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 Decision – 866263.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-09T10:06:10 (268.5 KB)
21F-H2120002-REL Decision – 902726.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:42 (239.9 KB)
Briefing Doc – 21F-H2120002-REL
Briefing Document: Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Final Decision
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the Final Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Clifford and Maria Burnes (“Petitioners”) versus the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association (“Respondent”), case number 21F-H2120002-REL-RHG. The dispute centered on a four-issue petition alleging violations by the Association related to new construction on a neighboring property (Lot 7), an unnoticed Board meeting, and the fulfillment of a records request.
Following an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) largely affirmed the original decision. The Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof on three of the four issues, with the judge finding no violations by the Association regarding architectural controls, the waiver of a construction deposit, or the conduct of a Board meeting.
However, the Petitioners successfully proved that the Association violated Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805 by failing to timely and completely fulfill a comprehensive records request. The final order requires the Association to reimburse the Petitioners for a portion of their filing fee ($500), comply with the records statute moving forward, and provide the specific missing documents (email attachments) from the original request. The rehearing was granted on the basis of “newly discovered evidence,” but the Petitioners conceded during the proceeding that they possessed no new evidence, leading the ALJ to rely solely on the record from the first hearing.
I. Background and Procedural History
The case involves a dispute between property owners Clifford and Maria Burnes and their homeowners’ association, Saguaro Crest, located in Tucson, Arizona. The Association is governed by Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) recorded in 2006 and Architectural Design Guidelines adopted in 2018.
Procedural Timeline
July 17, 2020
Petitioners file a 4-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
August 11, 2020
Respondent (HOA) denies all claims in its answer.
Dec 11, 2020 & Mar 1-2, 2021
An evidentiary hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
March 22, 2021
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues the initial decision.
April 28, 2021
Petitioners file a dispute rehearing request, alleging newly discovered evidence.
May 21, 2021
The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate grants the rehearing request.
July 20, 2021
The rehearing is held. Petitioners concede they have no “new” evidence.
August 09, 2021
The Final Administrative Law Judge Decision is issued, affirming the initial ruling.
Key Parties
Name / Entity
Clifford & Maria Burnes
Petitioners; owners of Lot 6.
Cynthia F. Burnes, Esq.
Counsel for Petitioners.
Saguaro Crest HOA, Inc.
Respondent.
John Crotty, Esq.
Counsel for Respondent.
Norm Burnes
Petitioner; appointed to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) in 2017.
Raul & Ramona Martinez
Owners of Lot 7, the property under construction.
Jenna Clark
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).
II. Analysis of Allegations and Findings
The petition presented four distinct issues for adjudication. The Petitioners bore the burden of proving each violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Issue 1: Alleged Violation of CC&Rs Section 5 (Architectural Control)
• Petitioners’ Allegation: The Association improperly allowed construction on Lot 7 to proceed without required documents being submitted to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) for approval.
• Factual Record:
◦ The ARC, which included Petitioner Norm Burnes, unanimously approved construction plans for Lot 7 on January 3, 2018.
◦ Construction began sometime in 2018. Pima County approved the plans on May 4, 2018.
◦ On April 14, 2020, Petitioner Burnes sent a formal letter of concern to the Board, stating the placement of the home on Lot 7 was not per the approved plan and had destroyed their view and privacy. The letter included the following statement:
• Conclusion of Law:No violation found. The ALJ determined that while the construction on Lot 7 was not per the plans the ARC approved on January 3, 2018, no subsequent or modified plans were ever submitted to the ARC for review. The decision states, “The ARC cannot approve or deny proposed plans unless they are submitted for review.” Furthermore, the record shows the construction complies with the local government’s building authority.
• Petitioners’ Allegation: The Association allowed construction on Lot 7 without collecting the required $5,000.00 Construction Compliance Deposit.
• Factual Record:
◦ On May 3, 2020, the Board of Directors decided to honor a Construction Compliance Deposit waiver that had been previously granted to the Martinez family.
◦ This discretionary waiver was reportedly granted during an economic downturn to incentivize property purchases.
◦ Critically, the Association “does not possess a corporate record that any such Construction Compliance Deposit Waiver was previously granted to the Martinez family.”
• Conclusion of Law:No violation found. The ALJ concluded it was “clear that Lot 7 was granted a construction compliance deposit waiver.” The lack of a documented record was noted, but the inquiry was deemed moot as it was not a noticed issue in the petition.
Issue 3: Alleged Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Unnoticed Meeting)
• Petitioners’ Allegation: The Board of Directors conducted an unnoticed meeting on or about May 20, 2020, to consider matters relevant to Petitioner Norm Burnes.
• Factual Record:
◦ On April 18, 2020, Petitioner requested an urgent meeting with the Board, which was held the next day.
◦ On May 20, 2020, the Board acted with unanimous consent (obtained via individual signatures) to restrict Petitioner Burnes’s participation as an ARC member “regarding all issued related to the construction of Lot 7.”
◦ The Board’s notes state: “[T]he Board of Directors hereby unanimously agree that [Petitioner] be removed as an ARC Member for all ARC related matters concerning Lot 7.”
• Conclusion of Law:No violation found. The judge ruled that the Board’s failure to notice the April 19 meeting was excused as an exception because the Petitioner himself had requested it on an urgent basis. Regarding the May 20 action, the record shows Mr. Burnes was not removed from the ARC entirely, but only recused from matters concerning the Lot 7 dispute in which he had a direct conflict of interest.
Issue 4: Alleged Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Records Request)
• Petitioners’ Allegation: The Association failed to properly fulfill a records request.
• Factual Record:
◦ On June 4, 2020, Petitioners submitted a comprehensive, 17-point records request and demanded fulfillment within the statutory 10-day period.
◦ On June 16, 2020, the Association made 342 pages of documents available for in-person review but prohibited Petitioners from using their own scanning equipment.
◦ The statutory deadline for compliance was June 18, 2020.
◦ On June 24, 2020, after Petitioners paid a $51.30 fee, the Association provided copies of the documents.
◦ Later that day, Petitioners notified the Association that the document package was incomplete, as “attachments for some emails are not included.”
• Conclusion of Law:Violation established. The ALJ found that the Association failed to comply with the statute. The documents were made available for review within the 10-day window, but the copies were not provided until June 24, after the deadline. More importantly, the copies provided were incomplete. The judge rejected the Association’s argument that a clarification from the Petitioner reset the statutory clock.
III. Final Order and Directives
The Final Administrative Law Judge Decision, issued after the rehearing, affirmed the conclusions of the initial March 22, 2021 decision.
• Petition Status: The petition was granted in part (on Issue 4) and denied in part (on Issues 1, 2, and 3).
• Financial Reimbursement: The Respondent (Saguaro Crest HOA) is ordered to reimburse the Petitioners for one-quarter of their filing fee, amounting to $500.00.
• Statutory Compliance: The Respondent is ordered to henceforth comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding records requests.
• Document Production: The Respondent is ordered to 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
Study Guide: Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
This study guide provides a detailed review of the Final Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Clifford and Maria Burnes versus the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. (No. 21F-H2120002-REL-RHG). The guide includes a short-answer quiz with an answer key, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a comprehensive glossary of key terms used in the legal proceedings.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the case document.
1. Who are the Petitioners and the Respondent in this case, and what is their fundamental relationship?
2. List the four distinct issues the Petitioners alleged against the Respondent in their initial petition.
3. On what grounds did the Petitioners request and receive a rehearing after the initial decision was issued on March 22, 2021?
4. What was the outcome of the Petitioners’ attempt to present new witnesses and exhibits during the rehearing on July 20, 2021?
5. Why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude that the Respondent had not violated Section 5 of the CC&Rs regarding the construction on Lot 7?
6. Explain the controversy surrounding the $5,000 Construction Compliance Deposit and the court’s ultimate finding on the matter.
7. What action did the Board of Directors take against Petitioner Norm Burnes on May 20, 2020, and why was this action not considered a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804?
8. Which of the four allegations was ultimately successful for the Petitioners, and what specific failures by the Respondent led to this finding?
9. What were the four key orders issued by the Administrative Law Judge in the Final Order?
10. What was Petitioner Norm Burnes’s official role within the Saguaro Crest community, and how did this position create a conflict of interest in the dispute?
——————————————————————————–
Quiz Answer Key
1. The Petitioners are Clifford and Maria Burnes, who are property owners in the Saguaro Crest subdivision and members of the homeowners’ association. The Respondent is the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. (HOA), which is the governing body for the subdivision.
2. The four issues were: (1) The HOA allowed construction on Lot 7 without required ARC document submission in violation of CC&Rs Section 5; (2) The HOA allowed construction without a required Construction Compliance Deposit; (3) The Board conducted an unnoticed meeting in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804; (4) The HOA failed to fulfill a records request in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.
