Tag Archives: A.R.S. 33-1805

Teri S. Morcomb & J. Ted Morcomb v. Sierra Tortuga Homeowner’s

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H015-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-01-03
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome Petitioner met the burden of proof for both alleged violations: violation of the Declaration (not enforcing the 25ft setback) and violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 (failing to provide documents). The petition was granted, and Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $1,000.00 filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Teri S. Morcomb & J. Ted Morcomb Counsel Jeffrey Brie, Esq.
Respondent Sierra Tortuga Homeowner’s Association Counsel Phillip Brown, Esq. and Kelly Oetinger, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

Petitioner met the burden of proof for both alleged violations: violation of the Declaration (not enforcing the 25ft setback) and violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 (failing to provide documents). The petition was granted, and Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $1,000.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide documents

Respondent failed to produce documents requested by Petitioner, specifically meeting minutes discussing the investigative report, within the statutory timeframe, violating A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Orders: Respondent was found in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 and Declaration Section F. Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,000.00.

Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • Declaration Section F

Analytics Highlights

Topics: setback enforcement, document request, HOA governance, filing fee refund, A.R.S. 33-1805
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • Declaration Section F

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H015-REL Decision – 1102948.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:02:19 (53.9 KB)

24F-H015-REL Decision – 1116083.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:02:23 (50.5 KB)

24F-H015-REL Decision – 1129495.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:02:26 (148.2 KB)

This summary addresses the administrative hearing (No. 24F-H015-REL) involving Petitioners Teri S. Morcomb & J. Ted Morcomb and Respondent Sierra Tortuga Homeowner’s Association (HOA). The hearing was conducted by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Adam D. Stone on November 22 and December 20, 2023, concerning alleged violations of the community's governing documents and Arizona statutes.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The Petitioners filed a two-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate:

  1. Setback Enforcement: Violation of the Declaration of Restrictions (specifically Item F of the Second Declaration) by the HOA "not enforcing the 25ft setback provision".
  2. Document Disclosure: Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing "to provide documents" requested by the Petitioners.

The central factual dispute revolved around Lot 9 (owned by Marcella Aguilar and Abel Sodto), which shares a property line with the Petitioners' Lot 8. Petitioners alleged that the Lot 9 owners made unapproved improvements—including grading, removal of native vegetation, and placement of large boulders—within the mandatory 25-foot setback. The Declaration requires Architectural Committee (ARC) approval for all improvements and any removal of native growth. An HOA investigation in September 2020 concluded that the Lot 9 improvements were neither submitted nor approved by the ARC, and Lot 9 was directed to submit plans within 30 days. Petitioners testified that Lot 9 failed to comply.

Key Arguments

  • Petitioner's Argument: The Association failed its mandatory duty to enforce the CC&Rs for over three years, particularly since the Lot 9 owner (Mr. Sodto) held influential positions (Director, President, ARC member) during the relevant period. Petitioners sought an order requiring the HOA to remedy the violation (remove boulders, revegetate). Petitioners' civil engineer, Tracy Bogardus, testified that Lot 8 did not cause Lot 9's drainage issues, invalidating the Lot 9 owners’ justification for the grading.
  • Respondent's Argument (HOA): The HOA denied the claims, arguing that Lot 9’s modification (referred to as a "driveway turnaround") was necessary for safety due to the steep lot configuration. The HOA asserted that the board has discretion to grant variances. The HOA also argued that selective enforcement against Lot 9 was inconsistent, as six of the seven built-out lots had similar unapproved turnarounds or improvements in setbacks. The HOA later approved the Lot 9 turnaround retroactively during the hearing proceedings.
  • Document Disclosure: HOA President Robert Lewin testified he did not provide the specific documents (Lot 9 submissions) because they did not exist. However, he admitted he failed to provide the meeting minutes discussing the investigative report.

Final Decision and Outcome

The ALJ found that the Petitioners met the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

The ALJ issued the following key conclusions:

  • Setback Violation: Lot 9 failed to submit the required improvement request, violating the Declaration. However, the ALJ emphasized that the relevant section of the Declaration (Section H) states the ARC "shall have the right to clear such lot," meaning the ultimate action to remedy the lot remains within the HOA’s discretion, not an obligation.
  • Document Disclosure Violation (A.R.S. § 33-1805): The Respondent violated the statute by failing to produce a copy of the meeting minutes discussing the investigative report. Although no Lot 9 application documents existed, the minutes did.

Order: Petitioner's petition was granted. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A), the Respondent HOA was ordered to reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,000.00.

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H015-REL”, “case_title”: “Teri S. Morcomb & J. Ted Morcomb v. Sierra Tortuga Homeowner’s Association”, “decision_date”: “2024-01-03”, “alj_name”: “Adam D. Stone”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee reimbursed?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee if the petition is granted.”, “detailed_answer”: “Under Arizona law, if a homeowner prevails in their petition against the association, the Administrative Law Judge has the authority to order the respondent (HOA) to reimburse the petitioner’s filing fee.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,000.00 as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “filing fees”, “reimbursement”, “penalties” ] }, { “question”: “What is the timeline for an HOA to provide records after a homeowner requests them?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or provide copies of records.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona statute requires that an association make financial and other records reasonably available for examination. When a member requests to examine or purchase copies of records, the association must comply within ten business days.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies of records … the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “deadlines”, “homeowner rights” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA refuse to provide meeting minutes by claiming other documents regarding a specific issue don’t exist?”, “short_answer”: “No, even if specific architectural files don’t exist, the HOA must still provide related meeting minutes if requested.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, while the HOA claimed no documents existed regarding a specific architectural submission (because none was made), they were still found in violation for failing to produce the meeting minutes where the issue and an investigative report were discussed.”, “alj_quote”: “From the evidence presented, and Mr. Lewin admitted, that Respondent failed to produce a copy of the meeting minutes discussing the investigative report.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “meeting minutes”, “records access”, “HOA obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Does the ALJ have the authority to order the HOA to physically clear a violation from a neighbor’s lot?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily, if the CC&Rs grant the HOA the ‘right’ rather than the ‘duty’ to clear the lot, it remains a discretionary action.”, “detailed_answer”: “Although the ALJ found the HOA in violation of the CC&Rs for the setback issue, the judge disagreed that the HOA must clear the lot. The specific language of the governing documents gave the Architectural Committee the ‘right’ to clear the lot, which the judge interpreted as discretionary.”, “alj_quote”: “However, the tribunal disagrees with Petitioner that Respondent must clear the lot. Section H of the Declaration merely states that the Architectural Committee ‘shall have the right to clear such lot’. Thus, it is still within the Architectural Committee’s discretion to act on that right.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Interpretation”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement”, “remedies”, “CC&Rs” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof in an HOA administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The petitioner must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner bringing the complaint bears the burden of proving that the HOA violated the community documents or statutes. The standard is a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning the contention is more probably true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the item F of the Declarations and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA be found in violation for a neighbor’s unapproved improvements?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the HOA fails to enforce setback requirements against unapproved improvements.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found the Board in violation of the Declaration (setback rules) because the neighbor never submitted a request for the improvements, the improvements did not comply with setbacks, and the Board failed to enforce the requirement.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner has met the burden of proof in demonstrating that the Board was in violation of Section F of the Declaration and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs (Section F)”, “topic_tags”: [ “architectural control”, “setbacks”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “Do HOA directors have the right to inspect association records?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, directors generally have an absolute right to inspect all books and records at any reasonable time.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision cites the Association Bylaws which grant every Director the absolute right to inspect all books, records, documents, and physical properties of the Association.”, “alj_quote”: “Every Director shall have the absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect all books, records, and documents of the Association and the physical properties owned or controlled by the Association.”, “legal_basis”: “Association Bylaws Article 11.3”, “topic_tags”: [ “board members”, “records inspection”, “bylaws” ] } ] }

