of the case?
5. What new evidence regarding the requested bank statements was introduced during the rehearing?
6. How did the Respondent’s management company, Associa Arizona, explain its failure to produce the two contracts signed in March 2020?
7. What was the Respondent’s counsel’s argument at the rehearing for why a civil penalty should not be levied?
8. How did the Administrative Law Judge counter the Respondent’s argument regarding the imposition of a civil penalty?
9. What two financial penalties were included in the final order issued on March 24, 2021?
10. What is the standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and what is its definition according to the case file?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had violated A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16, Section 33-1258. This statute requires a condominium owners association to make its financial and other records reasonably available for examination by any member within ten business days of a request.
2. During the initial hearing, the Respondent argued that it was unable to provide the documents because they were not in its possession. This was attributed to a financial disagreement with its former management company, Community Management & Consulting (CMC), which was withholding records.
3. The first decision, issued on September 17, 2020, was in favor of the Respondent. The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition, concluding she had failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the statute, as it was not required to create or provide documents it did not possess.
4. A rehearing was granted based on the Petitioner’s claim of “newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.” After the initial ruling, the Respondent provided some documents, which revealed that it had, in fact, been in possession of them prior to the Petitioner’s formal request.
5. During the rehearing, it was revealed that bank statements were being sent to Associa’s national central office in Richardson, Texas, starting in August 2019. An Associa representative admitted that the local office never contacted the central office to obtain these statements in response to the Petitioner’s request.
6. Associa’s representative, Evelyn Shanley, admitted that two signed contracts existed but had not been provided to the Petitioner. She stated this was because the members of the Board of Directors who signed them had not yet provided the contracts to Associa.
7. The Respondent’s counsel argued that a civil penalty was not appropriate because the Petitioner did not specifically request one by checking the corresponding box on the initial petition. Counsel asserted that the rehearing process was not designed for the Petitioner to change the relief requested.
8. The Judge rejected the Respondent’s argument, stating it was an erroneous interpretation of A.R.S. § 32-2199.02. The Judge clarified that the plain language of the statute allows the Administrative Law Judge to levy a civil penalty for established violations, and nothing in the statute limits available remedies to only those specifically requested by a petitioner.
9. The final order required the Respondent to pay the Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00. Additionally, the Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $2,500.00 to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
10. The required standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence.” The case document defines this as “Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for essay-style responses. Formulate a comprehensive argument using only the evidence and legal reasoning presented in the source documents.
1. Analyze the concept of “possession” as it applied to the association’s records in this case. How did the distinction between Associa’s local Arizona office and its national central office in Texas impact the initial ruling versus the outcome of the rehearing?
2. Trace the evolution of the Respondent’s legal arguments from the first hearing to the second. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of their positions at each stage, including the “mootness” argument, and explain why their defense ultimately failed.
3. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence.” How did the Petitioner fail to meet this standard in the initial hearing but succeed in the rehearing? Use specific examples of evidence related to the bank statements and contracts to support the analysis.
4. Examine the role and authority of the Administrative Law Judge in this case, particularly concerning the decision to grant a rehearing and the authority to levy a civil penalty even when not explicitly requested by the petitioner.
5. Evaluate the significance of A.R.S. § 33-1258 for condominium owners. Using the facts of this case, explain the rights it grants to members and the obligations it places on associations and their management companies regarding record-keeping and transparency.
——————————————————————————–
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 decisions and orders. In this case, the ALJ was Tammy L. Eigenheer.
A.R.S. § 33-1258
The specific Arizona Revised Statute that requires condominium associations to make all financial and other records reasonably available for examination by a member within ten business days of a request.
Associa Arizona (Associa)
The management company hired by Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation after the termination of the previous management agreement. Associa was responsible for handling the Petitioner’s records request on behalf of the association.
Civil Penalty
A monetary penalty levied by a government agency or administrative judge for a violation of a statute or regulation. In this case, a $2,500 penalty was levied against the Respondent for violating A.R.S. § 33-1258.
Community Management & Consulting, LLC (CMC)
The previous management company for Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation. CMC terminated its agreement in 2019 and was withholding records from the association due to a financial disagreement.
Department of Real Estate
The Arizona state agency with jurisdiction to hear disputes between property owners and condominium owners associations. The Petitioner filed her initial petition with this department.
HOA Dispute Rehearing Request
The formal request filed by the Petitioner with the Department of Real Estate to have the case reheard. It was granted based on the discovery of new material evidence.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, the Petitioner was Nancy L. Babington, a member of the condominium association.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent was Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation, the condominium owners association.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020064-REL-RHG
She Sued Her HOA and Lost. What Happened Next Reversed Everything: 4 Lessons from a Homeowner’s Fight for Records
For too many homeowners, the Homeowner’s Association is a black box. Simple requests for financial records or board contracts—information you are legally entitled to—are met with delays, excuses, or outright silence. This isn’t just an annoyance; it’s an abuse of power that can leave residents feeling helpless against a secretive body that controls their property and their money. But what happens when one homeowner refuses to accept the stonewalling?
The case of Nancy L. Babington versus her Scottsdale, Arizona HOA provides a powerful playbook for fighting back. Documented in public legal records, her journey began with a standard request for records, escalated to a legal petition that she initially lost, and ended with a stunning reversal that holds critical lessons for every homeowner in America. Her fight demonstrates how persistence, diligence, and an understanding of the law can turn a seemingly hopeless situation into a victory for transparency.
Here are the four essential lessons from her successful battle for accountability.
1. Lesson One: An Initial Loss Isn’t the Final Word
Nancy Babington’s initial petition against her HOA was denied. At the first hearing on August 28, 2020, the HOA presented a seemingly plausible defense: they couldn’t provide the records because of an ongoing dispute with a former management company, CMC, which they claimed was withholding the documents.
The judge sided with the HOA. In a decision issued on September 17, 2020, the judge ruled against Babington, stating she had not sufficiently proven her case. The official ruling found she “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).” For most people, this would have been the end of the story.
But then the HOA made a critical, almost theatrical, miscalculation. After their victory, they provided Babington with some of the documents she had requested. As she reviewed them, she discovered the bombshell: the records proved the HOA had possessed crucial documents like bank statements and signed board contracts all along. These documents had nothing to do with the former management company, CMC, making the HOA’s initial defense appear to be a deliberate misdirection. This was the “newly discovered material evidence” she needed. The homeowner turned the HOA’s own actions against them, securing a rehearing on March 4, 2021, that would unravel their entire case.
2. Lesson Two: “Possession” Is More Than What’s in the Local Office
During the rehearing, the HOA pivoted to a new excuse, this time concerning bank statements. Their national management company, Associa, had its bank statements sent to a central office in Richardson, Texas. Because the records weren’t physically in the local Arizona office, the HOA argued they were not in their “immediate possession” and therefore not subject to the production deadline.
Under questioning, the Community Director, Evelyn Shanley, admitted she never even contacted the Texas office to get the statements for the homeowner. The HOA’s legal argument rested on the idea that their own corporate geography could shield them from transparency laws.
The judge flatly rejected this logic. An organization is responsible for its own records, no matter where they are stored. The argument was so weak that the HOA’s own lawyer was forced to backpedal during the hearing. The final decision noted:
Counsel acknowledged during closing arguments that “one could concede” the bank statements located in Richardson, Texas were in the possession of Associa and should have been provided to Petitioner in response to her request.