3. The Petitioners requested a rehearing on the grounds of having “Newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.” They also alleged that the original decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”
4. At the rehearing, the Petitioners conceded they possessed no “newly discovered” evidence, but rather evidence they had strategically chosen not to present previously. Because they did not provide a satisfactory offer of proof for new evidence, they were precluded from recalling witnesses or offering additional exhibits.
5. The Judge found that while the construction on Lot 7 was not per the plans approved by the ARC on January 3, 2018, no additional plans had been submitted for the ARC’s consideration. The Judge reasoned that the ARC cannot approve or deny plans that are not submitted, and the build complied with the local government’s building authority.
6. The Architectural Design Guidelines required a $5,000 deposit, but the owners of Lot 7 had been granted a waiver. Although the HOA did not possess a corporate record of the waiver, the Board voted to honor it. The court found no violation because the waiver had been granted, and the lack of documentation was not the specific issue being litigated.
7. On May 20, 2020, the Board held an unnoticed meeting and, via unanimous consent, restricted Petitioner Burnes’s participation as an ARC member for all matters related to Lot 7. This was not a violation because the failure to notice was excused as an exception, and the Board only removed him from matters concerning Lot 7, not from the ARC entirely.
8. Issue #4, the records request violation, was successful for the Petitioners. The Respondent failed to provide copies of the requested documents within the statutory 10-day deadline, providing them on June 24, 2020, when the deadline was June 18, 2020. Furthermore, the documents provided were incomplete, as they were missing email attachments.
9. The Final Order affirmed the previous decision, ordered the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioners for 1/4 of their filing fee ($500.00), ordered the Respondent to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 going forward, and ordered the Respondent to provide the missing email attachments within 10 business days.
10. Petitioner Norm Burnes was a member of the Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC). This created a conflict of interest because he was part of the committee that initially approved the Lot 7 construction plans, but he later raised formal complaints against that same construction project due to its impact on his own property (Lot 6).
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. No answers are provided.
1. Analyze the concept of “burden of proof” by a “preponderance of the evidence” as it applies to this case. How did the Petitioners succeed in meeting this burden for Issue #4 but fail for the other three issues?
2. Discuss the powers and limitations of a Homeowners’ Association Board and its Architectural Review Committee as illustrated in this case, specifically concerning construction approval, enforcement authority, and the management of member conflicts of interest.
3. The Petitioners’ request for a rehearing was based on “newly discovered material evidence.” Explain why this request ultimately failed to change the outcome and discuss the strategic decisions made by the Petitioners regarding the presentation of evidence.
4. Examine the conflict between a homeowner’s desire for privacy and unobstructed views (as expressed by the Petitioners) and the rights of a neighboring property owner to develop their land. How did the community’s governing documents and the final legal decision address this conflict?
5. Trace the timeline of the records request dispute (Issue #4). What were the specific actions and inactions by the Respondent that led to a finding of a statutory violation, and what does this illustrate about an HOA’s administrative and statutory responsibilities to its members?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.
Architectural Review Committee (ARC)
A committee charged by an HOA’s CC&Rs with implementing architectural guidelines to maintain aesthetic standards and preserve property values. Petitioner Norm Burnes was a member of this committee.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)
The state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations in Arizona.
Arizona Revised Statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT. or A.R.S.)
The codified laws of the State of Arizona. Specific statutes cited include § 33-1804 (regarding open meetings) and § 33-1805 (regarding association records).
Burden of Proof
The obligation on a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this proceeding, the Petitioners bore the burden of proving their claims by a preponderance of the evidence.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community. They form an enforceable contract between the HOA and each property owner.
Homeowners’ Association (HOA)
The organization that makes and enforces rules for a subdivision or planned community. In this case, the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. is the Respondent.
Offer of Proof
A presentation of evidence made to a judge to demonstrate the substance and relevance of evidence that a party seeks to introduce. The Petitioners’ offer of proof regarding new evidence was found to be unsatisfactory.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies. This matter was referred to the OAH by the Department of Real Estate.
Petitioners
The party that initiates a legal action or petition. In this case, Clifford and Maria Burnes are the Petitioners.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in most civil cases. It means that the evidence presented is sufficient to convince the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. is the Respondent.
Blog Post – 21F-H2120002-REL
🧑⚖️
No emoji found
Loading
21F-H2120002-REL-RHG
1 source
The provided text is a Final Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings in Arizona, detailing a dispute between petitioners Clifford and Maria Burnes and the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. The case involved four specific allegations of violations by the Association, including allowing unapproved construction on Lot 7, failing to collect a required construction deposit, conducting an unnoticed meeting, and failing to fulfill a records request. This document affirms an earlier decision, concluding that the Petitioners failed to sustain the burden of proof for the first three issues but succeeded on the fourth issue regarding the violation of Arizona law concerning records requests. Consequently, the Association was ordered to comply with the relevant statute, provide missing email attachments, and reimburse a portion of the Petitioners’ filing fee.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Clifford (Norm) S. Burnes(petitioner) Saguaro Crest subdivision property owner; ARC Member
Maria Burnes(petitioner) Saguaro Crest subdivision property owner
Jacob A. Kubert(attorney)
Cynthia F. Burnes(attorney)
Debora Brown(witness)
Respondent Side
John Crotty(attorney) Law Offices of Farley, Choate & Wood
Kelsea Dressen(attorney) Law Offices of Farley, Choate & Wood
Esmerelda Martinez(board president; witness) Saguaro Crest HOA Board of Directors President of the Board
Dave Madill(board member) Saguaro Crest HOA Board of Directors Vice President of the Board
Julie Stevens(board member) Saguaro Crest HOA Board of Directors Treasurer of the Board
Raul Martinez(property owner) Owner of Lot 7 and 13 Construction on his property (Lot 7) is subject of the dispute
Ramona Martinez(property owner) Owner of Lot 7
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Sadot Negreté(observer)
Judy Lowe(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Dan Gardener(ADRE contact) Arizona Department of Real Estate Also listed as DGardner
c. serrano(administrative staff) Office of Administrative Hearings
Other Participants
Jamie Argueta(ARC member; property seller) Saguaro Crest HOA Architectural Review Committee Sold Lots 7 and 13 to Martinez family
Joseph Martinez(ARC member) Saguaro Crest HOA Architectural Review Committee
Jesus Carranza(substitute ARC member) Saguaro Crest HOA Architectural Review Committee Substitute for Petitioner during Lot 7 discussion
CC&Rs Article 7, Section 7.3, and Article 9, Sections 9.3, 9.4, and 9.5
Outcome Summary
The ALJ concluded that Foothills demonstrated Respondents' violation of the community governing documents by commencing and continuing construction of a second-story Addition without obtaining the required Architectural Committee approval. Foothills was deemed the prevailing party, and Respondents' appeal was dismissed.
Key Issues & Findings
Unauthorized 2nd story addition
Respondents constructed a second-story Addition to their property without first obtaining approval from the Foothills Architectural Committee, violating the community governing documents.
Orders: Respondents’ appeal is dismissed, and Foothills is deemed the prevailing party with regard to its Petition.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
CC&Rs Article 7, Section 7.3
CC&R Article 9, Section 9.3
CC&R Article 9, Section 9.4
CC&R Article 9, Section 9.5
Analytics Highlights
Topics: architectural review, cc&r violation, unapproved construction, second story addition, prevailing party
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. §§ 32-2102
A.R.S. §§ 32-2199 et al.
A.R.S. §§ 32-2199(2)
A.R.S. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
A.R.S. §§ 32-2199.02
A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
A.R.S. § 41-1092
A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
21F-H2120004-REL Decision – 839537.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:34:43 (135.4 KB)
Briefing Doc – 21F-H2120004-REL
Briefing Document: Foothills Club West HOA v. Subrahmanyam & Sudhakar Living Trust
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and decision in the case of Foothills Club West Homeowners Association v. Subrahmanyam & Sudhakar Living Trust (No. 21F-H2120004-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core dispute involved the construction of a second-story addition by homeowners (Respondents) without the prior approval of the Homeowners Association (Petitioner), a direct violation of the community’s governing documents.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found conclusively in favor of the Foothills Club West HOA. The evidence demonstrated that the Respondents not only began construction without seeking approval but continued the project even after receiving a formal denial from the HOA’s Architectural Committee. A subsequent agreement between the parties, wherein the Respondents would demolish the addition in exchange for a waiver of fines, was not honored by the Respondents. The ALJ dismissed the Respondents’ appeal and declared the HOA the prevailing party, validating its authority to enforce the community’s architectural standards as outlined in its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
I. Case Overview
• Case Name: Foothills Club West Homeowners Association, Petitioner, v. Subrahmanyam & Sudhakar Living Trust, Respondent.
• Case Number: 21F-H2120004-REL
• Jurisdiction: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
• Administrative Law Judge: Kay Abramsohn
• Hearing Date: October 5, 2020
• Decision Date: November 27, 2020
• Central Issue: The petition filed by Foothills HOA on July 24, 2020, alleged that the Respondents constructed an unauthorized and unapproved second-story addition to their property. This action was alleged to be in violation of CC&Rs Article 7, Section 7.3, and Article 9, Sections 9.3, 9.4, and 9.5.
