Tag Archives: Architectural Review

Sally Magana v. Wynstone Park Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H070-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-10-29
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Sally Magana Counsel —
Respondent Wynstone Park Homeowners Association Counsel Ashley Turner

Alleged Violations

Title 8, Chapter 6, Article I – 8-6-3(T)
CC&Rs Section 7.1

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's two-issue petition. The OAH lacked jurisdiction over the alleged violation of the City of Mesa Code Ordinance (parking/nuisance). On the CC&R violation claim (mischaracterizing maintenance), Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated CC&Rs Section 7.1, as the evidence established that Petitioner made unapproved changes/alterations to the driveway extension.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs, and the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the municipal code violation claim.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA assessed a fine for public nuisances for parking on approved driveway extension

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated the Mesa City Ordinance by fining her for parking on her approved driveway extension. The extension approval dated back to 1998 and 2018.

Orders: Petition dismissed. The OAH determined it lacked jurisdiction to rule on alleged violations of City of Mesa Code Ordinances.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Title 8, Chapter 6, Article I – 8-6-3(T)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803

HOA mischaracterizing maintenance as an unauthorized modification

Petitioner claimed the work performed (lifting pavers, replacing sand with gravel/decomposed granite, and altering slope) was routine maintenance. Respondent argued this constituted an exterior change or alteration requiring prior written architectural approval, which Petitioner failed to obtain.

Orders: Petition dismissed. Petitioner failed to establish Respondent violated CC&Rs 7.1. Evidence showed Petitioner made changes to the surface under the pavers and the slope of the driveway extension without prior approval.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Section 7.1
  • CC&Rs Section 10.1
  • Powell v. Washburn
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs.
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Enforcement, Architectural Review, Maintenance vs Modification, Jurisdiction, Mesa Code Ordinance, Pavers, Driveway Extension
Additional Citations:

  • Title 8, Chapter 6, Article I – 8-6-3(T)
  • CC&Rs Section 7.1
  • CC&Rs Section 10.1
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Powell v. Washburn
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs.

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H070-REL Decision – 1350920.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:26:35 (50.9 KB)

25F-H070-REL Decision – 1352025.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:26:40 (48.7 KB)

25F-H070-REL Decision – 1355826.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:26:45 (59.1 KB)

25F-H070-REL Decision – 1363586.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:26:50 (144.5 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H070-REL


Briefing Document: Magana v. Wynstone Park Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision in case number 25F-H070-REL, Sally Magana v. Wynstone Park Homeowners Association. The petitioner, Sally Magana, filed a two-issue petition alleging the Homeowners Association (HOA) improperly fined her for a public nuisance related to parking and mischaracterized necessary property maintenance as an unauthorized architectural modification.

The respondent, Wynstone Park HOA, countered that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) lacked jurisdiction over the alleged city ordinance violation and that the work performed by the petitioner was, in fact, an unapproved “alteration” under the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The HOA maintained its enforcement actions were authorized and appropriate.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately dismissed the petitioner’s case in its entirety. The decision was based on two key findings: 1) The OAH does not have the jurisdiction to rule on violations of a municipal (City of Mesa) ordinance, and 2) The petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof to establish that the HOA violated its own governing documents. The ALJ concluded that the work performed—which included removing the original paver base, installing a new gravel surface, and altering the slope of the driveway—constituted a “change or alteration” requiring prior approval under CC&R Section 7.1, which the petitioner did not obtain.

Case Overview

Entity / Individual

Petitioner

Sally Magana (Homeowner)

Respondent

Wynstone Park Homeowners Association (HOA)

Presiding Judge

Velva Moses-Thompson, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

Case Number

25F-H070-REL

Hearing Date

October 9, 2025

Decision Date

October 29, 2025

Timeline of Key Events

July 3, 2019

HOA granted a variance allowing Ms. Magana to park anywhere on her driveway extension.

Feb 26, 2021

HOA sent a notice to Ms. Magana for parking past the garage, citing nuisance under CC&R Section 8.4.

Jan 27, 2025

Ms. Magana submitted a Design Review Application to modify drainage under her paver extension.

Feb 11, 2025

HOA’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) disapproved the application, citing the 50% lot coverage rule and nuisance complaints from a neighbor.

March 12, 2025

The HOA Board met with Ms. Magana at her property to discuss the matter.

May/June 2025

Ms. Magana proceeded with work on the pavers without ARC approval.

June 2, 2025

HOA issued a courtesy notice for an unapproved architectural change under CC&R Section 7.1.

June 11, 2025

HOA issued a Violation Notice with a $25 fine for the unapproved change.

July 14, 2025

HOA issued a second Violation Notice with a $50 fine.

July 17, 2025

Ms. Magana filed her petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Oct 29, 2025

The ALJ issued a decision dismissing the petition.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments

Ms. Magana’s case was centered on two primary allegations:

1. Violation of Public Nuisance Ordinance: The petitioner alleged the HOA violated “Title 8, Chapter 6, Article I, 8-6-3: PUBLIC NUISANCES PROHIBITED” of the City of Mesa code by fining her for parking on her driveway extension. She argued that the extension was approved in 1998 and reaffirmed by an HOA variance in 2019, making the fine improper.

2. Violation of CC&R Section 7.1 (Architectural Approval): The petitioner contended that the HOA mischaracterized routine maintenance as an “unauthorized modification.” She argued the work was necessary to correct a drainage issue causing water pooling against her foundation and creating a risk of termites. Her position was that since no new pavers were installed and the layout was not changed, the work did not constitute an architectural change requiring ARC approval. She also raised the issue of selective enforcement, providing photos of other homes with alleged violations that had not been cited.

Respondent’s Position and Defense

The HOA’s defense, presented by attorney Ashley Turner and Board President Andrew Hancock, rested on the following points:

1. Jurisdictional Challenge: The HOA argued that the OAH does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the association violated a City of Mesa ordinance, and that this issue should be dismissed on that basis alone.

2. The Work Was an “Alteration,” Not “Maintenance”: The HOA asserted that the work performed went beyond simple maintenance. Testimony revealed that the original play sand base was removed, a new decomposed granite base was installed, and the grade of the surface was altered to change the slope and water flow. The HOA considered these actions a “change or alteration” as defined in CC&R Section 7.1, which explicitly requires prior written approval from the ARC.

3. Proper Denial and Enforcement: The HOA’s denial of Ms. Magana’s initial application was based on established Design Guidelines, specifically that the total parking area “may not exceed… fifty percent (50%) of the lot width.” The denial also cited ongoing nuisance complaints from a neighbor regarding noise and access issues caused by vehicles parked on the extension. The subsequent fines were issued in accordance with the HOA’s enforcement policy after Ms. Magana completed the work without approval.

4. Authority to Enforce: The HOA cited CC&R Section 10.1, which grants it the right to enforce all covenants and restrictions in the governing documents.

Key Testimonies and Evidence

Witness Testimony

• Rita Elizalde (Petitioner’s Witness; Owner, JLE Heartscape and Design):

◦ Testified that the initial proposal, which included drains, was not executed due to the HOA’s denial.

◦ Characterized the work performed as “a maintenance on what you already had” to correct sinking pavers and water pooling against the foundation.

◦ Confirmed that the previous installer had used an improper “play sand base,” which her company removed.

◦ Stated they installed a new base of “decomposite granite,” replaced the original pavers in the same design, and added polymeric sand to lock them in.

◦ Confirmed the ground “had to be sloped back a little bit” to ensure water ran toward the street and not toward the neighbor’s property or the house foundation.

• Andrew Hancock (Respondent’s Witness; HOA Board President):

◦ Testified that the board considered the work a “change to the design of the pavers” because it addressed slope and drainage issues, which is more than basic maintenance.

◦ Stated that the board denied the initial application due to the 50% lot coverage rule and nuisance complaints from the neighbor, which included “the sound of the vehicle’s wake child” and the car blocking the neighbor’s access for taking out trash cans.

◦ Clarified that the board offered Ms. Magana two potential compromises: stopping the pavers at the garage line or bringing her fence/gate forward to be in line with the garage.

◦ Testified that photos of the work in progress (Exhibit G) showed all pavers removed and the base grading “manipulated.” He also noted what appeared to be new PVC piping.

◦ Referencing a photo of the pre-maintenance water pooling (Exhibit E), he testified that it showed water flowing “over the end border into the gravel and the neighbor’s yard.”

Key Exhibits

Exhibit #

Description & Significance

Respondent

The HOA’s CC&Rs, establishing the rules for architectural approval (Sec 7.1) and enforcement (Sec 10.1).

Respondent

Ms. Magana’s initial Design Review Application (denied) and a photo showing significant water pooling on the pavers and onto the neighboring lot.

Petitioner

Before and after photos of the paver extension, intended to show no visual change in design.

Respondent

Photos taken during the project showing all pavers removed, piled up, and the underlying base exposed and re-graded.

H, I, K

Respondent

The series of enforcement letters: Courtesy Notice (June 2), $25 Fine (June 11), and $50 Fine (July 14) for the unapproved alteration.

Petitioner

The HOA’s Design Guidelines, which include the 50% lot width limitation for parking areas.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s final decision dismissed Ms. Magana’s petition. The ruling was grounded in the following conclusions of law:

• Lack of Jurisdiction over Municipal Ordinance: The ALJ determined that “The OAH does not have jurisdiction to determine whether a planned community organization has violated a City of Mesa Code Ordinance.” This effectively dismissed the first issue of the petition without ruling on its merits.

• Petitioner’s Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: For the second issue, the ALJ found that the petitioner bore the burden of proving the HOA violated its CC&Rs and failed to do so. The decision noted:

◦ CC&R Section 7.1 regulates homeowners, requiring them to obtain prior approval for any “exterior addition, change, or alteration.”

◦ The preponderance of evidence, including testimony from the petitioner’s own witness (Ms. Elizalde), showed that changes were made to the surface under the pavers and to the slope of the driveway.

◦ These actions constitute an “alteration” under the CC&Rs.

◦ Because Ms. Magana made these changes without prior approval, she did not establish that the HOA mischaracterized her actions or violated Section 7.1.

• HOA’s Authority to Enforce: The decision affirmed that CC&R Section 10.1 authorizes the respondent to enforce its governing documents.

The final order concluded: “Petitioner has failed to meet her burden to establish that Respondent violated Respondent’s CC&Rs, governing document, or any statutes that regulate planned communities. Petitioner’s petition should be dismissed.”


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Sally Magana (petitioner)
    Also referred to as Complainant
  • Rita Elizalde (witness)
    JLE Heartscape and Design
    Also referred to as Rita Estelle
  • Jesus Ortiz (witness)
  • Adeline Escudero-Mendoza (witness)
    Also referred to as Adeline Escudero

Respondent Side

  • Ashley Turner (HOA attorney)
    CHDB Law
  • Andrew Hancock (board president/witness)
    Wynstone Park Homeowners Association
    President of Respondent's Board
  • Jennifer Irving (board member)
    Wynstone Park Homeowners Association
    Vice President of the HOA Board
  • Dawn Feigert (property manager)
    Trestle Management Group
    Community Manager
  • Lea Austin (property manager)
    Trestle Management Group
    Community Manager

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association v. Goebel, Rick Jr. &

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H050-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-09-11
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association Counsel Daniel S. Francom
Respondent Rick Jr. & Elizabeth Goebel Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article V, Section 5.22; Guidelines Section 2.24

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the HOA's petition, finding the HOA failed to meet its burden of proving a violation. The homeowner justifiably relied on the ARC's approval, which was granted rapidly and without clarification requests, despite the lack of detail on the wall height, effectively granting an exception to the Guidelines.

Why this result: The HOA (Petitioner) failed to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, primarily because the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approved the plans after multiple rounds of review, and the homeowner relied on that approval. The delay in the stop construction notice was also deemed unreasonable.

Key Issues & Findings

Construction of unapproved structures/patio walls in excess of permitted height

Petitioner (HOA) alleged Respondent (homeowner) violated community documents by constructing walls around a courtyard in excess of the 42-inch height limit set by the Guidelines Section 2.24, and without sufficient prior approval (CC&R Section 5.22). The constructed wall was approximately 8 feet high.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition in this matter is denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Architectural Review, Wall Height, Pony Wall, Approval Reliance, Burden of Proof, Unreasonable Delay
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • CC&R Article V, Section 5.22
  • Guidelines Section 2.24

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H050-REL Decision – 1222437.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:11:25 (132.2 KB)





Briefing Doc – 24F-H050-REL


Arroyo Mountain Estate HOA vs. Goebel: A Dispute Over Architectural Approval

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive overview of the dispute between the Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association (HOA) and homeowners Rick and Elizabeth Goebel, culminating in an administrative law hearing on August 28, 2024. The central conflict revolves around the construction of a courtyard wall at the Goebels’ property, which the HOA alleged was unapproved and in violation of community guidelines.

The Goebels maintained that they followed all required procedures, submitting multiple revised applications at the HOA’s request, and ultimately received explicit, unconditional approval from the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) before commencing work. They argued that they built a “courtyard wall” in conformance with section 2.9 of the guidelines, which does not specify a height limit, and not a “pony wall,” which is restricted to 42 inches under section 2.24.

The HOA contended that the Goebels’ application was misleading due to a lack of critical details, specifically the wall’s 8-foot 8-inch height and a three-foot overhead hood. Key members of the ARC testified they understood the application to be for landscaping only and would have denied it had the full scope been clear. The HOA argued the constructed wall violates the spirit and letter of the guidelines intended to maintain community aesthetic uniformity.

The case concluded with a definitive ruling by an Administrative Law Judge on September 11, 2024. The judge denied the HOA’s petition, finding that they had not met their burden of proof. The decision highlighted that the Goebels had followed the prescribed process, justifiably relied on the ARC’s formal approval, and that the HOA’s month-long delay in issuing a stop-construction notice was unreasonable. The ruling deemed the ARC’s approval “tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines.”

The Core Dispute: The Courtyard Wall

The conflict centers on improvements made at the Goebels’ property, located at 5408 North Prescott Court (incorrectly listed multiple times in HOA documents as 5408 North Carson Court). The primary structure in question is a wall enclosing a front courtyard area, which the Goebels’ plans identified as a “courtyard wall.”

Alleged Violations by the HOA

The HOA’s petition alleged that the Goebels were in violation of two primary governing documents:

1. CC&Rs Article V, Section 5.22: This section requires homeowners to receive ARC approval before beginning any construction that alters the exterior appearance of a property, demanding that requests “Specify in detail the nature and extent of construction.”

2. Architectural and Landscape Design Guidelines, Section 2.24: This section governs “Pony Walls and Courtyards,” stating that pony walls constructed in a front yard to form a courtyard “should be no higher than 42 inches.”

The HOA argued that the wall built by the Goebels, which reaches a height of approximately 8 feet 8 inches, is functionally a pony wall and therefore violates the 42-inch height restriction.

The Homeowner’s (Goebel) Position and Timeline

The Goebels’ defense was anchored in their assertion of procedural compliance, reliance on a formal approval, and a belief that they were being unfairly targeted.

Application and Approval Process

The timeline of the application process was a key element of the Goebels’ case:

Dec 30, 2022

Initial consolidated application for all improvements submitted via email.

Jan 3, 2023

Initial application denied with the instruction to “please resubmit separate applications for the different projects.”

Jan 3, 2023

Revised, separate applications submitted to the community manager, Katie Sand.

Jan 3, 2023

Additional comments received from Katie Sand requesting further changes.

Jan 3, 2023

Final revised applications submitted at 4:14 p.m. and notice of acceptance received at 4:26 p.m.

Jan 5, 2023

The ARC formally approved the applications, within 48 hours of submission, without requesting additional information.

Argument of Good Faith and Procedural Adherence

Mr. Goebel argued that he diligently followed the HOA’s process and could not have done more to ensure compliance.

“I follow the requirement of the architectural community prepared the application submitted the application via the appropriate application approval process and received approval. It’s unclear what I’m being violated for. It is unclear as to how I violated any part of the approval or constructed improvements not identified on the plan.” – Rick Goebel

He emphasized that the ARC, under its own guidelines, had the power to request more information if the application was deemed incomplete but chose not to, instead granting full approval. Elizabeth Goebel further stated, “they approved the application and we move forward with our approval… We still got the approval. We moved forward in good faith and constructed what we had done.”

Construction Timeline and HOA Response

• March 21, 2023: Engineering drawings submitted to Maricopa County.

• March 24, 2023: Technical approvals and permits issued by the county.

• April 7, 2023: Construction commenced.

• April 19, 2023: The wall reached its full height.

• May 12, 2023: Nearly one month after the wall was completed, the Goebels received a stop-construction notice from the HOA.

Claims of Targeted Harassment

Mr. Goebel testified that he felt his family and home were being targeted by board members, leading to significant distress and financial cost.

“Over the past 12 months, I’ve had to deal with continued harassment from our board… People drive past my home, take pictures of my home. John Conalo has driven past my home multiple times taking pictures of my home… I have people to drive by my home, take photos and post these photos online and generally disrupt the reasonable enjoyment of my property. I am of the opinion that me and my home are being targeted for these improvements by members of the board who are utilizing funds to support the basic attack.” – Rick Goebel

The Homeowners Association’s (HOA) Position

The HOA’s case, presented by attorney Daniel Francom, focused on the argument that the Goebels’ application was deficient and that any approval granted was therefore invalid for the wall as constructed.

Insufficient Detail and Misleading Application

The HOA argued the Goebels “failed to provide sufficient details” in their application.