This ruling is a critical precedent: Your HOA cannot hide records in a corporate vault in another state and claim they are out of reach. If the documents belong to the association, they are in its possession, period.
3. Lesson Three: The Board Is the HOA, Not a Separate Entity
The next fight was over two contracts signed by board members in March 2020—documents that were created months after the dispute with the old management company. The excuse for not providing them? The management company claimed the contracts “had not been provided by the members of the Board of Directors to Associa.”
This was an attempt to create a legal fiction—that the Board of Directors and the HOA’s management company are separate entities, and that if the Board withholds a document from its own agent, the HOA can claim ignorance. The court did not buy it. By holding the HOA (the Respondent) responsible for the failure to produce the documents, the judge made it clear that this distinction is invalid.
For the purposes of records law, the Board is the HOA. The lesson is clear: The buck stops with the HOA. Board members cannot play a shell game with documents to evade their legal duty.
4. Lesson Four: Justice Doesn’t Require You to Check the Right Box
Having lost on the facts, the HOA’s counsel made one last-ditch effort to avoid a penalty. They argued that a civil penalty was inappropriate because the petitioner “did not indicate in her petition that she was seeking a civil penalty.” In essence, they claimed that because she hadn’t checked the right box on a form, the judge was powerless to punish them for breaking the law.
The Administrative Law Judge swiftly dismantled this procedural excuse. The judge’s final decision, issued on March 24, 2021, explicitly called out the HOA’s flawed logic:
Respondent erroneously interpreted A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 to require a petitioner to identify the requested relief in the petition when the plain language of the statute provides that the Administrative Law Judge may levy a civil penalty for violations that are established. Nothing in the statute limits the available remedies to those specifically requested by a petitioner.
The final ruling was the tangible consequence of the HOA’s failed arguments and lack of transparency. The judge ordered the HOA to reimburse Babington’s $500 filing fee and levied a separate $2,500 civil penalty payable to the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The message was unmistakable: the law has teeth, and a judge can use them based on the facts, regardless of which boxes were checked on a form.
Conclusion: Knowledge is Power
Nancy Babington’s fight is a masterclass in homeowner advocacy. Her journey from a seemingly hopeless loss to a precedent-setting victory proves that a single resident, armed with facts and relentless persistence, can force an HOA to follow the law. This case affirms that transparency is a legal requirement, not an optional courtesy. It serves as a powerful reminder that while the law is on the side of transparency, it often falls to diligent homeowners to hold their associations accountable.
This case was won because the facts came to light—do you know what your rights are, and what records you’re entitled to see from your own HOA?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Nancy L. Babington(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf at both the initial hearing and the rehearing.,
Respondent Side
Lydia Linsmeier(HOA attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP Represented Respondent at the initial hearing.,
Mark K. Sahl(HOA attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP Represented Respondent at the rehearing.,
Scott B. Carpenter(HOA attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP Represented Respondent at the rehearing.,
Joseph Silberschlag(board member) Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation Secretary of the Board of Directors; testified at the initial hearing; also referred to as 'Joe Silberschlag' in the petition request.,,,
Debbie Schumacher(board member) Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation Named in Petitioner's record request email.,
Marty Shuford(board member) Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation Named in Petitioner's record request email.,
Angelina Rajenovich(board member) Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation Named in Petitioner's record request email.,
Dermot Brown(board member) Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation Named in Petitioner's record request email.,
Lori Nusbaum(board member) Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation Named in Petitioner's record request email.,
Linda Parker(property manager) Associa Arizona Director of Client Services; responded to Petitioner's record requests.,,,
Evelyn Shanley(property manager/witness) Associa Arizona Community Director; previously communicated with Petitioner; testified at the rehearing.,,,
Laura Smith(property manager) Associa Arizona Previously communicated with Petitioner regarding records.,
Neutral Parties
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
c. serrano(admin staff) Transmitted the initial decision.
Other Participants
Stephen Silberschlag(unknown) Petitioner requested proof of his liability insurance.,
Following a rehearing based on newly discovered evidence, the Administrative Law Judge found that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) by failing to timely provide records it possessed. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee and pay a $2,500.00 civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to make association financial and other records reasonably available for examination/provide copies within ten business days.
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by failing to provide requested records (including bank statements and contracts) following a formal request on May 1, 2020. The Administrative Law Judge, in the rehearing, found that the evidence showed Respondent was in possession of bank statements and two signed contracts at the time of the request, contradicting prior testimony, thereby establishing a violation of the statute.
Orders: Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee reimbursement and pay a civil penalty of $2,500.00 to the Department of Real Estate, both payments due within 30 days.
Following a rehearing based on newly discovered evidence, the Administrative Law Judge found that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) by failing to timely provide records it possessed. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee and pay a $2,500.00 civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to make association financial and other records reasonably available for examination/provide copies within ten business days.
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by failing to provide requested records (including bank statements and contracts) following a formal request on May 1, 2020. The Administrative Law Judge, in the rehearing, found that the evidence showed Respondent was in possession of bank statements and two signed contracts at the time of the request, contradicting prior testimony, thereby establishing a violation of the statute.
Orders: Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee reimbursement and pay a civil penalty of $2,500.00 to the Department of Real Estate, both payments due within 30 days.
Topics: HOA records request, A.R.S. 33-1258, Rehearing, Civil Penalty, Possession of Records
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
20F-H2020064-REL Decision – 823263.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:33 (108.6 KB)
Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020064-REL
Briefing Document: Babington v. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings from two administrative hearings concerning a records request dispute between homeowner Nancy L. Babington (Petitioner) and the Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation (Respondent). The case, No. 20F-H2020064-REL, culminated in a reversal of an initial ruling, finding the Respondent in violation of Arizona law A.R.S. § 33-1258 for failing to provide association records within the statutory timeframe.
The initial hearing on August 28, 2020, resulted in a denial of the petition. The Respondent successfully argued that it could not produce the requested documents because they were not in its possession, largely due to a dispute with a former management company. However, a rehearing was granted after the Petitioner discovered new evidence.
The rehearing on March 4, 2021, established that the Respondent, through its management company Associa Arizona, was in possession of key requested documents—specifically bank statements and signed contracts—at the time of the initial request. Evidence revealed the bank statements were held at a central corporate office in Texas and were not retrieved, while signed contracts had not been forwarded to the management company by board members. The Administrative Law Judge found this directly contradicted the Respondent’s initial defense.
As a result, the Administrative Law Judge reversed the earlier decision, ordering the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee and imposing a $2,500 civil penalty payable to the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The case underscores an association’s responsibility to produce all records in its possession, regardless of physical location within the corporate structure, and affirms the court’s authority to levy penalties for violations.
——————————————————————————–
1. Case Overview
• Case Number: 20F-H2020064-REL
• Petitioner: Nancy L. Babington
• Respondent: Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
• Core Allegation: Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258, which mandates that a condominium owners’ association must make its financial and other records reasonably available for examination by a member within ten business days of a request.