II. Chronology of Key Events
The hearing record established the following undisputed sequence of events:
Oct. 2018
Respondents begin construction of the second-story addition.
Nov. 7, 2018
The City of Phoenix issues a stop-work order, noting a permit is required.
Nov. 7, 2018
Foothills HOA issues a violation notice to the Respondents.
Dec. 17, 2018
Respondents obtain a permit from the City of Phoenix.
Jan. 18, 2019 (approx.)
Respondents submit a request for approval to the Foothills Architectural Committee.
Jan. 18, 2019
Foothills HOA issues a penalty notice to the Respondents, with further notices issued monthly.
Feb. 22, 2019
Foothills HOA issues a formal denial of the application.
Mar. 15, 2019
The City of Phoenix gives final approval to the construction and issues a Certificate of Occupancy.
Post Feb. 2019
The parties reach an agreement for Respondents to demolish the addition in exchange for a waiver of fines.
July 24, 2020
Foothills HOA files its petition, noting Respondents have not complied with the demolition agreement.
Oct. 5, 2020
The administrative hearing is held.
Nov. 27, 2020
The Administrative Law Judge issues the final decision.
III. Arguments of the Parties
A. Petitioner: Foothills Club West HOA
• Violation of CC&Rs: The HOA argued that the Respondents violated CC&R Article 9, Section 9.3 by commencing construction without first obtaining approval from the Architectural Committee.
• Disregard for Denial: The HOA asserted that the Respondents completed the addition after receiving a formal denial of their application.
• Breach of Agreement: The HOA noted that the parties had reached a settlement agreement for demolition, which the Respondents failed to honor. The HOA requested that the Tribunal enforce this agreement.
• Jurisdictional Distinction: The HOA maintained that approval from the City of Phoenix was a separate matter and did not negate the requirement to obtain approval from the HOA as mandated by the governing documents.
B. Respondents: Subrahmanyam & Sudhakar Living Trust
• Initial Ignorance: Respondents claimed they were initially unaware of the HOA approval requirements.
• Attempted Compliance: They argued that once notified, they followed the association’s guidance, met with the Board, and sought approval.
• Vague Denial: Respondents stated they did not understand the meaning of the denial reason, “Fails aesthetics of surrounding community,” or how the addition specifically violated community rules.
• Lack of Due Process: They argued they did not receive a letter indicating an appeal process was available and therefore felt they had not received a final “denial.”
• Demolition Delay: While not disputing the existence of the demolition agreement, Respondents cited COVID-19 issues and safety concerns for their at-risk family as reasons for requesting more time.
• Final Appeal: At the hearing, Respondents reversed their position on the agreement and requested to be allowed to keep the addition.
IV. Analysis of Governing Documents
The decision centered on specific provisions within the Foothills Club West governing documents, which constitute the contract between the HOA and the homeowners.
• CC&R Article 9, Section 9.3 (Architectural Approval): This section was central to the case. It states in pertinent part:
• CC&R Article 9, Section 9.4 (Obligation to Obtain Approval): This provision explicitly sets forth a homeowner’s obligation to secure approval from the Architectural Committee.
• CC&R Article 9, Section 9.5 (Exterior Appearance): This section clarifies that while the HOA cannot limit interior remodeling, it retains jurisdiction over any changes that are “visible from outside such [home] … or affects the exterior appearance of such [home].”
• Amended Architectural Guidelines (2013): These guidelines reinforce the CC&Rs, specifying that a homeowner’s plans must be submitted for approval through the Architectural Committee on a case-by-case basis.
V. Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ’s conclusions of law provided a clear framework for the final order.
A. Burden of Proof
The ALJ established that in this proceeding, the petitioner (Foothills HOA) bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondents had violated the governing documents. A preponderance of the evidence is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
B. Core Conclusion on Violations
The ALJ found that the HOA had successfully met its burden of proof. The central conclusion of law states:
“The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Foothills has demonstrated Respondents’ violation of the community governing documents, as stated in CC&R Article 9, Sections 9.3, 9.4, and 9.5, because Respondents began to construct a modification, the Addition, to their existing home prior to obtaining approval from Foothills Architectural Committee and, further, Respondents continued to construct the Addition despite receiving a denial of approval from Foothills Architectural Committee.”
This finding affirmed that the Respondents committed two distinct violations: starting work without approval and continuing work after being explicitly denied approval.
VI. Final Order and Implications
Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the ALJ issued a decisive order.
• Order:
• Binding Nature: The decision notes that the order is binding on both parties unless a rehearing is requested. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing must be filed with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.
Study Guide – 21F-H2120004-REL
Study Guide: Foothills Club West HOA v. Subrahmanyam & Sudhakar Living Trust
This guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case No. 21F-H2120004-REL. It includes a short-answer quiz to test factual recall, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a comprehensive glossary of key terms found within the document.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following ten questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the information provided in the source document.
1. Who are the Petitioner and Respondent in this case, and what is their relationship?
2. What was the single issue raised in the petition filed by Foothills Club West Homeowners Association?
3. According to the Petition, which specific articles and sections of the governing documents did the Respondents allegedly violate?
4. What action did the City of Phoenix take on November 7, 2018, regarding the Respondents’ construction project?
5. What reasons did the Foothills Architectural Committee provide for denying the Respondents’ application on February 22, 2019?
6. Prior to the hearing, what agreement did the parties reach in an attempt to resolve the dispute?
7. What was the Respondents’ primary argument for their actions and for their failure to comply with the association’s denial?
8. What is the legal standard of proof required in this case, and which party bore the burden of meeting it?
9. Explain the difference between the City of Phoenix’s approval and the Foothills Architectural Committee’s approval, as argued by the Petitioner.
10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this matter?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner is the Foothills Club West Homeowners Association (“Foothills”). The Respondent is the Subrahmanyam & Sheila Sudhakar Living Trust. Their relationship is that of a homeowners’ association and a member homeowner residing within the planned community for 22 years.
2. The single issue raised was that the Respondents constructed an unauthorized and unapproved second-story addition to their property. The construction was completed even after the Foothills Architectural Committee had issued a denial of the project.
3. Foothills alleged that the Respondents violated the CC&Rs Article 7, Section 7.3, and Article 9, Sections 9.3, 9.4, and 9.5. These articles pertain to the rights and obligations of the association and the architectural standards requiring prior approval for modifications.
4. On November 7, 2018, the City of Phoenix issued a stop-work order for the Respondents’ construction project. The order noted that the work being performed required a permit, which had not yet been obtained.
5. The Foothills Architectural Committee denied the application because it needed copies of the City permit, the plans were incomplete, and there was no documentation on the roof line or roofing materials. Furthermore, the denial stated that the project “Fails aesthetics of surrounding community.”
6. The parties came to an agreement wherein the Respondents would complete the demolition of the second-story addition. In exchange, Foothills agreed to waive the penalties that had been imposed on the Respondents for the violation.
7. The Respondents argued that they initially did not know what was required and that they cooperated with the association’s Board once notified. They claimed they did not understand what “Fails aesthetics” meant, did not receive a letter about an appeal process, and therefore did not feel they had received a final “denial.”
8. The legal standard of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence,” which is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. The Petitioner, Foothills, bore the burden of proving the Respondents’ violation by this standard.
9. Foothills argued that approval from the City of Phoenix and approval from the association’s Architectural Committee were two different and separate matters. Even though the Respondents eventually received a City permit and a Certificate of Occupancy, this did not override the CC&R requirement to first obtain approval from Foothills.
10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Respondents’ appeal be dismissed. The Judge deemed Foothills the prevailing party with regard to its petition, finding that Foothills had demonstrated the Respondents’ violation of the community’s governing documents.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, more analytical responses. Formulate an essay-style answer for each, drawing evidence and support directly from the provided legal decision.
1. Analyze the arguments presented by both the Petitioner (Foothills) and the Respondents at the hearing. Discuss the key evidence and claims each party used to support their position and explain why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found the Petitioner’s case more persuasive.
2. Explain the distinct roles and jurisdictions of the Homeowners Association’s Architectural Committee and the City of Phoenix regarding the Respondents’ construction project. Why was obtaining a City permit and a Certificate of Occupancy insufficient for the Respondents to proceed without violating the community’s governing documents?
3. Trace the procedural history of case No. 21F-H2120004-REL, from the filing of the initial petition to the final order. Discuss key filings, motions, and deadlines mentioned in the document, including the Respondents’ attempt to consolidate another case.
4. Discuss the significance of the “contract” between the parties, as defined in footnote 15. How do the CC&Rs and the amended Architectural Guidelines function as this contract, and which specific sections were central to the judge’s conclusion that a violation occurred?
5. Evaluate the Respondents’ attempt to justify their failure to demolish the addition as per their agreement with Foothills, citing COVID-19 issues. How did their request at the hearing to keep the addition conflict with their prior agreement, and what does this reveal about their position in the dispute?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official, in this case Kay Abramsohn, who presides over administrative hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues decisions.