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H015-REL”, “case_title”: “Teri S. Morcomb & J. Ted Morcomb v. Sierra Tortuga Homeowner’s Association”, “decision_date”: “2024-01-03”, “alj_name”: “Adam D. Stone”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee reimbursed?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee if the petition is granted.”, “detailed_answer”: “Under Arizona law, if a homeowner prevails in their petition against the association, the Administrative Law Judge has the authority to order the respondent (HOA) to reimburse the petitioner’s filing fee.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,000.00 as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “filing fees”, “reimbursement”, “penalties” ] }, { “question”: “What is the timeline for an HOA to provide records after a homeowner requests them?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or provide copies of records.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona statute requires that an association make financial and other records reasonably available for examination. When a member requests to examine or purchase copies of records, the association must comply within ten business days.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies of records … the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “deadlines”, “homeowner rights” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA refuse to provide meeting minutes by claiming other documents regarding a specific issue don’t exist?”, “short_answer”: “No, even if specific architectural files don’t exist, the HOA must still provide related meeting minutes if requested.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, while the HOA claimed no documents existed regarding a specific architectural submission (because none was made), they were still found in violation for failing to produce the meeting minutes where the issue and an investigative report were discussed.”, “alj_quote”: “From the evidence presented, and Mr. Lewin admitted, that Respondent failed to produce a copy of the meeting minutes discussing the investigative report.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “meeting minutes”, “records access”, “HOA obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Does the ALJ have the authority to order the HOA to physically clear a violation from a neighbor’s lot?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily, if the CC&Rs grant the HOA the ‘right’ rather than the ‘duty’ to clear the lot, it remains a discretionary action.”, “detailed_answer”: “Although the ALJ found the HOA in violation of the CC&Rs for the setback issue, the judge disagreed that the HOA must clear the lot. The specific language of the governing documents gave the Architectural Committee the ‘right’ to clear the lot, which the judge interpreted as discretionary.”, “alj_quote”: “However, the tribunal disagrees with Petitioner that Respondent must clear the lot. Section H of the Declaration merely states that the Architectural Committee ‘shall have the right to clear such lot’. Thus, it is still within the Architectural Committee’s discretion to act on that right.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Interpretation”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement”, “remedies”, “CC&Rs” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof in an HOA administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The petitioner must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner bringing the complaint bears the burden of proving that the HOA violated the community documents or statutes. The standard is a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning the contention is more probably true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the item F of the Declarations and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA be found in violation for a neighbor’s unapproved improvements?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the HOA fails to enforce setback requirements against unapproved improvements.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found the Board in violation of the Declaration (setback rules) because the neighbor never submitted a request for the improvements, the improvements did not comply with setbacks, and the Board failed to enforce the requirement.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner has met the burden of proof in demonstrating that the Board was in violation of Section F of the Declaration and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs (Section F)”, “topic_tags”: [ “architectural control”, “setbacks”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “Do HOA directors have the right to inspect association records?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, directors generally have an absolute right to inspect all books and records at any reasonable time.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision cites the Association Bylaws which grant every Director the absolute right to inspect all books, records, documents, and physical properties of the Association.”, “alj_quote”: “Every Director shall have the absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect all books, records, and documents of the Association and the physical properties owned or controlled by the Association.”, “legal_basis”: “Association Bylaws Article 11.3”, “topic_tags”: [ “board members”, “records inspection”, “bylaws” ] } ] }

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Teri S. Morcomb (petitioner)
    Lot 8 owner, testified
  • J. Ted Morcomb (petitioner)
    Lot 8 owner
  • Jeffrey T. Brei (petitioner attorney)
  • Tracy Allen Bogardis (witness)
    Civil Engineer
    Testified regarding drainage/hydrology

Respondent Side

  • Phillip Brown (HOA attorney)
  • Kelly Oetinger (HOA attorney)
  • Robert Leuen (board president)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Testified
  • Marcella Bernadette Aguilar (witness)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Lot 9 owner, testified
  • Abel Sodto (lot owner)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Lot 9 owner, former Board/ARC member, subject of violation
  • Clint Stoddard (board member)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Investigator
  • Benny Medina (board member)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Investigator, former president
  • Joseph D. Martino (ARC member)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Former Architectural Committee Head
  • Chris Stler (board member)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Vice President of HOA
  • Yvon Posche (board member)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Secretary of HOA
  • Steve Brockam (board member)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Board Director
  • Perry Terren (ARC chair)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    ARC Chairman and Board Director
  • Jeremy Thompson (law clerk)
    HOA Attorney's office
  • Mike Shupe (former HOA attorney)

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Tim Ross (board member)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Former board/investigator, criticized current board actions
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • A. Hansen (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • V. Nunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • D. Jones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • L. Abril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE

Tom Barrs V. Desert Ranch Homeowners Assocation (ROOT)

Posted on by
📋 Consolidated cases — This decision resolved 2 consolidated dockets: 22F-H2222050-REL, 22F-H2222054-REL.

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222050-REL
Agency Arizona Department of Real Estate
Tribunal OAH and Maricopa County Superior Court judicial review
Decision Date 2024-08-02
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark; Superior Court Judge Joseph P. Mikitish
Outcome Superior Court reversed the ADRE decision in part and remanded; Barrs prevailed on disclosure of member names and physical property addresses, but not emails/phone numbers, and fees/costs were denied.
Filing Fees Refunded —
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Tom Barrs Counsel —
Respondent Desert Ranch Homeowners Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805; A.R.S. § 10-11601(C)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A); A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 10-11604(C)

Outcome Summary

The original OAH/ADRE result denied the membership-roster claim, but Maricopa County Superior Court case LC2023-000179-001 changed the result. Judge Joseph P. Mikitish held that HOA member names and physical property addresses are not exempt personal records under A.R.S. § 33-1805 and must be disclosed as standard association/corporate records. The court reaffirmed the reversal on August 2, 2024, denied attorneys fees and court costs, and remanded the matter to ADRE.

Why this result: The HOA position failed in Superior Court because the court distinguished public-facing names and property addresses from more private email addresses and phone numbers, and found the ALJ had treated the entire roster as personal information too broadly.

Key Issues & Findings

Membership roster and association records

Tom Barrs requested the HOA membership list and other association records. The HOA and its management company refused to provide the owner directory, and the ALJ initially treated the membership list as protected personal information.

Orders: The Maricopa County Superior Court reversed the ADRE final decision in part and remanded. It held that names and physical property addresses in a membership roster are standard corporate records and are not exempt personal records under A.R.S. § 33-1805, while email addresses and phone numbers may be withheld.

Disposition: Petitioner prevailed on the core membership-roster issue in Superior Court; emails and phone numbers remained protected.

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 10-11601(C)
  • LC2023-000179-001

Meeting recordings and other document requests

Barrs also challenged meeting-recording practices and sought additional EDC, contract, financial, and board-communication records.

Orders: The administrative decision granted some record-request issues in part and denied others. The later Superior Court appeal focused primarily on the membership-list ruling.

Disposition: Mixed administrative result; not the primary basis for the Superior Court reversal.

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805

Attorney fees and court costs after appeal

After the Superior Court reversal, Barrs requested $9,309.57 in attorneys fees and costs, including limited-scope legal work, transcript costs, filing fees, and other expenses.

Orders: On August 2, 2024, the Superior Court reaffirmed the reversal and remand but denied attorneys fees and court costs, finding that the statutory fee provision did not apply to this ADRE administrative-review path.

Disposition: Fees and costs denied; final appealable order entered and the matter remanded to ADRE.

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 10-11604(C)
  • Rule 31.2, Arizona Supreme Court Rules
  • Boydston v. Strole Development Co.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: records requests, membership roster, A.R.S. § 33-1805, superior court reversal, remand
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 10-11601(C)
  • A.R.S. § 10-11604(C)
  • LC2023-000179-001

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 1000763.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T18:59:46 (52.4 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 1002291.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T18:59:48 (55.0 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 1035796.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T18:59:51 (295.5 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 980693.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T18:59:53 (54.2 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 981784.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T18:59:55 (50.4 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 982383.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T18:59:57 (55.5 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 987368.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T18:59:59 (61.6 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 987371.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:02 (8.5 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 998623.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:04 (45.7 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 03a70f36-3fe1-495d-9698-092eb794703c.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:07 (162.2 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 04b57097-5fc0-448c-86d7-da560c293f56.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:09 (219.9 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 06ae9cf4-2a95-4470-933d-cf153537b34f.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:11 (31.7 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 227ae74d-d75f-4dbe-8efd-f31ccdaaaff4.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:18 (6019.3 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 44e68fd7-82f7-4ba9-a222-19fc3ea95099.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:20 (297.3 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 54f7ba97-0e3d-461a-bd22-223487748254.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:22 (73.3 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 67a7a92a-c6b5-4184-854f-edc111568186.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:24 (110.1 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 6f9d74b4-927a-473c-a08b-aa3db38663c9.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:26 (19.2 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 704c788f-9635-40d1-8e9a-b853f3ad3d32.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:30 (1546.6 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 72298af4-b36d-4dbd-a2da-f2f038e1cc33.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:32 (125.7 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 7d88890f-5ea3-4157-92f9-9274626b6827.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:34 (19.0 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 912071f2-a752-478c-8dd7-9e0ed1f30f80.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:36 (129.8 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 9b6c2ad6-c4f8-4f22-91c3-4ebe8b783341.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:38 (578.0 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 9f123523-7d29-46d2-9826-fd908672d67d.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:41 (78.2 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – Briefing Document_ Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:43 (107.3 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – a563ff2f-ce40-4e22-b960-6422ef07a9e6.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:48 (4194.2 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – a98636b9-cc47-4755-bc35-41f84a3be77a.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:50 (38.7 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – b6eba1f1-989f-4bd9-9766-ef77ad5f5dd4.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:52 (221.4 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – c60149f0-4a01-4d88-bf4a-466ae16701fb.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:55 (1659.8 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – cb68c130-ddc1-4500-a759-f35d321f2553.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:57 (57.7 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – e98b8ade-a214-49c3-92af-f18449da682e.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:01:02 (4258.7 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – eff1f8cd-7fc3-4daa-b31b-4601e012458b.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:01:05 (166.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

The litigation between Tom Barrs (Petitioner/Appellant) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent/Appellee) involves a protracted dispute over Association records, meeting recording integrity, and the production of homeowner information. The matter, overseen by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and subsequently appealed to the Maricopa County Superior Court, centers on actions taken by a previous Board of Directors and their management company, AAM.