• Hearings Conducted:
◦ Initial Hearing: August 28, 2020
◦ Rehearing: March 4, 2021
• Presiding Administrative Law Judge: Tammy L. Eigenheer
2. Chronology of the Dispute
The dispute originated from difficulties following a change in the Respondent’s management company and subsequent records requests by the Petitioner.
• June-July 2019: The previous management company, Community Management & Consulting, LLC (CMC), terminated its agreement with the Respondent. A “financial disagreement” led to CMC withholding records, complicating the transition.
• Post-July 2019: Respondent hired Associa Arizona as its new management company. Associa and the Respondent’s counsel attempted to obtain the withheld records from CMC.
• April 29, 2020: After previous attempts to get information, Petitioner Nancy L. Babington sent a formal email to Associa and the Respondent’s Board of Directors. In the email, she stated:
• May 1, 2020: Linda Parker, Director of Client Services with Associa, replied, stating the request was not specific and asked the Petitioner to identify the exact records needed.
• May 1, 2020: The Petitioner responded with a detailed list of nine specific items:
1. All bank statements with copies of cancelled checks since Sept 1, 2019.
2. Any and all financial statements since Sept 1, 2019.
3. Any and all 1099s issued for 2019.
4. Any and all Executive Session meeting minutes conducted in 2020 (excluding statutory exemptions).
5. Any and all contracts signed in 2020.
6. Any and all outstanding invoices with a due date over 45 days.
7. Any documentation regarding the legality of the $204.75 maintenance fee.
8. Any proof of Stephen Silberschlag’s liability insurance.
9. Any landscaping plans.
• May 4, 2020: Ms. Parker from Associa responded that the company could only provide records within its possession.
• May 15, 2020: Following another email from the Petitioner, Ms. Parker stated that Associa had scheduled a meeting with the board on May 20 to discuss the request further.
• May 28, 2020: Having not received any of the requested documents, the Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
3. The Initial Hearing and Decision (August – September 2020)
The first hearing focused on whether the Respondent had violated the statute by failing to produce the documents.
• The Respondent argued that it was unable to provide documents that were not in its possession.
• Joseph Silberschlag, Secretary of the Board of Directors, testified that issues with the former management company (CMC) meant neither the Respondent nor Associa had possession of many necessary documents.
• Specifically, he stated that without previous financial documents and starting balances from CMC, the association was unable to create current financial statements.
• The Respondent maintained it was under no statutory obligation to create documents to fulfill the Petitioner’s request.
• The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the Petitioner “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).”
• The finding was based on the Respondent’s argument that it did not possess the requested documents at the time of the request.
• On September 17, 2020, the ALJ issued a decision denying the Petitioner’s petition.
4. The Rehearing and Reversal (March 2021)
Following the initial decision, the case was reopened based on new evidence presented by the Petitioner.
• After the September 2020 decision, the Respondent provided some of the requested documents to the Petitioner.
• Upon reviewing these documents, the Petitioner realized that the Respondent had, in fact, been in possession of several key records prior to her May 1, 2020 request.
• She filed a Rehearing Request with the Department of Real Estate, citing “newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.” The request was granted.
The rehearing revealed crucial details about the location and accessibility of the requested records.
Record Type
Petitioner’s Evidence
Respondent’s Testimony/Explanation
Bank Statements
The documents received post-hearing showed that bank statements had been sent to Associa starting in August 2019.
Evelyn Shanley, Community Director for Associa, testified that statements for all HOAs were sent to a central office in Richardson, Texas. She admitted she did not contact the Texas office to obtain the statements for the Petitioner’s request. Counsel for the Respondent conceded the statements in Texas were in the possession of Associa.
Contracts
Petitioner presented two contracts signed by Board members on March 27 and March 31, 2020, prior to her request.
Ms. Shanley admitted the two signed contracts existed but stated that the Board of Directors members had not provided them to Associa.
1099 Forms
Petitioner noted a document indicating four vendors were eligible for 1099s.
Ms. Shanley denied that any 1099s had been issued.
• The documents were not in the “immediate possession” of the local Associa office.
• The matter was now moot because the Petitioner had received all requested documents.
• A civil penalty was inappropriate because the Petitioner did not specifically request one on her initial petition form.
• The evidence presented at the rehearing was “directly contradictory” to the representations made by the Respondent at the initial hearing.
• The Petitioner successfully established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) by failing to provide documents (bank statements and contracts) that were in its possession.
• The ALJ rejected the Respondent’s argument against a civil penalty, stating that the plain language of A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 allows the judge to levy a penalty for established violations, and “nothing in the statute limits the available remedies to those specifically requested by a petitioner.”
5. Final Order and Penalties
The Administrative Law Judge Decision issued on March 24, 2021, reversed the initial finding and imposed penalties on the Respondent.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Respondent must pay the Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00 within 30 days.
2. Respondent must pay to the Department of Real Estate a civil penalty in the amount of $2,500.00 within 30 days.
Study Guide – 20F-H2020064-REL
Study Guide: Babington v. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
This study guide provides a review of the administrative case involving Petitioner Nancy L. Babington and Respondent Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation. It includes a short-answer quiz to test factual recall, a separate answer key, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms and entities involved in the proceedings.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer each question in 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the case documents.
1. Who were the primary parties in this case, and what was the Petitioner’s central allegation?
2. What specific Arizona statute was the Respondent accused of violating, and what does this law generally require?
3. What was the Respondent’s main defense during the initial hearing on August 28, 2020, for not providing the requested records?
4. What was the conclusion of the Administrative Law Judge in the first decision, issued on September 17, 2020?
5. On what legal grounds did the Petitioner successfully file for a rehearing of her case?
6. What new evidence regarding bank statements was presented by the Petitioner at the March 4, 2021, rehearing?
7. How did the Respondent’s management company, Associa Arizona, explain its failure to produce the bank statements and signed contracts in response to the initial request?
8. What was the final outcome of the rehearing, and how did it contradict the initial decision?
9. What two financial penalties were imposed upon the Respondent in the final order of March 24, 2021?
10. What was the Respondent’s argument against the imposition of a civil penalty, and why did the Administrative Law Judge reject it?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Petitioner Nancy L. Babington, a property owner, and Respondent Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation, a condominium owners association. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent failed to provide association records she formally requested, in violation of Arizona law.
2. The Respondent was accused of violating A.R.S. § 33-1258. This statute requires a condominium owners association to make its financial and other records reasonably available for examination by a member and to provide copies of requested records within ten business days.
3. During the initial hearing, the Respondent’s main defense was that it was unable to provide the documents because they were not in its possession. The Respondent claimed its former management company, CMC, was withholding records and that without starting balances, it could not create new financial documents.
4. The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition in the first decision. The judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the statute because the Respondent did not possess the documents and was not required to create them.
5. The Petitioner was granted a rehearing based on the discovery of “newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.” After the first decision, the Respondent provided documents that proved it had, in fact, been in possession of some of the requested records prior to her request.
6. At the rehearing, the Petitioner testified that after receiving the documents, she realized bank statements had been sent to Associa’s central office in Richardson, Texas, starting in August 2019. This demonstrated that the records were in the management company’s possession when she made her request.
7. Associa’s representative testified that bank statements went to a central office in Texas and were not forwarded to the local office because financial packets could not be prepared without starting balances from the previous management company. Regarding the contracts, Associa claimed that the Board of Directors members who signed them had not provided the contracts to Associa.