• Wall Height: The plans did not specify the wall would be 8 feet 8 inches high.

• Overhead Hood: The plans did not clearly indicate a three-foot deep overhead structure above the gate.

• County Plans: The detailed plans submitted to Maricopa County, which included engineering reports and the exact wall height, were never provided to the HOA.

Board President John Consalvo testified that the application “showed nothing about a construction wall showing landscape application turned in.”

Architectural Committee’s Interpretation

ARC member Judy Oliver provided crucial testimony for the HOA, stating that the committee was misled by the application’s presentation.

• She testified that since the application was titled “revamping of landscaping,” she and other members “assumed that this was regarding landscaping only.”

• Regarding the wall itself, she stated, “I felt that that wall wasn’t even up for discussion at the time.”

• Crucially, she asserted that had the Goebels provided specifics for an 8-foot wall, the committee would have denied the project as it “counters the architectural guidelines.”

Violation of Guideline 2.24 (“Pony Walls”)

The HOA’s legal argument rested on classifying the Goebels’ structure under section 2.24. They argued that because the wall creates a courtyard, it should be considered a “pony wall” and is therefore subject to the 42-inch height limit, regardless of what the Goebels labeled it in their plans. They argued the wall “sticks out like a sore thumb” and that there are no other similar walls in the community.

Key Witness Testimony

Ms. Rozzo’s testimony significantly undermined the HOA’s position.

• Admission of Error: When asked if she noted the courtyard wall, she stated, “No, I absolutely missed it. I am completely honest about that. I have missed it just like we’ve missed other ones and nothing’s done about it.”

• Precedent of Inaction: She testified that the ARC had mistakenly approved “at least 15 to 20 homes” with non-compliant improvements and that “the HOA has never pursued them.” She cited unapproved walls, pavers, and concrete pads at other properties.

• Challenge to HOA’s Pursuit: She expressed surprise that the HOA was pursuing this case, stating that when she told John Consalvo that pursuing the Goebels meant they should pursue all other erroneous approvals, he “chuckled and said, ‘Mike, my neighbor,'” implying a neighbor of the board president also had unapproved improvements.

• Board Vote: Ms. Rozzo, who was also a board member for a short time, revealed that the decision to take action against the Goebels was not unanimous, with two of the five board members voting “no.”

Mr. Consalvo testified that the board’s function is to maintain the community and enforce HOA rules. He stated that the Goebels’ application did not provide the required detail for the courtyard wall, its height, or the overhead gate structure. He confirmed he took photos of the property and that, in his view, the wall as built did not conform to any approved application and should have been limited to 42 inches.

Ms. Oliver testified she had been on the ARC since 2017. She stated that the application was understood to be for landscaping and that the wall was not considered for approval due to the lack of detail. She testified that had the 8-foot height been specified, the application would have been denied.

The Final Decision: Administrative Law Judge Ruling

On September 11, 2024, Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone issued a final, binding decision in the case (No. 24F-H050-REL).

Ruling

The Petitioner’s (HOA’s) petition was denied. The judge found that the HOA failed to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Reasoning for the Decision

The judge provided a clear, multi-point rationale for siding with the Goebels:

1. Procedural Compliance: “Respondent followed the process as laid out in section 5.22 of the CC&Rs, by submitting its Application to the ARC.”

2. Justifiable Reliance on Approval: The ARC had multiple opportunities to question the plans and did so on other matters. The judge concluded that Ms. Rozzo’s approval, even if she “missed it,” was a formal action on which the “Respondent justifiably relied… and moved ahead with construction.”

3. Approval as an Exception: The judge stated the formal approval “was tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines as the project was approved.”

4. Unreasonable Delay by HOA: The judge found that for the HOA “to wait almost a month once the project was completed to provide a stop construction notice to Respondent was unreasonable.”

5. Inconsistent Enforcement: The judge noted that “this was not the first time the ARC had approved projects that were not within the Guidelines,” referencing the testimony about other unpursued violations in the community.

Final Order

• The HOA’s petition was formally denied.

• The Respondent (Goebels) was not required to reimburse the HOA’s $500 filing fee.






Study Guide – 24F-H050-REL


{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “24F-H050-REL”,
“case_title”: “Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association v. Goebel”,
“decision_date”: “2024-09-11”,
“alj_name”: “Adam D. Stone”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“questions”: [
{
“question”: “If the HOA approves my architectural application, can they later claim a violation because they ‘missed’ details in the plan?”,
“short_answer”: “No. If the HOA approves the application, the homeowner can justifiably rely on that approval to proceed, even if the committee claims they missed specific details during review.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that once an application is approved, the homeowner has the right to rely on that approval to begin construction. Even if an Architectural Committee member testifies later that they ‘missed’ a detail (like a wall height) during their review, the approval stands. The HOA cannot penalize the homeowner for the committee’s oversight after approval has been granted.”,
“alj_quote”: “Ms. Rozzo testified that while she may have “missed it”, the Application was nonetheless approved, and Respondent justifiably relied on the approval and moved ahead with construction.”,
“legal_basis”: “Justifiable Reliance”,
“topic_tags”: [
“architectural approval”,
“committee oversight”,
“homeowner reliance”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can an approved application serve as a valid exception to written architectural guidelines?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes. An approved application can be considered tantamount to an exception to the community’s design guidelines.”,
“detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA argued the construction violated height guidelines. However, because the specific project plans were submitted and approved by the committee, the ALJ determined that this approval effectively acted as an exception to the general guidelines, making the construction permissible.”,
“alj_quote”: “This was tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines as the project was approved.”,
“legal_basis”: “Exception to Guidelines”,
“topic_tags”: [
“guidelines”,
“exceptions”,
“compliance”
]
},
{
“question”: “Is it reasonable for an HOA to issue a stop work notice after I have already completed my project?”,
“short_answer”: “No. Waiting until a project is completed to issue a stop construction notice is considered unreasonable.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that the HOA failed to act in a timely manner. Issuing a stop construction notice nearly a month after the homeowner had already finished building the structure was deemed unreasonable behavior by the association.”,
“alj_quote”: “Moreover, for Petitioner to wait almost a month once the project was completed to provide a stop construction notice to Respondent was unreasonable.”,
“legal_basis”: “Reasonableness / Laches”,
“topic_tags”: [
“enforcement timing”,
“stop work order”,
“construction”
]
},
{
“question”: “Who has to prove that a violation occurred during an HOA hearing?”,
“short_answer”: “The HOA (the Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”,
“detailed_answer”: “When an HOA petitions for a hearing regarding a violation, they must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence.’ This means they must convince the judge that their claim is more likely true than not. If they fail to meet this burden, the homeowner prevails.”,
“alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.”,
“legal_basis”: “Burden of Proof”,
“topic_tags”: [
“legal procedure”,
“evidence”,
“burden of proof”
]
},
{
“question”: “Does it matter if the HOA has allowed other non-compliant projects in the neighborhood?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes. Evidence that the HOA has previously approved other projects that did not meet guidelines can support the homeowner’s defense.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that the evidence showed this was not an isolated incident; the Architectural Committee had previously approved other projects that were not compliant with the Guidelines. This pattern weakens the HOA’s position in enforcing the rule against the current homeowner.”,
“alj_quote”: “Further, as the evidence provided, this was not the first time the ARC had approved projects that were not within the Guidelines.”,
“legal_basis”: “Arbitrary Enforcement / Precedent”,
“topic_tags”: [
“selective enforcement”,
“consistency”,
“precedent”
]
},
{
“question”: “If I submit an application and answer the committee’s questions, do I have to ensure they asked about every single detail?”,
“short_answer”: “No. If you follow the submission process and the committee has the opportunity to ask questions but doesn’t, the responsibility lies with them.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The homeowner followed the CC&R process by submitting the application. The committee had multiple chances to ask for clarification or details (like height) but failed to do so before approving. The judge ruled the homeowner followed the proper process.”,
“alj_quote”: “Respondent followed the process as laid out in section 5.22 of the CC&Rs, by submitting its Application to the ARC. The ARC had many opportunities thereafter to question Respondent about the project”,
“legal_basis”: “Due Process / Procedural Compliance”,
“topic_tags”: [
“application process”,
“due diligence”,
“homeowner obligations”
]
},
{
“question”: “Do I have to pay the HOA’s filing fees if they sue me and lose?”,
“short_answer”: “No. If the HOA’s petition is denied, the homeowner is not required to reimburse the filing fee.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ explicitly ordered that because the petition was denied, the respondent (homeowner) was not required to pay back the $500 filing fee that the HOA paid to the Department.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee”,
“legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fees”,
“penalties”,
“costs”
]
}
]
}






Blog Post – 24F-H050-REL


{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “24F-H050-REL”,
“case_title”: “Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association v. Goebel”,
“decision_date”: “2024-09-11”,
“alj_name”: “Adam D. Stone”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“questions”: [
{
“question”: “If the HOA approves my architectural application, can they later claim a violation because they ‘missed’ details in the plan?”,
“short_answer”: “No. If the HOA approves the application, the homeowner can justifiably rely on that approval to proceed, even if the committee claims they missed specific details during review.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that once an application is approved, the homeowner has the right to rely on that approval to begin construction. Even if an Architectural Committee member testifies later that they ‘missed’ a detail (like a wall height) during their review, the approval stands. The HOA cannot penalize the homeowner for the committee’s oversight after approval has been granted.”,
“alj_quote”: “Ms. Rozzo testified that while she may have “missed it”, the Application was nonetheless approved, and Respondent justifiably relied on the approval and moved ahead with construction.”,
“legal_basis”: “Justifiable Reliance”,
“topic_tags”: [
“architectural approval”,
“committee oversight”,
“homeowner reliance”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can an approved application serve as a valid exception to written architectural guidelines?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes. An approved application can be considered tantamount to an exception to the community’s design guidelines.”,
“detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA argued the construction violated height guidelines. However, because the specific project plans were submitted and approved by the committee, the ALJ determined that this approval effectively acted as an exception to the general guidelines, making the construction permissible.”,
“alj_quote”: “This was tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines as the project was approved.”,
“legal_basis”: “Exception to Guidelines”,
“topic_tags”: [
“guidelines”,
“exceptions”,
“compliance”
]
},
{
“question”: “Is it reasonable for an HOA to issue a stop work notice after I have already completed my project?”,
“short_answer”: “No. Waiting until a project is completed to issue a stop construction notice is considered unreasonable.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that the HOA failed to act in a timely manner. Issuing a stop construction notice nearly a month after the homeowner had already finished building the structure was deemed unreasonable behavior by the association.”,
“alj_quote”: “Moreover, for Petitioner to wait almost a month once the project was completed to provide a stop construction notice to Respondent was unreasonable.”,
“legal_basis”: “Reasonableness / Laches”,
“topic_tags”: [
“enforcement timing”,
“stop work order”,
“construction”
]
},
{
“question”: “Who has to prove that a violation occurred during an HOA hearing?”,
“short_answer”: “The HOA (the Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”,
“detailed_answer”: “When an HOA petitions for a hearing regarding a violation, they must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence.’ This means they must convince the judge that their claim is more likely true than not. If they fail to meet this burden, the homeowner prevails.”,
“alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.”,
“legal_basis”: “Burden of Proof”,
“topic_tags”: [
“legal procedure”,
“evidence”,
“burden of proof”
]
},
{
“question”: “Does it matter if the HOA has allowed other non-compliant projects in the neighborhood?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes. Evidence that the HOA has previously approved other projects that did not meet guidelines can support the homeowner’s defense.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that the evidence showed this was not an isolated incident; the Architectural Committee had previously approved other projects that were not compliant with the Guidelines. This pattern weakens the HOA’s position in enforcing the rule against the current homeowner.”,
“alj_quote”: “Further, as the evidence provided, this was not the first time the ARC had approved projects that were not within the Guidelines.”,
“legal_basis”: “Arbitrary Enforcement / Precedent”,
“topic_tags”: [
“selective enforcement”,
“consistency”,
“precedent”
]
},
{
“question”: “If I submit an application and answer the committee’s questions, do I have to ensure they asked about every single detail?”,
“short_answer”: “No. If you follow the submission process and the committee has the opportunity to ask questions but doesn’t, the responsibility lies with them.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The homeowner followed the CC&R process by submitting the application. The committee had multiple chances to ask for clarification or details (like height) but failed to do so before approving. The judge ruled the homeowner followed the proper process.”,
“alj_quote”: “Respondent followed the process as laid out in section 5.22 of the CC&Rs, by submitting its Application to the ARC. The ARC had many opportunities thereafter to question Respondent about the project”,
“legal_basis”: “Due Process / Procedural Compliance”,
“topic_tags”: [
“application process”,
“due diligence”,
“homeowner obligations”
]
},
{
“question”: “Do I have to pay the HOA’s filing fees if they sue me and lose?”,
“short_answer”: “No. If the HOA’s petition is denied, the homeowner is not required to reimburse the filing fee.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ explicitly ordered that because the petition was denied, the respondent (homeowner) was not required to pay back the $500 filing fee that the HOA paid to the Department.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee”,
“legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fees”,
“penalties”,
“costs”
]
}
]
}


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Daniel S. Francom (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Law
    Represented Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association.
  • John Consalvo (board president, witness)
    Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association Board
    President of the Association's Board; testified for Petitioner.
  • Judy Oliver (architectural committee member, witness)
    Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association Architectural Committee
    Testified for Petitioner; member of the ARC.

Respondent Side

  • Rick Goebel Jr. (respondent, homeowner)
    Testified on his own behalf; also referred to as Mr. Gobel/Goebel.
  • Elizabeth Goebel (respondent, homeowner)
    Testified on her own behalf; also referred to as Ms. Goebel.
  • Nancy Rozzo (architectural committee member, witness, former board member)
    Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association Architectural Committee
    Approved Respondent's plans; testified for Respondent. Referred to as Ms. Brazo/Rozo.

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge assigned to the hearing.
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
  • V. Nunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of the decision for transmission (derived from email [email protected]).
  • D. Jones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of the decision for transmission (derived from email [email protected]).
  • L. Abril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of the decision for transmission (derived from email [email protected]).
  • M. Neat (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of the decision for transmission (derived from email [email protected]).
  • L. Recchia (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of the decision for transmission (derived from email [email protected]).
  • G. Osborn (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of the decision for transmission (derived from email [email protected]).

Other Participants

  • Katie Sand (property manager)
    Vision Community Management
    Former employee/property manager involved in initial communications; also referred to as Katie Tam and Katie Pan.

Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association v. Goebel, Rick Jr. & Elizabeth

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H050-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-09-11
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association Counsel Daniel S. Francom
Respondent Rick Jr. & Elizabeth Goebel Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article V, Section 5.22; Guidelines Section 2.24

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the HOA's petition, finding the HOA failed to meet its burden of proving a violation. The homeowner justifiably relied on the ARC's approval, which was granted rapidly and without clarification requests, despite the lack of detail on the wall height, effectively granting an exception to the Guidelines.

Why this result: The HOA (Petitioner) failed to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, primarily because the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approved the plans after multiple rounds of review, and the homeowner relied on that approval. The delay in the stop construction notice was also deemed unreasonable.

Key Issues & Findings

Construction of unapproved structures/patio walls in excess of permitted height

Petitioner (HOA) alleged Respondent (homeowner) violated community documents by constructing walls around a courtyard in excess of the 42-inch height limit set by the Guidelines Section 2.24, and without sufficient prior approval (CC&R Section 5.22). The constructed wall was approximately 8 feet high.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition in this matter is denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Architectural Review, Wall Height, Pony Wall, Approval Reliance, Burden of Proof, Unreasonable Delay
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • CC&R Article V, Section 5.22
  • Guidelines Section 2.24




Briefing Doc – 24F-H050-REL


Arroyo Mountain Estate HOA vs. Goebel: A Dispute Over Architectural Approval

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive overview of the dispute between the Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association (HOA) and homeowners Rick and Elizabeth Goebel, culminating in an administrative law hearing on August 28, 2024. The central conflict revolves around the construction of a courtyard wall at the Goebels’ property, which the HOA alleged was unapproved and in violation of community guidelines.

The Goebels maintained that they followed all required procedures, submitting multiple revised applications at the HOA’s request, and ultimately received explicit, unconditional approval from the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) before commencing work. They argued that they built a “courtyard wall” in conformance with section 2.9 of the guidelines, which does not specify a height limit, and not a “pony wall,” which is restricted to 42 inches under section 2.24.

The HOA contended that the Goebels’ application was misleading due to a lack of critical details, specifically the wall’s 8-foot 8-inch height and a three-foot overhead hood. Key members of the ARC testified they understood the application to be for landscaping only and would have denied it had the full scope been clear. The HOA argued the constructed wall violates the spirit and letter of the guidelines intended to maintain community aesthetic uniformity.

The case concluded with a definitive ruling by an Administrative Law Judge on September 11, 2024. The judge denied the HOA’s petition, finding that they had not met their burden of proof. The decision highlighted that the Goebels had followed the prescribed process, justifiably relied on the ARC’s formal approval, and that the HOA’s month-long delay in issuing a stop-construction notice was unreasonable. The ruling deemed the ARC’s approval “tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines.”

The Core Dispute: The Courtyard Wall

The conflict centers on improvements made at the Goebels’ property, located at 5408 North Prescott Court (incorrectly listed multiple times in HOA documents as 5408 North Carson Court). The primary structure in question is a wall enclosing a front courtyard area, which the Goebels’ plans identified as a “courtyard wall.”