Following an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision in February 2023, the Association underwent a significant leadership transition. A new Board was elected in April 2023, and the Association moved to a self-managed model after AAM declined to renew its contract. Despite extensive settlement negotiations between the new Board and Barrs, reaching a final resolution proved unsuccessful due to disagreements over the correction of the official record and the payment of attorney fees. The Association currently faces depleted cash reserves, having spent over $29,000 on this matter, and continues to manage ongoing record requests and legal challenges from the Petitioner.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Integrity of Meeting Recordings and Documentation

A central point of contention is whether Association meeting recordings were intentionally edited or merely incomplete due to human error. Lori Loch-Lee, the community manager from AAM, testified that while recordings might have been stopped and restarted—specifically during an incident in September 2020 involving Mr. Barrs—she never edited any files.

  • Petitioner's Argument: Barrs contends that the recordings are "clearly cut" and that portions discussing him or potential police involvement were intentionally removed. He argues the missing segments (approximately 30 minutes of a one-hour meeting) violate A.R.S. 33-1804(A).
  • Respondent's Argument: The management company maintains that "forgetting to restart a recording is [not] the same thing as editing a recording." They attribute gaps to technical issues or the "human" element of management.
2. Information Access and Privacy Policies

The dispute highlights a conflict between a homeowner's right to access records and the Association's duty to protect private information.

  • Management Files vs. Board Records: Lori Loch-Lee testified that she maintains internal AAM files for "correspondence homeowners" to which the Board has no control or access. She asserted that these are "personal emails" used for day-to-day business and that no policy requires their production to the Board or homeowners.
  • Confidentiality Training: Management applied professional training to withhold homeowner phone numbers and emails, treating them as "private information" protected from production requests.
  • The Membership Roster: Barrs alleged AAM refused to provide the roster within the statutory 10-business-day deadline. While the new Board eventually provided access, Barrs continues to seek a formal acknowledgement that the refusal by the prior management was a violation of A.R.S. 33-1805.
3. Transition to Self-Management and Financial Impact

The Association has experienced a complete shift in its operational structure as a direct result of the ongoing litigation.

  • Management Termination: AAM chose not to renew the management contract due to the "time and hassle" and "continued legal escalations" associated with the Barrs case.
  • Financial Depletion: The Association is currently without cash reserves. To remain solvent, the Board had to borrow $8,000 from the "711 Road Reserves Fund" to cover the General Fund's obligations.
  • Volunteer Burden: The Board members (collectively 33 members in the HOA) have spent "hundreds of hours" managing the case without professional counsel, as they lack the resources to retain an attorney.
4. Settlement Impasse and Attorney Fee Disputes

Extensive negotiations occurred between June and December 2023, but ultimately failed over two primary issues: the correction of the ALJ's findings of fact and the reimbursement of legal costs.

  • Correction of Findings: Barrs insisted on a "line-by-line" correction of the ALJ's February 21, 2023, decision, claiming it was based on "false assertions" by previous counsel. The Board felt uncomfortable changing the ALJ's decision, particularly findings related to a prior Board they did not represent.
  • Attorney Fees: Barrs sought $9,309.57 in costs and fees. The Association argues that because they offered a $2,000 settlement on September 8, 2023, which Barrs rejected, he is barred from seeking fees under A.R.S. 12-341.01(a) as the final judgment (which awarded no damages) was less favorable to him than their offer.

Important Quotes with Context

Quote Context
"Do you believe that forgetting to restart a recording is the same thing as editing a recording? Absolutely not." Lori Loch-Lee (AAM) testifying about the gaps in the September 2020 meeting audio.
"Homer information of emails and phone numbers are considered private information and I've learned that from different seminars and conferences… my training said not to produce that information." Lori Loch-Lee explaining why homeowner contact details were withheld from Barrs' record requests.
"I am their community manager. I'm not an agent." Loch-Lee's response when questioned about her official capacity and duty to the Association regarding the retention of unedited recordings.
"The Board has been forced to do this, as this litigation has left us without cash reserves." From the Association’s response to the Superior Court, explaining why they are appearing pro se.
"I've said repeatedly that I want to be a part of that positive, forward motion… I'm wondering if it may be helpful… for you to join us during a portion of an Exec Session." Board President Nan Wickman in an email to Tom Barrs (July 6, 2023) attempting to find a settlement path.
"The Board would prefer that this legal action ends here, so that we can spend our volunteered time to get the HOA back to functioning and dealing with all its business properly." Final statement in the Association's legal response regarding the emotional and operational toll of the case.

Timeline of Key Events (2023-2024)

Date Event
January 9-10, 2023 OAH Hearing conducted by ALJ Jenna Clark.
February 21, 2023 ALJ Decision issued regarding the dockets.
April 29, 2023 Annual Member Meeting; new Board of Directors elected (Nan Wickman, Michael Olley, Cynthia Dryden, etc.).
May 23, 2023 Tom Barrs files Appeal for Judicial Review.
June 15, 2023 Court orders case stayed for 90 days pending settlement.
July 13, 2023 Board proposes settlement: $1,000 payment to Barrs, no fault admitted, release of claims.
August 22, 2023 Barrs counters with an agreement requiring a $2,000 payment and agreement to all his corrections of the ALJ decision.
September 8, 2023 Board offers $2,000 settlement; Barrs rejects the amended agreement.
September 15, 2023 Court lifts the stay; litigation resumes.
April 4, 2024 Court finds in favor of Appellant (Barrs) and allows for an affidavit to obtain fees.
May 24, 2024 Association files response questioning the validity and substantiation of Barrs' $9,309.57 fee request.

Actionable Insights

  • Documentation Standards: The Association should implement formal policies for recording meetings, including a requirement that any pauses or technical restarts be explicitly noted in the official meeting minutes to prevent allegations of "editing."
  • Management Transition Audit: For self-managed HOAs, a comprehensive audit of all records formerly held by third-party management (like AAM) is necessary to ensure the Board has full custody of "statutory agent" files vs. "personal/internal" management files.
  • Financial Contingency Planning: The depletion of cash reserves for legal fees suggests a need for the Association to evaluate its D&O (Directors and Officers) insurance coverage and legal defense funds for future disputes.
  • Record Request Protocols: Given the Petitioner’s ongoing "frivolous requests" (as characterized by the Board), the Association must maintain a strict, standardized response log that tracks response times and costs incurred per A.R.S. 33-1805 to provide a defense against claims of non-compliance.

Study Guide: Tom Barrs vs. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and administrative matters between Tom Barrs (Petitioner/Appellant) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent/Appellee). It synthesizes information from hearing transcripts, board meeting minutes, and court filings to outline the core conflicts regarding association management, record-keeping, and litigation.

I. Key Concepts and Themes

1. Management and Agency

A central point of contention in the proceedings is the role of the management company, Associated Asset Management (AAM), and its relationship with the Board.

  • Capacity of the Community Manager: Lori Loch-Lee, the community manager from AAM, testified that she acted in a limited capacity as defined by a management agreement. While she acknowledged AAM is a "statutory agent," she distinguished her role as a community manager from that of a general agent of the board.
  • Transition to Self-Management: Following the non-renewal of AAM’s contract (attributed by the Board to the ongoing litigation), the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (DRHOA) transitioned to a self-managed model in early 2023.
2. Record-Keeping and Transparency

The dispute involves allegations of missing or edited evidence, specifically regarding meeting recordings and homeowner correspondence.

