Tag Archives: architectural control

Carl-Mitchell Smoot v. Los Reyes Homeowners Association Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222063-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-04-13
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Smoot Carl-Mitchell Counsel Stewart F. Gross, Esq.
Respondent Los Reyes Homeowners Association Inc. Counsel Michael S. McLeran, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1819; CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8

Outcome Summary

The ALJ affirmed the Petitioner's position that the HOA's denial of artificial turf violated CC&Rs Section 8.8. The ALJ found that because maintenance was shared and the HOA's CC&Rs cannot contradict the superior McCormick Ranch rules (which allow artificial turf), the denial was improper and the HOA failed to meet the exemption requirements under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B).

Key Issues & Findings

Architectural disapproval of landscaping plans to install artificial turf

Petitioner alleged Respondent's disapproval of his landscaping plans to install artificial turf violated the CC&Rs and was unreasonable under Arizona law. The ALJ concluded the disapproval violated CC&Rs Section 8.8 because the maintenance responsibility was shared, not exclusive to the HOA, and the HOA's CC&Rs must not contradict McCormick Ranch's Rules, which permit artificial turf.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is affirmed. Respondent must reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee. Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of CC&Rs Section 8.8 going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1819
  • CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8
  • CC&Rs Article 9.4
  • CC&Rs Article 6.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: artificial turf, landscaping, CC&Rs, shared maintenance, architectural control, McCormick Ranch
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1819
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8
  • CC&Rs Article 9.4
  • CC&Rs Article 6.2

Video Overview

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/6rR1HVClA4Mzb6MK8wI7md

Decision Documents

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1005074.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:14 (54.0 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1005155.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:19 (6.9 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1023283.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:22 (54.3 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1029871.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:25 (52.1 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1049042.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:29 (175.7 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 992691.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:30 (48.6 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 992789.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:32 (5.9 KB)

Questions

Question

Can my HOA prohibit artificial turf if the CC&Rs don't specifically ban it?

Short Answer

Likely not. If the CC&Rs are silent regarding artificial turf and do not explicitly prohibit it, the HOA may not be able to enforce a ban, especially if a master association permits it.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that because the HOA's CC&Rs were silent regarding artificial turf and did not explicitly prohibit it, they could not ban it. This was further reinforced because the master association's rules, which the sub-association could not contradict, explicitly permitted artificial turf.

Alj Quote

Although Respondent’s CC&Rs are silent as to artificial turf, they do not prohibit artificial turf and they shall not contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Construction; A.R.S. § 33-1819

Topic Tags

  • artificial turf
  • CC&Rs interpretation
  • architectural requests

Question

Can a sub-association ban artificial turf if the master association allows it?

Short Answer

No, generally a sub-association cannot contradict the master association's rules if its own governing documents prohibit such contradictions.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the sub-association's CC&Rs incorporated the master association's rules and stated they could not contradict them. Since the master association allowed artificial turf, the sub-association could not prohibit it.

Alj Quote

McCormick Ranch allows artificial turf, and Respondent cannot contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations according to Respondent’s CC&Rs Section 9.4.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 9.4; Governing Documents Hierarchy

Topic Tags

  • master association
  • sub-association
  • conflicting rules

Question

Does the HOA mowing my front lawn give them the exclusive right to ban artificial turf under state law?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, if the maintenance is shared. If the homeowner is responsible for irrigation and replacing plants, the HOA does not have exclusive maintenance rights to prohibit turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B).

Detailed Answer

The HOA argued that because they mowed the lawn, they could prohibit artificial turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B). However, the judge found that because the homeowner paid for water and was responsible for keeping plants healthy (shared maintenance), the HOA could not use the maintenance statute to completely ban turf.

Alj Quote

In this case, it is undisputed that Petitioner pays for and can control the irrigation of his property. It is also undisputed that the maintenance of the front yards of the homes within Respondent is shared between the individual homeowners and Respondent.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1819(B); CC&Rs Section 8.8

Topic Tags

  • maintenance responsibility
  • artificial turf
  • state statute

Question

Can an HOA deny an architectural request claiming it disrupts the 'harmony' of the neighborhood?

Short Answer

They can claim it, but a judge may overrule them if the evidence shows the improvement (like artificial turf) wouldn't actually violate the goal of harmony.

Detailed Answer

The HOA denied the request based on the 'overall goal of harmony,' arguing that artificial turf would look different from the natural grass in the neighborhood. The judge reviewed the evidence and concluded that installing artificial turf would not actually be contrary to the goal of harmony.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge further concludes based on the evidence presented at hearing, that the installation of artificial turf would not be contrary to the “overall goal of harmony of external design” as asserted by Respondent.

Legal Basis

Subjective Standards; Harmony Provisions

Topic Tags

  • architectural control
  • harmony
  • aesthetics

Question

Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner challenges an HOA decision?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The decision explicitly states that in these administrative hearings, the Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proving that the HOA violated its governing documents.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal procedure

Question

If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

Upon ruling in favor of the homeowner, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee the homeowner paid to bring the case.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.

Legal Basis

Administrative Remedy

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • penalties

Question

Can the HOA deny my plans for being 'conceptual' if I provided specific details?

Short Answer

No. If the plans include specific information like plant types, numbers, and dimensions, the HOA cannot validly deny them as merely 'conceptual'.

Detailed Answer

The HOA denied the application claiming plans were 'conceptual.' The judge noted the plans contained specific types and numbers of plants, dimensions, and detailed renderings, and ultimately ruled the disapproval was a violation.

Alj Quote

Those plans contain the types and number of plants proposed, and the dimensions and shape of the area of artificial turf, and detailed renderings.

Legal Basis

Reasonableness of Approval Process

Topic Tags

  • architectural plans
  • application denial
  • reasonableness

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222063-REL
Case Title
Smoot Carl-Mitchell v. Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-04-13
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA prohibit artificial turf if the CC&Rs don't specifically ban it?

Short Answer

Likely not. If the CC&Rs are silent regarding artificial turf and do not explicitly prohibit it, the HOA may not be able to enforce a ban, especially if a master association permits it.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that because the HOA's CC&Rs were silent regarding artificial turf and did not explicitly prohibit it, they could not ban it. This was further reinforced because the master association's rules, which the sub-association could not contradict, explicitly permitted artificial turf.

Alj Quote

Although Respondent’s CC&Rs are silent as to artificial turf, they do not prohibit artificial turf and they shall not contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Construction; A.R.S. § 33-1819

Topic Tags

  • artificial turf
  • CC&Rs interpretation
  • architectural requests

Question

Can a sub-association ban artificial turf if the master association allows it?

Short Answer

No, generally a sub-association cannot contradict the master association's rules if its own governing documents prohibit such contradictions.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the sub-association's CC&Rs incorporated the master association's rules and stated they could not contradict them. Since the master association allowed artificial turf, the sub-association could not prohibit it.

Alj Quote

McCormick Ranch allows artificial turf, and Respondent cannot contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations according to Respondent’s CC&Rs Section 9.4.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 9.4; Governing Documents Hierarchy

Topic Tags

  • master association
  • sub-association
  • conflicting rules

Question

Does the HOA mowing my front lawn give them the exclusive right to ban artificial turf under state law?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, if the maintenance is shared. If the homeowner is responsible for irrigation and replacing plants, the HOA does not have exclusive maintenance rights to prohibit turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B).

Detailed Answer

The HOA argued that because they mowed the lawn, they could prohibit artificial turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B). However, the judge found that because the homeowner paid for water and was responsible for keeping plants healthy (shared maintenance), the HOA could not use the maintenance statute to completely ban turf.

Alj Quote

In this case, it is undisputed that Petitioner pays for and can control the irrigation of his property. It is also undisputed that the maintenance of the front yards of the homes within Respondent is shared between the individual homeowners and Respondent.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1819(B); CC&Rs Section 8.8

Topic Tags

  • maintenance responsibility
  • artificial turf
  • state statute

Question

Can an HOA deny an architectural request claiming it disrupts the 'harmony' of the neighborhood?

Short Answer

They can claim it, but a judge may overrule them if the evidence shows the improvement (like artificial turf) wouldn't actually violate the goal of harmony.

Detailed Answer

The HOA denied the request based on the 'overall goal of harmony,' arguing that artificial turf would look different from the natural grass in the neighborhood. The judge reviewed the evidence and concluded that installing artificial turf would not actually be contrary to the goal of harmony.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge further concludes based on the evidence presented at hearing, that the installation of artificial turf would not be contrary to the “overall goal of harmony of external design” as asserted by Respondent.

Legal Basis

Subjective Standards; Harmony Provisions

Topic Tags

  • architectural control
  • harmony
  • aesthetics

Question

Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner challenges an HOA decision?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The decision explicitly states that in these administrative hearings, the Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proving that the HOA violated its governing documents.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal procedure

Question

If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

Upon ruling in favor of the homeowner, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee the homeowner paid to bring the case.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.

Legal Basis

Administrative Remedy

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • penalties

Question

Can the HOA deny my plans for being 'conceptual' if I provided specific details?

Short Answer

No. If the plans include specific information like plant types, numbers, and dimensions, the HOA cannot validly deny them as merely 'conceptual'.

Detailed Answer

The HOA denied the application claiming plans were 'conceptual.' The judge noted the plans contained specific types and numbers of plants, dimensions, and detailed renderings, and ultimately ruled the disapproval was a violation.

Alj Quote

Those plans contain the types and number of plants proposed, and the dimensions and shape of the area of artificial turf, and detailed renderings.

Legal Basis

Reasonableness of Approval Process

Topic Tags

  • architectural plans
  • application denial
  • reasonableness

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222063-REL
Case Title
Smoot Carl-Mitchell v. Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-04-13
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Carl-Mitchell Smoot (petitioner)
    Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc. (Member)
    Former HOA President/Treasurer
  • Stewart F. Gross (petitioner attorney)
    Law Offices of Stewart F. Gross, PLLC

Respondent Side

  • Michael S. McLeran (HOA attorney)
    Childers Hanlon & Hudson, PLC
  • Denise Mueller (board member/witness)
    Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
    HOA Vice President; ALC Member
  • Dawn Feigert (property manager/witness)
    Trestle Management Group
    Senior Manager at HOA management company
  • Timothy Fischer (board member/witness)
    Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
    HOA Treasurer; ALC Member
  • Kirk Nelson (board member/witness)
    Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
    HOA President; ALC Member
  • Jan Greenfield (board member)
    Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Former ARC Chair

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
    Presided over hearings and issued final decision
  • Louis Dettorre (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed in transmission records prior to final decision
  • Susan Nicolson (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed in final decision transmission
  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    OAH
    Presided over initial continuances
  • c. serrano (OAH Staff)
    OAH
    Document processor

Other Participants

  • Valerie (McCormick Ranch Staff)
    McCormick Ranch Property Owners Association
    Contact regarding compliance

Brian D Sopatyk v. Xanadu Lake Resort Condominium, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121065-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-11-01
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Brian D. Sopatyk Counsel Jacob A. Kubert, Esq.
Respondent Xanadu Lake Resort Condominium, Inc. Counsel Penny L. Koepke, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2)
CC&R Article 3 § 3(d)(1)
CC&R Article 6 § 2(a)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party regarding Issues 1 and 3, while Respondent was deemed the prevailing party regarding Issue 2. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner his filing fee of $1,000.00. No civil penalty was found appropriate.

Why this result: Petitioner lost Issue 2 because he failed to prove the Respondent's no-pet policy was arbitrarily or unreasonably applied.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2)

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that screen doors are not permitted in Xanadu under CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2), and CC&R Article 7 (Architectural Committee authority) does not override this explicit prohibition.

Orders: Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2) going forward.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2)
  • CC&R Article 7

Alleged violation of CC&R Article 3 § 3(d)(1)

Petitioner alleged violation concerning the 'no-pet' policy. The ALJ concluded that Respondent is not required to allow pets, but may allow them with Board approval, and the Petitioner did not establish that the policy was arbitrarily or unreasonably applied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • CC&R Article 3 § 3(d)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 12-548

Alleged violation of CC&R Article 6 § 2(a)

The ALJ concluded that the marquee is common area, and the Association was not authorized under CC&R Article 6 § 2(a) to charge a separate assessment or rental fee for its use. Furthermore, there was no evidence the $50 assessment complied with CC&R Article 6 § 5 (special assessment requirements).