Alleged Violations by the HOA

The HOA’s petition alleged that the Goebels were in violation of two primary governing documents:

1. CC&Rs Article V, Section 5.22: This section requires homeowners to receive ARC approval before beginning any construction that alters the exterior appearance of a property, demanding that requests “Specify in detail the nature and extent of construction.”

2. Architectural and Landscape Design Guidelines, Section 2.24: This section governs “Pony Walls and Courtyards,” stating that pony walls constructed in a front yard to form a courtyard “should be no higher than 42 inches.”

The HOA argued that the wall built by the Goebels, which reaches a height of approximately 8 feet 8 inches, is functionally a pony wall and therefore violates the 42-inch height restriction.

The Homeowner’s (Goebel) Position and Timeline

The Goebels’ defense was anchored in their assertion of procedural compliance, reliance on a formal approval, and a belief that they were being unfairly targeted.

Application and Approval Process

The timeline of the application process was a key element of the Goebels’ case:

Dec 30, 2022

Initial consolidated application for all improvements submitted via email.

Jan 3, 2023

Initial application denied with the instruction to “please resubmit separate applications for the different projects.”

Jan 3, 2023

Revised, separate applications submitted to the community manager, Katie Sand.

Jan 3, 2023

Additional comments received from Katie Sand requesting further changes.

Jan 3, 2023

Final revised applications submitted at 4:14 p.m. and notice of acceptance received at 4:26 p.m.

Jan 5, 2023

The ARC formally approved the applications, within 48 hours of submission, without requesting additional information.

Argument of Good Faith and Procedural Adherence

Mr. Goebel argued that he diligently followed the HOA’s process and could not have done more to ensure compliance.

“I follow the requirement of the architectural community prepared the application submitted the application via the appropriate application approval process and received approval. It’s unclear what I’m being violated for. It is unclear as to how I violated any part of the approval or constructed improvements not identified on the plan.” – Rick Goebel

He emphasized that the ARC, under its own guidelines, had the power to request more information if the application was deemed incomplete but chose not to, instead granting full approval. Elizabeth Goebel further stated, “they approved the application and we move forward with our approval… We still got the approval. We moved forward in good faith and constructed what we had done.”

Construction Timeline and HOA Response

• March 21, 2023: Engineering drawings submitted to Maricopa County.

• March 24, 2023: Technical approvals and permits issued by the county.

• April 7, 2023: Construction commenced.

• April 19, 2023: The wall reached its full height.

• May 12, 2023: Nearly one month after the wall was completed, the Goebels received a stop-construction notice from the HOA.

Claims of Targeted Harassment

Mr. Goebel testified that he felt his family and home were being targeted by board members, leading to significant distress and financial cost.

“Over the past 12 months, I’ve had to deal with continued harassment from our board… People drive past my home, take pictures of my home. John Conalo has driven past my home multiple times taking pictures of my home… I have people to drive by my home, take photos and post these photos online and generally disrupt the reasonable enjoyment of my property. I am of the opinion that me and my home are being targeted for these improvements by members of the board who are utilizing funds to support the basic attack.” – Rick Goebel

The Homeowners Association’s (HOA) Position

The HOA’s case, presented by attorney Daniel Francom, focused on the argument that the Goebels’ application was deficient and that any approval granted was therefore invalid for the wall as constructed.

Insufficient Detail and Misleading Application

The HOA argued the Goebels “failed to provide sufficient details” in their application.

• Wall Height: The plans did not specify the wall would be 8 feet 8 inches high.

• Overhead Hood: The plans did not clearly indicate a three-foot deep overhead structure above the gate.

• County Plans: The detailed plans submitted to Maricopa County, which included engineering reports and the exact wall height, were never provided to the HOA.

Board President John Consalvo testified that the application “showed nothing about a construction wall showing landscape application turned in.”

Architectural Committee’s Interpretation

ARC member Judy Oliver provided crucial testimony for the HOA, stating that the committee was misled by the application’s presentation.

• She testified that since the application was titled “revamping of landscaping,” she and other members “assumed that this was regarding landscaping only.”

• Regarding the wall itself, she stated, “I felt that that wall wasn’t even up for discussion at the time.”

• Crucially, she asserted that had the Goebels provided specifics for an 8-foot wall, the committee would have denied the project as it “counters the architectural guidelines.”

Violation of Guideline 2.24 (“Pony Walls”)

The HOA’s legal argument rested on classifying the Goebels’ structure under section 2.24. They argued that because the wall creates a courtyard, it should be considered a “pony wall” and is therefore subject to the 42-inch height limit, regardless of what the Goebels labeled it in their plans. They argued the wall “sticks out like a sore thumb” and that there are no other similar walls in the community.

Key Witness Testimony

Ms. Rozzo’s testimony significantly undermined the HOA’s position.

• Admission of Error: When asked if she noted the courtyard wall, she stated, “No, I absolutely missed it. I am completely honest about that. I have missed it just like we’ve missed other ones and nothing’s done about it.”

• Precedent of Inaction: She testified that the ARC had mistakenly approved “at least 15 to 20 homes” with non-compliant improvements and that “the HOA has never pursued them.” She cited unapproved walls, pavers, and concrete pads at other properties.

• Challenge to HOA’s Pursuit: She expressed surprise that the HOA was pursuing this case, stating that when she told John Consalvo that pursuing the Goebels meant they should pursue all other erroneous approvals, he “chuckled and said, ‘Mike, my neighbor,'” implying a neighbor of the board president also had unapproved improvements.

• Board Vote: Ms. Rozzo, who was also a board member for a short time, revealed that the decision to take action against the Goebels was not unanimous, with two of the five board members voting “no.”

Mr. Consalvo testified that the board’s function is to maintain the community and enforce HOA rules. He stated that the Goebels’ application did not provide the required detail for the courtyard wall, its height, or the overhead gate structure. He confirmed he took photos of the property and that, in his view, the wall as built did not conform to any approved application and should have been limited to 42 inches.

Ms. Oliver testified she had been on the ARC since 2017. She stated that the application was understood to be for landscaping and that the wall was not considered for approval due to the lack of detail. She testified that had the 8-foot height been specified, the application would have been denied.

The Final Decision: Administrative Law Judge Ruling

On September 11, 2024, Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone issued a final, binding decision in the case (No. 24F-H050-REL).

Ruling

The Petitioner’s (HOA’s) petition was denied. The judge found that the HOA failed to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Reasoning for the Decision

The judge provided a clear, multi-point rationale for siding with the Goebels:

1. Procedural Compliance: “Respondent followed the process as laid out in section 5.22 of the CC&Rs, by submitting its Application to the ARC.”

2. Justifiable Reliance on Approval: The ARC had multiple opportunities to question the plans and did so on other matters. The judge concluded that Ms. Rozzo’s approval, even if she “missed it,” was a formal action on which the “Respondent justifiably relied… and moved ahead with construction.”

3. Approval as an Exception: The judge stated the formal approval “was tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines as the project was approved.”

4. Unreasonable Delay by HOA: The judge found that for the HOA “to wait almost a month once the project was completed to provide a stop construction notice to Respondent was unreasonable.”

5. Inconsistent Enforcement: The judge noted that “this was not the first time the ARC had approved projects that were not within the Guidelines,” referencing the testimony about other unpursued violations in the community.

Final Order

• The HOA’s petition was formally denied.

• The Respondent (Goebels) was not required to reimburse the HOA’s $500 filing fee.


Questions

Question

If the HOA approves my architectural application, can they later claim a violation because they 'missed' details in the plan?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA approves the application, the homeowner can justifiably rely on that approval to proceed, even if the committee claims they missed specific details during review.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that once an application is approved, the homeowner has the right to rely on that approval to begin construction. Even if an Architectural Committee member testifies later that they 'missed' a detail (like a wall height) during their review, the approval stands. The HOA cannot penalize the homeowner for the committee's oversight after approval has been granted.

Alj Quote

Ms. Rozzo testified that while she may have “missed it”, the Application was nonetheless approved, and Respondent justifiably relied on the approval and moved ahead with construction.

Legal Basis

Justifiable Reliance

Topic Tags

  • architectural approval
  • committee oversight
  • homeowner reliance

Question

Can an approved application serve as a valid exception to written architectural guidelines?

Short Answer

Yes. An approved application can be considered tantamount to an exception to the community's design guidelines.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the HOA argued the construction violated height guidelines. However, because the specific project plans were submitted and approved by the committee, the ALJ determined that this approval effectively acted as an exception to the general guidelines, making the construction permissible.

Alj Quote

This was tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines as the project was approved.

Legal Basis

Exception to Guidelines

Topic Tags

  • guidelines
  • exceptions
  • compliance

Question

Is it reasonable for an HOA to issue a stop work notice after I have already completed my project?

Short Answer

No. Waiting until a project is completed to issue a stop construction notice is considered unreasonable.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that the HOA failed to act in a timely manner. Issuing a stop construction notice nearly a month after the homeowner had already finished building the structure was deemed unreasonable behavior by the association.

Alj Quote

Moreover, for Petitioner to wait almost a month once the project was completed to provide a stop construction notice to Respondent was unreasonable.

Legal Basis

Reasonableness / Laches

Topic Tags

  • enforcement timing
  • stop work order
  • construction

Question

Who has to prove that a violation occurred during an HOA hearing?

Short Answer

The HOA (the Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

When an HOA petitions for a hearing regarding a violation, they must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' This means they must convince the judge that their claim is more likely true than not. If they fail to meet this burden, the homeowner prevails.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • legal procedure
  • evidence
  • burden of proof

Question

Does it matter if the HOA has allowed other non-compliant projects in the neighborhood?

Short Answer

Yes. Evidence that the HOA has previously approved other projects that did not meet guidelines can support the homeowner's defense.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that the evidence showed this was not an isolated incident; the Architectural Committee had previously approved other projects that were not compliant with the Guidelines. This pattern weakens the HOA's position in enforcing the rule against the current homeowner.

Alj Quote

Further, as the evidence provided, this was not the first time the ARC had approved projects that were not within the Guidelines.

Legal Basis

Arbitrary Enforcement / Precedent

Topic Tags

  • selective enforcement
  • consistency
  • precedent

Question

If I submit an application and answer the committee's questions, do I have to ensure they asked about every single detail?

Short Answer

No. If you follow the submission process and the committee has the opportunity to ask questions but doesn't, the responsibility lies with them.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner followed the CC&R process by submitting the application. The committee had multiple chances to ask for clarification or details (like height) but failed to do so before approving. The judge ruled the homeowner followed the proper process.

Alj Quote

Respondent followed the process as laid out in section 5.22 of the CC&Rs, by submitting its Application to the ARC. The ARC had many opportunities thereafter to question Respondent about the project

Legal Basis

Due Process / Procedural Compliance

Topic Tags

  • application process
  • due diligence
  • homeowner obligations

Question

Do I have to pay the HOA's filing fees if they sue me and lose?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA's petition is denied, the homeowner is not required to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ explicitly ordered that because the petition was denied, the respondent (homeowner) was not required to pay back the $500 filing fee that the HOA paid to the Department.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • penalties
  • costs

Case

Docket No

24F-H050-REL

Case Title

Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association v. Goebel

Decision Date

2024-09-11

Alj Name

Adam D. Stone

Tribunal

OAH

Agency

ADRE

Questions

Question

If the HOA approves my architectural application, can they later claim a violation because they 'missed' details in the plan?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA approves the application, the homeowner can justifiably rely on that approval to proceed, even if the committee claims they missed specific details during review.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that once an application is approved, the homeowner has the right to rely on that approval to begin construction. Even if an Architectural Committee member testifies later that they 'missed' a detail (like a wall height) during their review, the approval stands. The HOA cannot penalize the homeowner for the committee's oversight after approval has been granted.

Alj Quote

Ms. Rozzo testified that while she may have “missed it”, the Application was nonetheless approved, and Respondent justifiably relied on the approval and moved ahead with construction.

Legal Basis

Justifiable Reliance

Topic Tags

  • architectural approval
  • committee oversight
  • homeowner reliance

Question

Can an approved application serve as a valid exception to written architectural guidelines?

Short Answer

Yes. An approved application can be considered tantamount to an exception to the community's design guidelines.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the HOA argued the construction violated height guidelines. However, because the specific project plans were submitted and approved by the committee, the ALJ determined that this approval effectively acted as an exception to the general guidelines, making the construction permissible.

Alj Quote

This was tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines as the project was approved.

Legal Basis

Exception to Guidelines

Topic Tags

  • guidelines
  • exceptions
  • compliance

Question

Is it reasonable for an HOA to issue a stop work notice after I have already completed my project?

Short Answer

No. Waiting until a project is completed to issue a stop construction notice is considered unreasonable.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that the HOA failed to act in a timely manner. Issuing a stop construction notice nearly a month after the homeowner had already finished building the structure was deemed unreasonable behavior by the association.

Alj Quote

Moreover, for Petitioner to wait almost a month once the project was completed to provide a stop construction notice to Respondent was unreasonable.

Legal Basis

Reasonableness / Laches

Topic Tags

  • enforcement timing
  • stop work order
  • construction

Question

Who has to prove that a violation occurred during an HOA hearing?

Short Answer

The HOA (the Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

When an HOA petitions for a hearing regarding a violation, they must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' This means they must convince the judge that their claim is more likely true than not. If they fail to meet this burden, the homeowner prevails.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • legal procedure
  • evidence
  • burden of proof

Question

Does it matter if the HOA has allowed other non-compliant projects in the neighborhood?

Short Answer

Yes. Evidence that the HOA has previously approved other projects that did not meet guidelines can support the homeowner's defense.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that the evidence showed this was not an isolated incident; the Architectural Committee had previously approved other projects that were not compliant with the Guidelines. This pattern weakens the HOA's position in enforcing the rule against the current homeowner.

Alj Quote

Further, as the evidence provided, this was not the first time the ARC had approved projects that were not within the Guidelines.

Legal Basis

Arbitrary Enforcement / Precedent

Topic Tags

  • selective enforcement
  • consistency
  • precedent

Question

If I submit an application and answer the committee's questions, do I have to ensure they asked about every single detail?

Short Answer

No. If you follow the submission process and the committee has the opportunity to ask questions but doesn't, the responsibility lies with them.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner followed the CC&R process by submitting the application. The committee had multiple chances to ask for clarification or details (like height) but failed to do so before approving. The judge ruled the homeowner followed the proper process.

Alj Quote

Respondent followed the process as laid out in section 5.22 of the CC&Rs, by submitting its Application to the ARC. The ARC had many opportunities thereafter to question Respondent about the project

Legal Basis

Due Process / Procedural Compliance

Topic Tags

  • application process
  • due diligence
  • homeowner obligations

Question

Do I have to pay the HOA's filing fees if they sue me and lose?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA's petition is denied, the homeowner is not required to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ explicitly ordered that because the petition was denied, the respondent (homeowner) was not required to pay back the $500 filing fee that the HOA paid to the Department.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • penalties
  • costs

Case

Docket No

24F-H050-REL

Case Title

Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association v. Goebel

Decision Date

2024-09-11

Alj Name

Adam D. Stone

Tribunal

OAH

Agency

ADRE

Brenda C Norman v. Rancho Del Lago Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221019-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-01-18
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Brenda C Norman Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Del Lago Community Association Counsel Mackenzie Hill, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Section 3.1(D)(3) of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party and RDLCA was ordered to comply with CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3) and refund the $500.00 filing fee. The specific remedy requested by Petitioner (ordering RDLCA to fine the neighbor or force light removal) was denied as the ALJ lacked statutory authority (A.R.S. § 32-2199.02) to grant that relief.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&R regarding flood illumination direction and ARC approval process.

Petitioner alleged that Respondent (RDLCA) violated CC&R 3.1(D)(3) because a neighbor installed flood lights shining onto Petitioner's property without RDLCA approval (ARC approval). The ALJ found RDLCA in violation because the lights were never approved.

Orders: RDLCA must comply with CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3) and pay Petitioner her $500.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was levied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Lighting, Architectural Review, Filing Fee Refund
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221019-REL Decision – 939490.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:27 (95.0 KB)

Questions

Question

Can an Administrative Law Judge order my HOA to fine a neighbor for a violation?

Short Answer

No, the ALJ does not have the statutory authority to order fines against neighbors.

Detailed Answer

Even if a violation is found, the ALJ explicitly stated that the statute does not grant them the power to order the HOA to fine a neighbor or to force a neighbor to remove non-compliant items.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority under the applicable statute to order that RDLCA fine or order the neighbor remove the lights.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Fines
  • Authority

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the community documents?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner filing the dispute must prove the HOA's violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence'. It is not the HOA's job to disprove it initially.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Evidence
  • Procedure

Question

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

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, because the homeowner was the prevailing party, the HOA was ordered to pay the $500 filing fee directly to the homeowner within 30 days.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Reimbursement
  • Prevailing Party

Question

Can I challenge my HOA for failing to enforce architectural rules on a neighbor?

Short Answer

Yes, if the HOA allows modifications without the required approval.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found the HOA in violation of the CC&Rs because the neighbor installed lights without the required Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approval, and the HOA failed to address this specific lack of approval.

Alj Quote

Because this never occurred, Respondent is in violation of CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3).

Legal Basis

CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3)

Topic Tags

  • Enforcement
  • Architectural Review
  • Lighting

Question

What happens if we don't provide the full text of the CC&Rs during the hearing?

Short Answer

The judge cannot rule on parts of the rules that are not provided.