8. The final outcome of the rehearing was a ruling in favor of the Petitioner. The judge found that evidence presented at the rehearing directly contradicted the Respondent’s earlier claims, establishing that the Respondent did possess bank statements and contracts and had violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).
9. In the final order, the Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00. Additionally, the Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $2,500.00 to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
10. The Respondent argued that a civil penalty was not appropriate because the Petitioner did not specifically request one by checking the box on the petition form. The judge rejected this, stating that the plain language of A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 allows the judge to levy a civil penalty for established violations, and this authority is not limited by the remedies requested by a petitioner.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
The following questions are designed for analytical and in-depth responses. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the concept of “possession” of records as it evolved from the first hearing to the second. How did the Respondent’s initial interpretation of “immediate possession” differ from the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding the records held by Associa’s Texas office?
2. Discuss the significance of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in this case. Explain specifically how the Petitioner failed to meet this standard in the first hearing but succeeded in the second, citing the key pieces of evidence that shifted the outcome.
3. Evaluate the role and responsibilities of the management company, Associa Arizona, in this dispute. To what extent were its internal procedures and actions (or inactions) the primary cause of the Respondent’s violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258?
4. Trace the timeline of communication between Nancy Babington and Associa Arizona from April 29, 2020, to May 15, 2020. Analyze how the responses from Associa may have contributed to the perception that the Respondent was refusing to provide information, ultimately leading to the petition being filed.
5. The Administrative Law Judge has the statutory authority to levy a civil penalty for each violation found. Based on the facts of this case, including the Respondent’s representations at the first hearing and the contradictory evidence presented at the second, construct an argument justifying the imposition of the $2,500 civil penalty.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Term / Entity
Definition
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
The Arizona Revised Statute cited as giving the Arizona Department of Real Estate jurisdiction to hear disputes between a property owner and a condominium owners association.
A.R.S. § 33-1258
The Arizona Revised Statute at the core of the dispute. It requires that an association’s financial and other records be made “reasonably available” for examination and that the association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official from the Office of Administrative Hearings (Tammy L. Eigenheer in this case) responsible for conducting the hearings, weighing evidence, and issuing a legally binding decision and order.
Associa Arizona
The management company hired by the Respondent to handle its operations after the termination of the previous management agreement. It was the primary point of contact for the Petitioner’s records request.
Civil Penalty
A monetary fine levied by the Administrative Law Judge for a violation of the law. In this case, a $2,500 penalty was ordered to be paid to the Department of Real Estate.
Community Management & Consulting, LLC (CMC)
The Respondent’s former management company. CMC terminated its agreement with the Respondent and was withholding association records due to a financial disagreement, which was a key part of the Respondent’s defense in the initial hearing.
Department of Real Estate (Department)
The Arizona state agency with which the Petitioner filed her petition and which has jurisdiction over such disputes.
A legal argument made by the Respondent’s counsel during the rehearing. Counsel asserted that the matter was moot (no longer relevant or in dispute) because, by the time of the rehearing, the Petitioner had received all the documents she requested.
Newly Discovered Material Evidence
The legal basis upon which the Petitioner was granted a rehearing. It refers to significant evidence that was not available at the time of the original hearing despite reasonable diligence.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action or petition. In this case, Nancy L. Babington, a condominium owner.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required for the Petitioner to win her case. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and shows that the fact sought to be proved is “more probable than not.”
Rehearing
A second hearing granted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate to re-examine a case, which was held on March 4, 2021, after the Petitioner presented newly discovered evidence.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation, the condominium owners association.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020064-REL
Select all sources
823263.pdf
866802.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
20F-H2020064-REL-RHG
2 sources
These two sources are Administrative Law Judge Decisions concerning a dispute between Nancy L. Babington, a homeowner, and the Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation, her condominium owners association, regarding the provision of association records under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1258. The first document details the initial hearing, held in August 2020, where the judge ruled in favor of the association, concluding that the association was not in violation because it lacked possession of the requested documents due to issues with its former management company. The second document outlines the rehearing, granted due to newly discovered evidence suggesting the association or its new management company, Associa Arizona, actually possessed some records, such as bank statements and contracts, despite earlier claims. Based on the rehearing’s findings, the judge determined the association violated the statute by not providing the records within the ten-day requirement and ordered the association to reimburse the petitioner’s filing fee and pay a civil penalty.
How did newly discovered evidence lead to reversal of the initial legal decision?
What were the specific consequences for the respondent following the administrative rehearing?
How did the interpretation of statutory record possession requirements change between hearings?
Based on 2 sources
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Nancy L. Babington(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier(HOA attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP Represented Respondent at initial hearing
Mark K. Sahl(HOA attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP Represented Respondent at rehearing
Scott B. Carpenter(HOA attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP Represented Respondent at rehearing
Debbie Schumacher(board member) Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
Marty Shuford(board member) Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
Joseph Silberschlag(board member) Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation Secretary; testified
Angelina Rajenovich(board member) Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
Dermot Brown(board member) Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
Lori Nusbaum(board member) Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
Linda Parker(HOA staff) Associa Arizona Director of Client Services for property manager
Evelyn Shanley(HOA staff) Associa Arizona Community Director for property manager; testified at rehearing
Laura Smith(HOA staff) Associa Arizona
Neutral Parties
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) OAH
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
LDettorre(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
DGardner(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
ncano(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
c. serrano(staff) Signed order transmission
Other Participants
Stephen Silberschlag(unknown) Subject of Petitioner's record request
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Condominium Association violated its governing documents or state statute regarding record inspection, specifically because the Association did not possess and was not required to create a Membership Register containing unit owners' email addresses.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the provisions of CC&Rs Section 11.4.8, Bylaws Section 10.3, or A.R.S. § 33-1158 (or § 33-1258) because the requested record (a Membership Register containing email addresses) did not exist, and the Association was not obligated to create it.
Key Issues & Findings
Refusal to provide access to the membership register (Owner Roster with emails)
Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated governing documents and statute by refusing access to the membership register containing email addresses. Respondent argued email addresses were protected 'personal records' under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4). The ALJ found the Petitioner failed to prove a violation because the requested document (a Membership Register containing emails) did not exist, and Respondent had no obligation to create it.
Orders: The petition is dismissed and no action is required of Respondent.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1258
CC&Rs 11.4.8
Bylaws 10.3
Analytics Highlights
Topics: records inspection, membership roster, email addresses, HOA records, condominium association, A.R.S. 33-1258
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4)
A.R.S. § 33-1158
CC&Rs 11.4.8
Bylaws 10.3
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
20F-H2020055-REL Decision – 807817.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:32:44 (107.3 KB)
Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020055-REL
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Tomisak v. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association
Executive Summary
This briefing document outlines the findings and decision in the case of Robert Tomisak versus the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association (Case No. 20F-H2020055-REL), heard in the Office of Administrative Hearings. The petitioner, Mr. Tomisak, alleged that the Association violated its governing documents and Arizona state law by refusing his request for an owner roster that included member email addresses. The Association countered that email addresses constitute protected personal information and, more critically, that a membership register containing such information no longer exists.