Orders: Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of CC&R Article 6 § 2(a) going forward.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&R Article 6 § 2(a)
  • CC&R Article 6 § 5
  • A.R.S. § 12-548

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Governance, Condominium, CC&R Violation, Assessment Dispute, Architectural Control, Pet Policy, Statute of Limitations Defense
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)
  • A.R.S. § 12-548
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2)
  • CC&R Article 3 § 3(d)(1)
  • CC&R Article 6 § 2(a)
  • CC&R Article 6 § 5
  • CC&R Article 7

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121065-REL Decision – 913797.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:39:10 (41.8 KB)

21F-H2121065-REL Decision – 913859.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:39:13 (5.9 KB)

21F-H2121065-REL Decision – 921820.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:39:16 (100.1 KB)

21F-H2121065-REL Decision – 921823.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:39:19 (112.8 KB)

Questions

Question

Can the HOA Board or Architectural Committee authorize an improvement (like a screen door) if the CC&Rs explicitly ban it?

Short Answer

No. The Board cannot use its general approval powers to override specific prohibitions in the CC&Rs.

Detailed Answer

Even if an Architectural Committee has the authority to approve improvements, they cannot authorize items that are specifically prohibited by other sections of the CC&Rs. Doing so would render the specific prohibition meaningless.

Alj Quote

If Respondent were permitted to authorize the installation of screen doors through the approval of the Architectural Committee, the bar in CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2) would have no meaning.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • Architectural Control
  • Board Authority
  • CC&R Interpretation

Question

If the CC&Rs say pets are allowed 'with Board permission,' does the Board have to let me have a pet?

Short Answer

No. The Board has discretion to deny permission.

Detailed Answer

If the CC&Rs state that animals are not allowed without express permission, the Board is not required to grant that permission. As long as the Board has consistently prohibited pets and not acted arbitrarily, they can enforce a no-pet policy.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent is not required, but may allow pets with the Board’s approval… Petitioner did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent has arbitrarily or unreasonably applied CC&R Article 3 § 3(d)(1).

Legal Basis

Board Discretion

Topic Tags

  • Pets
  • Rules Enforcement

Question

Can the HOA charge a 'rental fee' or separate assessment to specific owners for the use or repair of a common area structure?

Short Answer

Not usually. Common area maintenance should be paid from general reserve funds or regular assessments.

Detailed Answer

The HOA cannot arbitrarily charge a 'rental fee' or specific assessment for a common area amenity (like a marquee sign) if the CC&Rs require common area improvements to be funded by the reserve fund or regular assessments.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the marquee is a part of the common area of Xanadu and therefore, the Association was not authorized under CC&R Article 6 § 2(a), to charge a separate assessment or rental fee for the use of the marquee.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article 6 § 2(a)

Topic Tags

  • Assessments
  • Common Areas
  • Financials

Question

Is there a statute of limitations for filing a petition against my HOA with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?

Short Answer

No.

Detailed Answer

The statute of limitations that applies to debts (A.R.S. § 12-548) does not apply to ADRE petitions because they are not actions for debt. The Department itself does not have statute of limitations provisions.

Alj Quote

A.R.S. § 12-548 is inapplicable to the petition filed in this matter because the statute applies to actions for debt evidenced by a contract in writing. The petition does not relate to a debt and furthermore, the Department does not have any statute of limitations provisions.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 12-548 (distinguished)

Topic Tags

  • Procedure
  • Statute of Limitations

Question

Can the HOA levy a special assessment for repairs without a vote of the members?

Short Answer

No, not if the CC&Rs require a member vote.

Detailed Answer

If the CC&Rs stipulate that special assessments for capital improvements require the assent of a certain percentage of voters (e.g., 2/3), the HOA cannot impose the cost without holding that vote.

Alj Quote

Furthermore, there was no evidence presented at hearing that the $50 assessment was imposed that complied with CC&R Article 6 § 5.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article 6 § 5

Topic Tags

  • Special Assessments
  • Voting

Question

If I win my hearing against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge has the authority to order the HOA to reimburse the prevailing party for the filing fee.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $1,000.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Fees

Question

How are conflicts or ambiguities in the CC&Rs interpreted by the judge?

Short Answer

They are construed as a whole to determine the underlying purpose.

Detailed Answer

Restrictive covenants are interpreted by looking at the document as a whole to understand the intent of the parties and the purpose of the restrictions.

Alj Quote

Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.

Legal Basis

Common Law Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • CC&R Interpretation

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121065-REL
Case Title
Brian D. Sopatyk vs. Xanadu Lake Resort Condominium, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-11-01
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can the HOA Board or Architectural Committee authorize an improvement (like a screen door) if the CC&Rs explicitly ban it?

Short Answer

No. The Board cannot use its general approval powers to override specific prohibitions in the CC&Rs.

Detailed Answer

Even if an Architectural Committee has the authority to approve improvements, they cannot authorize items that are specifically prohibited by other sections of the CC&Rs. Doing so would render the specific prohibition meaningless.

Alj Quote

If Respondent were permitted to authorize the installation of screen doors through the approval of the Architectural Committee, the bar in CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2) would have no meaning.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • Architectural Control
  • Board Authority
  • CC&R Interpretation

Question

If the CC&Rs say pets are allowed 'with Board permission,' does the Board have to let me have a pet?

Short Answer

No. The Board has discretion to deny permission.

Detailed Answer

If the CC&Rs state that animals are not allowed without express permission, the Board is not required to grant that permission. As long as the Board has consistently prohibited pets and not acted arbitrarily, they can enforce a no-pet policy.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent is not required, but may allow pets with the Board’s approval… Petitioner did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent has arbitrarily or unreasonably applied CC&R Article 3 § 3(d)(1).

Legal Basis

Board Discretion

Topic Tags

  • Pets
  • Rules Enforcement

Question

Can the HOA charge a 'rental fee' or separate assessment to specific owners for the use or repair of a common area structure?

Short Answer

Not usually. Common area maintenance should be paid from general reserve funds or regular assessments.

Detailed Answer

The HOA cannot arbitrarily charge a 'rental fee' or specific assessment for a common area amenity (like a marquee sign) if the CC&Rs require common area improvements to be funded by the reserve fund or regular assessments.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the marquee is a part of the common area of Xanadu and therefore, the Association was not authorized under CC&R Article 6 § 2(a), to charge a separate assessment or rental fee for the use of the marquee.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article 6 § 2(a)

Topic Tags

  • Assessments
  • Common Areas
  • Financials

Question

Is there a statute of limitations for filing a petition against my HOA with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?

Short Answer

No.

Detailed Answer

The statute of limitations that applies to debts (A.R.S. § 12-548) does not apply to ADRE petitions because they are not actions for debt. The Department itself does not have statute of limitations provisions.

Alj Quote

A.R.S. § 12-548 is inapplicable to the petition filed in this matter because the statute applies to actions for debt evidenced by a contract in writing. The petition does not relate to a debt and furthermore, the Department does not have any statute of limitations provisions.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 12-548 (distinguished)

Topic Tags

  • Procedure
  • Statute of Limitations

Question

Can the HOA levy a special assessment for repairs without a vote of the members?

Short Answer

No, not if the CC&Rs require a member vote.

Detailed Answer

If the CC&Rs stipulate that special assessments for capital improvements require the assent of a certain percentage of voters (e.g., 2/3), the HOA cannot impose the cost without holding that vote.

Alj Quote

Furthermore, there was no evidence presented at hearing that the $50 assessment was imposed that complied with CC&R Article 6 § 5.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article 6 § 5

Topic Tags

  • Special Assessments
  • Voting

Question

If I win my hearing against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge has the authority to order the HOA to reimburse the prevailing party for the filing fee.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $1,000.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Fees

Question

How are conflicts or ambiguities in the CC&Rs interpreted by the judge?

Short Answer

They are construed as a whole to determine the underlying purpose.

Detailed Answer

Restrictive covenants are interpreted by looking at the document as a whole to understand the intent of the parties and the purpose of the restrictions.

Alj Quote

Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.

Legal Basis

Common Law Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • CC&R Interpretation

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121065-REL
Case Title
Brian D. Sopatyk vs. Xanadu Lake Resort Condominium, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-11-01
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Brian D. Sopatyk (petitioner)
    Unit Owner
  • Jacob A. Kubert (petitioner attorney)
    Dessaules Law Group

Respondent Side

  • Penny L. Koepke (respondent attorney)
    Maxwell Morgan PC

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Louis Dettorre (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • c. serrano (clerk/staff)
    Transmitting agent mentioned in distribution list

Erik R. Pierce v. Sierra Morado Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020053-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-02-10
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Erik R. Pierce Counsel James C. Frisch
Respondent Sierra Morado Community Association Counsel Nicholas C.S. Nogami and Heather M. Hampstead

Alleged Violations

Article 11, Section 11.1

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Respondent HOA did not violate CC&R Section 11.1 because that section grants the Board discretion, rather than a mandatory obligation, in the timing of enforcement actions.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated CC&R Section 11.1, as the ALJ found the Board's decision to temporarily delay enforcement pending litigation and settlement discussions fell within the discretion granted by the CC&R.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure of HOA to Enforce Architectural Approval Conditions (Hot Tub Screening)

Petitioner alleged that the HOA failed to enforce the mandatory installation of a pergola and screening around a neighbor's hot tub, a condition imposed by the Architectural Review Committee when retroactively approving the installation.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • CC&R Article 11, Section 11.1
  • CC&R Article 4, Section 4.27

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Enforcement, CC&R Dispute, Architectural Control, Discretionary Enforcement
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • CC&R Article 4, Section 4.27
  • CC&R Article 11, Section 11.1
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020053-REL Decision – 850237.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:32:29 (43.0 KB)

20F-H2020053-REL Decision – 850239.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:32:31 (7.1 KB)

20F-H2020053-REL Decision – 853778.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:32:32 (119.9 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020053-REL


Administrative Hearing Briefing: Pierce v. Sierra Morado Community Association

Executive Summary

This briefing synthesizes the key findings and judicial decision in the administrative case of Erik R. Pierce versus the Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA), Case No. 20F-H2020053-REL. The petition, filed by homeowner Erik R. Pierce, was ultimately denied by the Administrative Law Judge on February 10, 2021.

The core of the dispute was Pierce’s allegation that the SMCA failed to enforce its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) against his neighbors, the Kinstles, who installed a hot tub visible from Pierce’s property, creating a privacy violation. While the SMCA Board retroactively approved the hot tub, it did so with the explicit condition that a pergola and screening be installed to mitigate the visibility issue. The Kinstles subsequently failed to install the required screening.

The judge concluded that the SMCA’s conditional approval resolved the initial violation claim under CC&R Section 4.27. The central issue then became whether the SMCA’s subsequent failure to compel the installation of the screening constituted a violation of its enforcement duty under CC&R Section 11.1. The judge ruled that it did not, finding that the CC&Rs grant the Association a discretionary right to enforce its rules, not an absolute obligation. The judge found persuasive the SMCA’s testimony that it delayed enforcement actions due to the ongoing litigation and in an attempt to foster a settlement between the neighbors. This exercise of discretion was deemed permissible under the Association’s governing documents.

1. Case Overview

Parties and Legal Representation

Entity

Legal Counsel

Petitioner

Erik R. Pierce

James C. Frisch, Esq. & Michael Resare, Esq. (King & Frisch, P.C.)

Respondent

Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA)

Heather M. Hampstead, Esq. & Nicholas C.S. Nogami, Esq. (Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP)

Key Case Details

• Case Number: 20F-H2020053-REL

• Presiding Judge: Adam D. Stone, Administrative Law Judge

• Hearing Date: January 25, 2021 (conducted via Google Meet)

• Decision Date: February 10, 2021

• Jurisdiction: The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) is statutorily authorized to hear petitions from homeowners’ association members. This case was referred by the ADRE to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.

2. Core Dispute and Allegations

Petitioner’s Complaint

On March 23, 2020, Erik R. Pierce filed a complaint with the ADRE alleging that the SMCA was in violation of its own CC&Rs, specifically Sections 4.27 (Swimming Pools and Spas) and 11.1 (Enforcement).