  • Editing vs. Omission: A primary legal argument involves whether "forgetting to restart" a recording constitutes "editing." Loch-Lee maintained that pausing a meeting (e.g., due to an interruption) is not the same as editing the record.
  • Access to Records: Tom Barrs sought access to membership rosters and homeowner information. The association initially resisted, citing training that homeowner emails and phone numbers are "private information."
  • Personal vs. Association Files: Loch-Lee testified that her day-to-day "correspondence homeowners" file was an internal AAM file, not accessible or controllable by the Board.
3. Litigation and Settlement Dynamics

The case moved from the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to the Superior Court of Maricopa County.

  • The ALJ Decision: An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision on February 21, 2023, which Barrs subsequently sought to appeal or amend.
  • Settlement Negotiations: Numerous attempts were made to reach a "Joint Stipulation" to correct alleged errors in the ALJ’s findings of fact. Key issues in settlement included the payment of filing fees, the release of liability for current/former board members, and the accuracy of the membership roster.
  • Recovery of Fees (ARS 12-341.01): The Association argued that Barrs was ineligible for attorney fees because he rejected a settlement offer ($2,000) that was more favorable than the eventual court determination.

II. Short-Answer Practice Questions

  1. Who represented Tom Barrs at the January 2023 hearing?
  • Answer: Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq.
  1. What was the specific AAM policy regarding recording at their business office?
  • Answer: No tape or visual recording was permitted at the AAM business office during record inspections or meetings.
  1. According to Lori Loch-Lee, what two categories of information are considered "private" and excluded from general homeowner requests?
  • Answer: Homeowner email addresses and phone numbers.
  1. What was the "711 Road Reserves Fund" loan used for?
  • Answer: An $8,000 loan was taken from the 711 Road Reserves Fund to the General Fund to maintain solvency and meet the 2023 budget.
  1. Why did the Board claim they had to become self-managed?
  • Answer: Their management company (AAM) chose not to renew the contract due to the continued legal escalations by Tom Barrs.
  1. What happened during the September 15, 2020, meeting recording?
  • Answer: The recording was stopped and restarted twice (at approximately 17:20 and 31:09) following interruptions or rucksacks involving Mr. Barrs.
  1. What was the total amount Tom Barrs claimed for "Limited Scope Representation" from Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.?
  • Answer: $5,480.00.
  1. Who were the four new board members elected on April 29, 2023?
  • Answer: Nan Wickman (President), Michael Olley (Vice President), Cynthia Dryden (Secretary/Treasurer), and David Hughes (At-large). Susan Klinefelter was also elected as an at-large member.

III. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Ethics of Administrative Record-Keeping: Discuss the implications of a community manager "forgetting" to record portions of a board meeting. Does the distinction between "omission" and "editing" hold legal weight in the context of HOA transparency requirements under Arizona law?
  2. The Impact of Litigation on Small Communities: Using the Desert Ranch HOA as a case study, analyze how prolonged legal disputes between a single homeowner and an association can affect the financial health (e.g., depletion of cash reserves) and the volunteer spirit of the board (e.g., mass resignations).
  3. Privacy vs. Disclosure: Evaluate the conflict between a homeowner's right to access association records (ARS 33-1805) and the management’s duty to protect homeowner privacy (emails and phone numbers). Where should the line be drawn for an "unredacted" membership roster?
  4. Settlement and Good Faith: Analyze the timeline of settlement offers between Barrs and the Board. Did the insistence on correcting the "Findings of Fact" in the ALJ decision, rather than focusing on monetary or policy outcomes, indicate a lack of "good faith" in negotiations as alleged by the Association?

IV. Glossary of Important Terms

Term Definition
AAM Associated Asset Management; the professional management company previously contracted by the Desert Ranch HOA.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) A judge who presides over hearings and makes findings of fact in disputes involving state agencies (in this case, the Arizona Department of Real Estate).
ARS 12-341.01 An Arizona statute regarding the recovery of attorney fees in contested actions arising out of a contract.
Joint Stipulation A formal agreement between opposing parties to recognize certain facts as true or to follow a specific course of action in a legal case.
Limited Scope Representation A legal arrangement where an attorney handles only specific parts of a case rather than providing full representation.
Minute Entry A brief written record of the court's actions, orders, or findings during a specific proceeding.
Pro Se Representing oneself in a legal proceeding without the assistance of an attorney.
Statutory Agent An entity (like AAM) designated to receive legal service of process and official communications on behalf of a corporation or association.
Stay Pending Settlement A temporary suspension of court deadlines and proceedings to allow parties to finalize a settlement agreement.

Behind the Minutes: Lessons in Transparency and the Cost of HOA Litigation

1. Introduction: When Governance Becomes a Legal Battlefield

Thirty-three homes, four years of litigation, and a $29,000 legal bill—how did the Desert Ranchers Association find itself in a war over a Zoom recording?

In community governance, the distance between a minor administrative oversight and a catastrophic financial burden is often shorter than most boards realize. The matter of Tom Barrs vs. Desert Ranchers Association serves as a stark case study in the high price of protracted conflict. For an association of only 33 members, the $29,000 spent on this single legal matter (excluding the Petitioner’s personal costs) represents a staggering per-household burden of nearly $880. This dispute, which centered on records requests, membership rosters, and the integrity of meeting recordings from 2020 through early 2024, offers critical lessons for any board seeking to practice "preventative governance."

2. The "Recording" Debate: Human Error vs. Intentional Editing

A cornerstone of this litigation was a technical dispute regarding the September 2020 board meeting recording. The Petitioner, Tom Barrs, alleged that the recording was intentionally edited to omit sensitive discussions. Community Manager Lori Loch-Lee testified that while technical gaps existed, they were the result of "stops and starts" caused by human error or technical interruptions.

The technical timestamps are revealing: the recording stopped at the 17-minute and 31-minute marks. Critically, the transcript indicates that at these specific junctions, the board's conversation shifted to whether they should call the police on Mr. Barrs. This context fueled the Petitioner's allegations of intentional editing; it wasn't just any segment that was missed, but a highly sensitive discussion regarding the Petitioner himself. Loch-Lee maintained that as a "human," she simply forgot to restart the recording after interruptions.

Spotlight: Is It Editing or Forgetting? The Distinction: Management distinguished between editing (altering existing footage) and forgetting (failing to capture a segment). The Legal Risk: In the eyes of a governance expert, "selective recording"—even if unintentional—creates a "transparency gap" that is nearly impossible to defend in court once personal animosity is involved.

3. The Transparency Gap: Internal Files and Agent Boundaries

The case highlighted a significant point of confusion in the HOA industry: the legal status of the management company. During testimony, Lori Loch-Lee initially admitted, "AAM is a statutory agent. Yes." However, when pressed by counsel, she later asserted, "I am their community manager. I’m not an agent."

This contradiction illustrates the tension between a management firm acting as an agent of record and an individual manager acting as a representative of that firm. Loch-Lee argued that her "day-to-day" emails were personal business files kept in an internal AAM file, to which the Board had "absolutely no" control or access. This created a wall between the homeowners and the communications used to conduct association business—a wall that often triggers litigation when members feel that information is being shielded behind "limited capacity" management agreements.

4. The High Price of Standing on Principle

The dispute did more than deplete the association's bank account; it broke the community's leadership structure.

The Financial and Human Toll

Category Impact Details
Legal Spending Over $29,000 spent by the HOA (nearly $880 per household), excluding Tom Barrs' personal costs.
Administrative Burden Hundreds of hours of volunteer time lost to hearings, document preparation, and executive sessions.
Human Cost Resignations of Board members Cynthia Dryden and Nan Wickman due to "mental anguish"; other owners refused to join the "depleted Board" because of the litigation.
Management Impact AAM terminated the contract due to the "time and hassle" represented by the dispute, forcing the HOA into a high-risk self-managed model.
5. The Settlement Slog: A Timeline of Negotiation

Despite the Board’s eventual desire for "closure," the litigation continued long after the original Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision. A key governance failure identified here is that providing the requested records does not always end the conflict if the "integrity of the record" remains at issue.