Architectural Committee
A committee appointed by the Foothills HOA, as established by CC&R Article 9, with the authority to review, approve, or disapprove plans for construction, modifications, and additions to properties within the community.
An abbreviation for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These are the governing documents that form a binding contract between the homeowners association and the property owners, outlining their rights and obligations.
Disclosure
The formal process by which parties in a legal case provide evidence, exhibits, and information to each other before a hearing. The deadline for disclosure in this case was September 29, 2020.
Governing Documents
The set of rules for the planned community, including the CC&Rs and the amended Architectural Guidelines, which have the same force and effect as association rules.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal proceeding by filing a petition. In this case, the Foothills Club West Homeowners Association.
Petition
The formal document filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate to initiate a hearing concerning violations of community governing documents. In this case, it was a “single-issue petition.”
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed and who is required to respond to the allegations. In this case, the Subrahmanyam & Sheila Sudhakar Living Trust.
Tribunal
The Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, the state agency authorized by statute to hear and decide contested matters referred to it, such as this dispute.
Blog Post – 21F-H2120004-REL
Select all sources
839537.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
21F-H2120004-REL
1 source
This text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings concerning a dispute between the Foothills Club West Homeowners Association and the Subrahmanyam & Sudhakar Living Trust. The Petitioner, the Foothills Club West Homeowners Association, filed a petition alleging that the Respondents constructed an unauthorized second-story addition to their property in violation of the association’s governing documents, specifically the CC&Rs Article 9, Sections 9.3, 9.4, and 9.5. The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Respondents violated these community documents by beginning construction prior to obtaining approval from the Foothills Architectural Committee and continuing the work despite receiving a denial. The judge ultimately concluded that Foothills was the prevailing party and dismissed the Respondents’ appeal, effectively upholding the violation finding.
What are the specific governing document violations alleged and proven against the homeowners?
How did the legal and administrative process address the unauthorized construction dispute?
What was the final resolution ordered regarding the unapproved second-story home addition?
Based on 1 source
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
John Halk(HOA attorney) BROWN/OLCOTT, PLLC Represented Petitioner Foothills Club West Homeowners Association
Nathan Tennyson(HOA attorney) BROWN/OLCOTT, PLLC Counsel for Petitioner
Respondent Side
Mary T. Hone(Respondent attorney) Mary T. Hone, PLLC Counsel for Respondent Trustees Subrahmanyam & Sheila Sudhakar
Subrahmanyam Sudhakar(respondent) Subrahmanyam & Sheila Sudhakar Living Trust Trustee of the Respondent Living Trust
Sheila Sudhakar(respondent) Subrahmanyam & Sheila Sudhakar Living Trust Trustee of the Respondent Living Trust
Neutral Parties
Kay Abramsohn(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Administrative Law Judge
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
LDettorre(Agency Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of electronic transmission of Order
AHansen(Agency Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of electronic transmission of Order
djones(Agency Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of electronic transmission of Order
DGardner(Agency Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of electronic transmission of Order
ncano(Agency Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of electronic transmission of Order
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
19F-H1918006-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2019-02-28
Administrative Law Judge
Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome
none
Filing Fees Refunded
$0.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Charles P. Mandela
Counsel
—
Respondent
Blue Ridge Estates of Coconino County Homeowners' Association
Counsel
Paul K. Frame, Esq.
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs § 3.1(a)
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the homeowner's petition in its entirety, finding the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated CC&R § 3.1(a) when denying the construction of a cedar patio structure.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish that the HOA violated CC&R 3.1(a). The proposed structure was found to be a second detached structure and/or a temporary structure barred by the community documents, and the Petitioner had previously failed to submit sufficient information for an attached structure proposal.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of CC&Rs § 3.1(a) by denying request for patio structure while allowing another member to erect a Tuff Shed.
Petitioner alleged the HOA improperly denied his request for a detached cedar patio structure (150 sq ft) based on CC&R § 3.1(A) which limits properties to one detached structure (Petitioner already had a tool shed). The ALJ found Petitioner failed to establish the violation, concluding the proposed structure was a second barred detached structure or a temporary structure (as concrete pavers were not equivalent to a required cement/block foundation). Petitioner also failed to provide sufficient architectural details for an attached structure request.
Briefing Document: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings from two Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Charles P. Mandela and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association of Coconino County (“Blue Ridge”). The core of the conflict involves Mr. Mandela’s multiple failed attempts to gain approval for a 150-square-foot patio structure on his property, which already contained a tool shed.
Blue Ridge denied Mr. Mandela’s three separate requests on distinct grounds: the first for exceeding the size limit for a “play structure,” the second for submitting incomplete plans for an “attached structure,” and the third for violating the “one detached structure” rule. In response, Mr. Mandela filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging that Blue Ridge had violated its own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and engaged in discriminatory practices.
Following an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge conclusively denied Mr. Mandela’s petition. The judge found that Mr. Mandela failed to meet the burden of proof to establish any violation by Blue Ridge. The decisions affirmed that the HOA’s denials were consistent with its governing documents, that Mr. Mandela’s interpretation of key terms like “detached structure” and “temporary structure” was incorrect, and that his allegations of discrimination were unsubstantiated by evidence. The final order from the rehearing is binding on both parties.
Case Overview
This case documents a series of requests and denials between a homeowner and his HOA, culminating in a formal legal dispute adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.
Parties Involved
Name/Entity
Petitioner
Charles P. Mandela
Respondent
Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association of Coconino County
Respondent’s Counsel
Paul Frame, Esq. (FRAME LAW PLLC)
Administrative Law Judge
Velva Moses-Thompson
Timeline of Key Events
Date (Approx.)
Feb 1, 2018
Mr. Mandela submits his first request: a “Play Structure Approval Request” for a 150 sq. ft. cedar patio structure. It is denied for exceeding the 80 sq. ft. size limit.
Mar 2, 2018
Mr. Mandela submits his second request: to attach a cedar patio shade to his home. Blue Ridge requests detailed plans.
Mar 8, 2018
Mr. Mandela’s second request is formally denied due to “incomplete information.”
Mar 23, 2018
Mr. Mandela files an appeal with Blue Ridge regarding the denial, which is subsequently denied.
Undisclosed
Mr. Mandela submits his third request: to build a detached 150 sq. ft. cedar patio structure. It is denied because he already has a tool shed, and rules permit only one detached structure.
Jul 31, 2018
Mr. Mandela files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging Blue Ridge violated CC&R § 3.1(a).
Oct 17, 2018
An evidentiary hearing is held before an Administrative Law Judge.
Nov 6, 2018
The ALJ issues a decision denying Mr. Mandela’s petition.
Dec 12, 2018
The Department of Real Estate issues an order for a rehearing.
Feb 8, 2019
The rehearing is held.
Feb 28, 2019
The ALJ issues a final decision on the rehearing, once again denying the petition. This order is binding.
Analysis of Petitioner’s Requests and HOA Denials
Mr. Mandela made three distinct applications to the Blue Ridge Architectural Committee for his proposed patio structure, each of which was denied for violating a different set of rules.
Request 1: Play Structure Application
Mr. Mandela first attempted to gain approval by using a “Play Structure Approval Request” form from the Blue Ridge website.
• Request Details: Construction of a cedar patio structure of approximately 150 square feet.
• Reason for Denial: The request was denied because the structure’s size exceeded the established limit. The application form explicitly states that play structures such as a “Tree House, Tree Viewing Stand, Play House/Fort” cannot exceed 80 square feet.
Request 2: Attached Patio Shade Application
Mr. Mandela next submitted a request to attach the cedar patio shade directly to his home.
• Request Details: The proposal involved attaching a structure to the main residence.
• HOA Actions: Blue Ridge Chairman John Hart requested documents, such as plans and materials, to verify the structure would not be free-standing.
• Petitioner’s Response: In a March 3, 2018 email, Mr. Mandela stated: “I am building this myself. I am not an Architect, I have not software to show (6) 2 by 4”s to attach from the single family roof lie to the roof lien of the same roof. The structures will be attached.”
• Reason for Denial: The request was denied on March 8, 2018, due to “incomplete information.” The denial letter specified that Mr. Mandela needed to provide detailed drawings matching the proposed construction and use the official 9-page form as required by CC&R guidelines. The subsequent appeal was also denied, with the board noting a need for an “elevation drawing of your specific construction” showing dimensions, materials, and foundation/attachment methods.
Request 3: Detached Patio Structure Application
Finally, Mr. Mandela submitted a request to build the 150-square-foot structure as a detached unit.
• Request Details: A free-standing, detached patio structure in his backyard.
• Reason for Denial: This request was denied because Mr. Mandela already had a tool shed on his property. According to CC&R § 3.1(A) and Architectural Committee regulation 3(D), only one detached structure is permitted on a lot.
