Case Summary
| Case ID |
17F-H1717032-REL |
| Agency |
ADRE |
| Tribunal |
OAH |
| Decision Date |
2017-07-14 |
| Administrative Law Judge |
Velva Moses-Thompson |
| Outcome |
full |
| Filing Fees Refunded |
$500.00 |
| Civil Penalties |
$0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner |
William M. Brown |
Counsel |
— |
| Respondent |
Terravita Country Club, Inc. |
Counsel |
Joshua Bolen, Esq. |
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Outcome Summary
The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The Respondent was ordered to comply with the statute within 10 days and refund the $500.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was found appropriate.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to timely provide access to association records
The Respondent failed to fulfill the Petitioner's February 6, 2017, records request within 10 business days. The Respondent argued that disclosure was prohibited under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) due to pending criminal litigation against the Petitioner. The ALJ determined that the exception applies only to pending litigation between the association and the member, not a criminal case in which the association was not a party.
Orders: Respondent ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding the records request within 10 days and pay the Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee within 30 days.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
- A.R.S. § 33-1805
- A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
- A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: records request, access to records, pending litigation exception, HOA records, planned community
Additional Citations:
- A.R.S. § 33-1805
- A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
- A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2)
- A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
Decision Documents
17F-H1717032-REL Decision – 575932.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:33 (79.9 KB)
17F-H1717032-REL Decision – 578529.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:34 (726.4 KB)
17F-H1717032-REL Decision – 586360.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:34 (95.9 KB)
Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717032-REL
Briefing Document: Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc.
Executive Summary
This briefing document analyzes the administrative case of William M. Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc., focusing on a homeowner association’s (HOA) obligation to provide records to a member under Arizona law. The core issue was the interpretation of the “pending litigation” exemption within A.R.S. § 33-1805, which allows an association to withhold certain records.
Terravita Country Club, Inc. (“Terravita”) denied a records request from its member, William M. Brown, citing a pending criminal case against him. However, Terravita was not a party to this criminal litigation. Mr. Brown contended this denial violated state law, arguing the exemption only applies when the association itself is a party to the litigation. Terravita argued for a broader interpretation, claiming the statute did not require the association to be a party.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled decisively in favor of Mr. Brown. The judge concluded that Terravita’s interpretation would lead to an “absurd result,” effectively allowing any HOA to deny records related to any litigation anywhere. The judge established that the sensible and plain meaning of the statute is that the exemption for “pending litigation” applies only to legal disputes between the association and the member.
The Arizona Department of Real Estate adopted the ALJ’s decision in a Final Order. Terravita was found in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805, ordered to produce the requested records, and mandated to reimburse Mr. Brown’s $500 filing fee.
Case Timeline and Factual Background
The dispute followed a clear sequence of events, beginning with the records request and culminating in a final administrative order.
February 6, 2017
William M. Brown, a member of Terravita, formally requests records from the association.
February 14, 2017
Terravita sends an email to Mr. Brown denying the request. The denial cites a “pending criminal litigation” against him and invokes A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) as justification.
Post-Feb. 6, 2017
Terravita fails to fulfill the records request within the statutory 10-business-day deadline.
April 13, 2017
The Arizona Department of Real Estate receives a Petition for Hearing from Mr. Brown, alleging Terravita’s failure to timely respond.
May 2, 2017
Terravita files its response, formally asserting as an affirmative defense that it was not required to disclose the records due to the pending criminal litigation against Mr. Brown.
May 3, 2017
The Department issues a Notice of Hearing, setting the matter for June 26, 2017, before the Office of Administrative Hearings.
June 26, 2017
The administrative hearing is conducted. Both parties present their arguments.
July 14, 2017
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson issues a decision finding in favor of the Petitioner, Mr. Brown.
July 24, 2017
Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issues a Final Order adopting the ALJ’s decision in its entirety.
Core Dispute: Interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1805
The central conflict was the proper application of Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805, which governs a member’s right to access association records. Subsection (A) mandates that records be made available for examination within 10 business days. Subsection (B) provides exemptions, including for records related to “pending litigation.”
Petitioner’s Position (William M. Brown)
Mr. Brown’s argument was straightforward and focused on a narrow interpretation of the statutory exemption.
• Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A): Terravita failed to fulfill his February 6, 2017 records request within the legally mandated 10 business days.
• Limited Scope of Exemption: He contended that the exemption for “pending litigation” under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) applies only to litigation in which the association itself is a party.
• Factual Basis: Since Terravita was not a party to the criminal case brought against him by the City of Scottsdale, the exemption was inapplicable.