The dispute originated with the installation of a hot tub by Pierce’s neighbors, the Kinstles. Pierce testified that the hot tub and its occupants were visible from inside his house, and that occupants of the hot tub could look directly into his home, violating his right to privacy.

Timeline of Key Events

• September 4, 2019: Pierce submits his initial complaint to the SMCA, noting the hot tub’s visibility and asserting that the Kinstles had failed to obtain prior approval from the Architectural Review Committee (ARC).

• Post-September 2019: The SMCA informs the Kinstles that they installed the hot tub without approval and directs them to submit plans for the proper approval process.

• February 10, 2020: After several rejections, the SMCA Board approves the Kinstles’ hot tub installation on the condition that a pergola and screening are installed.

• March 3, 2020: Pierce receives a letter from the property management company, AAM, LLC, stating that the installation was approved with the screening requirement and that the complaint was closed.

• January 25, 2021: At the time of the hearing, the Kinstles had still not installed the required pergola and screening.

3. Analysis of Key Testimonies

The decision was informed by testimony from four witnesses presented by the Petitioner.

• Erik R. Pierce (Petitioner): Outlined the timeline of the dispute, the visibility of the neighbors’ hot tub, the resulting privacy violation, and the SMCA Board’s failure to enforce its own conditional approval requiring a pergola and screening.

• Bill Oliver (Former SMCA President, Fall 2019 – April 2020): Confirmed that the Board approved the hot tub retroactively with the stipulation for a pergola and screening. He stated the Board had a “rigorous process of enforcement” but could not recall if a specific violation letter was sent to the Kinstles after the conditional approval was granted.

• Jodie Cervantes (Former Community Manager, 2019 – June 2020): Testified that she believed the CC&Rs were enforced and the matter was closed. She suggested the Kinstles had a six-month period to comply with the screening requirement, which she believed was in the Design Guidelines, but could not point to the specific language.

• Martin Douglas (Current SMCA President, from April 2020): Stated he had been to the Pierce residence for another matter and the hot tub was not visible to him. He attributed the lack of enforcement action to the “ongoing litigation and multiple settlement offers which were being exchanged.” He testified that upon resolution of the case, the Board “will follow through with enforcement actions should the Kinstle’s fail to comply.”

4. Judicial Reasoning and Decision

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision centered on the interpretation of the SMCA’s CC&Rs and the discretionary power of its Board.

Governing CC&R Provisions

The ruling rested on the specific language of two sections of the SMCA CC&Rs:

• Section 4.27 (Swimming Pools and Spas): This section permits the installation of a hot tub only if it is “properly screened… if neither it nor its occupants are Visible from Neighboring Property, and with the prior written approval of the Architectural Review Committee.”

• Section 11.1 (Enforcement): This section states that “The Association or any Owner shall have the right to enforce the Project Documents… The failure of the Association or an Owner to take enforcement action with respect to a violation of the Project Documents shall not constitute or be deemed a waiver of the right of the Association or any Owner to enforce the Project Documents in the future.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions

1. Resolution of the Section 4.27 Claim: The judge determined that the initial issue regarding the unapproved hot tub “was essentially resolved by the Board instructing the Kinstle’s erect a pergola and install screening.” By making its approval conditional on a privacy solution, the Board addressed the core requirement of the section.

2. The “Heart of the Matter” – Section 11.1 Enforcement: The judge identified the central question as whether the SMCA violated Section 11.1 by failing to enforce the screening requirement against the Kinstles.

3. Discretionary vs. Mandatory Enforcement: The judge concluded that the language of Section 11.1 grants the Board a “right to enforce, not an absolute obligation.”

4. Rationale for Delayed Enforcement: The judge found the testimony of the current SMCA President, Martin Douglas, to be “more persuasive.” Douglas’s explanation—that the Board delayed enforcement to “foster an agreement with the neighbors” amid ongoing litigation—was accepted as a valid exercise of the Board’s discretion.

5. Final Ruling: The judge stated, “Section 11.1 expressly granted the Board this discretion, and it should not be disturbed.” Consequently, the judge ruled that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent had violated CC&R Section 11.1.

Final Order

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied.

The order was issued on February 10, 2021, and is binding unless a rehearing is granted.






Study Guide – 20F-H2020053-REL


Study Guide: Pierce v. Sierra Morado Community Association (Case No. 20F-H2020053-REL)

This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing concerning the dispute between Erik R. Pierce and the Sierra Morado Community Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a comprehensive glossary of terms and entities involved in the case.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer each of the following questions in two to three complete sentences, based on the provided source documents.

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

2. What was the initial reason for Mr. Pierce’s complaint against his neighbors, the Kinstles?

3. Which two sections of the Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA) CC&Rs did Mr. Pierce allege were violated?

4. What action did the SMCA Board take after being informed that the Kinstles had installed a hot tub without prior approval?

5. What specific conditions did the SMCA Board require for the retroactive approval of the Kinstles’ hot tub installation?

6. According to former Board President Bill Oliver’s testimony, what was the Board’s common practice regarding architectural requests made after an installation?

7. What reason did Community Manager Jodie Cervantes give for her belief that no further enforcement action could be taken against the Kinstles?

8. According to current SMCA Board President Martin Douglas, why had the Board delayed enforcement actions against the Kinstles?

9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision regarding the alleged violation of CC&R Section 11.1?

10. How did the judge interpret the Board’s enforcement power as described in Section 11.1 of the CC&Rs?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Erik R. Pierce, who was the Petitioner filing the complaint, and the Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA), which was the Respondent. Mr. Pierce is a homeowner and member of the SMCA.

2. Mr. Pierce’s complaint originated because his neighbors, the Kinstles, installed a hot tub that was visible from his backyard. He testified that occupants in the hot tub were visible from inside his house, violating his privacy.

3. The Petitioner, Mr. Pierce, alleged that the Respondent, SMCA, was in violation of sections 4.27 and 11.1 of the SMCA CC&Rs. Section 4.27 pertains to the installation of spas, and Section 11.1 addresses the enforcement of project documents.

4. After Mr. Pierce filed his complaint, the SMCA informed the Kinstles that they had installed the hot tub without approval. The Board then directed the Kinstles to submit their plans and go through the proper architectural approval process.

5. The Kinstles’ hot tub was approved retroactively on February 10, 2020, on the condition that they install a pergola and screening. This was intended to address the visibility of the hot tub from Mr. Pierce’s property.

6. Bill Oliver, the SMCA President from fall 2019 to April 2020, testified that the Board would approve architectural requests retroactively. He confirmed that this is what occurred in the case of the Kinstles’ hot tub.

7. Jodie Cervantes, the Community Manager, testified that she believed the matter was closed because the Kinstles had six months to comply with the pergola and screening requirements. She believed this six-month deadline was outlined in the Design Guidelines, though she could not locate the specific language.

8. Martin Douglas, who became Board President in April 2020, testified that the Board delayed enforcement actions due to the ongoing litigation. He stated that multiple settlement offers were being exchanged in an effort to foster an agreement between the neighbors.

9. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The judge concluded that Mr. Pierce did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the SMCA had violated CC&R Section 11.1.

10. The judge determined that Section 11.1 grants the Board a right to enforce the rules, not an absolute obligation to do so. This interpretation means the Board has the discretion to delay enforcement, which it did in this case to facilitate a potential settlement.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses. Use evidence and testimony from the case documents to construct a thorough analysis. No answers are provided.

1. Explain the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. Analyze why the Petitioner, Erik R. Pierce, failed to meet this burden of proof concerning the violation of CC&R Section 11.1.

2. Trace the timeline of events from Mr. Pierce’s initial complaint on September 4, 2019, to the final decision on February 10, 2021. Discuss the key actions, delays, and decisions made by the SMCA Board during this period.

3. Compare and contrast the testimonies of Bill Oliver, Jodie Cervantes, and Martin Douglas. How do their different roles and timeframes with the SMCA shape their perspectives on the association’s enforcement process and the specific handling of the Kinstle case?

4. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of CC&R Section 11.1. Discuss the distinction made between a “right to enforce” and an “absolute obligation,” and explain how this interpretation was central to the final ruling.

5. Based on the judge’s findings and the testimony of Martin Douglas, what are the likely next steps for the SMCA regarding the Kinstles’ non-compliance with the pergola and screening requirement? Evaluate the potential for future conflict or resolution between the parties involved.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Term / Entity

Definition

AAM, LLC

The property management company that employed Community Manager Jodie Cervantes and managed the Sierra Morado Community Association during the period of the dispute.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, the ALJ was Adam D. Stone of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Architectural Committee (ARC)

The committee within the SMCA responsible for approving construction, installations, and alterations to properties, as referenced in CC&R Section 4.27.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearing from members of homeowners’ associations. Mr. Pierce filed his initial complaint with this department.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a legal case to prove its allegations. In this case, the Petitioner had the burden to establish his claim by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing documents or rules of a planned community. The dispute centered on alleged violations of Sections 4.27 (Swimming Pools and Spas) and 11.1 (Enforcement).

Hearing

The formal proceeding held on January 25, 2021, where the parties presented exhibits and witness testimony to the Administrative Law Judge.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or complaint to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, the Petitioner was Erik R. Pierce.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioner to win the case. It is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is “more probably true than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition or complaint is filed. In this case, the Respondent was the Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA).

Retroactive Approval

The act of approving an architectural installation (such as a hot tub) after it has already been completed, which the SMCA Board did in this case.

Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA)

The homeowners’ association in Tucson, Arizona, of which Erik R. Pierce and the Kinstles are members.

Stipulation

An agreement between the parties in a legal proceeding. In this case, the parties stipulated to enter all submitted exhibits into the record.






Blog Post – 20F-H2020053-REL


Your HOA Can Ignore Its Own Rules? A Surprising Legal Case Every Homeowner Needs to Understand

Introduction: The Homeowner’s Dilemma

Most homeowners in a planned community operate under a simple assumption: if a neighbor violates a clear rule, you can file a complaint, and the Homeowners Association (HOA) is required to take action. It’s the fundamental promise of an HOA—consistent enforcement to protect property values and quality of life.

But what happens when the HOA agrees a violation has occurred, demands a fix, and then… does nothing to enforce it?

A real-world legal case, Erik R. Pierce versus the Sierra Morado Community Association, provides a surprising and cautionary answer. The final court decision reveals a critical loophole that may exist in your own HOA agreement. This article will break down the three most counter-intuitive takeaways from that case that every homeowner should understand.

Takeaway 1: “A Right to Enforce” Isn’t an “Obligation to Enforce”

The core of the dispute was straightforward. Homeowner Erik Pierce filed a complaint because his neighbors, the Kinstles, installed a hot tub that was visible from his property, a violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)—the legally binding rules that govern the community. The HOA’s Architectural Committee retroactively approved the hot tub, but only on the condition that the neighbors install a pergola and screening to shield it from view.

The neighbors never installed the required screening, yet the HOA took no further enforcement action. This inaction led Mr. Pierce to sue the HOA.

The judge’s decision hinged on a crucial interpretation of the HOA’s governing documents. The judge ruled in favor of the HOA because the documents gave the Board the right to enforce the rules, not an absolute obligation to do so. This distinction granted the HOA discretion to choose its strategy. The judge found the board’s reasoning for the delay persuasive: it was deliberately choosing negotiation over immediate punitive action to resolve the conflict. The board’s discretion wasn’t just a right to do nothing; it was a right to choose a different path to compliance.

The key phrase here is “shall have the right to enforce.” Had the documents stated the board “shall enforce,” the outcome would likely have been entirely different. This single phrase transforms enforcement from a mandate into a strategic option for the board.

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision highlights this critical point:

“…Section 11.1 only gives the Board a right to enforce, not an absolute obligation. While Petitioner is understandably upset that there has yet to be any follow through on enforcement of the screening requirements, this tribunal finds the testimony of Mr. Douglas more persuasive, namely that the Board has delayed in enforcing because it was trying to foster an agreement with the neighbors. Section 11.1 expressly granted the Board this discretion, and it should not be disturbed.”

This finding is shocking for most homeowners, who reasonably assume that the rules laid out in their CC&Rs are mandates for the board, not a menu of discretionary options.