The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed the petition. The decision did not hinge on whether email addresses are “personal records” under the law. Instead, the ruling was based on the factual determination that the Association cannot be compelled to produce a document that it does not maintain. Since the Association had ceased including email addresses in its Membership Register in 2018, the judge concluded that the petitioner had no right to a non-existent record and had failed to meet the burden of proof required to show a violation.
I. Case Overview
Case Name
Robert Tomisak v. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association
Case Number
20F-H2020055-REL
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Sondra J. Vanella
Petitioner
Robert Tomisak, Owner of Unit 1902 (Appeared on his own behalf)
Respondent
Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association (Represented by Property Manager Terri Troy)
Hearing Date
July 9, 2020
Decision Date
July 17, 2020
II. Petitioner’s Allegations
On April 15, 2020, Robert Tomisak filed a single-issue petition alleging that the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association had violated its own governing documents and Arizona state law. The core of the complaint was the Association’s refusal to fulfill his March 11, 2020, email request “to provide access to the membership register” containing owner email addresses.
Mr. Tomisak specifically cited violations of the following provisions:
• Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs): Article 11, Section 4.8
• Bylaws: Article 10.3
• Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.): § 33-1258
III. Respondent’s Position and Defense
The Association, through its property management company AS&A Property Management, Inc., and represented by Property Manager Terri Troy, denied all allegations. The defense rested on two key arguments:
1. Privacy Exemption: The Association contended that members’ email addresses are “personal records” and therefore exempt from disclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4), which protects the “personal, health or financial records of an individual member.”
2. Non-Existence of the Record: Ms. Troy testified that while the Association would readily provide the official Membership Register (containing names and addresses), this document no longer includes email addresses. This practice of excluding emails from the register began in 2018.
IV. Key Evidence and Testimony
The March 11, 2020 Email Exchange
The dispute originated with a direct email exchange between the petitioner and the property manager.
• Petitioner’s Request (7:33 a.m.): Mr. Tomisak sent an email with the subject line “Owner Roster” stating:
• Respondent’s Denial (8:23 a.m.): Ms. Troy responded with a direct refusal, citing the statutory exemption for personal information:
Hearing Testimony
During the July 9, 2020 hearing, both parties presented their arguments:
• Robert Tomisak (Petitioner): Acknowledged that he already had access to member mailing addresses but specifically required their email addresses. He argued that email addresses are not “personal information” and cited “the internet” and “California case law” as authority for this position.
• Terri Troy (Respondent): Reiterated the Association’s willingness to provide the existing Membership Register, which contains names, addresses, and unit numbers. She explained that email addresses had been removed from this register starting in 2018 and that her refusal was based on the belief that emails are protected “personal records” under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4).
The Administrative Law Judge noted that neither party cited “any relevant or persuasive legal authority” to formally define “personal records” as used in the statute.
V. Legal Framework and Governing Documents
The case centered on the interpretation of three key provisions granting members access to Association records.
Document
Section
Key Provision
11.4.8
“The Association shall make available to Owners… current copies of the Declaration, Articles, Bylaws, rules of the Association and the books, records, and financial statements of the Association.”
Bylaws
“The membership register… shall be made available for inspection and copying by Members of the Association… for a purpose reasonably related to their interests as Members…”
A.R.S.
§ 33-1258(A)
“all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member…”
A.R.S.
§ 33-1258(B)(4)
“Books and records… may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to… Personal, health or financial records of an individual member of the association…”
VI. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Order
Burden of Proof
The judge established that the petitioner, Mr. Tomisak, bore the burden of proof to demonstrate by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association had committed the alleged violations. A preponderance of evidence is defined as that which is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Central Conclusion
The judge’s ruling was not based on the privacy argument regarding whether email addresses are “personal records.” Instead, the decision was grounded in a more fundamental point of fact regarding the existence of the requested document. The judge’s decisive conclusion of law stated:
While Petitioner has the right to enforce the requirements of the above provisions, Petitioner does not have the right to a record that does not exist, i.e., a Membership Register containing email addresses. Further, there is no requirement in the above provisions that Respondent has an obligation to create such a document.
Final Ruling
Based on this central finding, the judge held that Mr. Tomisak failed to meet his burden of proof and did not establish that the Association had violated its CC&Rs, its Bylaws, or A.R.S. § 33-1158.
IT IS ORDERED that no action is required of Respondent in this matter and that the petition is dismissed. The order is binding unless a rehearing is requested within 30 days of its service.
Study Guide – 20F-H2020055-REL
Study Guide: Tomisak v. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association
This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing decision in case number 20F-H2020055-REL, involving Petitioner Robert Tomisak and Respondent Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to test and deepen understanding of the case.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following ten questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based entirely on the information provided in the case document.
1. Who were the petitioner and the respondent in this case, and what was their established relationship?
2. What specific document and data did the petitioner request from the respondent in his email dated March 11, 2020?
3. On what legal grounds did the respondent deny the petitioner’s request? Cite the specific statutory provision they referenced.
4. Identify the three governing documents or statutes that the petitioner alleged the respondent had violated.
5. What information was the respondent, through its property manager Terri Troy, willing to provide to the petitioner?
6. What was the central reason cited by the Administrative Law Judge in the “Conclusions of Law” for dismissing the petition?
7. Define the “preponderance of the evidence” standard and identify which party had the burden of meeting this standard.
8. What authority did the petitioner cite during the hearing to support his argument that email addresses do not constitute “personal information”?
9. According to Property Manager Terri Troy’s testimony, when and why did the content of the Membership Register change?
10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge on July 17, 2020?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The petitioner was Robert Tomisak, who owns condominium unit 1902 in the Arrowhead Lakes development. The respondent was the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association, of which the petitioner is a member.
2. The petitioner requested an electronic copy of the “Owner’s Roster with emails.” He specifically wanted a membership list that included the email addresses of the other condominium owners.
3. The respondent denied the request based on A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4). They argued that this provision allows an association to withhold the “personal records of an individual member,” and they considered email addresses to fall under this category.
4. The petitioner alleged the respondent violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) Article 11, Section 4.8; its Bylaws, Article 10.3; and Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1258.
5. The respondent was willing to provide the Membership Register, which included the names, unit numbers, and mailing addresses of the members. However, this register did not contain email addresses.
6. The judge dismissed the petition because the petitioner did not have the right to a record that does not exist—namely, a Membership Register containing email addresses. The judge concluded there was no requirement in the governing provisions for the respondent to create such a document.
7. A “preponderance of the evidence” is the standard of proof requiring the trier of fact to be convinced that a contention is more probably true than not. The petitioner, Robert Tomisak, bore the burden of establishing his claim by this standard.
8. During the hearing, the petitioner cited “the internet” and “California case law” as his authority for the proposition that email addresses were not considered personal information.
9. Terri Troy testified that the Membership Register previously contained email addresses but that this practice was stopped beginning in 2018. The change was made based on the association’s belief that email addresses were the “personal records” of the owners.
10. The final order stated that no action was required of the respondent and that the petition was dismissed.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a longer, essay-style response. Use the case document to formulate a detailed and well-supported argument.
1. Analyze the central legal conflict in this case. Discuss the petitioner’s interpretation of a member’s right to access records under the CC&Rs, Bylaws, and A.R.S. § 33-1258 versus the respondent’s interpretation, focusing on the exemption for “personal records.”