Core Legal Arguments and Adjudication
In the hearings, Mr. Mandela presented several arguments to challenge the HOA’s decisions. The Administrative Law Judge addressed each claim and found that the petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
Definition of a “Detached Structure”
• Mandela’s Position: Argued that the proposed patio structure was not a “detached structure” under the CC&Rs because, unlike a shed, it could not be “easily converted into a second residence.” He claimed this interpretation was supported by a prior ALJ decision involving Blue Ridge.
• ALJ’s Conclusion: The Judge found this argument unpersuasive. The decision states that Mr. Mandela misinterpreted the prior ruling and, more importantly, that “prior administrative law judge decisions are not precedent or binding on future administrative law decisions.” It was undisputed that Mr. Mandela already had a shed, and the judge concluded the proposed patio was a “barred detached structure” under the governing rules.
Allegations of Discrimination and Unequal Enforcement
• Mandela’s Position: Mr. Mandela contended that Blue Ridge was discriminating against him. His claims included:
1. The play structure rule allowing a second detached structure under 80 sq. ft. unfairly discriminates against residents without children.
2. Blue Ridge was not enforcing the 80 sq. ft. limit against other homeowners.
3. Blue Ridge had previously approved a “Tuff Shed” for another member, showing unequal enforcement.
• ALJ’s Conclusion: The petitioner failed to provide credible evidence for these claims. Testimony from Blue Ridge Vice President Joseph Hancock refuted Mandela’s specific examples, showing that cited lots either had no violations or contained structures predating the relevant rules. The judge found Hancock’s testimony credible and noted that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over potential constitutional equal protection claims.
Definition of a “Temporary Structure”
• Mandela’s Position: Mr. Mandela argued his proposed structure was not a prohibited temporary structure. He cited the product’s 5-year warranty against rot and his plan to use concrete pavers at the base, which he asserted constituted a “cement foundation” under the rules.
• HOA’s Position: Joseph Hancock testified that a concrete paver is not the equivalent of a “cement or slab foundation.”
• ALJ’s Conclusion: The judge agreed with the HOA. The decision states: “The preponderance of the evidence shows that the proposed play structure is a temporary structure under the Blue Ridge CC&Rs because it does not have a cement or block foundation. The preponderance of the evidence shows that concrete pavers are not the equivalent of cement or block foundation.”
Governing Rules and Regulations
The dispute centered on the interpretation and application of specific sections of the Blue Ridge Estates CC&Rs and the Architectural Committee’s aligned regulations.
Regulation
Summary of Provision
CC&R § 3.1
Restricts property use to “Single Family Residential Use.” Prohibits any building or structure separate from the main residence, with the exception of a garage.
Arch. Committee Reg. 3(D)
Modifies CC&R § 3.1 by allowing one detached structure to be constructed on a property with prior committee approval.
CC&R § 3.6 & Aligned Reg.
Prohibits temporary structures. Defines a temporary structure as one “without a cement or block foundation to which the structure or building is permanently attached.”
CC&R § 3.24
Requires prior written approval from the Architectural Committee for any structure to be “commenced, erected, maintained, improved or altered.”
Modified Rules (April 6, 2016)
Establishes rules for “Play Structures.” Allows for one of each type but no more than two total. Limits Tree Houses, Viewing Stands, and Play Houses/Forts to a maximum of 80 square feet.
Final Orders and Outcome
The legal proceedings resulted in a definitive ruling in favor of the Respondent, Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association.
• Initial Decision (November 6, 2018): IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied.
• Rehearing Decision (February 28, 2019): IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is denied.
The decision on the rehearing is noted as binding on the parties, with any further appeal requiring judicial review filed with the superior court within 35 days of the order.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918006-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a detailed review of the administrative law case involving petitioner Charles P. Mandela and respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association of Coconino County. It is based on the Administrative Law Judge Decisions from the initial hearing on October 17, 2018, and the rehearing on February 8, 2019.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences based on the information provided in the case documents.
1. Describe the three separate requests Charles Mandela submitted to the Blue Ridge Estates HOA and the basis for the HOA’s denial of each.
2. What was Mr. Mandela’s central allegation in the petition he filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on July 31, 2018?
3. Explain the argument Mr. Mandela made regarding a prior Administrative Law Judge decision concerning detached structures, and why Judge Moses-Thompson found it unpersuasive.
4. According to the Blue Ridge governing documents, what is the definition of a “temporary structure,” and how did Mr. Mandela argue his proposed patio did not fit this definition?
5. What specific, incomplete information did the Blue Ridge Architectural Committee cite when denying Mr. Mandela’s second request to build an attached cedar patio shade?
6. Identify the two different rules that limit the size and number of structures on a property and explain how they were applied to Mr. Mandela’s requests.
7. What was Mr. Mandela’s discrimination argument regarding the HOA’s play structure policy, and what was the stated purpose for which he wanted to build the patio?
8. Who is Joseph Hancock, and what key points did his testimony establish during the rehearing?
9. Explain the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” and identify which party in this case was responsible for meeting this burden of proof.
10. What was the final, binding order issued by the Administrative Law Judge after the rehearing, and what was the petitioner’s next course of action for an appeal?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. Mr. Mandela first submitted a “Play Structure Approval Request” for a 150-square-foot patio, which was denied for exceeding the 80-square-foot limit for play structures. His second request was to attach a cedar patio shade to his home, which was denied for providing incomplete information and insufficient plans. His third request was for a detached 150-square-foot patio, which was denied because he already had a tool shed, and rules permit only one detached structure per property.
2. In his petition, Mr. Mandela alleged that the Blue Ridge HOA had violated its own CC&Rs, specifically § 3.1(a). He claimed the HOA was unfairly denying his request to place a patio structure in his backyard while it had allowed another member to erect a Tuff Shed.
3. Mr. Mandela contended that a prior ALJ decision had defined a “detached structure” as one that could be easily converted into a second residence, which his open-air patio could not. Judge Moses-Thompson rejected this argument, stating that Mr. Mandela misinterpreted the prior ruling and, more importantly, that prior administrative law judge decisions are not binding precedent for future cases.
4. The HOA’s rules define a temporary structure as one without a cement or block foundation to which it is permanently attached. Mr. Mandela argued his proposed patio was not temporary because he planned to use concrete pavers, which he asserted constituted a cement foundation.
5. The Architectural Committee denied the request for an attached structure due to incomplete information, specifically the lack of an elevation drawing. The denial letter stated that such a drawing was needed to show detailed views, sizes, dimensions, specifications, construction methods, and foundation attachment details for his specific proposed construction.
6. Architectural Committee Regulation 3(D) limits homeowners to one detached structure per property. The modified Rules and Regulations for “Play Structures” allow for a second structure if it is a play structure, but it cannot exceed 80 square feet. Mr. Mandela’s request for a 150-square-foot detached patio was denied under the first rule because he already had a shed, and his initial request under the play structure rule was denied because it exceeded the 80-square-foot size limit.
7. Mr. Mandela argued that the play structure policy, which allows for a second detached structure, discriminates against people who do not have children. He explained that he did not want the structure for children’s play but so that his mother would have a shaded place to come outside and rest.
8. Joseph Hancock is the Vice President of Blue Ridge and a licensed contractor who assisted in reviewing Mr. Mandela’s requests. He testified that Mr. Mandela’s plans for an attached structure were insufficient, failing to account for height and width differentials, and opined that concrete pavers are not equivalent to a cement or slab foundation under the HOA’s rules.
9. “Preponderance of the evidence” is the legal standard requiring proof that a contention is more probably true than not. In this case, the petitioner, Charles P. Mandela, bore the burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Blue Ridge HOA had violated its CC&Rs.
10. The final order denied Mr. Mandela’s petition, making the decision binding on the parties. The notice specified that any further appeal must be made through judicial review by filing with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage a deeper synthesis of the case materials. Construct a detailed essay-format response for each.
1. Analyze the series of requests and denials between Charles Mandela and the Blue Ridge HOA. Discuss how the HOA’s different governing documents (CC&Rs, Architectural Committee regulations, and modified Rules and Regulations) were applied at each stage of the process and evaluate the consistency of their application.
2. Examine the legal arguments presented by Charles Mandela in the rehearing, including his claims of discrimination, his interpretation of a “temporary structure,” and his assertion that he provided sufficient information. Discuss why the Administrative Law Judge found each of these arguments unpersuasive, citing specific evidence and testimony from the hearing.
3. Trace the distinction made in the Blue Ridge governing documents between a primary residence, a detached structure (like a garage or shed), and a “play structure.” How did this distinction become the central point of conflict in the case of Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates?
4. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied in this administrative hearing. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means and detail the specific ways in which the petitioner, Charles Mandela, failed to meet this burden according to the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision.