Takeaway 2: Suing Your HOA Can Ironically Pause Enforcement

The board’s discretionary power was put on full display when Mr. Pierce filed his lawsuit, creating a legal Catch-22. The current SMCA Board President, Martin Douglas, testified that the board deliberately paused formal enforcement actions against the neighbors who had violated the architectural requirement.

The judge ultimately found that the board’s rationale for this pause was a valid exercise of its discretion. The decision to delay was framed not as inaction, but as a strategic choice “to foster an agreement with the neighbors” amidst the complexities of litigation.

This reveals a deep irony: by filing a petition to force the HOA’s hand, the homeowner inadvertently provided the context for the HOA to justify a delay. The judge accepted that the board’s attempt to find a negotiated solution instead of escalating fines and penalties during an active lawsuit was a reasonable use of its discretionary authority. This case demonstrates how legal action, intended to accelerate a resolution, can sometimes be used by an HOA board to justify a different, slower approach.

Takeaway 3: A Clear Rule Violation Doesn’t Guarantee a Win in Court

One of the most surprising aspects of this case is that the facts of the violation were not in dispute. The judge explicitly acknowledged that the neighbors were in violation of the Architectural Review Committee’s requirement. The official decision states:

“Based upon the evidence provided, the Kinstle’s are in violation of the requirement the ARC Committee imposed on them.”

Despite this clear violation by the neighbor, the homeowner, Mr. Pierce, still lost his case against the HOA.

The case was lost on a critical legal distinction: the lawsuit was not about the neighbor’s violation, but about the HOA’s alleged failure to act. Since the judge determined the HOA had the discretionary right—not the mandatory obligation—to enforce the rule, its choice to pursue negotiation rather than immediate punitive action was not considered a violation of its duties.

The lesson here is profound: proving a neighbor is breaking the rules is only the first step. To win a case against your HOA for non-enforcement, you must also prove that its response (or lack thereof) constitutes a breach of its specific duties as outlined in your community’s governing documents.

Conclusion: Know Your Documents, Temper Your Expectations

The case of Pierce v. Sierra Morado Community Association serves as a stark reminder that HOA governance is often more complex than it appears. The precise wording of your community’s CC&Rs is critically important, as a single phrase can be the difference between a mandatory duty and a discretionary power. This case illustrates that the gap between a rule existing on paper and the board’s power to enforce it can be vast.

As a homeowner, your first step should be to obtain a copy of your community’s most recent CC&Rs and search for the enforcement clause—does it say your board “shall” enforce the rules, or does it say they have the “right” to?

This case forces every homeowner to ask: If your governing documents give your board the ‘right’ to act, what leverage do you truly have to ensure they actually will?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Erik R. Pierce (petitioner)
  • James C. Frisch (petitioner attorney)
    King & Frisch, P.C.
  • Michael Resare (petitioner attorney)

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas C.S. Nogami (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Heather M. Hampstead (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Jodie Cervantes (property manager/witness)
    AAM, LLC
    Community Manager for Respondent SMCA
  • Bill Oliver (board member/witness)
    Former SMCA President (Fall 2019 to April 2020)
  • Martin Douglas (board member/witness)
    Current SMCA Board President (since April 2020)

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • LDettorre (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • AHansen (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • djones (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • DGardner (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • ncano (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • c. serrano (clerk)
    Signed document transmission

Erik R. Pierce v. Sierra Morado Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020053-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-02-10
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Erik R. Pierce Counsel James C. Frisch
Respondent Sierra Morado Community Association Counsel Nicholas C.S. Nogami and Heather M. Hampstead

Alleged Violations

Article 11, Section 11.1

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Respondent HOA did not violate CC&R Section 11.1 because that section grants the Board discretion, rather than a mandatory obligation, in the timing of enforcement actions.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated CC&R Section 11.1, as the ALJ found the Board's decision to temporarily delay enforcement pending litigation and settlement discussions fell within the discretion granted by the CC&R.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure of HOA to Enforce Architectural Approval Conditions (Hot Tub Screening)

Petitioner alleged that the HOA failed to enforce the mandatory installation of a pergola and screening around a neighbor's hot tub, a condition imposed by the Architectural Review Committee when retroactively approving the installation.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • CC&R Article 11, Section 11.1
  • CC&R Article 4, Section 4.27

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Enforcement, CC&R Dispute, Architectural Control, Discretionary Enforcement
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • CC&R Article 4, Section 4.27
  • CC&R Article 11, Section 11.1
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020053-REL Decision – 850237.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:12 (43.0 KB)

20F-H2020053-REL Decision – 850239.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:12 (7.1 KB)

20F-H2020053-REL Decision – 853778.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:12 (119.9 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020053-REL


Administrative Hearing Briefing: Pierce v. Sierra Morado Community Association

Executive Summary

This briefing synthesizes the key findings and judicial decision in the administrative case of Erik R. Pierce versus the Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA), Case No. 20F-H2020053-REL. The petition, filed by homeowner Erik R. Pierce, was ultimately denied by the Administrative Law Judge on February 10, 2021.

The core of the dispute was Pierce’s allegation that the SMCA failed to enforce its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) against his neighbors, the Kinstles, who installed a hot tub visible from Pierce’s property, creating a privacy violation. While the SMCA Board retroactively approved the hot tub, it did so with the explicit condition that a pergola and screening be installed to mitigate the visibility issue. The Kinstles subsequently failed to install the required screening.

The judge concluded that the SMCA’s conditional approval resolved the initial violation claim under CC&R Section 4.27. The central issue then became whether the SMCA’s subsequent failure to compel the installation of the screening constituted a violation of its enforcement duty under CC&R Section 11.1. The judge ruled that it did not, finding that the CC&Rs grant the Association a discretionary right to enforce its rules, not an absolute obligation. The judge found persuasive the SMCA’s testimony that it delayed enforcement actions due to the ongoing litigation and in an attempt to foster a settlement between the neighbors. This exercise of discretion was deemed permissible under the Association’s governing documents.

1. Case Overview

Parties and Legal Representation

Entity

Legal Counsel

Petitioner

Erik R. Pierce

James C. Frisch, Esq. & Michael Resare, Esq. (King & Frisch, P.C.)

Respondent

Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA)

Heather M. Hampstead, Esq. & Nicholas C.S. Nogami, Esq. (Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP)

Key Case Details

• Case Number: 20F-H2020053-REL

• Presiding Judge: Adam D. Stone, Administrative Law Judge

• Hearing Date: January 25, 2021 (conducted via Google Meet)

• Decision Date: February 10, 2021

• Jurisdiction: The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) is statutorily authorized to hear petitions from homeowners’ association members. This case was referred by the ADRE to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.

2. Core Dispute and Allegations

Petitioner’s Complaint

On March 23, 2020, Erik R. Pierce filed a complaint with the ADRE alleging that the SMCA was in violation of its own CC&Rs, specifically Sections 4.27 (Swimming Pools and Spas) and 11.1 (Enforcement).

The dispute originated with the installation of a hot tub by Pierce’s neighbors, the Kinstles. Pierce testified that the hot tub and its occupants were visible from inside his house, and that occupants of the hot tub could look directly into his home, violating his right to privacy.

Timeline of Key Events

• September 4, 2019: Pierce submits his initial complaint to the SMCA, noting the hot tub’s visibility and asserting that the Kinstles had failed to obtain prior approval from the Architectural Review Committee (ARC).

• Post-September 2019: The SMCA informs the Kinstles that they installed the hot tub without approval and directs them to submit plans for the proper approval process.

• February 10, 2020: After several rejections, the SMCA Board approves the Kinstles’ hot tub installation on the condition that a pergola and screening are installed.

• March 3, 2020: Pierce receives a letter from the property management company, AAM, LLC, stating that the installation was approved with the screening requirement and that the complaint was closed.

• January 25, 2021: At the time of the hearing, the Kinstles had still not installed the required pergola and screening.

3. Analysis of Key Testimonies

The decision was informed by testimony from four witnesses presented by the Petitioner.

• Erik R. Pierce (Petitioner): Outlined the timeline of the dispute, the visibility of the neighbors’ hot tub, the resulting privacy violation, and the SMCA Board’s failure to enforce its own conditional approval requiring a pergola and screening.

• Bill Oliver (Former SMCA President, Fall 2019 – April 2020): Confirmed that the Board approved the hot tub retroactively with the stipulation for a pergola and screening. He stated the Board had a “rigorous process of enforcement” but could not recall if a specific violation letter was sent to the Kinstles after the conditional approval was granted.

• Jodie Cervantes (Former Community Manager, 2019 – June 2020): Testified that she believed the CC&Rs were enforced and the matter was closed. She suggested the Kinstles had a six-month period to comply with the screening requirement, which she believed was in the Design Guidelines, but could not point to the specific language.

• Martin Douglas (Current SMCA President, from April 2020): Stated he had been to the Pierce residence for another matter and the hot tub was not visible to him. He attributed the lack of enforcement action to the “ongoing litigation and multiple settlement offers which were being exchanged.” He testified that upon resolution of the case, the Board “will follow through with enforcement actions should the Kinstle’s fail to comply.”

4. Judicial Reasoning and Decision

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision centered on the interpretation of the SMCA’s CC&Rs and the discretionary power of its Board.

Governing CC&R Provisions

The ruling rested on the specific language of two sections of the SMCA CC&Rs:

• Section 4.27 (Swimming Pools and Spas): This section permits the installation of a hot tub only if it is “properly screened… if neither it nor its occupants are Visible from Neighboring Property, and with the prior written approval of the Architectural Review Committee.”

• Section 11.1 (Enforcement): This section states that “The Association or any Owner shall have the right to enforce the Project Documents… The failure of the Association or an Owner to take enforcement action with respect to a violation of the Project Documents shall not constitute or be deemed a waiver of the right of the Association or any Owner to enforce the Project Documents in the future.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions

1. Resolution of the Section 4.27 Claim: The judge determined that the initial issue regarding the unapproved hot tub “was essentially resolved by the Board instructing the Kinstle’s erect a pergola and install screening.” By making its approval conditional on a privacy solution, the Board addressed the core requirement of the section.

2. The “Heart of the Matter” – Section 11.1 Enforcement: The judge identified the central question as whether the SMCA violated Section 11.1 by failing to enforce the screening requirement against the Kinstles.

3. Discretionary vs. Mandatory Enforcement: The judge concluded that the language of Section 11.1 grants the Board a “right to enforce, not an absolute obligation.”

4. Rationale for Delayed Enforcement: The judge found the testimony of the current SMCA President, Martin Douglas, to be “more persuasive.” Douglas’s explanation—that the Board delayed enforcement to “foster an agreement with the neighbors” amid ongoing litigation—was accepted as a valid exercise of the Board’s discretion.

5. Final Ruling: The judge stated, “Section 11.1 expressly granted the Board this discretion, and it should not be disturbed.” Consequently, the judge ruled that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent had violated CC&R Section 11.1.

Final Order

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied.

The order was issued on February 10, 2021, and is binding unless a rehearing is granted.






Study Guide – 20F-H2020053-REL


Study Guide: Pierce v. Sierra Morado Community Association (Case No. 20F-H2020053-REL)

This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing concerning the dispute between Erik R. Pierce and the Sierra Morado Community Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a comprehensive glossary of terms and entities involved in the case.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer each of the following questions in two to three complete sentences, based on the provided source documents.

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

2. What was the initial reason for Mr. Pierce’s complaint against his neighbors, the Kinstles?

3. Which two sections of the Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA) CC&Rs did Mr. Pierce allege were violated?

4. What action did the SMCA Board take after being informed that the Kinstles had installed a hot tub without prior approval?

5. What specific conditions did the SMCA Board require for the retroactive approval of the Kinstles’ hot tub installation?

6. According to former Board President Bill Oliver’s testimony, what was the Board’s common practice regarding architectural requests made after an installation?

7. What reason did Community Manager Jodie Cervantes give for her belief that no further enforcement action could be taken against the Kinstles?

8. According to current SMCA Board President Martin Douglas, why had the Board delayed enforcement actions against the Kinstles?

9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision regarding the alleged violation of CC&R Section 11.1?

10. How did the judge interpret the Board’s enforcement power as described in Section 11.1 of the CC&Rs?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Erik R. Pierce, who was the Petitioner filing the complaint, and the Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA), which was the Respondent. Mr. Pierce is a homeowner and member of the SMCA.