• Legislative Intent: Mr. Brown noted that the statute had been amended to remove the phrase “contemplated litigation,” suggesting the legislature intended to narrow, not broaden, the scope of the exemption.
Respondent’s Position (Terravita Country Club, Inc.)
Terravita argued for a broader interpretation of the statute, asserting that its non-party status was irrelevant.
• “Plain Meaning” of the Statute: Terravita’s position was that the plain meaning of A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) does not explicitly require the association to be a party to the pending litigation.
• Relevance of the Litigation: The association argued the criminal case was germane because it was “based upon an allegation that Mr. Brown threated Terravita’s board members and property.”
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ’s decision provided a comprehensive legal analysis, ultimately rejecting Terravita’s interpretation of the law and finding that Mr. Brown had established his case by a preponderance of the evidence.
Statutory Interpretation and the “Absurd Result” Doctrine
The decision hinged on the principle that legislation must be given a “sensible construction that avoids absurd results.” The judge analyzed the consequences of Terravita’s interpretation:
“Terravita’s interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) would allow the association to deny records request of documents that relate to pending litigation between any parties. Such an interpretation would lead to the absurd result of denying records requests of all documents that relate to pending litigation anywhere, between any two parties.”
Based on this reasoning, the judge rejected Terravita’s argument and established a clear standard for applying the exemption.
The Correct Interpretation of the Law
The ALJ articulated the “plain meaning” of the statute, establishing a critical precedent for its application:
“The plain meaning of A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) is that while homeowners’ associations must provide access to financial and other documents to its members within 10 business days, an association may withhold documents that relate to pending litigation between the association and the member.”
Final Conclusion
The judge applied this correct interpretation to the undisputed facts of the case:
1. At the time of Mr. Brown’s request, he was facing criminal charges initiated by the City of Scottsdale.
2. Terravita was not a party to that criminal case.
3. Therefore, the exemption did not apply, and Terravita violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill the records request within 10 business days.
Final Order and Mandates
The decision issued by the ALJ on July 14, 2017, became the basis for the Final Order issued by the Arizona Department of Real Estate on July 24, 2017. The Commissioner accepted and adopted the ALJ’s decision, making its mandates binding and effective immediately.
The key directives of the order were:
• Prevailing Party: Petitioner William M. Brown was formally deemed the prevailing party.
• Compliance: Terravita was ordered to comply with the applicable provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding the records request within 10 days of the order.
• Reimbursement of Fees: Terravita was ordered to pay Mr. Brown his filing fee of $500.00 directly within 30 days of the order.
• No Civil Penalty: The judge found that a civil penalty was not appropriate in the matter.
Study Guide – 17F-H1717032-REL
Study Guide: Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc.
This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case William M. Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc. (No. 17F-H1717032-REL), heard before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. It covers the central conflict, the legal arguments, the statutory interpretations, and the final resolution of the dispute.
——————————————————————————–
Short Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following ten questions based on the provided source documents. Each answer should be approximately 2-3 sentences.
1. What was the initial action taken by William M. Brown on February 6, 2017, and what was Terravita Country Club’s response?
2. On what legal grounds did Terravita justify its refusal to provide the requested records?
3. What was William M. Brown’s primary legal argument against Terravita’s position during the hearing?
4. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of Terravita’s argument regarding A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2), and why was it rejected?
5. What is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, and who bore the burden of proof in this case?
6. What key fact regarding the “pending litigation” was central to the Judge’s final decision?
7. What was the final conclusion reached by the Administrative Law Judge regarding Terravita’s actions?
8. Identify the three specific orders issued by the Administrative Law Judge in the “Recommended Order.”
9. What state department adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, making it a “Final Order”?
10. Besides complying with the records request and paying the filing fee, what specific penalty was explicitly not levied against Terravita?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. On February 6, 2017, William M. Brown requested records from Terravita Country Club. On February 14, 2017, Terravita responded via email, refusing to disclose the records because they were allegedly part of pending criminal litigation against Mr. Brown.
2. Terravita justified its refusal by citing Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1805(B)(2). The club argued that this statute allows an association to withhold records related to “pending litigation.”
3. Mr. Brown’s primary argument was that Terravita had violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide records within 10 business days. He contended that the exemption for “pending litigation” in § 33-1805(B)(2) applies only when the association itself is a party to that litigation, which Terravita was not in his criminal case.