5. The Blue Ridge HOA has at least three layers of governing documents mentioned: the CC&Rs (Declaration), Architectural Committee Aligned Standards, and the Rules and Regulations. Explain the hierarchy and purpose of these documents as revealed in the case, and discuss how the authority to create and modify them is defined.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over hearings for government agencies, in this case, the Office of Administrative Hearings for the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Architectural Committee
A committee within the Blue Ridge HOA responsible for reviewing and approving or denying any construction, erection, maintenance, improvement, or alteration of structures on any lot, as per CC&R § 3.24.
Blue Ridge Estates HOA
The homeowners’ association for the Blue Ridge Estates development in Happy Jack, Arizona, and the respondent in this case.
Burden of Proof
The obligation on a party in a legal dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this case, the petitioner had the burden of proof.
Charles P. Mandela
The homeowner and member of the Blue Ridge Estates HOA who filed the petition against the association; the petitioner in this case.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The primary governing document for the homeowners’ association, also referred to as the “Declaration.” It outlines land use, permitted structures, and restrictions.
Declaration
The formal term for the CC&Rs document. Amending it requires an affirmative vote or written consent from members owning at least 75% of all lots.
Detached Structure
A building or structure erected or maintained separately from the Single Family Residence. Under Architectural Committee rules, only one is permitted per lot.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal or administrative action. In this case, Charles P. Mandela.
Play Structure
A specific type of structure defined in the modified Rules and Regulations, including swing sets, tree houses, and playhouses. When detached, certain types are limited to 80 square feet.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The evidentiary standard required to win the case, defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is “more probably true than not.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed; the party that must respond to the petitioner’s claims. In this case, the Blue Ridge Estates HOA.
Single Family Residential Use
The exclusive use for which property in Blue Ridge Estates is designated, as outlined in CC&R § 3.1.
Temporary Structure
A structure prohibited by the CC&Rs and defined by the Architectural Committee regulations as one “without a cement or block foundation to which the structure or building is permanently attached.”
Blog Post – 19F-H1918006-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a detailed review of the administrative law case involving petitioner Charles P. Mandela and respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association of Coconino County. It is based on the Administrative Law Judge Decisions from the initial hearing on October 17, 2018, and the rehearing on February 8, 2019.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences based on the information provided in the case documents.
1. Describe the three separate requests Charles Mandela submitted to the Blue Ridge Estates HOA and the basis for the HOA’s denial of each.
2. What was Mr. Mandela’s central allegation in the petition he filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on July 31, 2018?
3. Explain the argument Mr. Mandela made regarding a prior Administrative Law Judge decision concerning detached structures, and why Judge Moses-Thompson found it unpersuasive.
4. According to the Blue Ridge governing documents, what is the definition of a “temporary structure,” and how did Mr. Mandela argue his proposed patio did not fit this definition?
5. What specific, incomplete information did the Blue Ridge Architectural Committee cite when denying Mr. Mandela’s second request to build an attached cedar patio shade?
6. Identify the two different rules that limit the size and number of structures on a property and explain how they were applied to Mr. Mandela’s requests.
7. What was Mr. Mandela’s discrimination argument regarding the HOA’s play structure policy, and what was the stated purpose for which he wanted to build the patio?
8. Who is Joseph Hancock, and what key points did his testimony establish during the rehearing?
9. Explain the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” and identify which party in this case was responsible for meeting this burden of proof.
10. What was the final, binding order issued by the Administrative Law Judge after the rehearing, and what was the petitioner’s next course of action for an appeal?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. Mr. Mandela first submitted a “Play Structure Approval Request” for a 150-square-foot patio, which was denied for exceeding the 80-square-foot limit for play structures. His second request was to attach a cedar patio shade to his home, which was denied for providing incomplete information and insufficient plans. His third request was for a detached 150-square-foot patio, which was denied because he already had a tool shed, and rules permit only one detached structure per property.
2. In his petition, Mr. Mandela alleged that the Blue Ridge HOA had violated its own CC&Rs, specifically § 3.1(a). He claimed the HOA was unfairly denying his request to place a patio structure in his backyard while it had allowed another member to erect a Tuff Shed.
3. Mr. Mandela contended that a prior ALJ decision had defined a “detached structure” as one that could be easily converted into a second residence, which his open-air patio could not. Judge Moses-Thompson rejected this argument, stating that Mr. Mandela misinterpreted the prior ruling and, more importantly, that prior administrative law judge decisions are not binding precedent for future cases.
4. The HOA’s rules define a temporary structure as one without a cement or block foundation to which it is permanently attached. Mr. Mandela argued his proposed patio was not temporary because he planned to use concrete pavers, which he asserted constituted a cement foundation.
5. The Architectural Committee denied the request for an attached structure due to incomplete information, specifically the lack of an elevation drawing. The denial letter stated that such a drawing was needed to show detailed views, sizes, dimensions, specifications, construction methods, and foundation attachment details for his specific proposed construction.
6. Architectural Committee Regulation 3(D) limits homeowners to one detached structure per property. The modified Rules and Regulations for “Play Structures” allow for a second structure if it is a play structure, but it cannot exceed 80 square feet. Mr. Mandela’s request for a 150-square-foot detached patio was denied under the first rule because he already had a shed, and his initial request under the play structure rule was denied because it exceeded the 80-square-foot size limit.
7. Mr. Mandela argued that the play structure policy, which allows for a second detached structure, discriminates against people who do not have children. He explained that he did not want the structure for children’s play but so that his mother would have a shaded place to come outside and rest.
8. Joseph Hancock is the Vice President of Blue Ridge and a licensed contractor who assisted in reviewing Mr. Mandela’s requests. He testified that Mr. Mandela’s plans for an attached structure were insufficient, failing to account for height and width differentials, and opined that concrete pavers are not equivalent to a cement or slab foundation under the HOA’s rules.
9. “Preponderance of the evidence” is the legal standard requiring proof that a contention is more probably true than not. In this case, the petitioner, Charles P. Mandela, bore the burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Blue Ridge HOA had violated its CC&Rs.
10. The final order denied Mr. Mandela’s petition, making the decision binding on the parties. The notice specified that any further appeal must be made through judicial review by filing with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage a deeper synthesis of the case materials. Construct a detailed essay-format response for each.
1. Analyze the series of requests and denials between Charles Mandela and the Blue Ridge HOA. Discuss how the HOA’s different governing documents (CC&Rs, Architectural Committee regulations, and modified Rules and Regulations) were applied at each stage of the process and evaluate the consistency of their application.
2. Examine the legal arguments presented by Charles Mandela in the rehearing, including his claims of discrimination, his interpretation of a “temporary structure,” and his assertion that he provided sufficient information. Discuss why the Administrative Law Judge found each of these arguments unpersuasive, citing specific evidence and testimony from the hearing.
3. Trace the distinction made in the Blue Ridge governing documents between a primary residence, a detached structure (like a garage or shed), and a “play structure.” How did this distinction become the central point of conflict in the case of Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates?
4. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied in this administrative hearing. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means and detail the specific ways in which the petitioner, Charles Mandela, failed to meet this burden according to the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision.
5. The Blue Ridge HOA has at least three layers of governing documents mentioned: the CC&Rs (Declaration), Architectural Committee Aligned Standards, and the Rules and Regulations. Explain the hierarchy and purpose of these documents as revealed in the case, and discuss how the authority to create and modify them is defined.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over hearings for government agencies, in this case, the Office of Administrative Hearings for the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Architectural Committee
A committee within the Blue Ridge HOA responsible for reviewing and approving or denying any construction, erection, maintenance, improvement, or alteration of structures on any lot, as per CC&R § 3.24.
Blue Ridge Estates HOA
The homeowners’ association for the Blue Ridge Estates development in Happy Jack, Arizona, and the respondent in this case.
Burden of Proof
The obligation on a party in a legal dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this case, the petitioner had the burden of proof.
Charles P. Mandela
The homeowner and member of the Blue Ridge Estates HOA who filed the petition against the association; the petitioner in this case.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The primary governing document for the homeowners’ association, also referred to as the “Declaration.” It outlines land use, permitted structures, and restrictions.
Declaration
The formal term for the CC&Rs document. Amending it requires an affirmative vote or written consent from members owning at least 75% of all lots.
Detached Structure
A building or structure erected or maintained separately from the Single Family Residence. Under Architectural Committee rules, only one is permitted per lot.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal or administrative action. In this case, Charles P. Mandela.
Play Structure
A specific type of structure defined in the modified Rules and Regulations, including swing sets, tree houses, and playhouses. When detached, certain types are limited to 80 square feet.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The evidentiary standard required to win the case, defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is “more probably true than not.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed; the party that must respond to the petitioner’s claims. In this case, the Blue Ridge Estates HOA.
Single Family Residential Use
The exclusive use for which property in Blue Ridge Estates is designated, as outlined in CC&R § 3.1.
Temporary Structure
A structure prohibited by the CC&Rs and defined by the Architectural Committee regulations as one “without a cement or block foundation to which the structure or building is permanently attached.”
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Charles P. Mandela(petitioner) Appeared on behalf of himself,.
Respondent Side
Paul K. Frame(HOA attorney) FRAME LAW PLLC Appeared on behalf of Respondent Blue Ridge Estates HOA,.