2. Mr. Pierce’s complaint originated because his neighbors, the Kinstles, installed a hot tub that was visible from his backyard. He testified that occupants in the hot tub were visible from inside his house, violating his privacy.

3. The Petitioner, Mr. Pierce, alleged that the Respondent, SMCA, was in violation of sections 4.27 and 11.1 of the SMCA CC&Rs. Section 4.27 pertains to the installation of spas, and Section 11.1 addresses the enforcement of project documents.

4. After Mr. Pierce filed his complaint, the SMCA informed the Kinstles that they had installed the hot tub without approval. The Board then directed the Kinstles to submit their plans and go through the proper architectural approval process.

5. The Kinstles’ hot tub was approved retroactively on February 10, 2020, on the condition that they install a pergola and screening. This was intended to address the visibility of the hot tub from Mr. Pierce’s property.

6. Bill Oliver, the SMCA President from fall 2019 to April 2020, testified that the Board would approve architectural requests retroactively. He confirmed that this is what occurred in the case of the Kinstles’ hot tub.

7. Jodie Cervantes, the Community Manager, testified that she believed the matter was closed because the Kinstles had six months to comply with the pergola and screening requirements. She believed this six-month deadline was outlined in the Design Guidelines, though she could not locate the specific language.

8. Martin Douglas, who became Board President in April 2020, testified that the Board delayed enforcement actions due to the ongoing litigation. He stated that multiple settlement offers were being exchanged in an effort to foster an agreement between the neighbors.

9. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The judge concluded that Mr. Pierce did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the SMCA had violated CC&R Section 11.1.

10. The judge determined that Section 11.1 grants the Board a right to enforce the rules, not an absolute obligation to do so. This interpretation means the Board has the discretion to delay enforcement, which it did in this case to facilitate a potential settlement.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses. Use evidence and testimony from the case documents to construct a thorough analysis. No answers are provided.

1. Explain the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. Analyze why the Petitioner, Erik R. Pierce, failed to meet this burden of proof concerning the violation of CC&R Section 11.1.

2. Trace the timeline of events from Mr. Pierce’s initial complaint on September 4, 2019, to the final decision on February 10, 2021. Discuss the key actions, delays, and decisions made by the SMCA Board during this period.

3. Compare and contrast the testimonies of Bill Oliver, Jodie Cervantes, and Martin Douglas. How do their different roles and timeframes with the SMCA shape their perspectives on the association’s enforcement process and the specific handling of the Kinstle case?

4. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of CC&R Section 11.1. Discuss the distinction made between a “right to enforce” and an “absolute obligation,” and explain how this interpretation was central to the final ruling.

5. Based on the judge’s findings and the testimony of Martin Douglas, what are the likely next steps for the SMCA regarding the Kinstles’ non-compliance with the pergola and screening requirement? Evaluate the potential for future conflict or resolution between the parties involved.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Term / Entity

Definition

AAM, LLC

The property management company that employed Community Manager Jodie Cervantes and managed the Sierra Morado Community Association during the period of the dispute.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, the ALJ was Adam D. Stone of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Architectural Committee (ARC)

The committee within the SMCA responsible for approving construction, installations, and alterations to properties, as referenced in CC&R Section 4.27.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearing from members of homeowners’ associations. Mr. Pierce filed his initial complaint with this department.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a legal case to prove its allegations. In this case, the Petitioner had the burden to establish his claim by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing documents or rules of a planned community. The dispute centered on alleged violations of Sections 4.27 (Swimming Pools and Spas) and 11.1 (Enforcement).

Hearing

The formal proceeding held on January 25, 2021, where the parties presented exhibits and witness testimony to the Administrative Law Judge.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or complaint to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, the Petitioner was Erik R. Pierce.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioner to win the case. It is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is “more probably true than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition or complaint is filed. In this case, the Respondent was the Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA).

Retroactive Approval

The act of approving an architectural installation (such as a hot tub) after it has already been completed, which the SMCA Board did in this case.

Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA)

The homeowners’ association in Tucson, Arizona, of which Erik R. Pierce and the Kinstles are members.

Stipulation

An agreement between the parties in a legal proceeding. In this case, the parties stipulated to enter all submitted exhibits into the record.






Blog Post – 20F-H2020053-REL


Your HOA Can Ignore Its Own Rules? A Surprising Legal Case Every Homeowner Needs to Understand

Introduction: The Homeowner’s Dilemma

Most homeowners in a planned community operate under a simple assumption: if a neighbor violates a clear rule, you can file a complaint, and the Homeowners Association (HOA) is required to take action. It’s the fundamental promise of an HOA—consistent enforcement to protect property values and quality of life.

But what happens when the HOA agrees a violation has occurred, demands a fix, and then… does nothing to enforce it?

A real-world legal case, Erik R. Pierce versus the Sierra Morado Community Association, provides a surprising and cautionary answer. The final court decision reveals a critical loophole that may exist in your own HOA agreement. This article will break down the three most counter-intuitive takeaways from that case that every homeowner should understand.

Takeaway 1: “A Right to Enforce” Isn’t an “Obligation to Enforce”

The core of the dispute was straightforward. Homeowner Erik Pierce filed a complaint because his neighbors, the Kinstles, installed a hot tub that was visible from his property, a violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)—the legally binding rules that govern the community. The HOA’s Architectural Committee retroactively approved the hot tub, but only on the condition that the neighbors install a pergola and screening to shield it from view.

The neighbors never installed the required screening, yet the HOA took no further enforcement action. This inaction led Mr. Pierce to sue the HOA.

The judge’s decision hinged on a crucial interpretation of the HOA’s governing documents. The judge ruled in favor of the HOA because the documents gave the Board the right to enforce the rules, not an absolute obligation to do so. This distinction granted the HOA discretion to choose its strategy. The judge found the board’s reasoning for the delay persuasive: it was deliberately choosing negotiation over immediate punitive action to resolve the conflict. The board’s discretion wasn’t just a right to do nothing; it was a right to choose a different path to compliance.

The key phrase here is “shall have the right to enforce.” Had the documents stated the board “shall enforce,” the outcome would likely have been entirely different. This single phrase transforms enforcement from a mandate into a strategic option for the board.

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision highlights this critical point:

“…Section 11.1 only gives the Board a right to enforce, not an absolute obligation. While Petitioner is understandably upset that there has yet to be any follow through on enforcement of the screening requirements, this tribunal finds the testimony of Mr. Douglas more persuasive, namely that the Board has delayed in enforcing because it was trying to foster an agreement with the neighbors. Section 11.1 expressly granted the Board this discretion, and it should not be disturbed.”

This finding is shocking for most homeowners, who reasonably assume that the rules laid out in their CC&Rs are mandates for the board, not a menu of discretionary options.

Takeaway 2: Suing Your HOA Can Ironically Pause Enforcement

The board’s discretionary power was put on full display when Mr. Pierce filed his lawsuit, creating a legal Catch-22. The current SMCA Board President, Martin Douglas, testified that the board deliberately paused formal enforcement actions against the neighbors who had violated the architectural requirement.

The judge ultimately found that the board’s rationale for this pause was a valid exercise of its discretion. The decision to delay was framed not as inaction, but as a strategic choice “to foster an agreement with the neighbors” amidst the complexities of litigation.

This reveals a deep irony: by filing a petition to force the HOA’s hand, the homeowner inadvertently provided the context for the HOA to justify a delay. The judge accepted that the board’s attempt to find a negotiated solution instead of escalating fines and penalties during an active lawsuit was a reasonable use of its discretionary authority. This case demonstrates how legal action, intended to accelerate a resolution, can sometimes be used by an HOA board to justify a different, slower approach.

Takeaway 3: A Clear Rule Violation Doesn’t Guarantee a Win in Court

One of the most surprising aspects of this case is that the facts of the violation were not in dispute. The judge explicitly acknowledged that the neighbors were in violation of the Architectural Review Committee’s requirement. The official decision states:

“Based upon the evidence provided, the Kinstle’s are in violation of the requirement the ARC Committee imposed on them.”

Despite this clear violation by the neighbor, the homeowner, Mr. Pierce, still lost his case against the HOA.

The case was lost on a critical legal distinction: the lawsuit was not about the neighbor’s violation, but about the HOA’s alleged failure to act. Since the judge determined the HOA had the discretionary right—not the mandatory obligation—to enforce the rule, its choice to pursue negotiation rather than immediate punitive action was not considered a violation of its duties.

The lesson here is profound: proving a neighbor is breaking the rules is only the first step. To win a case against your HOA for non-enforcement, you must also prove that its response (or lack thereof) constitutes a breach of its specific duties as outlined in your community’s governing documents.

Conclusion: Know Your Documents, Temper Your Expectations

The case of Pierce v. Sierra Morado Community Association serves as a stark reminder that HOA governance is often more complex than it appears. The precise wording of your community’s CC&Rs is critically important, as a single phrase can be the difference between a mandatory duty and a discretionary power. This case illustrates that the gap between a rule existing on paper and the board’s power to enforce it can be vast.

As a homeowner, your first step should be to obtain a copy of your community’s most recent CC&Rs and search for the enforcement clause—does it say your board “shall” enforce the rules, or does it say they have the “right” to?

This case forces every homeowner to ask: If your governing documents give your board the ‘right’ to act, what leverage do you truly have to ensure they actually will?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Erik R. Pierce (petitioner)
  • James C. Frisch (petitioner attorney)
    King & Frisch, P.C.
  • Michael Resare (petitioner attorney)

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas C.S. Nogami (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Heather M. Hampstead (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Jodie Cervantes (property manager/witness)
    AAM, LLC
    Community Manager for Respondent SMCA
  • Bill Oliver (board member/witness)
    Former SMCA President (Fall 2019 to April 2020)
  • Martin Douglas (board member/witness)
    Current SMCA Board President (since April 2020)

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • LDettorre (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • AHansen (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • djones (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • DGardner (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • ncano (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • c. serrano (clerk)
    Signed document transmission

Patricia Davies-Brown vs. Starwood Estates Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818039-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-09-14
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Patricia Davies-Brown, Individually and as Trustee of the Trust; BART A. BROWN, JR.; SCOTT R. DAVIES Counsel —
Respondent Starwood Estates Homeowners Association Counsel Daniel Campbell & Kristopher L. Smith

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs; Bylaws; Architectural Guidelines

Outcome Summary

The Petitioners' request alleging that the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association violated community documents by approving a copper-colored metal roof was denied. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioners failed to establish the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, noting that the guidelines prohibiting reflective surfaces applied primarily to windows and doors, not roofs.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its CC&Rs, Bylaws, or Architectural Guidelines.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Exterior Appearance and Colors provisions regarding copper-colored metal roof approval

Petitioners alleged that the HOA improperly approved a copper-colored metal roof because it constituted a reflective surface and did not blend with the natural surroundings, violating the community documents. The ALJ denied the petition, finding Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated its documents, noting the reflective surfaces ban applied to windows and doors, not roofs, and the roof's appearance was acceptable.

Orders: Petitioners' petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: architectural control, CC&Rs enforcement, metal roof approval, reflective surfaces, burden of proof
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818039-REL Decision – 653217.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:23:55 (41.6 KB)

18F-H1818039-REL Decision – 659968.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:24:00 (104.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818039-REL


Briefing Document: Davies-Brown v. Starwood Estates HOA

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the administrative hearing and decision in case No. 18F-H1818039-REL, concerning a dispute between homeowners Patricia Davies-Brown, Bart A. Brown, Jr., and Scott R. Davies (the “Petitioners”) and the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association (the “Respondent”). The core of the dispute was the HOA Board of Directors’ 2013 approval of a copper-colored metal roof for homeowners Jeff and Karen Martin.

The Petitioners alleged this approval violated the community’s CC&Rs, Bylaws, and Architectural Guidelines. Their primary arguments were that the roof was an impermissible “reflective surface,” that it did not “blend with the natural surrounding and landscape,” and that the Board lacked the authority to approve it without prior review by the Architectural Committee (ACC) and without viewing a physical sample.