2. Evaluate the evidence presented by both the petitioner and the respondent during the July 9, 2020 hearing. Explain why the judge ultimately found that the petitioner failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
3. The judge’s decision rested heavily on the finding that the respondent was not obligated to create a document that did not exist. Discuss the significance of this finding. How might the case outcome have differed if the Membership Register still actively contained member email addresses at the time of the request?
4. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this administrative hearing. Explain why this burden fell upon the petitioner and how the failure to meet this evidentiary standard was a determinative factor in the dismissal of the petition.
5. Examine the roles and interaction of the governing documents (CC&Rs, Bylaws) and state law (A.R.S. § 33-1258) in this dispute. Which provisions offered the petitioner the right to inspect records, and which specific clause provided the strongest defense for the respondent?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella.
A.R.S. § 33-1258
The Arizona Revised Statute that mandates associations make financial and other records “reasonably available” to members, while also providing exceptions for withholding certain information, such as “personal, health or financial records of an individual member.”
Association
The Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association, a condominium unit owners’ association responsible for managing the Arrowhead Lakes development.
Bylaws
The rules governing the internal operations of the association. Section 10.3 is referenced, which grants members the right to inspect the “membership register” and other books and records.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the primary governing legal documents for the condominium development. Section 11.4.8 is referenced, which requires the association to make its books and records available to owners.
Membership Register
A formal list of the members of the association. The respondent’s register included names and addresses with unit numbers but, as of 2018, no longer included email addresses.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, Robert Tomisak, a condominium owner and member of the association.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is met when the evidence presented is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other,” making a contention more probably true than not.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020055-REL
He Sued His Condo Association for an Email List. The Judge’s Reason for Saying No Will Surprise You.
If you live in a condominium or a community governed by a homeowners’ association, you’ve likely wondered what official records you’re entitled to see. From financial statements to meeting minutes, these documents are the backbone of a transparent community. But what happens when the information you want isn’t in a format the association readily provides?
This was the central conflict for Robert Tomisak, a condominium owner in Glendale, Arizona. At 7:33 a.m. on March 11, 2020, he sent an email to his association requesting an electronic copy of the “Owner’s Roster with emails.” Less than an hour later, at 8:23 a.m., the property manager refused. Believing he was legally entitled to the list, Mr. Tomisak sued. When the case went before an administrative law judge, the final decision hinged on a simple but powerful distinction that most people would never see coming. This case reveals some surprising truths about our rights to information and how they are applied in the real world.
1. Takeaway #1: Your right is to inspectexistingrecords, not to have new ones created for you.
The core of the judge’s decision came down to a simple, factual matter. While Mr. Tomisak had a legal right to inspect association records, the specific document he requested—a Membership Register that included email addresses—did not actually exist.
According to testimony from property manager Terri Troy, the association was perfectly willing to provide the official Membership Register, which contained owner names and mailing addresses. However, she clarified that the association had stopped including email addresses in that specific record back in 2018. The judge found this fact to be decisive. While the petitioner had the right to access existing records, the association had no legal duty to create a new one for him. The judge’s “Conclusions of Law” put it in unambiguous terms:
Petitioner does not have the right to a record that does not exist, i.e., a Membership Register containing email addresses. Further, there is no requirement in the above provisions that Respondent has an obligation to create such a document.
This is a counter-intuitive but crucial distinction. Many people assume that if an organization possesses individual pieces of data (like names in one file and emails in another), they are obligated to compile that data into the format you request. This ruling clarifies that the legal obligation is to provide access to records as they are currently maintained, not to perform data-compilation tasks on demand. For association boards, this is a critical clarification of their duties; for homeowners, it’s a lesson in the power of a precise request.
2. Takeaway #2: The legal definition of “personal records” can be surprisingly ambiguous.
The central argument between the two parties revolved around privacy. Mr. Tomisak requested the email list citing an Arizona statute (A.R.S. § 33-1258) that grants members access to association records. In response, Ms. Troy denied the request by citing a specific exemption in that same law—A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4)—which allows an association to withhold “personal… records of an individual member.” Ms. Troy believed email addresses fell under this category; Mr. Tomisak argued they did not.
Crucially, Mr. Tomisak acknowledged during the hearing that he already had access to the mailing addresses for all units. His demand was not about the fundamental ability to communicate with his neighbors, but about the specific method. This reframes the dispute away from pure access-to-information and toward convenience and the definition of privacy.
However, when it came time to define “personal records,” both sides faltered. The petitioner cited “the internet” and “California case law” as his authority—a common mistake litigants make, as vague or non-binding sources hold little weight with a judge focused on specific state statutes. The judge noted that “Neither party cited to any relevant or persuasive legal authority to establish the definition of ‘personal records’ as referenced in the relevant statute.” This failure by both parties essentially forced the judge’s hand, allowing her to bypass the murky privacy debate and settle the case on the much clearer, indisputable fact that the requested record did not exist.
3. Takeaway #3: Even with clear rules, the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim.
On paper, the rules seemed to be in the petitioner’s favor. Section 11.4.8 of the community’s CC&Rs, Section 10.3 of its Bylaws, and the state statute A.R.S. § 33-1258 all grant members the right to inspect association records. So why did he lose?
The answer lies in the legal concept of the “burden of proof.” According to the hearing decision, the petitioner “bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.”
“Preponderance of the evidence” simply means evidence that is more convincing and more likely true than not. In this case, because the petitioner could not prove that the specific document he wanted—a Membership Register containing emails—actually existed, he failed to meet this burden. He could not convince the judge that the association had violated its duties because the duty he claimed they violated (providing a non-existent record) was not one they actually had. This serves as a practical lesson for any homeowner: having a right on paper is not enough; you must be able to prove that the specific right was violated with convincing evidence.
Conclusion: A Lesson in Specificity
The case of Tomisak vs. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association is a masterclass in how legal rights and obligations are often more specific and literal than we assume. The final decision wasn’t based on broad principles of privacy versus access, but on the simple, verifiable fact that a non-existent document cannot be produced.
The judge’s final order was to dismiss the petition, requiring no action from the condo association. This case forces every resident and board member to ask a crucial question: Are you fighting over a principle, or are you making a specific request for a real, existing document? In the eyes of the law, only one of those will win you the day.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Robert Tomisak(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf; also testified
Respondent Side
Terri Troy(property manager) Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association / AS&A Property Management, Inc. Appeared and testified on behalf of Respondent
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Condominium Association violated its governing documents or state statute regarding record inspection, specifically because the Association did not possess and was not required to create a Membership Register containing unit owners' email addresses.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the provisions of CC&Rs Section 11.4.8, Bylaws Section 10.3, or A.R.S. § 33-1158 (or § 33-1258) because the requested record (a Membership Register containing email addresses) did not exist, and the Association was not obligated to create it.
Key Issues & Findings
Refusal to provide access to the membership register (Owner Roster with emails)
Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated governing documents and statute by refusing access to the membership register containing email addresses. Respondent argued email addresses were protected 'personal records' under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4). The ALJ found the Petitioner failed to prove a violation because the requested document (a Membership Register containing emails) did not exist, and Respondent had no obligation to create it.