  • April 29, 2023: New Secretary Cynthia Dryden provides Tom Barrs access to the membership roster. Despite this, Barrs files an appeal on May 23.
  • June 2023: Barrs provides a settlement outline requesting line-by-line corrections to the ALJ’s "findings of fact."
  • July 2023: The HOA offers a $1,000 reimbursement for filing fees with a "no fault" clause.
  • September 2023: The HOA increases the offer to $2,000. Barrs rejects it, insisting on correcting the ALJ record.
  • December 6, 2023: The parties reach a tentative "no-cost" agreement regarding the roster, yet they are unable to agree on the specific settlement language.
  • April 2024: Following a court ruling in Barrs' favor, he submits a final claim for $9,309.57 in costs and fees.
6. Conclusion: Moving Forward and Key Takeaways

Today, the Desert Ranchers Association is self-managed—a state of transition born of necessity rather than choice. When a community becomes a high-liability client, professional management firms often walk away, leaving volunteers to navigate complex legal and financial waters alone. The failure to reach a "no-cost resolution" earlier in the process underscores the danger of allowing a dispute over "findings of fact" to outweigh the pragmatic need for community stability.

Governance Gold Nuggets

  1. Maintain Unedited Recordings: To avoid allegations of tampering, ensure recordings are continuous. If a meeting is paused, the chair must announce the pause and the resumption on the record, with corresponding notes in the minutes.
  2. Adopt a Records Retention and Production Policy: Minimize the "transparency gap" by defining the scope of association records versus management business files before a dispute arises.
  3. Ensure Roster Transparency: Per ARS 33-1805, membership rosters are a fundamental record. Access should be proactive and standardized to prevent "withholding" claims.
  4. Prioritize Early Resolution: The escalation from a $1,000 offer to a $29,000 bill is a cautionary tale. Boards must identify when a dispute has shifted from "governance" to "animosity" and seek mediation before reserves are depleted.

Ultimately, the goal of a board is the preservation of the community. In Desert Ranchers, the cost of the "battle" was the very peace and professional oversight the board was elected to protect.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Tom Barrs (Petitioner)
    Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
    Homeowner and member of the association
  • Jonathan A. Dessaules (Counsel for Petitioner)
    Dessaules Law Group
  • Daryl Manhart (Limited Scope Counsel)
    Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.
    Retained for the appeal brief
  • Aaron Duell (Limited Scope Counsel)
    Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.
    Retained for the appeal brief

Respondent Side

  • B. Austin Baillio (Counsel for Respondent)
    Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
  • Brian Schoeffler (Witness)
    Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
    Board Member, Secretary/Treasurer
  • Gerard Mangieri (Witness)
    Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
    Board Member, President
  • Lori Loch-Lee (Witness)
    Associated Asset Management
    Community Manager
  • Monte E. Matz (Witness)
    Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
    Board Member, Vice President
  • Michelle Aerni (Witness)
    Subpoenaed witness
  • Cynthia Dryden (Board Member)
    Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
    Elected as Secretary/Treasurer in 2023
  • Nan Wickman (Board Member)
    Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
    Elected as President in 2023
  • David Hughes (Board Member)
    Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
    Elected in 2023
  • Michael Olley (Board Member)
    Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
    Elected in 2023
  • Amanda Shaw (Statutory Agent)
    Associated Asset Management

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Joseph P. Mikitish (Judge)
    Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County
    Presiding judge for the subsequent appeal
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Michael E Palacios v. El Rio Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121053-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-08-13
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition in its entirety, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to show that the El Rio Community Association violated statutory or community document requirements regarding access to records.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michael E Palacios Counsel —
Respondent El Rio Community Association Counsel Quinten T. Cupps

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805; Association Bylaws Article 11.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition in its entirety, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to show that the El Rio Community Association violated statutory or community document requirements regarding access to records.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to fulfill a records request

Petitioner, a member and Board Director, requested to inspect Association books and records on March 30, 2021. Petitioner alleged the Association failed to completely fulfill the request. The ALJ determined that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to demonstrate a violation of the governing statute or bylaws.

Orders: Petitioner's petition and request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent were denied. Respondent was not ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • Association Bylaws Article 11.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, HOA Bylaws, A.R.S. 33-1805
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • Association Bylaws Article 11.3
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121053-REL Decision – 904187.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:38:10 (114.1 KB)

This summary details the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in the case of Michael E Palacios v. El Rio Community Association, No. 21F-H2121053-REL. The hearing took place on August 4, 2021, before Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone.

Key Facts and Proceedings

The Petitioner, Michael E. Palacios, is a property owner and member of the El Rio Community Association (Association). After being appointed to the Board on March 24, 2021, the Petitioner filed a single-issue petition with the Department of Real Estate on May 10, 2021, asserting that the Association failed to fulfill a records request made on March 30, 2021. The Respondent Association denied all claims. The Department referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for an evidentiary hearing. OAH has the authority to hear contested cases concerning disputes between an owner and a planned community association regarding violations of community documents or statutes.

Main Issue and Legal Points

The central issue addressed was whether the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 and the Association Bylaws Article 11.3 by failing to fulfill the records request. Under the relevant statute, associations must make financial and other records reasonably available to members, typically within ten business days. The Association Bylaws Article 11.3 further grants every Director (which the Petitioner was) an absolute right to inspect all books and records. Petitioner bore the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Key Arguments

  1. Petitioner’s Arguments: Petitioner Palacios testified that the Association failed to completely fulfill his March 30 request, alleging he received only about 5% of the documents initially. Specifically, he claimed he did not receive the property management contract (D & E Management), attorney contracts, landscaper contracts, Board minutes, cancelled checks, and ledgers. He also asserted that some provided documents might be false or forged because they contained the incorrect association name ("El Rio Estates Homeowners Association").
  1. Respondent’s Arguments: Denise Ferreira, the manager for the Association's management company (D & E), testified that the Association fully complied with the request, though the compliance was untimely regarding copies of checks due to the bank needing time to prepare the large request. Ferreira explained that there were no ongoing contracts with attorneys or landscapers, and payments related to these services were disclosed through the checks and ledgers provided. Regarding the incorrect name, Ferreira attributed it to an ongoing controversy where some Board members attempted to change the name, but instructions were given to cease using the incorrect name until it was formally modified.

Outcome and Final Decision

The Administrative Law Judge determined that the material facts were not in dispute. The ALJ found that the Petitioner had made a proper request, and the Respondent timely responded, informing the Petitioner of potential delays. Crucially, the ALJ concluded that Petitioner presented no credible evidence that documents existed which were not disclosed.

Therefore, the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to demonstrate that the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 or Article 11.3 of the Bylaws.

The final order denied the Petitioner’s petition and his request to levy a civil penalty against the Respondent. Furthermore, the Respondent was not required to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee. The decision was transmitted on August 13, 2021.

Questions

Question

How long does my HOA have to fulfill a request to examine records?

Short Answer

The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.

Detailed Answer

According to Arizona statute, an association is granted a period of ten business days to comply with a member's request to examine financial and other records.

Alj Quote

The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • timelines
  • HOA obligations

Question

Can the HOA charge me a fee to simply look at the books and records?

Short Answer

No, the HOA cannot charge a member for making material available for review.

Detailed Answer

State law prohibits the association from charging a member (or their designated representative) any fee for the act of making records available for inspection.

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. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • fees
  • homeowner rights

Question

How much can the HOA charge me if I want copies of the records?

Short Answer

The HOA may charge up to fifteen cents per page for copies.

Detailed Answer

While review is free, if a member requests physical copies of records, the association is legally permitted to charge a fee, capped at fifteen cents per page.

Alj Quote

An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • fees
  • copies

Question

Is the HOA allowed to withhold certain records from me?

Short Answer

Yes, specific categories of records, such as privileged attorney communications or employee records, can be withheld.

Detailed Answer

The law provides exceptions to disclosure for sensitive information, including privileged attorney-client communications, pending litigation, closed session minutes, and personal or financial records of individual members or employees.

Alj Quote

Books and records kept by or on behalf of the association and the board may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to… Privileged communication between an attorney for the association and the association.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • exclusions
  • privacy

Question

Can I see records regarding complaints against specific HOA employees?

Short Answer

No, records regarding specific complaints against individual employees can be withheld.

Detailed Answer

The HOA is not required to disclose records that relate to specific complaints against an individual employee of the association or a contractor.

Alj Quote

Records relating to… specific complaints against an individual employee of the association or an individual employee of a contractor of the association who works under the direction of the association [may be withheld].

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(5)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • employees
  • privacy

Question

What standard of proof do I need to meet to win a dispute hearing against my HOA?

Short Answer

You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'

Detailed Answer

The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof. This means you must provide enough evidence to convince the judge that your claim is more probably true than not.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 3

Topic Tags

  • hearing procedure
  • burden of proof
  • legal standards

Question

If I believe documents are missing from my request, is my belief enough to prove a violation?

Short Answer

No, you must present credible evidence that the specific undisclosed documents actually exist.

Detailed Answer

Merely alleging that documents are missing is insufficient. The homeowner must provide credible evidence demonstrating that the documents requested actually exist and were withheld.