4. The Judge interpreted Terravita’s argument to mean that an association could deny any records request if the documents related to pending litigation between any two parties anywhere. This interpretation was rejected because it would lead to the “absurd result” of broadly denying access to records, which was not the statute’s intent.
5. “Preponderance of the evidence” is the evidentiary standard where the trier of fact must be convinced that a contention is more probably true than not. In this case, the Petitioner (Mr. Brown) bore the burden of proving that Terravita violated the statute, while the Respondent (Terravita) bore the burden of proving its affirmative defenses.
6. The central fact was that Terravita Country Club was not a party to the criminal case brought against Mr. Brown by the City of Scottsdale. Because the association was not a party, the judge ruled that the statutory exemption for withholding records related to pending litigation did not apply.
7. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Mr. Brown had established by a preponderance of the evidence that Terravita failed to fulfill his records request within the required 10 business days. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that Terravita violated the charged provision of A.R.S. § 33-1805.
8. The Judge ordered that: (1) the Petitioner (Mr. Brown) be deemed the prevailing party; (2) Terravita must comply with the records request within 10 days of the Order; and (3) Terravita must pay the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee within 30 days of the Order.
9. The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. This action, dated July 24, 2017, made the decision a binding Final Order.
10. The Recommended Order, which was adopted as the Final Order, explicitly states that “No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.”
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more analytical understanding of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response for each, drawing upon the facts, legal principles, and arguments presented in the source documents.
1. Analyze the conflicting interpretations of A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) presented by William M. Brown and Terravita Country Club. Explain the legal reasoning the Administrative Law Judge used to resolve this dispute, including the principle of avoiding “absurd results.”
2. Describe the complete timeline of the case, from the initial records request to the issuance of the Final Order. For each key date, explain the event’s significance to the progression and outcome of the dispute.
3. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the case documents. Explain how this standard was applied to both the Petitioner’s claim and the Respondent’s affirmative defense and why the Judge ultimately found that the Petitioner had met this burden.
4. Examine the role of the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Department of Real Estate in resolving disputes within planned communities, as demonstrated by this case. How does the process flow from an initial petition to a binding order?
5. Based on the Judge’s decision, formulate an argument about the balance between a homeowner’s right to access association records and an association’s right to protect its interests in legal matters. How does A.R.S. § 33-1805 attempt to strike this balance, and how did the ruling in this case clarify its limits?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings. In this case, Velva Moses-Thompson served as the ALJ.
Affirmative Defense
A set of facts or legal arguments raised by the respondent that, if proven, can defeat or mitigate the petitioner’s claim. Terravita’s claim that A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) exempted them was their affirmative defense.
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
The section of Arizona Revised Statutes that requires a planned community association to make financial and other records available for member examination within 10 business days.
A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2)
The section of Arizona Revised Statutes that allows an association to withhold books and records from disclosure if the portion withheld relates to “pending litigation.”
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
The Arizona statute that permits an owner or planned community organization to file a petition with the Department of Real Estate for a hearing concerning violations of statutes or community documents.
Burden of Proof
The obligation on a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party. The Petitioner bore the burden to prove the violation, and the Respondent bore the burden to establish its defense.
Department of Real Estate
The Arizona state agency that received the Petition for Hearing from Mr. Brown and ultimately adopted the ALJ’s decision, making it final.
Final Order
The binding decision issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, which adopted the ALJ’s Recommended Order. This order is an administrative action and is effective immediately upon service.
Office of Administrative Hearings
An independent state agency in Arizona where administrative law judges conduct hearings on disputes, such as the one between Mr. Brown and Terravita.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a lawsuit or hearing by filing a petition. In this case, William M. Brown was the Petitioner.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in most civil cases. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and represents “the greater weight of the evidence.”
Prevailing Party
The party who is successful in a legal case. The Final Order deemed William M. Brown the prevailing party.
Recommended Order
The initial decision and orders issued by the Administrative Law Judge following a hearing. This decision is then sent to the relevant state agency (in this case, the Department of Real Estate) for adoption.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed; the party who must respond to the claims. In this case, Terravita Country Club, Inc. was the Respondent.
Blog Post – 17F-H1717032-REL
Your HOA Can’t Use “Pending Litigation” to Hide Records. This Homeowner Proved It.
Introduction: The Wall of Secrecy
For many homeowners, dealing with a Homeowners Association (HOA) can feel like confronting an organization that operates with total authority and little transparency. Board decisions can seem arbitrary, and getting straight answers or access to official documents can be a frustrating, uphill battle. But what happens when an HOA flatly denies a simple request for records, citing a vague legal reason?