Detailed Answer

The HOA tried to argue a rule applied only to the front yard, but because neither party submitted the full section of the CC&Rs, the judge could not verify that claim and had to rule based only on the evidence available.

Alj Quote

At the outset, neither party submitted the full Section 3.1 of the CC&R’s and the ALJ therefore cannot determine if the section in question applies to the front yard only.

Legal Basis

Evidentiary Standard

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • CC&Rs
  • Documentation

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?

Short Answer

It means the claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The decision defines this legal standard as proof that convinces the judge that a contention is 'more probably true than not,' even if there is still some doubt.

Alj Quote

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Legal Basis

Arizona Law of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • Legal Definitions
  • Standards

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221019-REL
Case Title
Brenda C Norman vs. Rancho Del Lago Community Association
Decision Date
2022-01-18
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can an Administrative Law Judge order my HOA to fine a neighbor for a violation?

Short Answer

No, the ALJ does not have the statutory authority to order fines against neighbors.

Detailed Answer

Even if a violation is found, the ALJ explicitly stated that the statute does not grant them the power to order the HOA to fine a neighbor or to force a neighbor to remove non-compliant items.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority under the applicable statute to order that RDLCA fine or order the neighbor remove the lights.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Fines
  • Authority

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the community documents?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner filing the dispute must prove the HOA's violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence'. It is not the HOA's job to disprove it initially.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Evidence
  • Procedure

Question

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

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, because the homeowner was the prevailing party, the HOA was ordered to pay the $500 filing fee directly to the homeowner within 30 days.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Reimbursement
  • Prevailing Party

Question

Can I challenge my HOA for failing to enforce architectural rules on a neighbor?

Short Answer

Yes, if the HOA allows modifications without the required approval.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found the HOA in violation of the CC&Rs because the neighbor installed lights without the required Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approval, and the HOA failed to address this specific lack of approval.

Alj Quote

Because this never occurred, Respondent is in violation of CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3).

Legal Basis

CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3)

Topic Tags

  • Enforcement
  • Architectural Review
  • Lighting

Question

What happens if we don't provide the full text of the CC&Rs during the hearing?

Short Answer

The judge cannot rule on parts of the rules that are not provided.

Detailed Answer

The HOA tried to argue a rule applied only to the front yard, but because neither party submitted the full section of the CC&Rs, the judge could not verify that claim and had to rule based only on the evidence available.

Alj Quote

At the outset, neither party submitted the full Section 3.1 of the CC&R’s and the ALJ therefore cannot determine if the section in question applies to the front yard only.

Legal Basis

Evidentiary Standard

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • CC&Rs
  • Documentation

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?

Short Answer

It means the claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The decision defines this legal standard as proof that convinces the judge that a contention is 'more probably true than not,' even if there is still some doubt.

Alj Quote

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Legal Basis

Arizona Law of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • Legal Definitions
  • Standards

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221019-REL
Case Title
Brenda C Norman vs. Rancho Del Lago Community Association
Decision Date
2022-01-18
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Brenda C Norman (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Mackenzie Hill (HOA attorney)
    The Brown Law Group, PLLC
    Represented Rancho Del Lago Community Association
  • Nathan Tennyson (HOA attorney)
    Represented Rancho Del Lago Community Association
  • Spencer Brod (community manager)
    Testified for Respondent

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of order transmission
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of order transmission
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of order transmission
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of order transmission

Joshua M Waldvogel v. Sycamore Estate Parcel 13 Community Association

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

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121044-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-12-15
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome total_loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Joshua M. Waldvogel Counsel —
Respondent Sycamore Estate Parcel 13 Community Association Counsel Nicole Payne

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(3); CC&Rs Article VI, Section 6.5

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge, upon rehearing, affirmed the denial of the petition, concluding that the Respondent HOA timely denied the Petitioner's architectural application. The timeline for a decision did not start until October 6, 2020, when the application was considered complete, making the November 19, 2020, denial valid.

Why this result: Petitioner lost because the interpretation of the CC&Rs stipulated that the 60-day timeline starts only upon receipt of a complete application, which the ALJ determined was October 6, 2020.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the architectural application for a casita was deemed approved due to the HOA missing the 60-day denial deadline.

Petitioner claimed his architectural application, submitted September 15, 2020, was deemed approved because the Denial Notice (November 19, 2020) occurred after the 60-day deadline (November 14, 2020). The ALJ determined that the 60-day period did not begin until the Application was complete with supporting information (October 6, 2020), making the deadline December 5, 2020, and the denial timely.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119
  • Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association
  • Powell v. Washburn
  • A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • Grubb & Ellis Management Services, Inc. v. 407417 B.C., L.L.C.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Architectural Review, Deemed Approval, HOA Timeline Compliance, CC&R Interpretation, Rehearing
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119
  • Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • Grubb & Ellis Management Services, Inc. v. 407417 B.C., L.L.C.

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121044-REL-RHG Decision – 933158.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:31 (106.1 KB)

21F-H2121044-REL-RHG Decision – ../21F-H2121044-REL/900658.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:34 (103.7 KB)





Briefing Doc – 21F-H2121044-REL-RHG


Briefing on Waldvogel v. Sycamore Estate Parcel 13 Community Association

Executive Summary

This briefing synthesizes the findings and conclusions from two administrative law judge decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Joshua M. Waldvogel (Petitioner) and the Sycamore Estate Parcel 13 Community Association (Respondent). The core of the conflict was the Petitioner’s application to build a second house, or “casita,” on his property, which was denied by the association’s Architectural Committee (ARC).

The central legal question was procedural: the timing of the association’s denial. The Petitioner argued that the 60-day review period stipulated in the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) began when he submitted his initial application on September 15, 2020. By this calculation, the association’s November 19, 2020 denial was late, and his application should have been “deemed approved.”

The Respondent countered that the 60-day clock only began after the Petitioner provided a response to a request for additional information on October 6, 2020, making the application complete on that date. This would make the November 19 denial timely.

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer presided over both an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing. In both instances, the Judge ruled in favor of the Respondent, finding that the application was not complete until the requested information was provided. The denial was therefore timely and valid. The Petitioner failed to prove that the association violated its governing documents, and his petition was denied in both the initial decision and the final, binding decision on rehearing.

Case Background

• Case Numbers: 21F-H2121044-REL & 21F-H2121044-REL-RHG

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

• Petitioner: Joshua M. Waldvogel, owner of Lot 228 at 11208 North 164th Lane, Surprise, Arizona 85388.

• Respondent: Sycamore Estate Parcel 13 Community Association (Sycamore Estates), a homeowners association in Surprise, Arizona.

• Core Issue: Petitioner sought approval from the Sycamore Estates Architectural Committee (ARC) to build a casita on his property. The ARC denied the application. The dispute centers on whether the denial was issued within the 60-day timeframe mandated by the community’s CC&Rs.

Chronology of Key Events

September 15, 2020

Petitioner submits an architectural application to build a casita.

October 5, 2020

Sycamore Estates requests additional information, specifically the required permits for the construction.

October 6, 2020

Petitioner emails a response, stating his architect verified compliance with city “laws” but does not provide permits.

November 13, 2020

The ARC reviews the application and decides to deny it based on CC&Rs Article V, Section 5.2.

November 14, 2020

The date the Petitioner asserts the 60-day deadline for a decision expired.

November 19, 2020

Sycamore Estates issues the official Denial Notice to the Petitioner.

December 5, 2020

The date the Respondent asserts the 60-day deadline for a decision expired.

July 12, 2021

Initial administrative hearing is held.

August 2, 2021

Initial decision is issued, denying the Petitioner’s petition.

November 29, 2021

A rehearing is held at the Petitioner’s request.

December 15, 2021

Final decision on rehearing is issued, again denying the Petitioner’s petition.

Central Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Position (Joshua M. Waldvogel)

• The 60-day timeline for the ARC to approve or deny the application began on the initial submission date of September 15, 2020.

• The deadline for the ARC’s decision was therefore November 14, 2020.

• The association’s request for additional information on October 5, 2020, did not “reset” or pause this timeline.

• Because the Denial Notice was not issued until November 19, 2020, five days after the deadline, the application should be considered “deemed approved” as per the CC&Rs.

• During the rehearing, the Petitioner also argued that Sycamore Estates could only require information listed on the standard submission form.

Respondent’s Position (Sycamore Estates)

• The application was not considered complete until the Petitioner responded to the request for additional information.

• The response, received on October 6, 2020, marked the start of the 60-day review period.

• The deadline for a decision was therefore December 5, 2020.

• The Denial Notice, issued on November 19, 2020, was well within this timeframe and was therefore valid.

Governing Documents and Legal Principles

The case revolved around the interpretation of the Sycamore Estates CC&Rs, which function as a binding contract between the homeowner and the association.

Key CC&R Provisions

• Article VI, Section 6.5 (Application for Approval): This section contains the critical language that formed the basis of the Judge’s decision. It states that the 60-day review period begins:

• Article V, Section 5.2 (Building Type and Size): This section provided the substantive basis for the ARC’s denial of the casita, as it specifies:

Legal Standard

• Burden of Proof: The Petitioner, as the party asserting the claim, had the burden of proof.

• Standard of Proof: The standard was a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as evidence with “the most convincing force” that is “sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

• Contract Interpretation: In Arizona, unambiguous restrictive covenants (like the CC&Rs) are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties.

Rulings and Judicial Rationale

The Administrative Law Judge consistently sided with the Respondent’s interpretation of the CC&Rs in both the initial hearing and the rehearing.

Initial Hearing and Decision (August 2, 2021)

• Finding: The Judge concluded that the application was not complete until the Petitioner provided his response on October 6, 2020.

• Rationale: Based on the language in Article VI, Section 6.5, the 60-day clock does not start until the application and all supporting information have been submitted. The association’s request for permits was a reasonable part of gathering this supporting information.

• Conclusion: The November 19, 2020 Denial Notice was issued prior to the December 5, 2020 deadline and was therefore valid. The Judge ordered that the “Petitioner’s petition is denied.”

Rehearing and Final Decision (December 15, 2021)

• Basis for Rehearing: The Petitioner requested a rehearing, alleging the initial decision was an “abuse of discretion.” His written basis was:

• Rehearing Arguments: During the rehearing, the Petitioner acknowledged that the Findings of Fact in the initial decision were not in error and presented the same legal arguments as before.

• Final Ruling: The Judge’s conclusion remained unchanged. Upon consideration of all evidence from the rehearing, the Judge again found that the application was not complete until October 6, 2020, and the denial was timely.

• Final Order: The Judge concluded that the “Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent failed to comply with its CC&Rs” and again ordered that the “Petitioner’s petition is denied.” This order was designated as binding on the parties, with any further appeal requiring judicial review in superior court.






Study Guide – 21F-H2121044-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Waldvogel v. Sycamore Estate Parcel 13 Community Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case between homeowner Joshua M. Waldvogel and the Sycamore Estate Parcel 13 Community Association. The materials are derived from the Administrative Law Judge Decisions issued on August 2, 2021, and December 15, 2021.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Short Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following ten questions based on the provided case documents. Each answer should be two to three sentences in length.

1. Who were the petitioner and the respondent in this case, and what specific project was the petitioner seeking approval for?

2. What was the central procedural dispute regarding the timeline for the respondent’s decision on the application?

3. According to the community’s CC&Rs, what is the consequence if the Architectural Committee fails to approve or disapprove an application within the specified timeframe?

4. On what substantive grounds did the Sycamore Estates Architectural Committee ultimately base its decision to deny Mr. Waldvogel’s application?

5. What key date did the petitioner, Mr. Waldvogel, argue was the start of the 60-day review period, and what was his reasoning?

6. What key date did the respondent, Sycamore Estates, argue was the start of the 60-day review period, and what was its reasoning?

7. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion in the initial hearing decision issued on August 2, 2021?

8. On what basis did the petitioner request a rehearing after the initial decision was rendered against him?

9. During the rehearing, did the petitioner introduce new evidence or arguments, or did he challenge the established Findings of Fact?

10. What legal standard of proof was required in this administrative hearing, and which party held the burden of proof?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. The petitioner was Joshua M. Waldvogel, the record owner of Lot 228. The respondent was the Sycamore Estate Parcel 13 Community Association. Mr. Waldvogel was seeking approval for a plan to build a second house, or casita, on his property.

2. The central dispute was determining when the 60-day timeline for the Architectural Committee’s decision officially began. The petitioner argued it started upon the initial application submission, while the respondent contended it began only after a request for additional information was answered, thereby making the application “complete.”

3. Article VI, Section 6.5 of the CC&Rs states that if the committee fails to act within sixty days after a complete application and all supporting information have been submitted, “approval will not be required and this Section will be deemed to have been complied with by the Owner.”

4. The committee denied the application based on Article V, Section 5.2 of the CC&Rs. This section explicitly prohibits the construction of more than “one detached Single Family Residence” on any lot.

5. The petitioner argued the 60-day review period began on September 15, 2020, the date he submitted his initial architectural application. This would have set the deadline at November 14, 2020, making the November 19 Denial Notice late and rendering the application “deemed approved.”

6. The respondent argued the 60-day period began on October 6, 2020, the date the petitioner responded to their request for additional information (permits). Sycamore Estates maintained the application was not complete until that response was received, which would set the deadline at December 5, 2020.

7. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the application was not complete until the petitioner provided a response to the October 5 request for information. Therefore, the Denial Notice issued on November 19, 2020, was timely and valid, and the petitioner’s petition was denied.

8. The petitioner requested a rehearing on the grounds that the initial decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” His written statement argued that the CC&Rs do not explicitly state that the review timeline restarts upon a request for more information.

9. No, the petitioner did not introduce new arguments. He presented the same arguments during the rehearing as he had in the initial hearing and acknowledged that the Findings of Fact from the first decision did not contain any errors, choosing only to argue their legal effect.

10. The standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence.” The petitioner, as the party asserting a claim, had the burden of proof to establish that the respondent violated the governing documents.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for deeper analysis of the case. Formulate comprehensive essay responses that synthesize facts and legal principles from the source documents.

1. Analyze the significance of Article VI, Section 6.5 of the CC&Rs, specifically the clause “together with all supporting information, plans and specifications required by the Design Guidelines have been submitted to it.” How did the interpretation of this specific language become the central legal issue of the case, and why was it determinative of the outcome?

2. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the legal decisions. Explain which party had the burden of proof and evaluate how the Administrative Law Judge applied this standard to the undisputed facts of the case to reach her conclusions in both the initial hearing and the rehearing.

3. The petitioner’s proposed casita was ultimately denied on the substantive grounds that it violated Article V, Section 5.2 of the CC&Rs. Why did the legal proceedings focus almost entirely on the procedural issue of the decision timeline rather than the substantive prohibition of a second residence on the lot?

4. Examine the petitioner’s basis for requesting a rehearing and the Commissioner’s decision to grant it. Despite the rehearing being granted, the Administrative Law Judge’s decision remained unchanged. Discuss the effectiveness of the petitioner’s arguments during the rehearing process as described in the legal documents.

5. The legal decisions state that CC&Rs are a contract between the parties and that unambiguous restrictive covenants must be enforced to give effect to the parties’ intent. Based on the details provided in this case, explain how the principles of contract law were applied to resolve the dispute between Mr. Waldvogel and the Sycamore Estates association.

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues legally binding decisions. In this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer.

Application

The comprehensive and detailed written request submitted by a homeowner to the Architectural Committee for approval of construction, alteration, or other improvements that would alter the exterior appearance of the property.

Architectural Committee (ARC)

The committee within the Sycamore Estates Community Association responsible for reviewing and approving or denying modifications to lots to ensure compliance with the CC&Rs and Design Guidelines.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal case to provide evidence to prove their claims. In this matter, the petitioner had the burden of proof.

Casita

A small, secondary house or guesthouse. This was the type of structure Mr. Waldvogel sought to build on his property.

CC&Rs (Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

A legally binding document that governs a planned community or subdivision. The courts treat it as a contract between the homeowners’ association and the property owners.

Denial Notice

The official written communication from the homeowners’ association (Sycamore Estates) informing a homeowner (Mr. Waldvogel) that their architectural application has been formally denied.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition seeking a legal remedy. In this case, homeowner Joshua M. Waldvogel.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in this matter, defined as “The greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Property

The specific lot owned by the petitioner, identified as Lot 228 of Sycamore Estates, located at 11208 North 164th Lane, Surprise, Arizona 85388.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who must respond to the claims. In this case, the Sycamore Estate Parcel 13 Community Association.

Restrictive Covenant

A provision within the CC&Rs that limits the use of property. Article V, Section 5.2, which prohibits more than one detached residence per lot, is an example of a restrictive covenant.






Blog Post – 21F-H2121044-REL-RHG


He Tried to Use a 60-Day Deadline to Beat His HOA. Here’s What the Judge Decided.

Introduction: The Waiting Game

You’ve done the research, hired the architect, and finally submitted your home improvement plans to the Homeowners Association (HOA). Now, the waiting game begins. The days tick by, and you start wondering: What happens if they miss their own deadline to respond? Can you just start building?

A recent administrative law case in Arizona provides a fascinating and cautionary answer to this very question. It serves as a stark reminder that your community’s governing documents—the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)—are a legally binding contract, and assumptions about deadlines can lead to a losing battle.

——————————————————————————–

The Core of the Dispute: A Casita and a Calendar

The case involved Joshua M. Waldvogel, a homeowner in the Sycamore Estates community in Surprise, Arizona. His goal was to build a second house, or “casita,” on his property.