John Hart(board member) Blue Ridge Estates HOA Chairman of Blue Ridge,.
Joseph Hancock(board member/witness) Blue Ridge Estates HOA Vice President of Blue Ridge; presented testimony,.
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the HOA Board had the authority under the CC&Rs and related documents to remove non-Board ARC members and appoint itself to perform the functions of the ARC, thus validating its approval of the homeowner's detached garage application.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated CC&Rs §§ 3.2 or 7.7. The Board, having assumed the developer's rights, was authorized to remove and appoint ARC members.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of CC&Rs regarding ARC dissolution and architectural approval authority.
Petitioner alleged that the HOA Board violated CC&Rs §§ 3.2 and 7.7 by dissolving the ARC and then acting as the ARC to approve a modification (detached garage) for a homeowner.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied because he failed to establish that CC&Rs §§ 3.2 or 7.7 prohibited the Respondent HOA from replacing non-Board ARC members, appointing its own members to act as the ARC, or approving the detached garage application.
Administrative Law Judge Decision Briefing: Dwight vs. Whisper Mountain HOA
Executive Summary
This document summarizes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision in case number 19F-H1918027-REL, concerning a dispute between homeowner N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. (“Petitioner”) and the Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (“Respondent”). The Petitioner alleged that the HOA Board violated the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by suspending the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and subsequently approving a homeowner’s construction application.
The ALJ denied the petition in its entirety, finding that the HOA Board acted within its authority. The decision established that upon the departure of the original developer (the “Declarant”), the Board inherited the Declarant’s full rights and responsibilities, including the power to both appoint and remove members of the ARC. The Judge explicitly rejected the Petitioner’s argument that ARC members held lifetime appointments, deeming such an interpretation contrary to the democratic principles of HOA governance. Consequently, the Board’s decision to remove the non-Board ARC members and appoint itself to serve as the ARC was ruled a valid exercise of its powers, and its subsequent approval of the construction application was not a violation of the CC&Rs.
Case Overview
Entity
Petitioner
N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. (Homeowner and former ARC member)
Respondent
Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (HOA)
Adjudicator
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Case Number
19F-H1918027-REL
Hearing Date
January 14, 2019
Decision Date
January 29, 2019
Core Allegation
The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent’s Board violated two sections of the CC&Rs:
1. § 7.7 (Improvements and Alterations): By approving a homeowner’s application to build a detached garage on September 19, 2018, without the approval of a properly constituted ARC.
2. § 3.2 (Appeal): By creating a situation where the body making an architectural decision (the Board acting as the ARC) is the same body that would hear an appeal of that decision, rendering the appeal process meaningless.
This was based on the Petitioner’s central claim that the Board’s action on August 6, 2018, to “dissolve” or “suspend” the ARC was a violation of the governing documents.
Key Factual Background & Timeline
• Prior to 2015: The developer, VIP Homes (“Declarant”), establishes the ARC as required by the CC&Rs.
• 2015: The Declarant turns over control of the HOA to the resident-elected Board of Directors.
• March 15, 2016: The Board adopts an ARC Charter, which explicitly states: “The right to appoint and remove all appointed [ARC] members at any time is hereby vested solely in the Board.” The Petitioner is appointed as one of three non-Board members to the ARC.
• 2017 or 2018: A proposed amendment to the CC&Rs to formally replace references to “Declarant” with “Board” or “Association” is not adopted by the general membership.
• July 17, 2018: The ARC meets to consider a detached garage application from homeowners Mark and Connie Wells. The meeting is contentious, with the Petitioner expressing doubts about the ARC’s authority to grant a variance from city setback requirements. The meeting adjourns abruptly after the applicant allegedly “verbally threatened the committee.”
• August 6, 2018: The HOA Board meets and passes a motion “to suspend the ARC committee for 60 days until guidelines/expectations are clarified.” The motion states that in the interim, the Board will review and approve all ARC submissions.
• August 24, 2018: The Board sends a letter to the non-Board ARC members, including the Petitioner, informing them of the 60-day suspension.
• September 17, 2018: The Board meets and approves a revised application from the Wells, which now aligns with City of Mesa code.
• September 19, 2018: The Board, formally acting as the ARC, reviews and approves the Wells’ revised application.
• October 22, 2018: The Petitioner files his complaint with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• November 19, 2018: The Board adopts a “Resolution Regarding the ARC” to clarify its position. The resolution states the Board had “(i) temporarily removed the current members of the [ARC] (via a suspension) and (ii) chose to act and serve as the current [ARC].” It also formally ratifies the approval of the Wells’ garage.
Central Arguments Presented
Petitioner’s Position (N. Wayne Dwight, Jr.)
• Limited Board Authority: The CC&Rs (§ 3.4) grant the Declarant the “sole right to appoint and remove” ARC members. After the Declarant’s departure, this section states that members “shall be appointed by the Board.” The Petitioner argued this only conferred the power to appoint, not to remove.
• Failed Amendment: The failure of the membership to amend the CC&Rs to explicitly grant the Board the Declarant’s powers proves that the Board does not possess the power of removal.
• Lifetime Appointments: The Petitioner argued that once appointed, ARC members could only be removed for specific cause (e.g., moving out of the community, incapacitation) and were otherwise entitled to serve for life.
• Improper ARC Suspension: The Board’s action to suspend the committee was a violation of the CC&Rs, as the Board lacked the authority to do so.
• Invalid Approval: Because the ARC was improperly suspended, the Board’s subsequent approval of the Wells’ application violated § 7.7, which requires ARC approval for all alterations.
• Meaningless Appeals: If the Board can act as the ARC, the appeal process outlined in § 3.2, which allows a homeowner to appeal an ARC decision to the Board, becomes an “exercise in futility.”
Respondent’s Position (Whisper Mountain HOA)
• Inherited Powers: Upon the Declarant’s departure, the Board assumed all of its rights and responsibilities under the CC&Rs, including the power to both appoint and remove ARC members.
• Authority from ARC Charter: The ARC Charter, adopted in 2016, explicitly grants the Board the sole right to remove ARC members at any time.
• Intent of the Board: The Board’s intent was not to abolish the ARC, but to address concerns about the committee’s conduct, including its “way of questioning applicants” and a need for more civility, fairness, and consistency.
• Clarification of “Suspension”: The use of the word “suspend” in communications by the management company (Mariposa Group) was “unfortunate and inaccurate.” The Board’s true action, clarified in its November 19 resolution, was to remove the non-Board members and appoint its own members to serve as the ARC.
• Valid Approval: The Board was legitimately acting as the ARC when it approved the Wells’ application; therefore, § 7.7 was not violated.
Administrative Law Judge’s Analysis and Conclusions
Interpretation of Governing Documents
The ALJ concluded that restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted to give effect to the intent of the parties. The Judge found the Petitioner’s interpretation of the CC&Rs to be unpersuasive and ultimately harmful to the community.
• The Judge stated that the Petitioner’s interpretation “elevates non-elected members of ARC above elected Board members, abrogates any community control over ARC, and does not serve the underlying purposes of the CC&Rs.”
• This “unelected lifetime appointment” concept was found to be contrary to the “democratic principles underlying HOA law in Arizona.”
On the Board’s Authority
The ALJ affirmed the HOA’s authority to manage the ARC as it did.
• Assumption of Powers: The decision concludes that “When Declarant turned Respondent HOA over to its Board, the Board assumed all of Declarant’s rights and responsibilities under the CC&Rs and related documents.” This included the power to remove ARC members.
• ARC Charter: The Judge noted that the ARC Charter also “expressly provided that the Board had the power to remove as well as to appoint members of the ARC.”
• Legitimacy of Actions: The Board was found to have acted within its authority in August 2018 when it “removed the three non-Board members of the ARC and appointed itself to perform the functions of the ARC.”
On the Alleged Violations
Based on the finding that the Board acted within its authority, the ALJ concluded that no violations occurred.
• Conclusion on CC&R § 7.7 (ARC Approval): The petition failed on this point because the Board was legitimately acting as the ARC when it approved the Wells’ application in September 2018.
• Conclusion on CC&R § 3.2 (Appeals): The petition failed on this point because the CC&Rs do not prohibit Board members from acting as the ARC. While acknowledging that appealing a decision to the same body “may be an exercise in futility,” the Judge noted that under the CC&Rs, the Board is not required to hear appeals in any event.
Final Order and Implications
Order: The petition filed by N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. was denied. The Judge found he had not established that the HOA violated CC&Rs §§ 3.2 or 7.7.
Implications: This decision establishes a strong precedent for interpreting HOA governing documents in a manner that favors functional, democratic governance over literal interpretations that could lead to impractical or absurd outcomes. It affirms that an HOA Board generally inherits the full operational powers of the original developer unless explicitly restricted, and that a Board can act to reform or reconstitute committees to ensure they serve the community’s best interests.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918027-REL
Study Guide: Dwight v. Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. vs. Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (No. 19F-H1918027-REL). It includes a quiz to test factual recall, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms as defined within the context of the legal document.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer each of the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing exclusively from the provided source document.