One homeowner decided to find out. The case of William M. Brown versus the Terravita Country Club provides a fascinating look at how a single individual challenged his HOA’s interpretation of state law. In doing so, he not only won access to the records he sought but also revealed a crucial limit on an HOA’s power to operate in secret.
The Takeaways: Four Lessons from a Landmark HOA Dispute
This case offers several powerful and practical lessons for any homeowner who has ever felt stonewalled by their association’s board.
Takeaway 1: “Pending Litigation” Isn’t a Blank Check to Deny Records
At the heart of the dispute was a simple request. On February 6, 2017, William M. Brown asked his HOA, Terravita, for access to association records. The HOA denied the request, citing an exemption in Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2)) that allows an association to withhold records related to “pending litigation.”
Terravita’s argument was that this exemption applied because of a pending criminal case against Mr. Brown. Crucially, they argued this was not just any unrelated case; the criminal charges stemmed from allegations that Mr. Brown had threatened the HOA’s board members and property. From their perspective, the records request was directly linked to a hostile legal situation involving the association’s leadership. However, the critical fact remained that the HOA itself was not a formal party to the criminal case.
The judge’s ruling was definitive and clear: the “pending litigation” exemption can only be used to withhold records if the litigation is between the association and the member. Because Terravita was not a party to Mr. Brown’s criminal case, it had no legal grounds to use that case as an excuse to withhold its records from him. This ruling draws a bright line: The “pending litigation” shield cannot be borrowed from a separate case, even one that feels highly relevant to the HOA.
Takeaway 2: Legal Interpretations Must Be Sensible, Not Absurd
The HOA argued for a literal interpretation of the law, claiming the statute didn’t explicitly state that the association had to be a party to the litigation. Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson rejected this line of reasoning, stating that it would lead to an “absurd result.”
This is a critical lesson for homeowners. Judges are tasked with ensuring laws are applied sensibly. When an HOA’s interpretation of a rule would create an illogical or unfair outcome, it is vulnerable to legal challenge. The judge highlighted the flaw in the HOA’s logic with a powerful statement in her decision:
Terravita’s interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) would allow the association to deny records request of documents that relate to pending litigation between any parties. Such an interpretation would lead to the absurd result of denying records requests of all documents that relate to pending litigation anywhere, between any two parties.
Takeaway 3: A Single Homeowner Can Successfully Challenge Their HOA
Perhaps the most empowering aspect of this case is who argued it. The court documents show that while the HOA was represented by legal counsel (“Joshua Bolen, Esq. appeared on behalf of Respondent Terravita Country Club, Inc.”), Mr. Brown represented himself (“Petitioner William M. Brown appeared on behalf of himself”).
Despite being outmatched on paper, Mr. Brown successfully researched the law, presented a logical argument, and held his ground. His victory demonstrates that the legal process is not just for lawyers. A well-researched, logical argument from a homeowner can be more powerful than a law firm’s flawed interpretation of a statute. The judge ultimately found that “Mr. Brown established by a preponderance of the evidence that Terravita failed to fulfill his February 6, 2017 records request within 10 business days.”
Takeaway 4: Misapplying the Law Can Have Financial Consequences
This wasn’t just a moral victory. The final order, adopted by the Arizona Department of Real Estate on July 24, 2017, came with tangible consequences for the HOA. For its failure to correctly apply the law, Terravita faced direct and tangible consequences.
• The HOA was ordered to provide the requested records within 10 days.
• The homeowner, Mr. Brown, was deemed the “prevailing party.”
• The HOA, Terravita, was ordered to pay Mr. Brown his filing fee of $500.00.
This outcome underscores a critical point: when an HOA oversteps its authority or misinterprets the law, it can be held financially responsible for the costs incurred by the homeowner forced to challenge its actions.
Conclusion: Knowledge is Power
The story of William M. Brown’s dispute with his HOA serves as a powerful reminder that HOAs do not have unlimited power. They are governed by specific state laws, and understanding those laws is the most effective tool a homeowner possesses.
The central lesson is that an HOA’s authority is not absolute, and its interpretation of its own rules—and, more importantly, state law—must be reasonable and sensible. This case affirms the right of members to transparency and proves that a single, well-prepared homeowner can successfully stand up for those rights.
After seeing how one homeowner held his board accountable, will you take the time to learn your rights before you need them?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- William M. Brown (petitioner)
Appeared on behalf of himself
Respondent Side
- Joshua Bolen (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Neutral Parties
- Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
- Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
- Abby Hansen (HOA coordinator)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