Alj Quote

Petitioner presented no credible evidence that documents existed which were not disclosed.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact 18

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • records request
  • burden of proof

Question

Does an HOA Director have different inspection rights than a regular homeowner?

Short Answer

Yes, Directors generally have an absolute right to inspect all books and records at any reasonable time.

Detailed Answer

Association bylaws often grant Directors broader access than general members, allowing them the absolute right to inspect all documents and physical properties at reasonable times.

Alj Quote

Every Director shall have the absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect all books, records, and documents of the Association and the physical properties owned or controlled by the Association.

Legal Basis

Association Bylaws Article 11.3

Topic Tags

  • board members
  • directors
  • inspection rights

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121053-REL
Case Title
Michael E Palacios vs. El Rio Community Association
Decision Date
2021-08-13
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

How long does my HOA have to fulfill a request to examine records?

Short Answer

The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.

Detailed Answer

According to Arizona statute, an association is granted a period of ten business days to comply with a member's request to examine financial and other records.

Alj Quote

The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • timelines
  • HOA obligations

Question

Can the HOA charge me a fee to simply look at the books and records?

Short Answer

No, the HOA cannot charge a member for making material available for review.

Detailed Answer

State law prohibits the association from charging a member (or their designated representative) any fee for the act of making records available for inspection.

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. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • fees
  • homeowner rights

Question

How much can the HOA charge me if I want copies of the records?

Short Answer

The HOA may charge up to fifteen cents per page for copies.

Detailed Answer

While review is free, if a member requests physical copies of records, the association is legally permitted to charge a fee, capped at fifteen cents per page.

Alj Quote

An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • fees
  • copies

Question

Is the HOA allowed to withhold certain records from me?

Short Answer

Yes, specific categories of records, such as privileged attorney communications or employee records, can be withheld.

Detailed Answer

The law provides exceptions to disclosure for sensitive information, including privileged attorney-client communications, pending litigation, closed session minutes, and personal or financial records of individual members or employees.

Alj Quote

Books and records kept by or on behalf of the association and the board may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to… Privileged communication between an attorney for the association and the association.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • exclusions
  • privacy

Question

Can I see records regarding complaints against specific HOA employees?

Short Answer

No, records regarding specific complaints against individual employees can be withheld.

Detailed Answer

The HOA is not required to disclose records that relate to specific complaints against an individual employee of the association or a contractor.

Alj Quote

Records relating to… specific complaints against an individual employee of the association or an individual employee of a contractor of the association who works under the direction of the association [may be withheld].

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(5)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • employees
  • privacy

Question

What standard of proof do I need to meet to win a dispute hearing against my HOA?

Short Answer

You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'

Detailed Answer

The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof. This means you must provide enough evidence to convince the judge that your claim is more probably true than not.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 3

Topic Tags

  • hearing procedure
  • burden of proof
  • legal standards

Question

If I believe documents are missing from my request, is my belief enough to prove a violation?

Short Answer

No, you must present credible evidence that the specific undisclosed documents actually exist.

Detailed Answer

Merely alleging that documents are missing is insufficient. The homeowner must provide credible evidence demonstrating that the documents requested actually exist and were withheld.

Alj Quote

Petitioner presented no credible evidence that documents existed which were not disclosed.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact 18

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • records request
  • burden of proof

Question

Does an HOA Director have different inspection rights than a regular homeowner?

Short Answer

Yes, Directors generally have an absolute right to inspect all books and records at any reasonable time.

Detailed Answer

Association bylaws often grant Directors broader access than general members, allowing them the absolute right to inspect all documents and physical properties at reasonable times.

Alj Quote

Every Director shall have the absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect all books, records, and documents of the Association and the physical properties owned or controlled by the Association.

Legal Basis

Association Bylaws Article 11.3

Topic Tags

  • board members
  • directors
  • inspection rights

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121053-REL
Case Title
Michael E Palacios vs. El Rio Community Association
Decision Date
2021-08-13
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Michael E Palacios (petitioner)
    Property owner and member of the Association; was appointed to the Board,

Respondent Side

  • Quinten T. Cupps (HOA attorney)
    Represented El Rio Community Association
  • Denise Ferreira (property manager, witness)
    D & E Management
    Owns D & E Management and was the manager for the Association

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Joan A. Tober, vs. Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association

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

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918042-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-01-15
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge concluded, both in the original decision and the rehearing, that the HOA was the prevailing party. The final decision affirmed that the HOA acted in compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) and (B), specifically ruling that privileged documents are exempt from disclosure timelines and that the Petitioner's request for 'all background information' was unreasonably broad and unclarified.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Joan A. Tober Counsel —
Respondent Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association Counsel Diana J. Elston

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded, both in the original decision and the rehearing, that the HOA was the prevailing party. The final decision affirmed that the HOA acted in compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) and (B), specifically ruling that privileged documents are exempt from disclosure timelines and that the Petitioner's request for 'all background information' was unreasonably broad and unclarified.

Why this result: Petitioner lost because she failed to meet the burden of proof that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The primary record sought was protected by attorney-client privilege, and her vague request for 'any and all documentation' made it impossible for the HOA to reasonably comply within the 10-day period.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA violation of requirement to provide association records within ten business days.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide access to requested documents, including a privileged attorney letter and 'all background information', within the required 10-business day period. The rehearing focused specifically on the timeliness aspect.

Orders: The HOA was deemed the prevailing party in the rehearing, and Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed. The ALJ concluded the HOA acted in compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) and (B).

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2102
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, Attorney-Client Privilege, A.R.S. 33-1805, Planned Community, Rehearing, Unreasonably Broad Request, Timeliness of Disclosure
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2102
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918042-REL-RHG Decision – 764197.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:28:27 (187.4 KB)

19F-H1918042-REL-RHG Decision – ../19F-H1918042-REL/714863.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:28:32 (51.7 KB)

19F-H1918042-REL-RHG Decision – ../19F-H1918042-REL/725808.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:28:37 (89.7 KB)

Briefing Document: Tober v. Civano 1 Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the legal proceedings and outcomes of the case Joan A. Tober v. Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association (No. 19F-H1918042-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute was Petitioner Joan A. Tober’s demand for records from her Homeowners Association (HOA), specifically a legal opinion letter concerning the “North Ridge wall.”

The Petitioner argued that the HOA violated Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide this letter and other “background information.” She contended the HOA waived attorney-client privilege by discussing the letter in an open board meeting and, in a subsequent rehearing, failed to provide records within the statutorily required 10-day timeframe.

The HOA maintained that the letter was a privileged communication with its attorney and therefore exempt from disclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B). The HOA also argued that the Petitioner’s broader request for “any and all documentation” was overly vague and that she failed to clarify the request when asked.

Administrative Law Judge Kay Abramsohn ultimately ruled in favor of the HOA in both the initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing. The final decision affirmed that the legal letter was privileged and could be withheld. Crucially, the judge concluded the HOA did not violate the 10-day provision because the Petitioner’s request was “unreasonably broad” and she failed to respond to the HOA’s request for clarification, thereby preventing the HOA from being able to “reasonably make records available.” The HOA was declared the prevailing party in both instances.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

This matter involves a formal dispute between a homeowner and her homeowners’ association, brought before the Arizona Department of Real Estate and heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Case Name

Joan A. Tober, Petitioner, vs. Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association, Respondent.

Case Number

19F-H1918042-REL

Adjudicating Body

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Administrative Law Judge

Kay A. Abramsohn

Core Issue

Alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805, which governs member access to association records.

Initial Hearing Date

June 5, 2019

Initial Decision Date

July 29, 2019

Rehearing Date

December 11, 2019

Final Decision Date

January 15, 2020

——————————————————————————–

Key Parties and Individuals

• Petitioner: Joan A. Tober

◦ A homeowner in the Civano 1 Neighborhood since 2001.

◦ Previously worked for the company that developed the land/homes in the association area.

◦ Has served as a past Board member for the HOA.

◦ Served as an alternate member on the Finance Committee in 2018.

◦ Exhibits a high level of engagement with HOA affairs, having taped and often transcribed every meeting since 2008.

• Respondent: Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association (HOA)

◦ The governing body for the planned community.

◦ Represented by Diana J. Elston, Esq., of Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.

• Adjudicator: Kay Abramsohn

◦ The Administrative Law Judge for the Office of Administrative Hearings who presided over both the initial hearing and the rehearing.

——————————————————————————–

Chronology of the Dispute

Nov 20, 2018

At an HOA Board meeting, the Board President mentions receiving a letter (“the Letter”) from its attorney regarding the North Ridge wall, states it concerns the HOA’s legal responsibility, and suggests it can be sent out to residents.