The Respondent defended the Board’s decision, arguing that the Board possessed the authority to grant such approvals. They contended the prohibition on reflective surfaces in the community guidelines applies specifically to windows and doors, not roofing. Furthermore, they asserted that the roof was aesthetically compliant and that other reflective metal roofs exist within the community.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Velva Moses-Thompson, ruled in favor of the Respondent. The decision, issued on September 14, 2018, denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof. The ALJ found that the Board had the authority to approve the roof, the ban on reflective surfaces did not apply to roofing, and the Petitioners did not establish that the roof failed to blend with its natural surroundings.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

• Case Name: Patricia Davies-Brown, et al. vs. Starwood Estates Homeowners Association

• Case Number: 18F-H1818039-REL

• Forum: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

• Presiding Judge: Velva Moses-Thompson, Administrative Law Judge

• Hearing Dates: July 10, 2018, and August 13, 2018

• Final Decision Date: September 14, 2018

Key Parties and Representatives

Name(s)

Representation / Contact

Petitioners

Patricia Davies-Brown, Bart A. Brown, Jr., Scott R. Davies

Appeared on behalf of themselves
9777 E Dreyfus Ave., Scottsdale, AZ 85260
[email protected]

Respondent

Starwood Estates Homeowners Association

Kristopher L. Smith, Esq.
O’Connor & Campbell, P.C.
7955 S Priest Dr., Tempe, AZ 85284
[email protected]

Homeowners

Jeff and Karen Martin

Owners of the property with the disputed roof at 8500 Skywood Drive, Pinetop, Arizona (Lot 40 of Starwood Estates).

Core Dispute: The Martin Residence Roof

The central conflict originated in the summer of 2013 when the Starwood Estates Board of Directors approved a request from Jeff and Karen Martin to install a copper-colored metal roof on their home. The approval was passed by a 5-1 vote. Petitioner Scott R. Davies was the sole board member who voted against the approval at that time.

The Board reviewed a brochure containing the roof’s color before granting approval but did not observe a physical sample. However, one Board member, Pat Knight, was reportedly familiar with the appearance of such roofs from a previous home she owned nearby. The petition challenging this 2013 decision was filed on or about March 26, 2018.

Petitioners’ Allegations and Arguments

The Petitioners filed their petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging that the HOA violated community governing documents. Their case was built on three central questions:

1. Does the exterior appearance of the Martins’ aluminum copper-colored metal roof blend with the “natural surrounding and landscape” of Starwood Estates?

2. Does such roof constitute a “reflective surface”?

3. If the answer to (1) above is no and/or the answer to (2) above is yes, did the ACC and the Board of Starwood Estates erroneously violate the provisions of the CC&R’s and GUIDELINES in permitting the Martins to install such aluminum copper-colored metal roof…?

During the hearing, the Petitioners expanded on these points, arguing:

• Reflective Surface: The copper-colored roof was a prohibited reflective surface under the Architectural Guidelines.

• Aesthetic Incompatibility: The roof did not blend with the natural surroundings as required.

• Procedural Violations:

◦ The Board violated the CC&Rs by approving the roof without first viewing a physical sample of the material.

◦ The approval was invalid because it should have first been granted by the two-person Architectural Committee (ACC) appointed by the Board.

Respondent’s Defense and Arguments

The Starwood Estates HOA maintained that its approval of the Martin roof was proper and compliant with all governing documents. Their key arguments were:

• Board Authority: The HOA asserted that either the Board of Directors or the Architectural Committee had the authority to approve the roof.

• Interpretation of “Reflective Surfaces”: The Respondent argued that the prohibition on “reflective surfaces” within the Architectural Guidelines applies specifically to windows and doors, not to roofing, which is addressed in a separate section of the guidelines.

• Aesthetic Compliance: They contended the roof, while having a “shine,” was not a barred reflective surface and did blend in with the natural surroundings.

• Precedent: The HOA noted that several other metal roofs that are reflective had been previously approved in Starwood Estates. They submitted images of reflective green and red roofs in the Pinetop Country Club area as evidence.

Referenced Governing Documents

The decision cited specific sections from the HOA’s governing documents to adjudicate the dispute.

• Section 3.1.4: Requires prior written approval from the Architectural Committee for any work that alters the exterior appearance of a Lot.

• Section 5.2: States that approvals or actions to be taken by the Association “shall be valid if given or taken by the Board.”

• Article VII, Section A(2): Grants the Board authority to exercise all powers and duties vested in the Association unless reserved to the membership.

• Article VII, Section B: Empowers the Board to “Review and approve any architectural plan for the building of any improvements on any Lots.”

• Exterior Appearance and Colors: Mandates that exterior appearance “shall blend with the natural surroundings and landscape.” It also states, “Clear aluminum window and doorframes are not permitted, nor are reflective surfaces.” A note requires the owner to submit samples of materials for ACC approval.

• Roofs, Materials, and Pitches: Stipulates that “Metal roofs are permitted only with ACC approval” and that all pitched roof materials “shall promote a continuity of texture and color.”

Evidence Presented

• Petitioner’s Exhibit 13: A photograph of the Martins’ copper-colored roof. The ALJ’s decision noted that while the image showed a reflection, the photograph itself was “blurred.”

• Respondent’s Exhibit 26: The brochure containing the color of the copper-colored roof that the Board reviewed before its 2013 approval.

• Respondent’s Exhibit 7: Images of other reflective green and red metal roofs located in the Pinetop Country Club area, which were previously approved.

• Testimony: Board member Pat Knight’s familiarity with the appearance of copper-colored roofs was noted.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The petition was denied. The ALJ found that the Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs, Bylaws, or Architectural Guidelines.

Conclusions of Law

1. Burden of Proof: The Petitioners bore the burden of proving their claims by a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as evidence that is more probably true than not. They failed to meet this standard.

2. Board Authority: The ALJ concluded that the governing documents allowed for the roof to be approved by either the Architectural Committee or the Board of Directors. The Board’s action was therefore valid.

3. Interpretation of Reflective Surfaces: The evidence established that the prohibition on “reflective surfaces” in the Architectural Guidelines applies to windows and doors. Roofs are addressed in a separate section of the guidelines. The existence of other approved shiny metal roofs further supported this interpretation.

4. Aesthetic Compliance: The Petitioners did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the copper-colored roof failed to blend in with the natural surroundings.

Final Order

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied because Petitioners have not established that Respondent violated the Community Bylaws, Community CC&Rs, and the Community Architectural Guidelines when Respondent approved the Martins’ request to install the copper-colored roof.

The order was made binding unless a rehearing was requested within 30 days of service.






Study Guide – 18F-H1818039-REL


Study Guide: Davies-Brown v. Starwood Estates HOA (Case No. 18F-H1818039-REL)

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative hearing case between Patricia Davies-Brown, et al., and the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association. It includes a short-answer quiz to test factual recall, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms as defined within the context of the provided legal documents.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing exclusively from the information presented in the case documents.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in Case No. 18F-H1818039-REL?

2. What specific architectural feature was the central point of the dispute?

3. What were the three main questions the Petitioners raised in their petition filed on March 26, 2018?

4. How did the Respondent (Starwood Estates HOA) justify the approval of other reflective metal roofs in the community?

5. According to the Petitioners, which two procedural errors did the Board of Directors commit when approving the Martins’ roof?

6. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion regarding the prohibition of “reflective surfaces” in the Architectural Guidelines?

7. What is the legal standard of proof the Petitioners were required to meet, and did they succeed?

8. Which governing documents grant the Board of Directors the authority to approve architectural plans?

9. When was the disputed roof originally approved by the Board, and what was the vote count?

10. What evidence did the Board review before its initial approval, and what evidence was not reviewed at that time?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioners were Patricia Davies-Brown (Individually and as Trustee of the Trust), Bart A. Brown, Jr., and Scott R. Davies. The Respondent was the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association.

2. The central dispute was an aluminum, “copper-colored metal roof” installed by homeowners Jeff and Karen Martin on their property at Lot 40 of Starwood Estates. The Petitioners challenged the HOA Board’s approval of this roof.

3. The Petitioners’ petition questioned whether the roof blended with the “natural surrounding and landscape,” whether it constituted a “reflective surface,” and if so, whether the Board and ACC violated the CC&Rs and Guidelines by permitting it.

4. The Respondent submitted evidence of other reflective green and red metal roofs within the Pinetop Country Club area that had been previously approved by the Board. This was used to argue that roofs with a shine were not explicitly barred.

5. The Petitioners contended the Board violated the CC&Rs by approving the roof without first viewing a physical sample. They also argued that the roof required approval from the two-person Architectural Committee (ACC) and could not be approved by the Board alone.

6. The Judge concluded that the bar on reflective surfaces, as written in the Architectural Guidelines, applies specifically to windows and doors. Roofs are addressed in a separate section of the guidelines that does not contain the same prohibition.

7. The Petitioners bore the burden of proof to establish their case by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means showing their contention is more probably true than not. The Judge ruled that they failed to meet this standard.

8. Section 5.2 of the CC&Rs states that actions taken by the Board are valid, and Article VII of the Starwood Bylaws grants the Board the power to exercise Association authority and to review and approve architectural plans. The Judge found this authority allowed the Board to approve the roof.

9. The roof was approved by the Board of Directors in the summer of 2013. The approval passed with a 5-1 vote, with Petitioner Scott R. Davies being the sole board member who voted against it.

10. Before approving the roof, the Board reviewed a brochure containing the color of the copper-colored roof. However, the Board did not observe a physical sample of the actual roofing material.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions for Further Study

The following questions are designed for deeper, analytical consideration of the case. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the conflict between CC&Rs Section 3.1.4 (requiring ACC approval) and other governing documents (like CC&Rs Section 5.2 and Bylaws Article VII) that grant broad authority to the Board. How did the Administrative Law Judge resolve this apparent contradiction in the final decision?

2. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied in this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means and detail why the Petitioners failed to meet this standard with respect to their claims about the roof’s reflective nature and its harmony with the natural surroundings.

3. Examine the interpretation of the Architectural Guidelines regarding “reflective surfaces.” How did the Respondent and the Administrative Law Judge construe this rule, and what evidence and reasoning supported their interpretation over the Petitioners’ broader application?

4. Evaluate the evidence presented by both the Petitioners and the Respondent. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s evidence (e.g., the blurred photograph vs. the brochure and photos of other roofs) and explain how this likely influenced the outcome of the case.

5. Based on the issues raised in this case, what specific changes or clarifications could be made to the community’s CC&Rs and Architectural Guidelines to prevent similar disputes in the future?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition in Context

ACC (Architectural Committee)

A committee, as referenced in the CC&Rs and Architectural Guidelines, responsible for approving exterior alterations and ensuring all building materials and colors conform to community standards.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The presiding official (Velva Moses-Thompson) at the Office of Administrative Hearings who conducts hearings, evaluates evidence, and issues a binding decision on the matter.

Architectural Guidelines

A set of community documents establishing goals and specific rules for exterior appearance, colors, materials, and site development to retain the character of Starwood Estates.

Board of Directors (Board)

The governing body of the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association, which is empowered by the CC&Rs and Bylaws to conduct the affairs of the Association and approve architectural plans.

Bylaws

The rules and regulations that govern the internal operations of the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association, including the powers and duties of the Board of Directors.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. Legally binding rules recorded with the property deeds in the Starwood Estates community that govern what homeowners may or may not do with their property.

Conclusions of Law

The section of the ALJ’s decision that applies legal principles, statutes, and case law to the established facts of the case to reach a final judgment.

Findings of Fact

The section of the ALJ’s decision that formally lists the factual determinations made by the judge based on the evidence presented at the hearing.

Petitioner

The party that initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Patricia Davies-Brown, Bart A. Brown, Jr., and Scott R. Davies, who brought the complaint against the HOA.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and has a greater weight than the evidence offered in opposition, persuading the fact-finder that a contention is more likely true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association, which had to defend its decision to approve the roof.

Restrictive Covenant

A provision in a deed or community document (like a CC&R) that limits the use of the property. In Arizona, if unambiguous, these are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties.






Blog Post – 18F-H1818039-REL


This Copper Roof Caused a Legal Battle: 3 Surprising Lessons Every Homeowner Should Learn

Introduction: The Neighborhood Dispute That Went to Court

The relationship between homeowners and their Homeowners Association (HOA) can be a delicate balance. Architectural rules, designed to maintain a community’s aesthetic, often become a source of friction. But what happens when a disagreement over design choices escalates?