Orders: The petition is dismissed and no action is required of Respondent.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1258
CC&Rs 11.4.8
Bylaws 10.3
Analytics Highlights
Topics: records inspection, membership roster, email addresses, HOA records, condominium association, A.R.S. 33-1258
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4)
A.R.S. § 33-1158
CC&Rs 11.4.8
Bylaws 10.3
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
20F-H2020055-REL Decision – 807817.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:16 (107.3 KB)
Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020055-REL
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Tomisak v. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association
Executive Summary
This briefing document outlines the findings and decision in the case of Robert Tomisak versus the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association (Case No. 20F-H2020055-REL), heard in the Office of Administrative Hearings. The petitioner, Mr. Tomisak, alleged that the Association violated its governing documents and Arizona state law by refusing his request for an owner roster that included member email addresses. The Association countered that email addresses constitute protected personal information and, more critically, that a membership register containing such information no longer exists.
The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed the petition. The decision did not hinge on whether email addresses are “personal records” under the law. Instead, the ruling was based on the factual determination that the Association cannot be compelled to produce a document that it does not maintain. Since the Association had ceased including email addresses in its Membership Register in 2018, the judge concluded that the petitioner had no right to a non-existent record and had failed to meet the burden of proof required to show a violation.
I. Case Overview
Case Name
Robert Tomisak v. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association
Case Number
20F-H2020055-REL
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Sondra J. Vanella
Petitioner
Robert Tomisak, Owner of Unit 1902 (Appeared on his own behalf)
Respondent
Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association (Represented by Property Manager Terri Troy)
Hearing Date
July 9, 2020
Decision Date
July 17, 2020
II. Petitioner’s Allegations
On April 15, 2020, Robert Tomisak filed a single-issue petition alleging that the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association had violated its own governing documents and Arizona state law. The core of the complaint was the Association’s refusal to fulfill his March 11, 2020, email request “to provide access to the membership register” containing owner email addresses.
Mr. Tomisak specifically cited violations of the following provisions:
• Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs): Article 11, Section 4.8
• Bylaws: Article 10.3
• Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.): § 33-1258
III. Respondent’s Position and Defense
The Association, through its property management company AS&A Property Management, Inc., and represented by Property Manager Terri Troy, denied all allegations. The defense rested on two key arguments:
1. Privacy Exemption: The Association contended that members’ email addresses are “personal records” and therefore exempt from disclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4), which protects the “personal, health or financial records of an individual member.”
2. Non-Existence of the Record: Ms. Troy testified that while the Association would readily provide the official Membership Register (containing names and addresses), this document no longer includes email addresses. This practice of excluding emails from the register began in 2018.
IV. Key Evidence and Testimony
The March 11, 2020 Email Exchange
The dispute originated with a direct email exchange between the petitioner and the property manager.
• Petitioner’s Request (7:33 a.m.): Mr. Tomisak sent an email with the subject line “Owner Roster” stating:
• Respondent’s Denial (8:23 a.m.): Ms. Troy responded with a direct refusal, citing the statutory exemption for personal information:
Hearing Testimony
During the July 9, 2020 hearing, both parties presented their arguments:
• Robert Tomisak (Petitioner): Acknowledged that he already had access to member mailing addresses but specifically required their email addresses. He argued that email addresses are not “personal information” and cited “the internet” and “California case law” as authority for this position.
• Terri Troy (Respondent): Reiterated the Association’s willingness to provide the existing Membership Register, which contains names, addresses, and unit numbers. She explained that email addresses had been removed from this register starting in 2018 and that her refusal was based on the belief that emails are protected “personal records” under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4).
The Administrative Law Judge noted that neither party cited “any relevant or persuasive legal authority” to formally define “personal records” as used in the statute.
V. Legal Framework and Governing Documents
The case centered on the interpretation of three key provisions granting members access to Association records.
Document
Section
Key Provision
11.4.8
“The Association shall make available to Owners… current copies of the Declaration, Articles, Bylaws, rules of the Association and the books, records, and financial statements of the Association.”
Bylaws
“The membership register… shall be made available for inspection and copying by Members of the Association… for a purpose reasonably related to their interests as Members…”
A.R.S.
§ 33-1258(A)
“all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member…”
A.R.S.
§ 33-1258(B)(4)
“Books and records… may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to… Personal, health or financial records of an individual member of the association…”
VI. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Order
Burden of Proof
The judge established that the petitioner, Mr. Tomisak, bore the burden of proof to demonstrate by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association had committed the alleged violations. A preponderance of evidence is defined as that which is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Central Conclusion
The judge’s ruling was not based on the privacy argument regarding whether email addresses are “personal records.” Instead, the decision was grounded in a more fundamental point of fact regarding the existence of the requested document. The judge’s decisive conclusion of law stated:
While Petitioner has the right to enforce the requirements of the above provisions, Petitioner does not have the right to a record that does not exist, i.e., a Membership Register containing email addresses. Further, there is no requirement in the above provisions that Respondent has an obligation to create such a document.
Final Ruling
Based on this central finding, the judge held that Mr. Tomisak failed to meet his burden of proof and did not establish that the Association had violated its CC&Rs, its Bylaws, or A.R.S. § 33-1158.
IT IS ORDERED that no action is required of Respondent in this matter and that the petition is dismissed. The order is binding unless a rehearing is requested within 30 days of its service.
Study Guide – 20F-H2020055-REL
Study Guide: Tomisak v. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association
This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing decision in case number 20F-H2020055-REL, involving Petitioner Robert Tomisak and Respondent Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to test and deepen understanding of the case.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following ten questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based entirely on the information provided in the case document.
1. Who were the petitioner and the respondent in this case, and what was their established relationship?
2. What specific document and data did the petitioner request from the respondent in his email dated March 11, 2020?
3. On what legal grounds did the respondent deny the petitioner’s request? Cite the specific statutory provision they referenced.
4. Identify the three governing documents or statutes that the petitioner alleged the respondent had violated.
5. What information was the respondent, through its property manager Terri Troy, willing to provide to the petitioner?
6. What was the central reason cited by the Administrative Law Judge in the “Conclusions of Law” for dismissing the petition?
7. Define the “preponderance of the evidence” standard and identify which party had the burden of meeting this standard.
8. What authority did the petitioner cite during the hearing to support his argument that email addresses do not constitute “personal information”?
9. According to Property Manager Terri Troy’s testimony, when and why did the content of the Membership Register change?
10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge on July 17, 2020?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The petitioner was Robert Tomisak, who owns condominium unit 1902 in the Arrowhead Lakes development. The respondent was the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association, of which the petitioner is a member.
2. The petitioner requested an electronic copy of the “Owner’s Roster with emails.” He specifically wanted a membership list that included the email addresses of the other condominium owners.
3. The respondent denied the request based on A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4). They argued that this provision allows an association to withhold the “personal records of an individual member,” and they considered email addresses to fall under this category.
4. The petitioner alleged the respondent violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) Article 11, Section 4.8; its Bylaws, Article 10.3; and Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1258.
5. The respondent was willing to provide the Membership Register, which included the names, unit numbers, and mailing addresses of the members. However, this register did not contain email addresses.
6. The judge dismissed the petition because the petitioner did not have the right to a record that does not exist—namely, a Membership Register containing email addresses. The judge concluded there was no requirement in the governing provisions for the respondent to create such a document.