The conflict centered on a simple timeline. Waldvogel submitted his application on September 15, 2020. He argued the HOA had 60 days to respond, making the deadline November 14. When the HOA sent its denial on November 19, Waldvogel claimed that because the denial was late, his project was automatically “deemed approved.” This dispute over a five-day difference escalated to an administrative law hearing. Here are the key takeaways from the judge’s decision that every homeowner should understand.

1. The 60-Day Clock Doesn’t Start Until Your Application is “Complete”

The homeowner believed the 60-day review clock started the moment he sent his initial application. The judge, however, disagreed based on the precise wording in the HOA’s CC&Rs—the binding contract governing the community.

The power was in the fine print. Article VI, Section 6.5 of the CC&Rs stated:

In the event that the Architectural Committee fails to approve or disapprove an Application for approval within sixty (60) days after the Application, together with all supporting information, plans and specifications required by the Design Guidelines have been submitted to it, approval will not be required…

This single clause was the linchpin of the entire case. On October 5, the HOA requested additional information—specifically, the appropriate permits for the proposed construction. The next day, the homeowner responded, but according to the case findings, he “did not provide any permits as requested.” Instead, he emailed to confirm that his architect had verified the plans complied with city “laws.”

The judge ruled that the 60-day clock never started on September 15 because the application wasn’t yet “complete.” The HOA’s simple request for more information was the pivotal event. It established that the official start date for the review period was October 6, the day the homeowner provided his response. This made the November 19 denial well within the required timeframe. The crucial lesson here is that an HOA’s request for information can determine the official start date of their review, regardless of when you first submitted paperwork.

2. The Underlying Rules Are Your Biggest Hurdle

The entire legal battle focused on the procedural timeline—when the HOA denied the project. But in a twist of irony, the substance of the project—what was being proposed—was a non-starter from the beginning.

Even if the homeowner had won his argument about the deadline, his project was in direct violation of another core rule. Article V, Section 5.2 of the CC&Rs clearly stated:

No building shall be constructed or permitted to remain on any lot other than one detached Single Family Residence…

The homeowner fought and lost a battle over how he was denied, when the rules clearly stated his casita project was never going to be approved in the first place. This highlights a critical point: winning a procedural argument is meaningless if your project fundamentally violates the community’s substantive rules.

3. You Can Appeal, But It’s an Uphill Battle

After losing the initial hearing, the homeowner filed for a rehearing, claiming the judge’s decision was an “abuse of discretion.” The appeal, however, only solidified the original outcome and underscored the difficulty of such challenges.

The legal record from the rehearing is particularly telling. The judge noted two critical facts: first, the petitioner “acknowledged that the Findings of Fact set forth in the underlying decision in this matter did not include any errors.” Second, he “presented the same arguments during the rehearing that he provided during the initial hearing.”

In essence, the homeowner appealed without disputing the established facts and by using the same legal argument that had already failed. Unsurprisingly, the judge’s decision remained the same, and the petition was denied again. This serves as a potent reminder that challenging an HOA’s interpretation of its own governing documents can be a difficult, expensive, and often fruitless endeavor.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Read the Fine Print Before You Dream

This case serves as a powerful lesson for every homeowner living under an HOA. Your community’s CC&Rs are a binding contract, and the specific language within them holds immense power. Assumptions about procedures, deadlines, and what you’re allowed to build can be costly mistakes.

It all boils down to one final, critical question: When was the last time you read your community’s governing documents, and what crucial detail might be waiting in the fine print?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Joshua M. Waldvogel (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Nicole Payne (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP
    Represented Respondent
  • Carlotta L. Turman (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Addressed during initial decision transmission
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Addressed during rehearing decision transmission
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient for case transmission
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient for case transmission
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient for case transmission
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient for case transmission

Joshua M Waldvogel v. Sycamore Estate Parcel 13 Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121044-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-12-15
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome total_loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Joshua M. Waldvogel Counsel —
Respondent Sycamore Estate Parcel 13 Community Association Counsel Nicole Payne

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(3); CC&Rs Article VI, Section 6.5

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge, upon rehearing, affirmed the denial of the petition, concluding that the Respondent HOA timely denied the Petitioner's architectural application. The timeline for a decision did not start until October 6, 2020, when the application was considered complete, making the November 19, 2020, denial valid.

Why this result: Petitioner lost because the interpretation of the CC&Rs stipulated that the 60-day timeline starts only upon receipt of a complete application, which the ALJ determined was October 6, 2020.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the architectural application for a casita was deemed approved due to the HOA missing the 60-day denial deadline.

Petitioner claimed his architectural application, submitted September 15, 2020, was deemed approved because the Denial Notice (November 19, 2020) occurred after the 60-day deadline (November 14, 2020). The ALJ determined that the 60-day period did not begin until the Application was complete with supporting information (October 6, 2020), making the deadline December 5, 2020, and the denial timely.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119
  • Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association
  • Powell v. Washburn
  • A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • Grubb & Ellis Management Services, Inc. v. 407417 B.C., L.L.C.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Architectural Review, Deemed Approval, HOA Timeline Compliance, CC&R Interpretation, Rehearing
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119
  • Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • Grubb & Ellis Management Services, Inc. v. 407417 B.C., L.L.C.

Decision Documents

21F-H2121044-REL Decision – 900658.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-17T18:19:43 (103.7 KB)

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Joshua M. Waldvogel (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf in both hearings

Respondent Side

  • Nicole Payne (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP
    Represented Sycamore Estate Parcel 13 Community Association
  • Carlotta L. Turman (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge for both original and rehearing decisions
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of the original decision transmission
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of the rehearing decision transmission
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient for decision transmission
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient for decision transmission
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient for decision transmission
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient for rehearing decision transmission

Clifford (Norm) S. Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association,

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

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120002-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-08-09
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Clifford Burnes and Maria Burnes Counsel Cynthia F. Burnes, Esq.
Respondent Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel John Crotty, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Section 5
Architectural Design Guidelines Section 4.0
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A), (D), and (E)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The final decision affirmed the denial of Issues 1, 2, and 3, and the granting of Issue 4. The Association was found to have violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 for failing to provide complete records in a timely manner, resulting in the reimbursement of 1/4 of the filing fee.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to sustain the burden of proof regarding alleged violations of CC&Rs Section 5, Architectural Design Guidelines Section 4.0, and A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), (D), and (E).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&Rs Section 5

Petitioners alleged that the HOA violated the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), Section 5, by allowing construction on Lot 7 without prior ARC approval of required documents.

Orders: Petition denied.

Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Section 5

Alleged violation of Community Agricultural Design Guidelines Section 4.0

Petitioners alleged that the HOA violated the Architectural Design Guidelines, Section 4.0, by failing to require the required $5,000.00 Construction Compliance Deposit for Lot 7.

Orders: Petition denied.

Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Architectural Design Guidelines Section 4.0
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821

Alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), (D), and (E)

Petitioners alleged that the Board conducted an unnoticed closed meeting in violation of Arizona open meeting statutes.

Orders: Petition denied.

Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(E)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT § 10-3821

Alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805

Petitioners alleged that the HOA failed to timely and completely fulfill a records request submitted on June 04, 2020, specifically by failing to provide missing email attachments.

Orders: Respondent must reimburse 1/4 of Petitioners' filing fee ($125.00). Respondent must henceforth comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 and provide the missing email attachments within 10-business days.

Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Statute Violation, Records Request, Filing Fee Refund, Architectural Review, Open Meetings
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(E)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821
  • CC&Rs Section 5
  • Architectural Design Guidelines Section 4.0

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120002-REL-RHG Decision – 902726.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:34:19 (239.9 KB)

21F-H2120002-REL-RHG Decision – ../21F-H2120002-REL/866263.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:34:23 (268.5 KB)





Briefing Doc – 21F-H2120002-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and legal proceedings in the case of Clifford (Norm) and Maria Burnes (“Petitioners”) versus the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. (“Respondent”). The dispute, adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), centered on a four-issue petition filed by the Burnes on July 17, 2020. The allegations concerned construction on a neighboring property (Lot 7), specifically violations of architectural rules, failure to collect a construction deposit, violations of open meeting laws, and failure to fulfill a records request.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found in favor of the Respondent on the first three issues, concluding that the association had not violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding architectural control, had properly honored a waiver for the construction deposit, and had not violated state open meeting laws. However, the ALJ found that the Respondent did violate Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805 by failing to provide copies of requested records within the statutory 10-day deadline and by providing an incomplete set of documents.

Following the initial decision, the Petitioners were granted a rehearing on the grounds of newly discovered evidence and an allegedly arbitrary decision. The rehearing affirmed the original findings, as the Petitioners conceded they possessed no new evidence that could not have been produced at the original hearing.

The final order requires the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioners for a portion of their filing fee, to comply with the records request statute moving forward, and to provide the specific missing documents from the original request.

Case Background and Procedural History

The case involves property owners Clifford (Norm) and Maria Burnes, who own Lot 6 in the Saguaro Crest subdivision in Tucson, Arizona, and their homeowners’ association. The dispute arose from the construction of a new home on the adjacent Lot 7.

• July 17, 2020: The Petitioners filed a four-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• August 11, 2020: The Respondent HOA filed its answer, denying all four claims.

• August 19, 2020: The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for an evidentiary hearing.

• December 2020 & March 2021: Hearings were conducted before Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark.

• March 22, 2021: The initial ALJ Decision was issued, denying the Petitioners’ claims on three issues but granting their petition on the fourth issue concerning the records request.

• April 28, 2021: The Petitioners filed a Dispute Rehearing Request on the grounds of “Newly discovered material evidence” and that the decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”

• May 21, 2021: The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted the rehearing request.

• July 20, 2021: The rehearing was conducted.

• August 09, 2021: A Final Administrative Law Judge Decision was issued, affirming the original decision in its entirety.

Analysis of Allegations and Findings

The petition presented four distinct issues for adjudication. The findings for each are detailed below, based on the evidence presented in the hearings.

Issue 1: Alleged Violation of CC&Rs Section 5 (Architectural Control)

• Allegation: The Petitioners claimed the HOA allowed construction on Lot 7 to proceed without the required submission of documents to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) for approval, specifically concerning modifications to the originally approved plans.

• Key Evidence:

◦ Petitioner Norm Burnes was a member of the ARC that unanimously approved the initial construction plans for Lot 7 on January 3, 2018.

◦ On October 21, 2018, and again on April 14, 2020, Mr. Burnes expressed concerns to the HOA Board that the placement of the home on Lot 7 deviated from the approved plans, negatively impacting the view and privacy of his own home on Lot 6.

◦ In a letter, Mr. Burnes stated, “Mr. Martinez did not honer the approved plan and has placed the house in the original position,” which he claimed was disharmonious and destroyed his view.

◦ The evidence showed that no additional or modified plans were ever submitted to the ARC for review after the initial January 2018 approval.

◦ The construction plans for Lot 7 were approved by Pima County on May 4, 2018.

• Conclusion: No violation found. The ALJ concluded that the “ARC cannot approve or deny proposed plans unless they are submitted for review.” Since no modified plans were ever presented, the ARC did not violate the CC&Rs. The decision also noted that the construction complied with the local government’s building authority.

Issue 2: Alleged Violation of Design Guidelines Section 4.0 (Construction Deposit)

• Allegation: The Petitioners claimed the HOA allowed construction on Lot 7 without collecting the required $5,000 refundable Construction Compliance Deposit.

• Key Evidence:

◦ In a meeting on May 3, 2020, the HOA Board of Directors decided to honor a Construction Compliance Deposit Waiver that had been previously granted to the Martinez family (owners of Lot 7).

◦ The rationale for such waivers was that they were granted during an economic downturn to incentivize property purchases in the subdivision.

◦ Crucially, the HOA “does not possess a corporate record that any such Construction Compliance Deposit Waiver was previously granted to the Martinez family.”

• Conclusion: No violation found. The ALJ determined that it was “clear that Lot 7 was granted a construction compliance deposit waiver.” The lack of a documented record explaining the details of the waiver was acknowledged but considered moot because it was not a specifically “noticed issue” in the petition.

Issue 3: Alleged Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Open Meeting Laws)

• Allegation: The Petitioners claimed the HOA Board conducted an unnoticed meeting on or about May 20, 2020, to consider matters relevant to Petitioner Norm Burnes, violating state open meeting laws.

• Key Evidence:

◦ On April 18, 2020, Mr. Burnes requested an urgent meeting with the Board, which was held the following day.

◦ On May 20, 2020, the Board acted via unanimous written consent, as permitted under A.R.S § 10-3821, to restrict Mr. Burnes’s participation as an ARC member only on matters related to Lot 7.

◦ The Board’s written consent stated, “[T]he Board of Directors hereby unanimously agree that [Petitioner] be removed as an ARC Member for all ARC related matters concerning Lot 7.” This action was taken due to Mr. Burnes’s personal complaints against the Lot 7 owner, creating a conflict of interest.

• Conclusion: No violation found. The ALJ found that the Board’s failure to notice the April 19 meeting was an excused exception because the Petitioner himself had requested it as an urgent matter. The action on May 20 was not an illegal meeting but a permissible action taken via written consent without a meeting. Furthermore, the Board did not remove Mr. Burnes from the ARC entirely, but only restricted his involvement on the specific issue where he had a conflict.

Issue 4: Alleged Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Records Request)

• Allegation: The Petitioners claimed the HOA failed to fulfill a records request in accordance with state law.

• Key Evidence:

◦ On June 4, 2020, the Petitioners submitted a comprehensive request to review “ALL of the documents of the HOA” and for copies of documents falling into 17 specific categories, demanding fulfillment within 10 days.

◦ The statutory deadline for the HOA to comply with both the review and copy requests was June 18, 2020.

◦ The HOA made the documents available for review on June 16, 2020 (within the deadline).

◦ However, the HOA provided copies of the documents only on June 24, 2020, six days past the statutory deadline.

◦ Upon receiving the copies, Mr. Burnes notified the HOA the same day that “[S]ome of the attachments for some emails are not included within in this package from this documentation.” [sic]

• Conclusion: Violation found. The ALJ determined that the HOA violated the statute, which requires copies of requested records to be provided within ten business days. The Respondent’s argument that the Petitioner’s clarification on June 16 reset the deadline was explicitly rejected. The decision also noted that the documents provided were incomplete.

The Rehearing

The Petitioners’ request for a rehearing was granted, but it did not alter the case’s outcome.

• Grounds for Rehearing: The request was based on claims of newly discovered evidence and that the original findings on issues 1-3 were arbitrary or capricious.

• Rehearing Proceedings: During the rehearing, the “Petitioners offered no ‘new’ evidence and instead conceded that they wished to present evidence which they had in their possession during the prior hearing, that they markedly had decided not to present.”

• Outcome: Because no new evidence was presented, the Petitioners were precluded from recalling witnesses or offering additional exhibits. The ALJ found no basis to alter the original findings and affirmed the March 22, 2021, decision.

Final Order

The Final Administrative Law Judge Decision, dated August 9, 2021, affirmed the original order. The Respondent, Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, is mandated to perform the following actions:

1. Denial and Granting of Petitions: The Petitioners’ petition is denied for Issues 1, 2, and 3. The petition is granted for Issue 4.

2. Reimbursement: The Respondent must reimburse the Petitioners for one-quarter of their filing fee, amounting to $500.00, to be paid in certified funds.

3. Future Compliance: The Respondent must henceforth comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding member access to association records.

4. Provision of Documents: The Respondent must provide the Petitioners with the missing email attachments related to the June 4, 2020, records request within 10 business days of the final order’s effective date.






Study Guide – 21F-H2120002-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following ten questions based on the provided source documents. Each answer should be approximately two to three sentences.

1. Identify the primary parties in this legal dispute and describe their relationship within the Saguaro Crest community.

2. What were the four specific allegations the Petitioners filed against the Respondent on July 17, 2020?

3. Explain Petitioner Norm Burnes’s initial role with the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and how the Board of Directors later altered his participation.

4. Describe the controversy surrounding the $5,000 Construction Compliance Deposit for the construction on Lot 7.

5. What was the central grievance expressed by the Petitioners regarding the placement and construction of the new home on Lot 7?

6. What action did the Board of Directors take on May 20, 2020, without a formal, noticed meeting, and under what legal authority did they act?

7. Summarize the timeline and outcome of the Petitioners’ June 4, 2020, records request to the Association.

8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately rule in favor of the Petitioners on Issue 4, regarding the violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805?

9. On what grounds did the Petitioners request a rehearing, and what was the judge’s finding regarding the “new evidence” they wished to present?

10. What was the final, affirmed order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Clifford (Norm) S. and Maria Burnes (the “Petitioners”) and the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. (the “Respondent”). The Petitioners are property owners in the Saguaro Crest subdivision, making them members of the Association, which is the governing body for the community.

2. The Petitioners alleged that the Association (1) improperly allowed construction on Lot 7 without required ARC approval in violation of CC&Rs Section 5; (2) allowed this construction without the required Construction Compliance Deposit; (3) conducted an unnoticed meeting in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804; and (4) failed to fulfill a records request in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

3. Petitioner Norm Burnes was named to serve as an Architecture Review Committee (ARC) member effective December 5, 2017, and he participated in the unanimous approval of the Lot 7 construction plans. On May 20, 2020, the Board of Directors restricted his participation as an ARC member for all matters concerning Lot 7 due to his personal complaints, which created a conflict of interest.