Nov 26, 2018

Petitioner sends her first email request for a copy of the Letter.

Nov 27, 2018

Petitioner sends a second request. The HOA replies that it is waiting for clarification from its attorney.

Nov 29, 2018

At 4:58 a.m., Petitioner sends a third, formal request citing A.R.S. § 33-1805, demanding “any and all documentation to include the letter… regarding the structural integrity and the Association members’ responsibility for same and all background information.”

Nov 29, 2018

At 9:44 a.m., the HOA responds, stating the President misspoke and the Letter is a privileged legal opinion. The HOA asks if Petitioner needs a copy of “the original engineer report.” The judge later finds no evidence that Petitioner responded to this clarification query.

Dec 13, 2018

Petitioner writes to the Board, stating she will use “all means… to obtain the requested materials, to include a formal complaint.”

Dec 26, 2018

Petitioner files her single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Jan 15-16, 2019

The HOA forwards to Petitioner the “Civano historical erosion reports” (2013 and 2014) and an invoice related to the 2014 study.

June 5, 2019

The initial administrative hearing is held.

July 29, 2019

Initial Decision Issued: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) finds the Letter is privileged and the HOA is the prevailing party.

Aug 5, 2019

Petitioner files a request for rehearing, arguing the initial decision “did not address the timeliness aspect of the law.”

Aug 23, 2019

The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate grants the rehearing request.

Dec 11, 2019

The rehearing is conducted.

Jan 15, 2020

Final Decision Issued: The ALJ again finds for the HOA, concluding it did not violate the statute because Petitioner’s request was overly broad and she failed to clarify it. The appeal is dismissed.

——————————————————————————–

Core Dispute and Arguments

Petitioner’s Position (Joan A. Tober)

1. Waiver of Privilege: The Petitioner’s central argument was that the HOA intentionally waived attorney-client privilege regarding the Letter when the Board President mentioned it in an open meeting and offered to distribute it, with the other Board members not objecting, thereby showing “unanimous consent to waive confidentiality.”

2. Right to “Background Information”: Petitioner argued that because the North Ridge wall issue had been ongoing since 2013, her request for “any and all documents” and “background information” was justified, and that more than just two prior engineering reports must exist.

3. Untimely Response (Rehearing Argument): In her request for rehearing, Petitioner’s primary argument shifted to timeliness, asserting that even if the HOA “eventually” provided some records, it failed to do so within the 10-business-day period mandated by A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

Respondent’s Position (Civano 1 HOA)

1. Attorney-Client Privilege: The HOA’s primary defense was that the Letter constituted “privileged communication between an attorney for the association and the association,” which may be withheld from members under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B).

2. No Waiver: The HOA contended that the “mere mention” of the Letter by the Board President at a meeting did not constitute a legal waiver of the attorney-client privilege.

3. Vague and Overly Broad Request: The HOA argued that the Petitioner’s request for “any and all” documents was too broad to know what she wanted.

4. Prior Possession of Documents: The HOA indicated that it could be determined from the Petitioner’s own exhibits that she had already received or possessed copies of key requested documents, such as the 2013 and 2014 erosion reports.

——————————————————————————–

Key Findings of Fact and Evidence

The Administrative Law Judge made several critical findings of fact based on the evidence presented across both hearings.

• The Nature of the “Letter”: The document at the center of the dispute was confirmed to be a legal opinion from the HOA’s attorney. It had been discussed by the Board in an executive session prior to the November 20, 2018 meeting. The letter advised that the HOA was responsible for the land below the wall and recommended hiring a “licensed bonded engineer.”

• Petitioner’s Pre-existing Knowledge: The Petitioner was well-informed on the North Ridge wall issue. She acknowledged at the rehearing that at the time of her November 29, 2018 request, she already possessed copies of the 2013 and 2014 engineering reports, which she had obtained from the city in 2014.

• Petitioner’s Request and Failure to Clarify:

◦ The Petitioner’s initial requests on November 26 and 27 were solely for the attorney’s Letter.

◦ Her formal request on November 29 expanded to “any and all documentation… and all background information.”

◦ On the same day, the HOA asked for clarification, specifically inquiring if she “still need[ed] a copy of the original engineer report.”

◦ The ALJ found “no document supporting” the Petitioner’s claim that she responded to this email. During the rehearing, the Petitioner was unable to produce such a response. This failure to clarify was a key factor in the final ruling.

• Lack of Other Documents: The hearing record contained no evidence of any other erosion reports besides the 2013 and 2014 reports. The HOA President, Mr. Mastrosimone, testified that “there were no documents other than the Letter that would have been responsive” to the request.

——————————————————————————–

Legal Rulings and Conclusions of Law

Initial Decision (July 29, 2019)

• Jurisdiction: The OAH confirmed its authority to hear the dispute under Arizona statutes.

• Privilege: The ALJ concluded that under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B), “privileged communication between an attorney for the association and the association” may be withheld. Therefore, the HOA was “not statutorily required to provide access or a copy of the Letter to Petitioner.”

• Outcome: The ALJ concluded that the HOA provided records in compliance with the statute and was deemed the prevailing party.

Final Decision on Rehearing (January 15, 2020)

• Issue for Rehearing: The sole issue on rehearing was whether the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide access to records within 10 business days.

• Privileged Communication: The ALJ reaffirmed that the Letter was privileged communication and the HOA was not required to provide it “within any time period.”

• Unreasonably Broad Request: The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner’s formal request was “unreasonably broad and remained unclarified.”

• Failure to Clarify: The ruling explicitly states: “Petitioner failed to respond to the HOA request for clarification of her unreasonably broad request, preventing the HOA from being able to reasonably make records available. An association is not required to guess what records are being requested.”

• No Violation of Timeliness: Because the request was unclarified, the ALJ found the HOA did not violate the 10-day rule in A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The decision notes that the initial ruling “inartfully stated” that the HOA had provided records in compliance, and that it “should have simply stated that the HOA acted in compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1805.”

• Final Outcome: The ALJ concluded that the HOA acted in compliance with both subsections (A) and (B) of the statute. The HOA was again declared the prevailing party, and the Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed. The decision was declared binding on the parties, subject to judicial review in superior court.

Study Guide: Tober v. Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case No. 19F-H1918042-REL, involving Petitioner Joan A. Tober and Respondent Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a thorough understanding of the case’s facts, legal arguments, and procedural history.

——————————————————————————–

Short Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences, using only information provided in the source documents.

1. What specific event prompted Joan Tober to first request documents from the HOA in November 2018?

2. What was the HOA’s primary legal justification for refusing to provide a copy of “the Letter” to the Petitioner?

3. According to Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), what is the required timeframe for an HOA to make records available to a member after a written request?

4. What was the Petitioner’s core argument for why the HOA had forfeited its right to keep “the Letter” confidential?

5. On what grounds did the Petitioner file her request for a rehearing after the initial decision on July 29, 2019?

6. How did the Petitioner’s document request evolve between her first communication on November 26, 2018, and her third request on November 29, 2018?

7. What crucial step did the Administrative Law Judge conclude the Petitioner failed to take after the HOA’s email on November 29, 2018?

8. Besides “the Letter,” what other key documents related to the North Ridge wall did the Petitioner already possess when she filed her formal request?

9. Describe the Petitioner’s long-standing involvement and activities within the Civano 1 HOA community.

10. What was the final ruling in the Administrative Law Judge Decision on Rehearing, issued January 15, 2020?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The request was prompted by the HOA Board meeting on November 20, 2018. At this meeting, the Board President mentioned receiving a letter from the HOA’s attorney regarding the North Ridge wall, stated its legal conclusion, and indicated, “I believe we can … send it out … so people can have it.”

2. The HOA’s primary justification was that the document was a privileged attorney-client communication. The HOA argued that the letter contained legal analysis and advice to the Board and was therefore exempt from disclosure under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1805(B).

3. A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) states that a homeowners association has “ten business days” to fulfill a written request for examination of its financial and other records.

4. The Petitioner argued that the HOA had intentionally waived confidentiality. She contended that because the Board President mentioned the letter in an open meeting and the other Board members did not object, they showed unanimous consent to waive the attorney-client privilege.

5. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on the grounds that the initial Administrative Law Judge ruling “did not address the timeliness aspect of the law.” She argued that while the HOA eventually provided access to some records, it had not done so within the required 10-business day period.

6. The Petitioner’s request evolved from a specific ask for a copy of “the Letter” on November 26 and 27 to a much broader request on November 29. Her third request asked for “any and all documentation to include the letter… regarding the structural integrity and the Association members’ responsibility for same and all background information.”