In the case of Davies-Brown v. Starwood Estates Homeowners Association, a dispute over Jeff and Karen Martin’s new copper-colored metal roof didn’t just cause whispers over the fence—it went all the way to a formal administrative hearing. When the HOA board approved the roof in a 5-1 vote, the lone dissenting board member, Scott R. Davies, joined two other homeowners to formally challenge the decision.

This seemingly simple disagreement over a roofing material reveals several powerful, and often counter-intuitive, lessons for anyone living in a planned community. From the structural placement of a single sentence to the evidentiary power of a blurry photograph, this case offers a masterclass in HOA law. Here are three surprising lessons every homeowner should learn.

——————————————————————————–

1. The Devil in the Document: How a Single Sentence Can Decide Everything

The first major lesson from this case is that the hyper-specific wording and structure of your community guidelines are paramount. The location and context of a rule can be just as important as the rule itself.

The petitioners’ core argument was that the copper-colored roof violated the Architectural Guidelines because it was a “reflective surface,” which they believed was forbidden. On the surface, this seems like a straightforward complaint.

However, the HOA mounted a successful counter-argument based on document structure. The Administrative Law Judge agreed with the HOA’s interpretation. The rules for roofs were addressed in a distinct section titled “Roofs, Materials, and Pitches.” The ban on “reflective surfaces,” meanwhile, was located in an entirely separate section, “Exterior Appearance and Colors,” which also contained rules for windows and doors. This seemingly minor structural detail was the deciding factor on this point.

The exact rule the petitioners cited, found in the “Exterior Appearance and Colors” section, illustrates the point perfectly:

Clear aluminum window and doorframes are not permitted, nor are reflective surfaces.

Because this prohibition was not located in the roofing section, the judge concluded it applied only to windows, doors, and general exterior surfaces—not roofs. This case highlights that homeowners must read their community documents with extreme care. A prohibition you think is universal might, in fact, be limited to a very specific context by its placement in the text.

2. The Power of Precedent: What Your Neighbors Did Years Ago Matters Today

The second key takeaway is that an HOA board’s decisions can be heavily influenced by the character of the surrounding area, not just by what has been approved inside the development’s gates.

During the hearing, the HOA presented evidence of other reflective metal roofs, including green and red ones, that existed in the broader Pinetop Country Club area. Starwood Estates is part of this larger community, and the judge’s official findings noted this evidence, which significantly supported the HOA’s position to approve the Martins’ copper-colored roof.

This reveals a nuanced lesson: an HOA doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Once a certain style or material becomes common in the surrounding region, it can establish a de facto community standard. This makes it significantly more difficult for other homeowners to argue against a similar request, as the board can point to the broader neighborhood aesthetic to justify its decision. Before you challenge a project, it’s crucial to look not only at what has been approved within your HOA, but also at the character of the community at large.

3. The Burden of Proof: Your Complaint Is Only as Good as Your Evidence

The third critical lesson is that in any formal dispute, the quality of your evidence is non-negotiable. A subjective feeling or personal opinion holds little weight without objective proof.

The petitioners attempted to prove the roof was overly reflective by submitting a photograph as evidence. However, the judge’s official findings delivered a devastating blow, noting with precise and revealing language: “Although the image showed a reflective the image, the photograph was blurred.”

This detail underscores a vital point: in a legal or formal setting, a complaint must be backed by clear, objective proof. Weak or poor-quality evidence, like a blurred photo, can completely undermine an otherwise valid concern. Even though the image hinted at the issue, its poor quality rendered it useless. If you are going to make a claim, the burden is on you to prove it with convincing, high-quality evidence. Without it, your case is likely to be dismissed.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Before You Build or Battle, Do Your Homework

The Starwood Estates case serves as a powerful reminder that navigating HOA rules requires diligence. From this single dispute over a copper roof, we learn to read the fine print—and the structure—of governing documents, understand the power of aesthetic standards in the broader community, and ensure any complaint is backed by strong, clear evidence.

The next time you plan a home project or question a neighbor’s, ask yourself: have you really done your homework on the rules, the history, and the facts?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Patricia Davies-Brown (petitioner)
    Appeared on behalf of petitioners
  • Bart A. Brown, Jr. (petitioner)
  • Scott R. Davies (petitioner, board member)
    Starwood Estates HOA Board
    Voted against the roof approval

Respondent Side

  • Kristopher L. Smith (HOA attorney)
    O'Connor & Campbell, P.C.
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent
  • Daniel Campbell (HOA attorney)
    O'Connor & Campbell, P.C.
  • Pat Knight (board member)
    Starwood Estates HOA Board

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • L Dettorre (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • A Hansen (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • D Jones (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • D Gardner (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • N Cano (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • C Serrano (OAH Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Transmitted the order

Other Participants

  • Jeff Martin (Starwood Estates resident)
    Starwood Estates
    Property owner whose roof was subject of the dispute
  • Karen Martin (Starwood Estates resident)
    Starwood Estates
    Property owner whose roof was subject of the dispute

Patricia Davies-Brown vs. Starwood Estates Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818039-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-09-14
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Patricia Davies-Brown, Individually and as Trustee of the Trust; BART A. BROWN, JR.; SCOTT R. DAVIES Counsel —
Respondent Starwood Estates Homeowners Association Counsel Daniel Campbell & Kristopher L. Smith

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs; Bylaws; Architectural Guidelines

Outcome Summary

The Petitioners' request alleging that the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association violated community documents by approving a copper-colored metal roof was denied. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioners failed to establish the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, noting that the guidelines prohibiting reflective surfaces applied primarily to windows and doors, not roofs.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its CC&Rs, Bylaws, or Architectural Guidelines.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Exterior Appearance and Colors provisions regarding copper-colored metal roof approval

Petitioners alleged that the HOA improperly approved a copper-colored metal roof because it constituted a reflective surface and did not blend with the natural surroundings, violating the community documents. The ALJ denied the petition, finding Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated its documents, noting the reflective surfaces ban applied to windows and doors, not roofs, and the roof's appearance was acceptable.

Orders: Petitioners' petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: architectural control, CC&Rs enforcement, metal roof approval, reflective surfaces, burden of proof
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818039-REL Decision – 653217.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:48 (41.6 KB)

18F-H1818039-REL Decision – 659968.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:48 (104.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818039-REL


Briefing Document: Davies-Brown v. Starwood Estates HOA

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the administrative hearing and decision in case No. 18F-H1818039-REL, concerning a dispute between homeowners Patricia Davies-Brown, Bart A. Brown, Jr., and Scott R. Davies (the “Petitioners”) and the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association (the “Respondent”). The core of the dispute was the HOA Board of Directors’ 2013 approval of a copper-colored metal roof for homeowners Jeff and Karen Martin.

The Petitioners alleged this approval violated the community’s CC&Rs, Bylaws, and Architectural Guidelines. Their primary arguments were that the roof was an impermissible “reflective surface,” that it did not “blend with the natural surrounding and landscape,” and that the Board lacked the authority to approve it without prior review by the Architectural Committee (ACC) and without viewing a physical sample.

The Respondent defended the Board’s decision, arguing that the Board possessed the authority to grant such approvals. They contended the prohibition on reflective surfaces in the community guidelines applies specifically to windows and doors, not roofing. Furthermore, they asserted that the roof was aesthetically compliant and that other reflective metal roofs exist within the community.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Velva Moses-Thompson, ruled in favor of the Respondent. The decision, issued on September 14, 2018, denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof. The ALJ found that the Board had the authority to approve the roof, the ban on reflective surfaces did not apply to roofing, and the Petitioners did not establish that the roof failed to blend with its natural surroundings.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

• Case Name: Patricia Davies-Brown, et al. vs. Starwood Estates Homeowners Association

• Case Number: 18F-H1818039-REL

• Forum: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

• Presiding Judge: Velva Moses-Thompson, Administrative Law Judge

• Hearing Dates: July 10, 2018, and August 13, 2018

• Final Decision Date: September 14, 2018

Key Parties and Representatives

Name(s)

Representation / Contact

Petitioners

Patricia Davies-Brown, Bart A. Brown, Jr., Scott R. Davies

Appeared on behalf of themselves
9777 E Dreyfus Ave., Scottsdale, AZ 85260
[email protected]

Respondent

Starwood Estates Homeowners Association

Kristopher L. Smith, Esq.
O’Connor & Campbell, P.C.
7955 S Priest Dr., Tempe, AZ 85284
[email protected]

Homeowners

Jeff and Karen Martin

Owners of the property with the disputed roof at 8500 Skywood Drive, Pinetop, Arizona (Lot 40 of Starwood Estates).

Core Dispute: The Martin Residence Roof

The central conflict originated in the summer of 2013 when the Starwood Estates Board of Directors approved a request from Jeff and Karen Martin to install a copper-colored metal roof on their home. The approval was passed by a 5-1 vote. Petitioner Scott R. Davies was the sole board member who voted against the approval at that time.

The Board reviewed a brochure containing the roof’s color before granting approval but did not observe a physical sample. However, one Board member, Pat Knight, was reportedly familiar with the appearance of such roofs from a previous home she owned nearby. The petition challenging this 2013 decision was filed on or about March 26, 2018.

Petitioners’ Allegations and Arguments

The Petitioners filed their petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging that the HOA violated community governing documents. Their case was built on three central questions:

1. Does the exterior appearance of the Martins’ aluminum copper-colored metal roof blend with the “natural surrounding and landscape” of Starwood Estates?

2. Does such roof constitute a “reflective surface”?

3. If the answer to (1) above is no and/or the answer to (2) above is yes, did the ACC and the Board of Starwood Estates erroneously violate the provisions of the CC&R’s and GUIDELINES in permitting the Martins to install such aluminum copper-colored metal roof…?

During the hearing, the Petitioners expanded on these points, arguing:

• Reflective Surface: The copper-colored roof was a prohibited reflective surface under the Architectural Guidelines.

• Aesthetic Incompatibility: The roof did not blend with the natural surroundings as required.

• Procedural Violations:

◦ The Board violated the CC&Rs by approving the roof without first viewing a physical sample of the material.

◦ The approval was invalid because it should have first been granted by the two-person Architectural Committee (ACC) appointed by the Board.

Respondent’s Defense and Arguments

The Starwood Estates HOA maintained that its approval of the Martin roof was proper and compliant with all governing documents. Their key arguments were:

• Board Authority: The HOA asserted that either the Board of Directors or the Architectural Committee had the authority to approve the roof.

• Interpretation of “Reflective Surfaces”: The Respondent argued that the prohibition on “reflective surfaces” within the Architectural Guidelines applies specifically to windows and doors, not to roofing, which is addressed in a separate section of the guidelines.

• Aesthetic Compliance: They contended the roof, while having a “shine,” was not a barred reflective surface and did blend in with the natural surroundings.

• Precedent: The HOA noted that several other metal roofs that are reflective had been previously approved in Starwood Estates. They submitted images of reflective green and red roofs in the Pinetop Country Club area as evidence.

Referenced Governing Documents

The decision cited specific sections from the HOA’s governing documents to adjudicate the dispute.

• Section 3.1.4: Requires prior written approval from the Architectural Committee for any work that alters the exterior appearance of a Lot.

• Section 5.2: States that approvals or actions to be taken by the Association “shall be valid if given or taken by the Board.”

• Article VII, Section A(2): Grants the Board authority to exercise all powers and duties vested in the Association unless reserved to the membership.

• Article VII, Section B: Empowers the Board to “Review and approve any architectural plan for the building of any improvements on any Lots.”

• Exterior Appearance and Colors: Mandates that exterior appearance “shall blend with the natural surroundings and landscape.” It also states, “Clear aluminum window and doorframes are not permitted, nor are reflective surfaces.” A note requires the owner to submit samples of materials for ACC approval.

• Roofs, Materials, and Pitches: Stipulates that “Metal roofs are permitted only with ACC approval” and that all pitched roof materials “shall promote a continuity of texture and color.”

Evidence Presented

• Petitioner’s Exhibit 13: A photograph of the Martins’ copper-colored roof. The ALJ’s decision noted that while the image showed a reflection, the photograph itself was “blurred.”