4. The Association’s Architectural Design Guidelines require a refundable $5,000 Construction Compliance Deposit. The Board decided to honor a discretionary waiver for Lot 7, which was said to have been granted during an economic downturn to incentivize purchases, though the Association possessed no corporate record of the waiver being granted.

5. The Petitioners’ central grievance was that the house on Lot 7 was placed too close to their backyard (on Lot 6), destroying their views, violating their privacy, and causing stress. They contended that the owner of Lot 7 did not honor the approved plan and built the house in its original, unapproved position.

6. On May 20, 2020, the Board of Directors acted without a noticed meeting to restrict Petitioner Norm Burnes’s participation on the ARC for matters related to Lot 7. They acted under the authority of ARIZ. REV. STAT § 10-3821, which permits action without a meeting if all directors provide written consent, which they obtained via individual signatures.

7. On June 4, 2020, Petitioners requested to review all Association records and receive copies of documents from 17 specific categories. The Association offered a review on June 16 (within the 10-day limit), but did not provide the requested copies until June 24, which was after the statutory deadline of June 18. Furthermore, the copies provided were incomplete, missing some email attachments.

8. The Judge ruled a violation occurred because the Association failed to provide copies of the requested records within the ten business days mandated by the statute. The Judge rejected the Association’s argument that the Petitioner’s clarification on June 16 reset the deadline, stating the Association was obligated to timely clarify and provide the documents.

9. The Petitioners requested a rehearing on the grounds of “Newly discovered material evidence” and that the initial decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” The judge found that the Petitioners offered no new evidence, but rather wished to present evidence they had possessed but strategically chose not to use in the original hearing.

10. The final, affirmed order granted the Petitioners’ petition regarding Issue 4 and denied it for Issues 1-3. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioners for ¼ of their filing fee ($500.00), comply with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 going forward, and provide the missing email attachments from the records request within 10 business days.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth, essay-style response. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the legal concept of “burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence” as it was applied in this case. Explain why the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioners successfully met this burden for the records request violation but failed to do so for their allegations concerning the CC&Rs, the construction deposit, and the open meeting laws.

2. Discuss the role, authority, and limitations of a Homeowners’ Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) as depicted in the source documents. Evaluate the Saguaro Crest ARC’s actions and failures to act regarding the construction on Lot 7, and explain why the Judge determined that no violation of CC&Rs Section 5 had occurred.

3. Examine the conflict of interest involving Petitioner Norm Burnes’s dual roles as an aggrieved neighbor and a member of the ARC. Detail how this conflict emerged, the specific actions the Board of Directors took to address it, and the legal justification for those actions.

4. Trace the full timeline of events related to the Board of Directors’ meetings in April and May 2020. Analyze the Petitioners’ claim that these constituted a violation of Arizona’s open meeting laws (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804) and the Judge’s legal reasoning for concluding that no violation was established.

5. Evaluate the Petitioners’ request for a rehearing. Based on the Final Administrative Law Judge Decision, explain the legal standard for granting a rehearing based on “newly discovered material evidence” and why the Petitioners’ offer of proof failed to meet this standard.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The presiding official (Jenna Clark) at the Office of Administrative Hearings who hears evidence, makes Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues orders in the case.

Architectural Review Committee (ARC)

A committee established by the Association’s CC&Rs, charged with implementing Architectural Guidelines to maintain aesthetic standards within the community. In this case, Petitioner Norm Burnes was a member.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)

The state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations in Arizona.

ARIZ. REV. STAT.

Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona. Specific statutes, such as § 33-1804 (open meeting laws) and § 33-1805 (records access), were central to this case.

Board of Directors (the Board)

The overseeing body of the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, comprised of a President, Vice President, and Treasurer.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding (in this case, the Petitioners) to produce evidence that proves the claims they have made against the other party.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The governing documents for the Saguaro Crest community that form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, controlling aspects of property use.

Construction Compliance Deposit (CCD)

A refundable $5,000.00 deposit required by Section 4.0 of the Association’s Architectural Design Guidelines, which became a point of contention regarding Lot 7.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency in Arizona where the evidentiary hearings for this case were held.

Petitioners

Clifford (Norm) S. Burnes and Maria Burnes, the property owners of Lot 6 who filed the petition against the Homeowners Association.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this proceeding, defined as evidence that is more convincing and has superior weight, making it more probable that a contention is true than not true.

Respondent

The Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc., the non-profit corporation governing the subdivision and the party against whom the petition was filed.






Blog Post – 21F-H2120002-REL-RHG


He Sued His HOA and Won… Sort Of. 4 Shocking Lessons from a Neighbor vs. HOA Showdown

Introduction: The Neighbor’s Nightmare

It’s a scenario that sparks anxiety for any homeowner: you look out your window and see the first signs of a new construction project on the property next door. The questions immediately flood your mind. Will it block my view? Will I lose my privacy? Will this new structure change the character of the neighborhood I love?

When a decision by a Homeowners’ Association (HOA) feels threatening, the impulse to fight back is strong. But what does that fight actually look like, and what does it mean to “win”?

The real-life case of the Burnes family versus the Saguaro Crest HOA in Arizona provides a masterclass in the unexpected realities of neighbor-versus-HOA disputes. They took their fight to an administrative hearing, and the official legal decision reveals surprising and counter-intuitive lessons for any homeowner. Here are the four most impactful takeaways from that legal showdown—critical warnings for anyone who thinks going to battle with their HOA is a straightforward affair.

1. He Helped Approve the Plans He Grew to Hate

In a turn of profound irony, the petitioner leading the charge against the HOA, Mr. Norm Burnes, was a serving member of the very committee that set the entire conflict in motion: the HOA’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC).

On January 3, 2018, the ARC, including Mr. Burnes, unanimously approved the construction plans for the neighboring home on Lot 7. At the time, they were just plans on paper. But more than two years would pass before Mr. Burnes raised an alarm—long after the abstract lines on a page had become concrete and steel next door. On April 14, 2020, with construction underway, the reality of the new build became a personal grievance. Mr. Burnes wrote to the board, explaining that the new house was a “constant source of stress” for his family, that his privacy was “violated / gone,” and that his cherished views were “destroyed.”

In his own words, the impact was devastating:

“A large part of the value to me for my house was the view from the back patio. That’s gone now. The view from my kitchen and bedroom windows are destroyed.”

This is a powerful lesson in unintended consequences. It reveals how abstract plans can become deeply personal issues once construction begins. More importantly, it highlights the inherent conflict that can arise when a homeowner acts in an official capacity for the community while also trying to protect their own personal interests.

2. The HOA Won on Substance, But Lost on a Technicality

The Burnes family filed a formal petition with four distinct allegations against their HOA. In a striking outcome, the judge sided with the HOA on the three major, substantive issues at the heart of the dispute.

• Construction Plans: The judge found the HOA was not at fault for the final build. No modified plans were ever submitted for the ARC to review after the initial approval, and the construction itself complied with the local government’s authority.

• $5,000 Deposit: The judge concluded that the Lot 7 owner had been granted a waiver for the required construction deposit, even though the HOA lacked a formal record of it—a stroke of luck for the board that highlights the critical importance of meticulous record-keeping.

• Improper Meeting: The judge determined that the Board had not improperly removed Mr. Burnes from the ARC; they had only “removed [him] as an ARC Member for all ARC related matters concerning Lot 7,” a targeted recusal due to his direct conflict of interest, not a full removal from the committee. Furthermore, the meeting Mr. Burnes complained about was deemed a valid emergency meeting held at his own request.

Despite winning on these core points, the HOA was found in violation of the law on the fourth issue: a simple procedural error. The HOA had violated Arizona statute ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to provide copies of requested records within the legally mandated 10-business day deadline. While the HOA allowed the Burnes family to review the documents on time (on June 16, within the June 18 deadline), they failed to provide the physical copies until June 24, four business days past the legal deadline.

This demonstrates a critical lesson for any organization. An entity can win the arguments on major issues but still be found in violation of the law for a minor administrative slip-up. Procedural diligence isn’t just good practice; it’s a legal requirement that can define the outcome of a case.

3. A Legal “Victory” Doesn’t Always Solve the Real Problem

So, what did the Burnes family “win” after their long and stressful legal battle? The judge’s final order was clear and specific. They received:

• A reimbursement of 1/4 of their filing fee ($500).

• An order for the HOA to provide the missing email attachments from their records request.

• An order for the HOA to comply with the records-request law in the future.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to Mr. Burnes’s original, deeply personal complaint. His fight began because the new house was a “constant source of stress” and had destroyed his backyard view. The legal ruling, however, did nothing to halt or alter the construction on Lot 7. The neighbor’s house, the very source of the entire conflict, remained exactly where it was.

This is a sobering look at the difference between a legal remedy and a practical solution. Winning in an administrative hearing is defined strictly by the letter of the law. The legal system addresses violations of statutes and governing documents, which may not align with—or offer any solution for—the personal grievance that ignited the conflict in the first place.

4. You Don’t Get a Do-Over for a Bad Strategy

Unhappy with the initial decision, the petitioners filed for a rehearing. The official grounds they cited were serious: they claimed to have “Newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.”

But when the rehearing began, the reality was quite different. As stated in the final decision, the petitioners conceded that they possessed no new evidence at all. Instead, they admitted they had strategically chosen not to present certain evidence during the first hearing and were now asking for a second chance to do so.

The judge’s response was swift and decisive. The petitioners were “precluded from recalling… witnesses, or offering additional exhibits,” and the original decision was affirmed.

This serves as a stark reminder that legal proceedings are formal and final. A trial or administrative hearing is not a practice run. The petitioners’ admission that they deliberately withheld evidence was a fatal strategic error, turning their request for a second chance into a confirmation of their first failure.

Conclusion: The Letter vs. The Spirit of the Law

The showdown between the Burnes family and the Saguaro Crest HOA is a compelling story of unintended consequences, procedural missteps, and strategic blunders. But taken together, the lessons reveal a single, powerful truth: the legal system is designed to correct violations of law, not to soothe personal grievances. The family won on a paperwork technicality but lost on every issue that mattered to their quality of life. The HOA won on the substance of the dispute but was penalized for failing to follow administrative rules.

The case leaves us with a critical question to consider. When you find yourself in a dispute, is it more important to be legally ‘right,’ or to find a practical resolution? As the Burnes family discovered, the two are not always the same thing.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Clifford Burnes (petitioner/ARC member)
    Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Also known as Norm S. Burnes
  • Maria Burnes (petitioner)
    Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
  • Cynthia F. Burnes (petitioner attorney)
    Counsel for Petitioners
  • Jacob A. Kubert (petitioner attorney)
    Counsel for Petitioners
  • Debora Brown (witness)
    Witness for Petitioners

Respondent Side

  • John Crotty (respondent attorney)
    Law Offices of Farley, Choate & Wood
    Counsel for Respondent
  • Kelsea Dressen (respondent attorney)
    Law Offices of Farley, Choate & Wood
    Counsel for Respondent (also listed as Kelsey P. Dressen)
  • Esmerelda Martinez (board member/witness)
    Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Board President
  • Dave Madill (board member)
    Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Board Vice President
  • Julie Stevens (board member)
    Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Board Treasurer
  • Raul Martinez (lot owner)
    Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Owner of Lot 7
  • Ramona Martinez (lot owner)
    Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Owner of Lot 7
  • Joseph Martinez (ARC member)
    Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
  • Jamie Argueta (ARC member)
    Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
  • Jesus Carranza (substitute ARC member)
    Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Dan Gardener (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of order transmission (listed as DGardner)
  • c. serrano (administrative staff)
    Transmitted decision/order

Other Participants

  • Sadot Negreté (observer)

Charles P Mandela vs. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

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

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-04-27
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Charles P Mandela Counsel —
Respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners' Association Counsel Nicholas Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article X; A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated Article X of the CC&R’s regarding the denial of an architectural modification request (patio shade). The Respondent was found to be the prevailing party, and the appeal (rehearing) was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation of the CC&R's by a preponderance of the evidence. The ALJ concluded the Respondent acted in compliance with the CC&R’s Section 10.2 and 10.3 when denying the request, and Petitioner failed to follow the requisite procedures in Section 10.3 to appeal the denial.

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of request for patio shade structure

Petitioner challenged the HOA's denial of his application to build a patio shade. The HOA denied the request stating that 'Only one structure other than the residence may be placed on the property,' and a shed already existed. Petitioner argued the shade, being attached, was not a stand-alone structure. The ALJ upheld the denial, finding the HOA acted in compliance with CC&Rs Article X, Sections 10.2 and 10.3, and that Petitioner failed to follow appeal procedures outlined in Section 10.3.

Orders: Petitioner's appeal (rehearing request) was dismissed, and Respondent was declared the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • CC&R Article X
  • CC&R Section 10.3
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Architectural Review, Denial, Rehearing, Burden of proof
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020042-REL-RHG Decision – 876009.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:51 (118.9 KB)

20F-H2020042-REL-RHG Decision – ../20F-H2020042-REL/850032.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-20T13:55:35 (113.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG


Briefing on Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from two administrative law judge decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Charles P. Mandela and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association (“Blue Ridge”). The core issue was Blue Ridge’s denial of Mr. Mandela’s request to build a patio shade structure.

In the initial hearing on January 13, 2021, Mr. Mandela argued the denial was erroneous because the shade would be attached to his house, not a separate structure, and that similar structures existed in the community. Blue Ridge defended its decision based on Article X of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which limits properties to one structure besides the main residence. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Mr. Mandela’s petition, finding that Blue Ridge acted within the authority granted by its CC&Rs, as its architectural standards were not exhaustive and it provided a reasonably detailed written reason for the denial.

Following this decision, Mr. Mandela was granted a rehearing, which took place on April 16, 2021. During this second hearing, he introduced a new argument that Blue Ridge had violated Article 10.3 of the CC&Rs by failing to respond to his request within the stipulated 30-day timeframe. However, the ALJ found that the same article specifies that a failure to respond results in the request being “deemed disapproved.” The ALJ concluded that Mr. Mandela had failed to follow the subsequent appeal procedures outlined in the CC&Rs and again failed to meet his burden of proof. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Blue Ridge was declared the prevailing party. Notably, during the rehearing, Mr. Mandela testified that his request for the patio shade had since been approved by the Blue Ridge board.

Initial Hearing and Decision (Case No. 20F-H2020042-REL)

The first evidentiary hearing was held on January 13, 2021, before Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone to address Mr. Mandela’s petition alleging Blue Ridge violated its CC&Rs.

The Core Dispute

• Petitioner’s Request: On August 28, 2019, Charles P. Mandela submitted a request to build a “patio shade less than 200 sq. feet,” described as a four-post structure he intended to attach to the east wall of his residence.

• Respondent’s Denial: On October 25, 2019, Blue Ridge denied the request, stating: “Only one structure other than the residence may be placed on the property. The site plan that was given for review shows the residence and also a shed on property already existing, this would be the allowable limit per the Architectural Standards.”

Arguments Presented

• Petitioner (Charles P. Mandela):

◦ Argued passionately that the denial was erroneous because the patio shade was to be attached to the house, not a separate, stand-alone structure.

◦ Presented photographs of other properties within Blue Ridge Estates that had multiple structures and stand-alone patio shades similar to his proposal.

• Respondent (Blue Ridge Estates HOA):

◦ Contended it properly followed Article X of the CC&Rs in its denial.

◦ At the hearing, Blue Ridge pointed to Article III of the CC&Rs as justification, classifying the proposed shade as an additional structure on the property.

Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Mr. Mandela’s petition, concluding he had not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Blue Ridge violated Article X of the CC&Rs.

• Interpretation of CC&R Section 10.2: The judge found that the architectural standards listed in this section were explicitly not exhaustive. The text states standards “may include, without limitation, provisions regarding” aspects like size, design, and placement. This allowed the architectural committee to deny the request based on the “one additional structure” rule, even if not explicitly listed.

• Compliance with CC&R Section 10.3: This section requires the committee to provide “reasonably detailed written reasons for such disapproval.” The judge found that the denial email of October 25, 2019, fulfilled this requirement. The email did not need to cite a specific CC&R section, only to provide an explanation.

• On Precedent and Fairness: The ALJ acknowledged Mr. Mandela’s evidence of similar structures on other properties. However, the decision noted: “While those properties may have had their shades approved by different members of the Blue Ridge Architectural Committee that does not follow that Mr. Mandela’s request was improperly denied under Article X.”

• Final Ruling: The petition was denied in a decision dated January 29, 2021.

Rehearing and Final Decision (Case No. 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG)

Mr. Mandela filed for a rehearing on February 5, 2021, on the grounds that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence. The Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner granted the request, and a new hearing was held on April 16, 2021.

New Testimony and Arguments

• Petitioner (Charles P. Mandela):

◦ Subsequent Approval: Testified that since the January 29, 2021 decision, his request for the patio shade had been approved by the Blue Ridge board.

◦ Procedural Violation: Argued that Blue Ridge violated CC&R Section 10.3 by failing to respond to his August 28, 2019, request within the required 30-day period, as the denial was not issued until October 25, 2019.

◦ History of Denials: Stated he had made several previous requests in 2018 and 2019 that were either denied or ignored.

◦ Discrimination: Claimed he had been discriminated against due to the previous denials.

• Respondent (Blue Ridge Estates HOA):

◦ Interpretation of Section 10.3: Argued that while the section may be “confusingly drafted,” it stipulates that if the committee fails to respond within 30 days, the request is “deemed disapproved.” Therefore, the board acted within its authority.