7. The Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to respond to the HOA’s request for clarification in its November 29 email. The HOA had asked if she needed a copy of the “original engineer report,” and the Judge found no evidence in the hearing records that the Petitioner ever answered this question, thus preventing the HOA from being able to reasonably make records available.

8. The Petitioner already possessed the 2013 Engineering report and the 2014 report concerning erosion issues with the North Ridge wall. She acknowledged at the rehearing that she had obtained these from the city in 2014.

9. The Petitioner worked for the company that developed the land, purchased her home in 2001, and has been a past Board member. At the time of the dispute, she was an alternate member of the Finance Committee and had been taping and often transcribing every HOA meeting since 2008.

10. The final ruling was that the HOA was the prevailing party and had not violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. The Judge concluded the HOA was not required to provide the privileged letter and that its failure to provide other documents within 10 days was excused because the Petitioner’s request was “unreasonably broad” and she failed to clarify it. The Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a longer, essay-format response. No answers are provided.

1. Analyze the concept of “waiver” of attorney-client privilege as it was argued in this case. Discuss the Petitioner’s claim that the President’s public comments constituted a waiver and contrast this with the Administrative Law Judge’s implicit and explicit findings on the matter.

2. Trace the procedural history of this case, beginning with the initial petition filing on December 26, 2018, and concluding with the final notice of appeal rights in the January 15, 2020 order. Identify the key legal proceedings, decisions, and dates that marked the progression of the dispute.

3. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the court documents. Explain how the Administrative Law Judge applied this standard to the evidence presented by the Petitioner and why the Petitioner ultimately failed to meet her burden of proof in both the initial hearing and the rehearing.

4. Examine the role and interpretation of Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1805 in this dispute. How did the two key subsections, (A) and (B), create the central legal conflict between the Petitioner’s right to access records and the HOA’s right to withhold privileged information?

5. Evaluate the Administrative Law Judge’s reasoning that the Petitioner’s November 29, 2018 request was “unreasonably broad.” How did this determination, combined with the Petitioner’s alleged failure to clarify her request, become the deciding factor in the rehearing?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Kay Abramsohn, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues legal decisions and orders.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (“the Department”)

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearings from members of homeowners’ associations in Arizona.

A.R.S. § 33-1805

The Arizona Revised Statute governing access to homeowners’ association records. Subsection (A) requires records be made “reasonably available” within ten business days, while subsection (B) allows for withholding of privileged attorney-client communications.

Attorney-Client Privilege

A legal concept that allows for certain communications between an attorney and their client (in this case, the HOA) to be kept confidential. The HOA cited this privilege as the reason for withholding “the Letter.”

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to prove their allegations. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated statutes or community documents.

Executive Session

A private meeting of a board of directors. “The Letter” had been discussed by the HOA Board in an executive session prior to the public meeting where it was mentioned.

An acronym for Homeowners Association. In this case, the Respondent is the Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

The office with the legal authority to hear and decide contested cases involving disputes between homeowners and planned community associations in Arizona.

Petition

The formal, single-issue complaint filed by the Petitioner with the Department of Real Estate on December 26, 2018, which initiated the legal proceedings.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, the Petitioner is Joan A. Tober.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this proceeding. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” and “the greater weight of the evidence.”

Rehearing

A second hearing granted to re-examine a legal case after an initial decision has been made. A rehearing was granted in this case to address the Petitioner’s claim that the initial ruling did not consider the “timeliness aspect of the law.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent is the Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association.

The Letter

The specific document at the heart of the dispute: a privileged legal opinion letter from the HOA’s attorneys to the Board regarding the North Ridge wall, which was “disclosed and discussed” at the November 20, 2018, Board meeting.

She Recorded Every HOA Meeting for a Decade and Still Lost. Here’s What Every Homeowner Can Learn.

Introduction: The Fight for Information

Many homeowners have felt the frustration of seeking information from their Homeowners Association (HOA), only to feel that the board is being less than transparent. It’s a common story that often ends in resignation. But for one Arizona homeowner, it ended in a formal administrative hearing.

This is the story of Joan A. Tober, a remarkably dedicated resident who filed a petition against her HOA with the Arizona Department of Real Estate over access to documents related to a retaining wall. She was a former board member, sat on the finance committee, and, most astoundingly, had personally recorded and often transcribed every single HOA meeting for over a decade. Yet, despite her exhaustive personal record-keeping, her petition was denied. The surprising and counter-intuitive lessons from her story offer a masterclass for any homeowner navigating a dispute with their association.

1. Takeaway #1: The “Attorney-Client Privilege” Shield is Stronger Than You Think.

The central conflict revolved around a single document: a letter from the HOA’s attorney. During an open board meeting, the Board President mentioned the letter, which concerned the association’s responsibility for a retaining wall, and created an expectation of transparency, stating: “I believe we can … send it out … so people can have it.”

Ms. Tober argued that by openly discussing the letter and offering to distribute it, the board had waived its confidentiality, and she was therefore entitled to a copy. It seems like a logical assumption. However, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) disagreed, pointing directly to the law. Under Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)), “privileged communication between an attorney for the association and the association” can be legally withheld from members.

The tribunal found that the mere mention of the letter in a public meeting—even with the president’s comment—did not break that legal privilege. This is a critical point for homeowners to understand. The law protects the board’s ability to seek and receive candid legal advice to govern the association effectively. While it may feel like a lack of transparency, this shield is a fundamental and legally protected aspect of HOA operations.

2. Takeaway #2: Asking for “Everything” Can Get You Nothing.

Beyond the privileged letter, the evolution and wording of Ms. Tober’s request became a major factor in the denial of her petition. The timeline shows how a homeowner’s frustration can lead to a fatal strategic error. On November 26 and 27, 2018, she made two specific requests for the attorney’s letter. The HOA responded that it was seeking clarification from its attorney.

After this delay, Ms. Tober’s third request, dated November 29, escalated significantly. She now asked for: “any and all documentation to include the letter that was disclosed and discussed… and all background information.”

In response, the HOA asked for clarification, but according to the hearing record, Ms. Tober could not provide evidence that she ever replied to narrow her request. This failure proved fatal. The Administrative Law Judge found the request to be “unreasonably broad.” The judge’s decision on the matter was blunt and serves as a powerful warning:

An association is not required to guess what records are being requested.

The ultimate reason for the denial synthesized both issues: “Petitioner failed to respond to the HOA request for clarification of her unreasonably broad request, preventing the HOA from being able to reasonably make records available.” This demonstrates that the legal burden falls squarely on the homeowner to articulate a request the association can reasonably fulfill. As the ALJ noted, an association is not required to be a mind reader.

3. Takeaway #3: Diligence Alone Doesn’t Guarantee a Win.

What makes this story so compelling is the extraordinary diligence of the petitioner. Joan Tober was not a casual observer. The hearing records establish her deep involvement in the community: she was a former Board member, a member of the Finance Committee, and had even worked for the company that originally developed the community.

But one fact, noted in the ALJ’s decision, highlights her stunning level of dedication:

Since 2008, Petitioner has taped every meeting and she often creates a transcript of the meetings.

Despite this decade of meticulous personal record-keeping and her clear passion for the issue, her petition was denied—not just once, but twice, on the initial hearing and again on the rehearing. This presents a sobering reality for all homeowners. While passion, engagement, and even a mountain of personal documentation are valuable, they cannot overcome fundamental legal principles. The outcome of a formal hearing is determined by the strength of the legal argument, not the volume of personal effort expended.

Conclusion: Strategy Over Sheer Effort

The petition of Joan A. Tober is a powerful reminder that when dealing with an HOA, effectiveness is not always measured by effort. Her story provides three critical takeaways for every homeowner: attorney-client privilege provides HOAs with a strong legal shield, record requests must be specific and targeted to be enforceable, and meticulous personal diligence must be paired with a sound legal strategy to succeed in a formal dispute.

This case leaves every homeowner with a critical question: when you have a dispute, are you channeling your energy into the most effective strategy, or simply into the most effort?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Joan A. Tober (petitioner)
    Former Board member; current Finance Committee member

Respondent Side

  • Diana J. Elston (HOA attorney)
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
  • Mr. Mastrosimone (Board President)
    Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association
    Testified at rehearing

Neutral Parties

  • Kay A. Abramsohn (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • c. serrano (Clerk)
  • Felicia Del Sol (Clerk)
  • LDettorre (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Addressed in transmittal
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Addressed in transmittal
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Addressed in transmittal
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Addressed in transmittal
  • ncano (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Addressed in transmittal