7. A “preponderance of the evidence” is the standard of proof requiring the trier of fact to be convinced that a contention is more probably true than not. The petitioner, Robert Tomisak, bore the burden of establishing his claim by this standard.
8. During the hearing, the petitioner cited “the internet” and “California case law” as his authority for the proposition that email addresses were not considered personal information.
9. Terri Troy testified that the Membership Register previously contained email addresses but that this practice was stopped beginning in 2018. The change was made based on the association’s belief that email addresses were the “personal records” of the owners.
10. The final order stated that no action was required of the respondent and that the petition was dismissed.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a longer, essay-style response. Use the case document to formulate a detailed and well-supported argument.
1. Analyze the central legal conflict in this case. Discuss the petitioner’s interpretation of a member’s right to access records under the CC&Rs, Bylaws, and A.R.S. § 33-1258 versus the respondent’s interpretation, focusing on the exemption for “personal records.”
2. Evaluate the evidence presented by both the petitioner and the respondent during the July 9, 2020 hearing. Explain why the judge ultimately found that the petitioner failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
3. The judge’s decision rested heavily on the finding that the respondent was not obligated to create a document that did not exist. Discuss the significance of this finding. How might the case outcome have differed if the Membership Register still actively contained member email addresses at the time of the request?
4. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this administrative hearing. Explain why this burden fell upon the petitioner and how the failure to meet this evidentiary standard was a determinative factor in the dismissal of the petition.
5. Examine the roles and interaction of the governing documents (CC&Rs, Bylaws) and state law (A.R.S. § 33-1258) in this dispute. Which provisions offered the petitioner the right to inspect records, and which specific clause provided the strongest defense for the respondent?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella.
A.R.S. § 33-1258
The Arizona Revised Statute that mandates associations make financial and other records “reasonably available” to members, while also providing exceptions for withholding certain information, such as “personal, health or financial records of an individual member.”
Association
The Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association, a condominium unit owners’ association responsible for managing the Arrowhead Lakes development.
Bylaws
The rules governing the internal operations of the association. Section 10.3 is referenced, which grants members the right to inspect the “membership register” and other books and records.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the primary governing legal documents for the condominium development. Section 11.4.8 is referenced, which requires the association to make its books and records available to owners.
Membership Register
A formal list of the members of the association. The respondent’s register included names and addresses with unit numbers but, as of 2018, no longer included email addresses.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, Robert Tomisak, a condominium owner and member of the association.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is met when the evidence presented is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other,” making a contention more probably true than not.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020055-REL
He Sued His Condo Association for an Email List. The Judge’s Reason for Saying No Will Surprise You.
If you live in a condominium or a community governed by a homeowners’ association, you’ve likely wondered what official records you’re entitled to see. From financial statements to meeting minutes, these documents are the backbone of a transparent community. But what happens when the information you want isn’t in a format the association readily provides?
This was the central conflict for Robert Tomisak, a condominium owner in Glendale, Arizona. At 7:33 a.m. on March 11, 2020, he sent an email to his association requesting an electronic copy of the “Owner’s Roster with emails.” Less than an hour later, at 8:23 a.m., the property manager refused. Believing he was legally entitled to the list, Mr. Tomisak sued. When the case went before an administrative law judge, the final decision hinged on a simple but powerful distinction that most people would never see coming. This case reveals some surprising truths about our rights to information and how they are applied in the real world.
1. Takeaway #1: Your right is to inspectexistingrecords, not to have new ones created for you.
The core of the judge’s decision came down to a simple, factual matter. While Mr. Tomisak had a legal right to inspect association records, the specific document he requested—a Membership Register that included email addresses—did not actually exist.
According to testimony from property manager Terri Troy, the association was perfectly willing to provide the official Membership Register, which contained owner names and mailing addresses. However, she clarified that the association had stopped including email addresses in that specific record back in 2018. The judge found this fact to be decisive. While the petitioner had the right to access existing records, the association had no legal duty to create a new one for him. The judge’s “Conclusions of Law” put it in unambiguous terms:
Petitioner does not have the right to a record that does not exist, i.e., a Membership Register containing email addresses. Further, there is no requirement in the above provisions that Respondent has an obligation to create such a document.
This is a counter-intuitive but crucial distinction. Many people assume that if an organization possesses individual pieces of data (like names in one file and emails in another), they are obligated to compile that data into the format you request. This ruling clarifies that the legal obligation is to provide access to records as they are currently maintained, not to perform data-compilation tasks on demand. For association boards, this is a critical clarification of their duties; for homeowners, it’s a lesson in the power of a precise request.
2. Takeaway #2: The legal definition of “personal records” can be surprisingly ambiguous.
The central argument between the two parties revolved around privacy. Mr. Tomisak requested the email list citing an Arizona statute (A.R.S. § 33-1258) that grants members access to association records. In response, Ms. Troy denied the request by citing a specific exemption in that same law—A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4)—which allows an association to withhold “personal… records of an individual member.” Ms. Troy believed email addresses fell under this category; Mr. Tomisak argued they did not.
Crucially, Mr. Tomisak acknowledged during the hearing that he already had access to the mailing addresses for all units. His demand was not about the fundamental ability to communicate with his neighbors, but about the specific method. This reframes the dispute away from pure access-to-information and toward convenience and the definition of privacy.
However, when it came time to define “personal records,” both sides faltered. The petitioner cited “the internet” and “California case law” as his authority—a common mistake litigants make, as vague or non-binding sources hold little weight with a judge focused on specific state statutes. The judge noted that “Neither party cited to any relevant or persuasive legal authority to establish the definition of ‘personal records’ as referenced in the relevant statute.” This failure by both parties essentially forced the judge’s hand, allowing her to bypass the murky privacy debate and settle the case on the much clearer, indisputable fact that the requested record did not exist.
3. Takeaway #3: Even with clear rules, the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim.
On paper, the rules seemed to be in the petitioner’s favor. Section 11.4.8 of the community’s CC&Rs, Section 10.3 of its Bylaws, and the state statute A.R.S. § 33-1258 all grant members the right to inspect association records. So why did he lose?
The answer lies in the legal concept of the “burden of proof.” According to the hearing decision, the petitioner “bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.”
“Preponderance of the evidence” simply means evidence that is more convincing and more likely true than not. In this case, because the petitioner could not prove that the specific document he wanted—a Membership Register containing emails—actually existed, he failed to meet this burden. He could not convince the judge that the association had violated its duties because the duty he claimed they violated (providing a non-existent record) was not one they actually had. This serves as a practical lesson for any homeowner: having a right on paper is not enough; you must be able to prove that the specific right was violated with convincing evidence.
Conclusion: A Lesson in Specificity
The case of Tomisak vs. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association is a masterclass in how legal rights and obligations are often more specific and literal than we assume. The final decision wasn’t based on broad principles of privacy versus access, but on the simple, verifiable fact that a non-existent document cannot be produced.
The judge’s final order was to dismiss the petition, requiring no action from the condo association. This case forces every resident and board member to ask a crucial question: Are you fighting over a principle, or are you making a specific request for a real, existing document? In the eyes of the law, only one of those will win you the day.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Robert Tomisak(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf; also testified
Respondent Side
Terri Troy(property manager) Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association / AS&A Property Management, Inc. Appeared and testified on behalf of Respondent
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