◦ Failure to Appeal: Contended that Mr. Mandela failed to follow the proper appeal procedure outlined in the CC&Rs, as he never specifically requested a meeting to discuss the denial.

Judge’s Final Findings and Conclusions

The ALJ affirmed the original decision, finding for the Respondent as the prevailing party and dismissing Mr. Mandela’s appeal.

• Scope of Rehearing: The judge determined that the rehearing was limited to the August 28, 2019, request and its subsequent denial, as that was the sole focus of the original petition. Mr. Mandela’s arguments about prior denials were not considered new evidence relevant to the specific violation alleged.

• Interpretation of the 30-Day Rule: The ALJ sided with the HOA’s interpretation of Section 10.3. While acknowledging that Blue Ridge took more than thirty days to issue a written denial, the judge ruled that the CC&R’s provision for a “deemed disapproved” status meant the request was properly denied under the rules.

• Petitioner’s Failure to Follow Procedure: The judge noted that Mr. Mandela admitted he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee after the denial, which was the required next step in the appeal process under Section 10.3.

• Final Ruling: The final decision, dated April 27, 2021, concluded that Mr. Mandela failed to sustain his burden of proof. The HOA was found to have acted in compliance with the CC&Rs, and the appeal was dismissed. This order was declared binding on the parties.

Timeline of Key Events

August 28, 2019

Charles Mandela submits his request to build a patio shade.

October 25, 2019

Blue Ridge HOA denies the request via email, citing the one-additional-structure limit.

January 13, 2020

Mandela files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

January 13, 2021

The first evidentiary hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

January 29, 2021

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues a decision denying Mandela’s petition.

February 5, 2021

Mandela files a request for a rehearing.

March 15, 2021

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

April 16, 2021

The rehearing is conducted.

April 27, 2021

The ALJ issues a final decision, finding for the HOA and dismissing Mandela’s appeal.

Central CC&R Provision: Article X, Section 10.3

The most heavily debated provision was Section 10.3 of the Blue Ridge Estates CC&Rs, which outlines the procedure for architectural requests. Its language was central to the outcome of the rehearing.

Key text from Section 10.3:

“The Architectural Committee shall have thirty (30) days after receipt of such plans, specifications, and elevations to approve or disapprove of the proposed construction… In the event the Architectural Committee fails either to approve or disapprove the proposed construction… within said thirty (30) day period, such proposed construction… shall be deemed disapproved and the Owner can then request a meeting with the Architectural Committee to discuss the reasons for such disapproval…”

This clause was interpreted by the ALJ to mean that the HOA’s failure to provide a written response within 30 days automatically constituted a denial, shifting the burden to the homeowner to request a follow-up meeting, a step Mr. Mandela did not take.






Study Guide – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between homeowner Charles P. Mandela and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association, as detailed in the Administrative Law Judge Decisions from January 29, 2021, and April 27, 2021. The case centers on the denial of an architectural request and the interpretation of the association’s governing documents (CC&Rs).

——————————————————————————–

Quiz: Key Facts and Arguments

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the provided legal decisions.

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

2. What specific structure did Charles P. Mandela request approval to build on August 28, 2019?

3. What was the initial reason given by the Blue Ridge Estates HOA for denying Mr. Mandela’s request on October 25, 2019?

4. What was Mr. Mandela’s central argument during the first hearing on January 13, 2021?

5. According to the decision from the first hearing, why did the Administrative Law Judge rule that the HOA’s denial was in compliance with Section 10.2 of the CC&Rs?

6. On what grounds did Mr. Mandela file his Homeowner’s Association (HOA) Dispute Rehearing Request on February 5, 2021?

7. During the rehearing, what new argument did Mr. Mandela raise concerning the timeline of the HOA’s denial of his August 28, 2019 request?

8. How did the HOA’s legal counsel counter Mr. Mandela’s argument regarding the 30-day response time outlined in Section 10.3?

9. What procedural step, outlined in Section 10.3, did Mr. Mandela admit he failed to take after his request was deemed denied?

10. What was the final outcome of the rehearing on April 16, 2021, and what was the judge’s conclusion regarding the HOA’s actions?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Petitioner Charles P. Mandela, a homeowner, and Respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association of Coconino County. Mr. Mandela filed the petition against the HOA after it denied his request to build a patio shade.

2. On August 28, 2019, Mr. Mandela requested approval to build a “patio shade less than 200 sq. feet.” The structure was a four-post shade that he intended to attach to the east side wall of his residence.

3. The HOA denied the request based on Architectural Committee Standards Article X. The denial stated that only one structure other than the residence may be placed on the property, and Mr. Mandela already had a residence and a shed.

4. Mr. Mandela’s central argument was that the denial was erroneous because the patio shade was not a separate stand-alone structure. He planned to attach it to his house, and he presented photographs of other properties with similar structures.

5. The judge ruled the denial complied with Section 10.2 because the list of standards the Architectural Committee could enforce was “not an exhaustive one.” This meant the committee could properly deny the request based on the one-structure limit, even if it wasn’t explicitly enumerated.

6. Mr. Mandela requested a rehearing on the grounds that the findings of fact were arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. He also claimed the decision was not supported by the evidence or was contrary to law.

7. During the rehearing, Mr. Mandela argued that the Board violated Section 10.3 of the CC&Rs. He contended that since he made his request on August 28, 2019, and the Board did not respond until October 25, 2019, it had failed to provide a written response within the required 30-day period.

8. The HOA’s counsel argued that while Section 10.3 may be “confusingly drafted,” it specifies that if the committee fails to approve or disapprove within the 30-day period, the request is “deemed disapproved.” Therefore, the Board was within its authority.

9. Mr. Mandela admitted that he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee to discuss the reasons for the disapproval. This is the procedural step required by Section 10.3 after a request is deemed denied.

10. The final outcome was that the petition was dismissed, and the Respondent (HOA) was declared the prevailing party. The judge concluded that the HOA had not violated the CC&Rs and had acted in compliance with its governing documents.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions for Further Study

The following questions are designed to promote a deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, citing specific details from the legal decisions.

1. Analyze the interpretation of CC&R Section 10.3, specifically the “deemed disapproved” clause. Discuss how this clause functioned as a key legal defense for the HOA and ultimately shaped the outcome of the rehearing.

2. The legal standard in this case was “a preponderance of the evidence.” Define this standard as described in the legal text and evaluate the evidence Mr. Mandela presented in both hearings. Why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude that Mr. Mandela failed to meet his burden of proof?

3. Compare and contrast the arguments presented by the Petitioner and Respondent in the initial hearing (January 13, 2021) versus the rehearing (April 16, 2021). How did the focus of the legal arguments shift between the two proceedings?

4. Examine the authority and jurisdiction of the Architectural Committee as outlined in CC&R Section 10.2. Discuss the significance of the phrase “Such standards and procedures may include, without limitation, provisions regarding…” in the judge’s initial decision.

5. Trace the procedural history of this case, from Mr. Mandela’s initial request in August 2019 to the final order in April 2021. Identify at least four key procedural milestones and explain their significance to the case’s progression and ultimate resolution.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge, in this case Adam D. Stone, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and makes decisions on petitions concerning disputes regulated by state agencies.

Architectural Committee

A body within the Blue Ridge Estates HOA established by Article X of the CC&Rs, with jurisdiction over all original construction and any modifications, additions, or alterations to the exterior of homes or properties.

Arizona Department of Real Estate

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations and the associations themselves in Arizona.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to produce evidence that proves the facts it claims are true. In this case, the Petitioner (Mr. Mandela) bore the burden of proof.

An abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, which are the governing legal documents for a planned community like Blue Ridge Estates. This case centered on the interpretation of Article X of the Blue Ridge CC&Rs.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

The governing organization for a planned community. In this case, the Respondent was the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association of Coconino County.

Motion to Dismiss

A formal request filed by a party asking for a lawsuit or petition to be dismissed. The Blue Ridge HOA filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was denied on October 7, 2020, allowing the case to proceed.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency in Arizona where petitions related to disputes with HOAs are sent for an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Charles P. Mandela was the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

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

Rehearing

A second hearing granted to review a legal decision. Mr. Mandela was granted a rehearing after the initial decision, based on his claim that the findings were arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association was the Respondent.

Tribunal

A term used in the documents to refer to the judicial body hearing the case, specifically the Office of Administrative Hearings and the presiding Administrative Law Judge.






Blog Post – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG


He Fought the HOA Over a Patio and Lost. Here Are 5 Shocking Lessons Every Homeowner Needs to Learn.

Introduction: The Perils of a Simple Home Improvement Project

For any homeowner, the excitement of a new project—a deck, a fence, or a simple patio shade—can quickly turn to frustration when it collides with the dense rulebook of a Homeowners’ Association (HOA). What seems like a straightforward improvement can become a complex battle of bylaws and procedures.

This was the reality for Charles P. Mandela, a homeowner in the Blue Ridge Estates community. His plan to build a simple patio shade was denied by his HOA, sparking a legal challenge that went before an Administrative Law Judge. While Mr. Mandela ultimately lost his case on its legal merits, the details of his fight offer a masterclass in the surprising and often counter-intuitive world of HOA governance. This article distills the most shocking lessons from his case, providing critical insights for any homeowner living under an HOA.

——————————————————————————–

1. The “Deemed Disapproved” Clause: How an HOA’s Silence Becomes a Legal “No”

Mr. Mandela submitted his request to build a patio shade on August 28, 2019. He argued that the HOA, Blue Ridge Estates, violated its own rules, which required a response within 30 days. The HOA didn’t send its formal denial until October 25, 2019, well past the deadline. On the surface, it seemed like a clear procedural violation by the HOA.

However, a bizarre and “unartfully drafted” clause hidden in the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs) turned this logic on its head. The rule stated:

In the event the Architectural Committee fails either to approve or disapprove the proposed construction… within said thirty (30) day period, such proposed construction… shall be deemed disapproved…

Contrary to common sense, the rule meant that the HOA’s failure to respond on time resulted in an automatic denial, not a pending approval. The Administrative Law Judge was bound by this text, concluding that because the 30-day period had passed without a formal approval, the request was “properly deemed denied.”

2. The “My Neighbor Has One” Argument Is Weaker Than You Think

To support his case, Mr. Mandela presented photographs showing that “similar shades exist on other properties with additional structures.” He argued that the HOA was engaging in selective enforcement by denying his project while having approved others like it. This is one of the most frequent arguments homeowners make when they feel singled out by their HOA board.

The judge’s conclusion was a stunning reality check. The legal decision stated:

While those properties may have had their shades approved by different members of the Blue Ridge Architectural Committee that does not follow that Mr. Mandela’s request was improperly denied under Article X.

The legal reasoning here is crucial for homeowners to understand. Architectural committees are not static; members change, and so can their interpretation of aesthetic standards. Each application is legally considered a distinct request, evaluated under the rules in place at that moment. A previous committee’s approval—which may have even been a mistake or a variance granted under different circumstances—does not create a binding legal precedent that forces the current committee to repeat it.

3. Procedure is Everything: A Missed Step Can Cost You the Case

The HOA’s rules contained a specific process for appealing a denial. After a project is “deemed disapproved” because the 30-day clock ran out, the homeowner must then formally request a meeting with the committee to discuss the denial.

The judge found that Mr. Mandela had failed to take this critical next step. This procedural misstep, however small it might seem, became a key factor in the case against him. The decision hinged on this procedural failure, stating:

Further, Petitioner admitted that in his several email responses that he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee, thus he failed to follow the procedures in Section 10.3.

This highlights a crucial lesson: meticulously follow every single procedural step outlined in your HOA’s documents. Failure to do so, such as not using the correct language to request a meeting, can be used to dismiss your claim, regardless of its other merits.

4. “Unartfully Drafted” Rules Can Still Be Legally Binding

Even the Administrative Law Judge acknowledged the poor quality of the HOA’s rulebook. In the decision, the judge offered a candid assessment of the rule regarding the 30-day response time, stating, “Admittedly this section is unartfully drafted…”

Despite this observation, the rule was enforced exactly as written. The judge was bound by the text, however confusing, and concluded that “from the evidence presented, the request was properly deemed denied.”

This is perhaps the most sobering lesson. Homeowners often assume that a rule that is confusing or seems illogical won’t hold up under scrutiny. This case proves that the literal text of the governing documents possesses immense power. What a rule literally says is far more important than what one might assume it should mean.

5. The Final Twist: He Lost the Case But Got His Patio Anyway

After the initial decision was made against him, Mr. Mandela requested a rehearing. During this second hearing, a surprising fact emerged. Mr. Mandela testified that “since the decision on January 29, 2021, his request for the patio shade had been approved by the Board.”

This outcome highlights a crucial dynamic: while Mr. Mandela lost the legal argument based on procedural history, his persistent engagement in the process—including filing a formal appeal—likely created enough administrative and community pressure to compel the Board to find a practical, non-legal solution. It’s a powerful reminder that a legal loss on a technicality does not always foreclose a real-world victory.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Do You Really Know Your HOA’s Rules?

The case of Charles Mandela serves as a powerful cautionary tale. It reveals that HOA disputes are rarely won on appeals to fairness or common sense. Instead, they are won or lost in the fine print of the governing documents—documents that can contain counter-intuitive clauses, procedural traps, and “unartfully drafted” rules that are nonetheless legally binding.

A homeowner’s best defense is not passion or conviction, but a deep and thorough understanding of the specific rules and procedures they agreed to live by. This case forces every homeowner to ask: Are you prepared to navigate the literal text of your community’s rules, where silence can mean “no” and a neighbor’s precedent is no precedent at all?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Charles P Mandela (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas Nogami (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP

Neutral Parties

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

Charles P Mandela vs. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-04-27
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Charles P Mandela Counsel —
Respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners' Association Counsel Nicholas Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article X; CC&R Section 10.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge, following a rehearing, affirmed the original decision, concluding that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Article X regarding the denial of an architectural modification request for a patio shade. The Respondent was found to have acted in compliance with the community documents, and the appeal was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish a violation of the CC&R's and failed to follow the procedural requirements necessary to appeal a deemed disapproval under CC&R Section 10.3.

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of request for patio shade structure and alleged violation of response timeline

Petitioner challenged the HOA's denial of his application for a patio shade, arguing the denial was improper because the shade would be attached (not a separate structure) and that the HOA missed the 30-day response deadline. The ALJ determined that the HOA's denial based on the 'only one structure other than the residence' rule (since a shed already existed) complied with the non-exhaustive Architectural Committee Standards (Article X, 10.2). Regarding the delayed response, the ALJ noted that Section 10.3 mandated that a late response results in the request being 'deemed disapproved,' and the Petitioner failed to subsequently request the required appeal meeting.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent violated Article X of the CC&R’s. The Respondent was declared the prevailing party, and the Petitioner's appeal (rehearing) was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • CC&R Article X
  • CC&R Section 10.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Architectural Review, Denial, Rehearing, Burden of Proof, Deemed Disapproved
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)

Decision Documents

20F-H2020042-REL Decision – 850032.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-17T18:18:33 (113.4 KB)

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Charles P Mandela (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf via Google Meet

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas Nogami (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Issued the decision for the original hearing and the rehearing
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Issued an Order Granting Rehearing

Charles P Mandela vs. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

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

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-04-27
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Charles P Mandela Counsel —
Respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners' Association Counsel Nicholas Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article X; CC&R Section 10.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge, following a rehearing, affirmed the original decision, concluding that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Article X regarding the denial of an architectural modification request for a patio shade. The Respondent was found to have acted in compliance with the community documents, and the appeal was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish a violation of the CC&R's and failed to follow the procedural requirements necessary to appeal a deemed disapproval under CC&R Section 10.3.

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of request for patio shade structure and alleged violation of response timeline

Petitioner challenged the HOA's denial of his application for a patio shade, arguing the denial was improper because the shade would be attached (not a separate structure) and that the HOA missed the 30-day response deadline. The ALJ determined that the HOA's denial based on the 'only one structure other than the residence' rule (since a shed already existed) complied with the non-exhaustive Architectural Committee Standards (Article X, 10.2). Regarding the delayed response, the ALJ noted that Section 10.3 mandated that a late response results in the request being 'deemed disapproved,' and the Petitioner failed to subsequently request the required appeal meeting.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent violated Article X of the CC&R’s. The Respondent was declared the prevailing party, and the Petitioner's appeal (rehearing) was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • CC&R Article X
  • CC&R Section 10.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Architectural Review, Denial, Rehearing, Burden of Proof, Deemed Disapproved
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020042-REL-RHG Decision – 876009.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:31:30 (118.9 KB)

20F-H2020042-REL-RHG Decision – ../20F-H2020042-REL/850032.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:31:33 (113.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG


Briefing on Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from two administrative law judge decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Charles P. Mandela and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association (“Blue Ridge”). The core issue was Blue Ridge’s denial of Mr. Mandela’s request to build a patio shade structure.

In the initial hearing on January 13, 2021, Mr. Mandela argued the denial was erroneous because the shade would be attached to his house, not a separate structure, and that similar structures existed in the community. Blue Ridge defended its decision based on Article X of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which limits properties to one structure besides the main residence. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Mr. Mandela’s petition, finding that Blue Ridge acted within the authority granted by its CC&Rs, as its architectural standards were not exhaustive and it provided a reasonably detailed written reason for the denial.