• Respondent’s Exhibit 26: The brochure containing the color of the copper-colored roof that the Board reviewed before its 2013 approval.

• Respondent’s Exhibit 7: Images of other reflective green and red metal roofs located in the Pinetop Country Club area, which were previously approved.

• Testimony: Board member Pat Knight’s familiarity with the appearance of copper-colored roofs was noted.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The petition was denied. The ALJ found that the Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs, Bylaws, or Architectural Guidelines.

Conclusions of Law

1. Burden of Proof: The Petitioners bore the burden of proving their claims by a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as evidence that is more probably true than not. They failed to meet this standard.

2. Board Authority: The ALJ concluded that the governing documents allowed for the roof to be approved by either the Architectural Committee or the Board of Directors. The Board’s action was therefore valid.

3. Interpretation of Reflective Surfaces: The evidence established that the prohibition on “reflective surfaces” in the Architectural Guidelines applies to windows and doors. Roofs are addressed in a separate section of the guidelines. The existence of other approved shiny metal roofs further supported this interpretation.

4. Aesthetic Compliance: The Petitioners did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the copper-colored roof failed to blend in with the natural surroundings.

Final Order

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied because Petitioners have not established that Respondent violated the Community Bylaws, Community CC&Rs, and the Community Architectural Guidelines when Respondent approved the Martins’ request to install the copper-colored roof.

The order was made binding unless a rehearing was requested within 30 days of service.






Study Guide – 18F-H1818039-REL


Study Guide: Davies-Brown v. Starwood Estates HOA (Case No. 18F-H1818039-REL)

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative hearing case between Patricia Davies-Brown, et al., and the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association. It includes a short-answer quiz to test factual recall, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms as defined within the context of the provided legal documents.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing exclusively from the information presented in the case documents.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in Case No. 18F-H1818039-REL?

2. What specific architectural feature was the central point of the dispute?

3. What were the three main questions the Petitioners raised in their petition filed on March 26, 2018?

4. How did the Respondent (Starwood Estates HOA) justify the approval of other reflective metal roofs in the community?

5. According to the Petitioners, which two procedural errors did the Board of Directors commit when approving the Martins’ roof?

6. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion regarding the prohibition of “reflective surfaces” in the Architectural Guidelines?

7. What is the legal standard of proof the Petitioners were required to meet, and did they succeed?

8. Which governing documents grant the Board of Directors the authority to approve architectural plans?

9. When was the disputed roof originally approved by the Board, and what was the vote count?

10. What evidence did the Board review before its initial approval, and what evidence was not reviewed at that time?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioners were Patricia Davies-Brown (Individually and as Trustee of the Trust), Bart A. Brown, Jr., and Scott R. Davies. The Respondent was the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association.

2. The central dispute was an aluminum, “copper-colored metal roof” installed by homeowners Jeff and Karen Martin on their property at Lot 40 of Starwood Estates. The Petitioners challenged the HOA Board’s approval of this roof.

3. The Petitioners’ petition questioned whether the roof blended with the “natural surrounding and landscape,” whether it constituted a “reflective surface,” and if so, whether the Board and ACC violated the CC&Rs and Guidelines by permitting it.

4. The Respondent submitted evidence of other reflective green and red metal roofs within the Pinetop Country Club area that had been previously approved by the Board. This was used to argue that roofs with a shine were not explicitly barred.

5. The Petitioners contended the Board violated the CC&Rs by approving the roof without first viewing a physical sample. They also argued that the roof required approval from the two-person Architectural Committee (ACC) and could not be approved by the Board alone.

6. The Judge concluded that the bar on reflective surfaces, as written in the Architectural Guidelines, applies specifically to windows and doors. Roofs are addressed in a separate section of the guidelines that does not contain the same prohibition.

7. The Petitioners bore the burden of proof to establish their case by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means showing their contention is more probably true than not. The Judge ruled that they failed to meet this standard.

8. Section 5.2 of the CC&Rs states that actions taken by the Board are valid, and Article VII of the Starwood Bylaws grants the Board the power to exercise Association authority and to review and approve architectural plans. The Judge found this authority allowed the Board to approve the roof.

9. The roof was approved by the Board of Directors in the summer of 2013. The approval passed with a 5-1 vote, with Petitioner Scott R. Davies being the sole board member who voted against it.

10. Before approving the roof, the Board reviewed a brochure containing the color of the copper-colored roof. However, the Board did not observe a physical sample of the actual roofing material.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions for Further Study

The following questions are designed for deeper, analytical consideration of the case. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the conflict between CC&Rs Section 3.1.4 (requiring ACC approval) and other governing documents (like CC&Rs Section 5.2 and Bylaws Article VII) that grant broad authority to the Board. How did the Administrative Law Judge resolve this apparent contradiction in the final decision?

2. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied in this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means and detail why the Petitioners failed to meet this standard with respect to their claims about the roof’s reflective nature and its harmony with the natural surroundings.

3. Examine the interpretation of the Architectural Guidelines regarding “reflective surfaces.” How did the Respondent and the Administrative Law Judge construe this rule, and what evidence and reasoning supported their interpretation over the Petitioners’ broader application?

4. Evaluate the evidence presented by both the Petitioners and the Respondent. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s evidence (e.g., the blurred photograph vs. the brochure and photos of other roofs) and explain how this likely influenced the outcome of the case.

5. Based on the issues raised in this case, what specific changes or clarifications could be made to the community’s CC&Rs and Architectural Guidelines to prevent similar disputes in the future?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition in Context

ACC (Architectural Committee)

A committee, as referenced in the CC&Rs and Architectural Guidelines, responsible for approving exterior alterations and ensuring all building materials and colors conform to community standards.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The presiding official (Velva Moses-Thompson) at the Office of Administrative Hearings who conducts hearings, evaluates evidence, and issues a binding decision on the matter.

Architectural Guidelines

A set of community documents establishing goals and specific rules for exterior appearance, colors, materials, and site development to retain the character of Starwood Estates.

Board of Directors (Board)

The governing body of the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association, which is empowered by the CC&Rs and Bylaws to conduct the affairs of the Association and approve architectural plans.

Bylaws

The rules and regulations that govern the internal operations of the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association, including the powers and duties of the Board of Directors.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. Legally binding rules recorded with the property deeds in the Starwood Estates community that govern what homeowners may or may not do with their property.

Conclusions of Law

The section of the ALJ’s decision that applies legal principles, statutes, and case law to the established facts of the case to reach a final judgment.

Findings of Fact

The section of the ALJ’s decision that formally lists the factual determinations made by the judge based on the evidence presented at the hearing.

Petitioner

The party that initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Patricia Davies-Brown, Bart A. Brown, Jr., and Scott R. Davies, who brought the complaint against the HOA.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and has a greater weight than the evidence offered in opposition, persuading the fact-finder that a contention is more likely true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association, which had to defend its decision to approve the roof.

Restrictive Covenant

A provision in a deed or community document (like a CC&R) that limits the use of the property. In Arizona, if unambiguous, these are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties.






Blog Post – 18F-H1818039-REL


This Copper Roof Caused a Legal Battle: 3 Surprising Lessons Every Homeowner Should Learn

Introduction: The Neighborhood Dispute That Went to Court

The relationship between homeowners and their Homeowners Association (HOA) can be a delicate balance. Architectural rules, designed to maintain a community’s aesthetic, often become a source of friction. But what happens when a disagreement over design choices escalates?

In the case of Davies-Brown v. Starwood Estates Homeowners Association, a dispute over Jeff and Karen Martin’s new copper-colored metal roof didn’t just cause whispers over the fence—it went all the way to a formal administrative hearing. When the HOA board approved the roof in a 5-1 vote, the lone dissenting board member, Scott R. Davies, joined two other homeowners to formally challenge the decision.

This seemingly simple disagreement over a roofing material reveals several powerful, and often counter-intuitive, lessons for anyone living in a planned community. From the structural placement of a single sentence to the evidentiary power of a blurry photograph, this case offers a masterclass in HOA law. Here are three surprising lessons every homeowner should learn.

——————————————————————————–

1. The Devil in the Document: How a Single Sentence Can Decide Everything

The first major lesson from this case is that the hyper-specific wording and structure of your community guidelines are paramount. The location and context of a rule can be just as important as the rule itself.

The petitioners’ core argument was that the copper-colored roof violated the Architectural Guidelines because it was a “reflective surface,” which they believed was forbidden. On the surface, this seems like a straightforward complaint.

However, the HOA mounted a successful counter-argument based on document structure. The Administrative Law Judge agreed with the HOA’s interpretation. The rules for roofs were addressed in a distinct section titled “Roofs, Materials, and Pitches.” The ban on “reflective surfaces,” meanwhile, was located in an entirely separate section, “Exterior Appearance and Colors,” which also contained rules for windows and doors. This seemingly minor structural detail was the deciding factor on this point.

The exact rule the petitioners cited, found in the “Exterior Appearance and Colors” section, illustrates the point perfectly:

Clear aluminum window and doorframes are not permitted, nor are reflective surfaces.

Because this prohibition was not located in the roofing section, the judge concluded it applied only to windows, doors, and general exterior surfaces—not roofs. This case highlights that homeowners must read their community documents with extreme care. A prohibition you think is universal might, in fact, be limited to a very specific context by its placement in the text.

2. The Power of Precedent: What Your Neighbors Did Years Ago Matters Today

The second key takeaway is that an HOA board’s decisions can be heavily influenced by the character of the surrounding area, not just by what has been approved inside the development’s gates.

During the hearing, the HOA presented evidence of other reflective metal roofs, including green and red ones, that existed in the broader Pinetop Country Club area. Starwood Estates is part of this larger community, and the judge’s official findings noted this evidence, which significantly supported the HOA’s position to approve the Martins’ copper-colored roof.

This reveals a nuanced lesson: an HOA doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Once a certain style or material becomes common in the surrounding region, it can establish a de facto community standard. This makes it significantly more difficult for other homeowners to argue against a similar request, as the board can point to the broader neighborhood aesthetic to justify its decision. Before you challenge a project, it’s crucial to look not only at what has been approved within your HOA, but also at the character of the community at large.

3. The Burden of Proof: Your Complaint Is Only as Good as Your Evidence

The third critical lesson is that in any formal dispute, the quality of your evidence is non-negotiable. A subjective feeling or personal opinion holds little weight without objective proof.

The petitioners attempted to prove the roof was overly reflective by submitting a photograph as evidence. However, the judge’s official findings delivered a devastating blow, noting with precise and revealing language: “Although the image showed a reflective the image, the photograph was blurred.”

This detail underscores a vital point: in a legal or formal setting, a complaint must be backed by clear, objective proof. Weak or poor-quality evidence, like a blurred photo, can completely undermine an otherwise valid concern. Even though the image hinted at the issue, its poor quality rendered it useless. If you are going to make a claim, the burden is on you to prove it with convincing, high-quality evidence. Without it, your case is likely to be dismissed.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Before You Build or Battle, Do Your Homework

The Starwood Estates case serves as a powerful reminder that navigating HOA rules requires diligence. From this single dispute over a copper roof, we learn to read the fine print—and the structure—of governing documents, understand the power of aesthetic standards in the broader community, and ensure any complaint is backed by strong, clear evidence.

The next time you plan a home project or question a neighbor’s, ask yourself: have you really done your homework on the rules, the history, and the facts?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Patricia Davies-Brown (petitioner)
    Appeared on behalf of petitioners
  • Bart A. Brown, Jr. (petitioner)
  • Scott R. Davies (petitioner, board member)
    Starwood Estates HOA Board
    Voted against the roof approval

Respondent Side

  • Kristopher L. Smith (HOA attorney)
    O'Connor & Campbell, P.C.
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent
  • Daniel Campbell (HOA attorney)
    O'Connor & Campbell, P.C.
  • Pat Knight (board member)
    Starwood Estates HOA Board

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • L Dettorre (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • A Hansen (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • D Jones (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • D Gardner (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • N Cano (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • C Serrano (OAH Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Transmitted the order

Other Participants

  • Jeff Martin (Starwood Estates resident)
    Starwood Estates
    Property owner whose roof was subject of the dispute
  • Karen Martin (Starwood Estates resident)
    Starwood Estates
    Property owner whose roof was subject of the dispute