Following this decision, Mr. Mandela was granted a rehearing, which took place on April 16, 2021. During this second hearing, he introduced a new argument that Blue Ridge had violated Article 10.3 of the CC&Rs by failing to respond to his request within the stipulated 30-day timeframe. However, the ALJ found that the same article specifies that a failure to respond results in the request being “deemed disapproved.” The ALJ concluded that Mr. Mandela had failed to follow the subsequent appeal procedures outlined in the CC&Rs and again failed to meet his burden of proof. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Blue Ridge was declared the prevailing party. Notably, during the rehearing, Mr. Mandela testified that his request for the patio shade had since been approved by the Blue Ridge board.

Initial Hearing and Decision (Case No. 20F-H2020042-REL)

The first evidentiary hearing was held on January 13, 2021, before Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone to address Mr. Mandela’s petition alleging Blue Ridge violated its CC&Rs.

The Core Dispute

• Petitioner’s Request: On August 28, 2019, Charles P. Mandela submitted a request to build a “patio shade less than 200 sq. feet,” described as a four-post structure he intended to attach to the east wall of his residence.

• Respondent’s Denial: On October 25, 2019, Blue Ridge denied the request, stating: “Only one structure other than the residence may be placed on the property. The site plan that was given for review shows the residence and also a shed on property already existing, this would be the allowable limit per the Architectural Standards.”

Arguments Presented

• Petitioner (Charles P. Mandela):

◦ Argued passionately that the denial was erroneous because the patio shade was to be attached to the house, not a separate, stand-alone structure.

◦ Presented photographs of other properties within Blue Ridge Estates that had multiple structures and stand-alone patio shades similar to his proposal.

• Respondent (Blue Ridge Estates HOA):

◦ Contended it properly followed Article X of the CC&Rs in its denial.

◦ At the hearing, Blue Ridge pointed to Article III of the CC&Rs as justification, classifying the proposed shade as an additional structure on the property.

Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Mr. Mandela’s petition, concluding he had not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Blue Ridge violated Article X of the CC&Rs.

• Interpretation of CC&R Section 10.2: The judge found that the architectural standards listed in this section were explicitly not exhaustive. The text states standards “may include, without limitation, provisions regarding” aspects like size, design, and placement. This allowed the architectural committee to deny the request based on the “one additional structure” rule, even if not explicitly listed.

• Compliance with CC&R Section 10.3: This section requires the committee to provide “reasonably detailed written reasons for such disapproval.” The judge found that the denial email of October 25, 2019, fulfilled this requirement. The email did not need to cite a specific CC&R section, only to provide an explanation.

• On Precedent and Fairness: The ALJ acknowledged Mr. Mandela’s evidence of similar structures on other properties. However, the decision noted: “While those properties may have had their shades approved by different members of the Blue Ridge Architectural Committee that does not follow that Mr. Mandela’s request was improperly denied under Article X.”

• Final Ruling: The petition was denied in a decision dated January 29, 2021.

Rehearing and Final Decision (Case No. 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG)

Mr. Mandela filed for a rehearing on February 5, 2021, on the grounds that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence. The Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner granted the request, and a new hearing was held on April 16, 2021.

New Testimony and Arguments

• Petitioner (Charles P. Mandela):

◦ Subsequent Approval: Testified that since the January 29, 2021 decision, his request for the patio shade had been approved by the Blue Ridge board.

◦ Procedural Violation: Argued that Blue Ridge violated CC&R Section 10.3 by failing to respond to his August 28, 2019, request within the required 30-day period, as the denial was not issued until October 25, 2019.

◦ History of Denials: Stated he had made several previous requests in 2018 and 2019 that were either denied or ignored.

◦ Discrimination: Claimed he had been discriminated against due to the previous denials.

• Respondent (Blue Ridge Estates HOA):

◦ Interpretation of Section 10.3: Argued that while the section may be “confusingly drafted,” it stipulates that if the committee fails to respond within 30 days, the request is “deemed disapproved.” Therefore, the board acted within its authority.

◦ Failure to Appeal: Contended that Mr. Mandela failed to follow the proper appeal procedure outlined in the CC&Rs, as he never specifically requested a meeting to discuss the denial.

Judge’s Final Findings and Conclusions

The ALJ affirmed the original decision, finding for the Respondent as the prevailing party and dismissing Mr. Mandela’s appeal.

• Scope of Rehearing: The judge determined that the rehearing was limited to the August 28, 2019, request and its subsequent denial, as that was the sole focus of the original petition. Mr. Mandela’s arguments about prior denials were not considered new evidence relevant to the specific violation alleged.

• Interpretation of the 30-Day Rule: The ALJ sided with the HOA’s interpretation of Section 10.3. While acknowledging that Blue Ridge took more than thirty days to issue a written denial, the judge ruled that the CC&R’s provision for a “deemed disapproved” status meant the request was properly denied under the rules.

• Petitioner’s Failure to Follow Procedure: The judge noted that Mr. Mandela admitted he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee after the denial, which was the required next step in the appeal process under Section 10.3.

• Final Ruling: The final decision, dated April 27, 2021, concluded that Mr. Mandela failed to sustain his burden of proof. The HOA was found to have acted in compliance with the CC&Rs, and the appeal was dismissed. This order was declared binding on the parties.

Timeline of Key Events

August 28, 2019

Charles Mandela submits his request to build a patio shade.

October 25, 2019

Blue Ridge HOA denies the request via email, citing the one-additional-structure limit.

January 13, 2020

Mandela files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

January 13, 2021

The first evidentiary hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

January 29, 2021

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues a decision denying Mandela’s petition.

February 5, 2021

Mandela files a request for a rehearing.

March 15, 2021

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

April 16, 2021

The rehearing is conducted.

April 27, 2021

The ALJ issues a final decision, finding for the HOA and dismissing Mandela’s appeal.

Central CC&R Provision: Article X, Section 10.3

The most heavily debated provision was Section 10.3 of the Blue Ridge Estates CC&Rs, which outlines the procedure for architectural requests. Its language was central to the outcome of the rehearing.

Key text from Section 10.3:

“The Architectural Committee shall have thirty (30) days after receipt of such plans, specifications, and elevations to approve or disapprove of the proposed construction… In the event the Architectural Committee fails either to approve or disapprove the proposed construction… within said thirty (30) day period, such proposed construction… shall be deemed disapproved and the Owner can then request a meeting with the Architectural Committee to discuss the reasons for such disapproval…”

This clause was interpreted by the ALJ to mean that the HOA’s failure to provide a written response within 30 days automatically constituted a denial, shifting the burden to the homeowner to request a follow-up meeting, a step Mr. Mandela did not take.






Study Guide – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between homeowner Charles P. Mandela and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association, as detailed in the Administrative Law Judge Decisions from January 29, 2021, and April 27, 2021. The case centers on the denial of an architectural request and the interpretation of the association’s governing documents (CC&Rs).

——————————————————————————–

Quiz: Key Facts and Arguments

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the provided legal decisions.

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

2. What specific structure did Charles P. Mandela request approval to build on August 28, 2019?

3. What was the initial reason given by the Blue Ridge Estates HOA for denying Mr. Mandela’s request on October 25, 2019?

4. What was Mr. Mandela’s central argument during the first hearing on January 13, 2021?

5. According to the decision from the first hearing, why did the Administrative Law Judge rule that the HOA’s denial was in compliance with Section 10.2 of the CC&Rs?

6. On what grounds did Mr. Mandela file his Homeowner’s Association (HOA) Dispute Rehearing Request on February 5, 2021?

7. During the rehearing, what new argument did Mr. Mandela raise concerning the timeline of the HOA’s denial of his August 28, 2019 request?

8. How did the HOA’s legal counsel counter Mr. Mandela’s argument regarding the 30-day response time outlined in Section 10.3?

9. What procedural step, outlined in Section 10.3, did Mr. Mandela admit he failed to take after his request was deemed denied?

10. What was the final outcome of the rehearing on April 16, 2021, and what was the judge’s conclusion regarding the HOA’s actions?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Petitioner Charles P. Mandela, a homeowner, and Respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association of Coconino County. Mr. Mandela filed the petition against the HOA after it denied his request to build a patio shade.

2. On August 28, 2019, Mr. Mandela requested approval to build a “patio shade less than 200 sq. feet.” The structure was a four-post shade that he intended to attach to the east side wall of his residence.

3. The HOA denied the request based on Architectural Committee Standards Article X. The denial stated that only one structure other than the residence may be placed on the property, and Mr. Mandela already had a residence and a shed.

4. Mr. Mandela’s central argument was that the denial was erroneous because the patio shade was not a separate stand-alone structure. He planned to attach it to his house, and he presented photographs of other properties with similar structures.

5. The judge ruled the denial complied with Section 10.2 because the list of standards the Architectural Committee could enforce was “not an exhaustive one.” This meant the committee could properly deny the request based on the one-structure limit, even if it wasn’t explicitly enumerated.

6. Mr. Mandela requested a rehearing on the grounds that the findings of fact were arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. He also claimed the decision was not supported by the evidence or was contrary to law.

7. During the rehearing, Mr. Mandela argued that the Board violated Section 10.3 of the CC&Rs. He contended that since he made his request on August 28, 2019, and the Board did not respond until October 25, 2019, it had failed to provide a written response within the required 30-day period.

8. The HOA’s counsel argued that while Section 10.3 may be “confusingly drafted,” it specifies that if the committee fails to approve or disapprove within the 30-day period, the request is “deemed disapproved.” Therefore, the Board was within its authority.

9. Mr. Mandela admitted that he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee to discuss the reasons for the disapproval. This is the procedural step required by Section 10.3 after a request is deemed denied.

10. The final outcome was that the petition was dismissed, and the Respondent (HOA) was declared the prevailing party. The judge concluded that the HOA had not violated the CC&Rs and had acted in compliance with its governing documents.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions for Further Study

The following questions are designed to promote a deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, citing specific details from the legal decisions.

1. Analyze the interpretation of CC&R Section 10.3, specifically the “deemed disapproved” clause. Discuss how this clause functioned as a key legal defense for the HOA and ultimately shaped the outcome of the rehearing.

2. The legal standard in this case was “a preponderance of the evidence.” Define this standard as described in the legal text and evaluate the evidence Mr. Mandela presented in both hearings. Why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude that Mr. Mandela failed to meet his burden of proof?

3. Compare and contrast the arguments presented by the Petitioner and Respondent in the initial hearing (January 13, 2021) versus the rehearing (April 16, 2021). How did the focus of the legal arguments shift between the two proceedings?

4. Examine the authority and jurisdiction of the Architectural Committee as outlined in CC&R Section 10.2. Discuss the significance of the phrase “Such standards and procedures may include, without limitation, provisions regarding…” in the judge’s initial decision.

5. Trace the procedural history of this case, from Mr. Mandela’s initial request in August 2019 to the final order in April 2021. Identify at least four key procedural milestones and explain their significance to the case’s progression and ultimate resolution.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge, in this case Adam D. Stone, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and makes decisions on petitions concerning disputes regulated by state agencies.

Architectural Committee

A body within the Blue Ridge Estates HOA established by Article X of the CC&Rs, with jurisdiction over all original construction and any modifications, additions, or alterations to the exterior of homes or properties.

Arizona Department of Real Estate

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations and the associations themselves in Arizona.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to produce evidence that proves the facts it claims are true. In this case, the Petitioner (Mr. Mandela) bore the burden of proof.

An abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, which are the governing legal documents for a planned community like Blue Ridge Estates. This case centered on the interpretation of Article X of the Blue Ridge CC&Rs.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

The governing organization for a planned community. In this case, the Respondent was the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association of Coconino County.

Motion to Dismiss

A formal request filed by a party asking for a lawsuit or petition to be dismissed. The Blue Ridge HOA filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was denied on October 7, 2020, allowing the case to proceed.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency in Arizona where petitions related to disputes with HOAs are sent for an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Charles P. Mandela was the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

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

Rehearing

A second hearing granted to review a legal decision. Mr. Mandela was granted a rehearing after the initial decision, based on his claim that the findings were arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association was the Respondent.

Tribunal

A term used in the documents to refer to the judicial body hearing the case, specifically the Office of Administrative Hearings and the presiding Administrative Law Judge.






Blog Post – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG


He Fought the HOA Over a Patio and Lost. Here Are 5 Shocking Lessons Every Homeowner Needs to Learn.

Introduction: The Perils of a Simple Home Improvement Project

For any homeowner, the excitement of a new project—a deck, a fence, or a simple patio shade—can quickly turn to frustration when it collides with the dense rulebook of a Homeowners’ Association (HOA). What seems like a straightforward improvement can become a complex battle of bylaws and procedures.

This was the reality for Charles P. Mandela, a homeowner in the Blue Ridge Estates community. His plan to build a simple patio shade was denied by his HOA, sparking a legal challenge that went before an Administrative Law Judge. While Mr. Mandela ultimately lost his case on its legal merits, the details of his fight offer a masterclass in the surprising and often counter-intuitive world of HOA governance. This article distills the most shocking lessons from his case, providing critical insights for any homeowner living under an HOA.

——————————————————————————–

1. The “Deemed Disapproved” Clause: How an HOA’s Silence Becomes a Legal “No”

Mr. Mandela submitted his request to build a patio shade on August 28, 2019. He argued that the HOA, Blue Ridge Estates, violated its own rules, which required a response within 30 days. The HOA didn’t send its formal denial until October 25, 2019, well past the deadline. On the surface, it seemed like a clear procedural violation by the HOA.

However, a bizarre and “unartfully drafted” clause hidden in the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs) turned this logic on its head. The rule stated:

In the event the Architectural Committee fails either to approve or disapprove the proposed construction… within said thirty (30) day period, such proposed construction… shall be deemed disapproved…

Contrary to common sense, the rule meant that the HOA’s failure to respond on time resulted in an automatic denial, not a pending approval. The Administrative Law Judge was bound by this text, concluding that because the 30-day period had passed without a formal approval, the request was “properly deemed denied.”

2. The “My Neighbor Has One” Argument Is Weaker Than You Think

To support his case, Mr. Mandela presented photographs showing that “similar shades exist on other properties with additional structures.” He argued that the HOA was engaging in selective enforcement by denying his project while having approved others like it. This is one of the most frequent arguments homeowners make when they feel singled out by their HOA board.

The judge’s conclusion was a stunning reality check. The legal decision stated:

While those properties may have had their shades approved by different members of the Blue Ridge Architectural Committee that does not follow that Mr. Mandela’s request was improperly denied under Article X.

The legal reasoning here is crucial for homeowners to understand. Architectural committees are not static; members change, and so can their interpretation of aesthetic standards. Each application is legally considered a distinct request, evaluated under the rules in place at that moment. A previous committee’s approval—which may have even been a mistake or a variance granted under different circumstances—does not create a binding legal precedent that forces the current committee to repeat it.

3. Procedure is Everything: A Missed Step Can Cost You the Case

The HOA’s rules contained a specific process for appealing a denial. After a project is “deemed disapproved” because the 30-day clock ran out, the homeowner must then formally request a meeting with the committee to discuss the denial.

The judge found that Mr. Mandela had failed to take this critical next step. This procedural misstep, however small it might seem, became a key factor in the case against him. The decision hinged on this procedural failure, stating:

Further, Petitioner admitted that in his several email responses that he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee, thus he failed to follow the procedures in Section 10.3.

This highlights a crucial lesson: meticulously follow every single procedural step outlined in your HOA’s documents. Failure to do so, such as not using the correct language to request a meeting, can be used to dismiss your claim, regardless of its other merits.

4. “Unartfully Drafted” Rules Can Still Be Legally Binding

Even the Administrative Law Judge acknowledged the poor quality of the HOA’s rulebook. In the decision, the judge offered a candid assessment of the rule regarding the 30-day response time, stating, “Admittedly this section is unartfully drafted…”

Despite this observation, the rule was enforced exactly as written. The judge was bound by the text, however confusing, and concluded that “from the evidence presented, the request was properly deemed denied.”

This is perhaps the most sobering lesson. Homeowners often assume that a rule that is confusing or seems illogical won’t hold up under scrutiny. This case proves that the literal text of the governing documents possesses immense power. What a rule literally says is far more important than what one might assume it should mean.

5. The Final Twist: He Lost the Case But Got His Patio Anyway

After the initial decision was made against him, Mr. Mandela requested a rehearing. During this second hearing, a surprising fact emerged. Mr. Mandela testified that “since the decision on January 29, 2021, his request for the patio shade had been approved by the Board.”

This outcome highlights a crucial dynamic: while Mr. Mandela lost the legal argument based on procedural history, his persistent engagement in the process—including filing a formal appeal—likely created enough administrative and community pressure to compel the Board to find a practical, non-legal solution. It’s a powerful reminder that a legal loss on a technicality does not always foreclose a real-world victory.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Do You Really Know Your HOA’s Rules?

The case of Charles Mandela serves as a powerful cautionary tale. It reveals that HOA disputes are rarely won on appeals to fairness or common sense. Instead, they are won or lost in the fine print of the governing documents—documents that can contain counter-intuitive clauses, procedural traps, and “unartfully drafted” rules that are nonetheless legally binding.

A homeowner’s best defense is not passion or conviction, but a deep and thorough understanding of the specific rules and procedures they agreed to live by. This case forces every homeowner to ask: Are you prepared to navigate the literal text of your community’s rules, where silence can mean “no” and a neighbor’s precedent is no precedent at all?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Charles P Mandela (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas Nogami (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP

Neutral Parties

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