1. What were the two specific allegations made by the Petitioner, N. Wayne Dwight, Jr., in his petition filed on October 22, 2018?
2. Identify the key parties in this case and describe their respective roles or relationships to the dispute.
3. What was the purpose and outcome of the ARC meeting held on July 17, 2018, regarding the Wells’ property?
4. Explain the actions taken by the Respondent’s Board of Directors during its meeting on August 6, 2018, regarding the Architectural Review Committee (ARC).
5. What was the Petitioner’s interpretation of CC&R § 3.4 regarding the removal of ARC members, and what was the potential consequence of this interpretation as noted by the Administrative Law Judge?
6. According to the Respondent’s Board president, Greg Robert Wingert, what were the primary reasons for removing the non-Board members of the ARC?
7. Describe the role of the Mariposa Group LLC in this case and explain how its communications created confusion.
8. How did the Board clarify its actions and ratify its decisions in the November 19, 2018 Resolution?
9. What is the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and how is it defined in the case documents?
10. What was the final ruling of the Administrative Law Judge, and what was the core reasoning behind the decision regarding CC&Rs §§ 3.2 and 7.7?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent’s Board violated Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) §§ 3.2 and 7.7. The specific violations cited were the dissolution or suspension of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) on August 6, 2018, and the subsequent approval of an application from two members to build a detached garage on September 19, 2018.
2. The key parties are N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. (the “Petitioner”), a property owner and former ARC member, and the Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (the “Respondent”). The case also involves Greg Robert Wingert, the President of the Respondent’s Board, and Mark and Connie Wells, the homeowners who applied to build a detached garage. The dispute centers on the Respondent’s authority over the ARC, of which the Petitioner was a member.
3. The purpose of the July 17, 2018, meeting was for the ARC, including the Petitioner, to consider Mark and Connie Wells’ application for a detached garage. The meeting was abruptly adjourned after the applicant allegedly threatened the committee, and no formal vote was conducted at that time. However, a letter dated July 30, 2018, later informed the Wells that the ARC had approved their request.
4. At the August 6, 2018, meeting, the Board of Directors discussed the need for more consistency and guidelines for the ARC. Citing these reasons and safety concerns from a prior meeting, the Board passed a motion to “suspend the ARC committee for 60 days” and announced that in the interim, the Board itself would review and approve all ARC submissions.
5. The Petitioner argued that CC&R § 3.4 only allowed the Board to appoint, not remove, ARC members. He contended that once appointed, members could only be removed for cause and were otherwise entitled to serve for life. The Judge noted this interpretation would elevate unelected ARC members above the elected Board and abrogate community control.
6. Greg Robert Wingert testified that the Board removed the non-Board ARC members due to concerns about the “manner in which questioning was done in a public forum.” The Board’s intent was not to eliminate the ARC, but to continue the review process while making it more civil, fair, consistent, and transparent.
7. The Mariposa Group LLC was the Respondent’s management company. Its employees, such as Ed Ericksen, were responsible for drafting official communications like minutes and letters. These communications used inaccurate words like “suspend” and “dissolve” to describe the Board’s actions regarding the ARC, which Mr. Wingert testified was an “unfortunate and inaccurate” choice of words that did not reflect the Board’s true intent.
8. The November 19, 2018, Resolution clarified that the Board had removed the existing ARC members and appointed itself to act and serve as the ARC, as was its right under CC&R § 3.4. The resolution explicitly stated that the Board members were the current members of the ARC and ratified all prior architectural decisions made by the Board while serving in this capacity, including the approval of the garage on Lot 18.
9. The Petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not, representing the greater weight of evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue.
10. The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The Judge concluded that the Board acted within its authority when it removed the non-Board ARC members and appointed itself to perform ARC functions, meaning it did not violate CC&R § 7.7 by approving the Wells’ application. The Judge also found no violation of CC&R § 3.2, noting that the CC&Rs do not prohibit Board members from acting as the ARC.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
The following questions are designed for longer-form analysis. Formulate a comprehensive response based solely on the facts and legal interpretations presented in the source document.
1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of the CC&Rs, particularly § 3.4. How does this interpretation address the transfer of power from the “Declarant” to the Board, and how does it counter the Petitioner’s argument for lifetime appointments?
2. Discuss the concept of an “appeal” as outlined in CC&R § 3.2. Evaluate the potential conflict of interest and the issue of futility raised when the Board of Directors also serves as the Architectural Review Committee.
3. Trace the timeline of events surrounding the Wells’ application for a detached garage. How did this specific application serve as the catalyst for the broader conflict between the Petitioner and the Respondent’s Board?
4. Examine the role of communication and language in this dispute. How did the specific wording used by the management company in official documents (e.g., “suspend”) differ from the Board’s stated intent, and how did this discrepancy fuel the conflict?
5. Based on the evidence presented, evaluate the argument that the Board’s actions were a necessary measure to ensure a “civil, fair, consistent, and transparent” architectural review process versus the argument that the Board overstepped its authority as defined by the CC&Rs.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition within the Source Context
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judicial officer (Diane Mihalsky) from the Office of Administrative Hearings tasked with conducting an evidentiary hearing and rendering a decision on the petition.
Architectural Review Committee (ARC)
A committee established to review and approve or deny any improvements, alterations, or other work that alters the exterior appearance of a property. Per the CC&Rs, its decisions are final unless appealed to the Board.
ARC Charter
A document adopted by the Respondent’s Board on March 15, 2016, which provided that the ARC would consist of up to four members appointed by the Board and that the Board vested itself with the sole right to appoint and remove all appointed ARC members at any time.
Board of Directors (Board)
The elected body that conducts the affairs of the Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association. The document presumes they are elected by members to specific terms.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing documents for the Whisper Mountain planned community, recorded on September 7, 2016. They outline the rules for property use, the structure of the HOA, and the functions of bodies like the ARC.
Declarant
The original developer who built the planned community, identified as VIP Homes. The Declarant initially held the sole right to appoint and remove ARC members, a right that transferred to the Board after the developer was no longer involved.
Mariposa Group LLC
The management company employed by the Respondent HOA. Its employees, such as Douglas Egan and Ed Ericksen, were responsible for drafting official communications like meeting minutes and approval letters.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency to which the Department of Real Estate referred the petition for an evidentiary hearing.
Petitioner
N. Wayne Dwight, Jr., a property owner in the Whisper Mountain development and a former member of the ARC. He filed the petition alleging the HOA violated its CC&Rs.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required for the Petitioner to win the case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Respondent
The Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (“HOA”), the governing body for the development. The Respondent was represented by its Board and legal counsel.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918027-REL
Select all sources
685758.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
19F-H1918027-REL
1 source
The provided text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute between a homeowner, N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. (Petitioner), and the Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged that the HOA’s Board violated the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by dissolving or suspending the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and subsequently approving an application for a detached garage. The decision details the background, evidence presented at the hearing, and the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) findings and conclusions of law. Ultimately, the ALJ denied the petition, finding that the Board acted within its authority under the governing documents to remove non-Board ARC members and appoint itself to fulfill the ARC’s functions. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated the specified CC&Rs.
Based on 1 source
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
N. Wayne Dwight, Jr.(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf; former ARC member; testified on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Troy B. Stratman(attorney) Stratman Law Firm, PLC Represented Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association
Greg Robert Wingert(board member/witness) Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association Board President; Chairman of the ARC; testified for Respondent
Pam Cohen(board member) Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association Seconded motions; identified as 'Pam' in meeting minutes
Ronna(board member) Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association Made motion to suspend ARC
Gary(board member) Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association
Douglas Egan(property manager) Mariposa Group LLC Sent approval letter for garage application
Ed Ericksen(property manager) Mariposa Community Manager; sent approval/clarification letters regarding Wells' request
Neutral Parties
Diane Mihalsky(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Felicia Del Sol(staff) Transmitted decision
Other Participants
Mark Wells(owner/applicant) Whisper Mountain development Submitted application for detached garage (Lot 18)
Connie Wells(owner/applicant) Whisper Mountain development Submitted application for detached garage (Lot 18)
Phil Hoyt(owner/member) Whisper Mountain development (Lot 16)
Andy Horn(owner/member) Whisper Mountain development (Lot 1)
Jason Komorowski(owner/member) Whisper Mountain development (Lot 51)
Connie Harrison(neighbor) Whisper Mountain development Mentioned regarding Lot 18 variance condition
Don Berry(owner/member) Whisper Mountain development (Lot 45)
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the HOA Board had the authority under the CC&Rs and related documents to remove non-Board ARC members and appoint itself to perform the functions of the ARC, thus validating its approval of the homeowner's detached garage application.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated CC&Rs §§ 3.2 or 7.7. The Board, having assumed the developer's rights, was authorized to remove and appoint ARC members.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of CC&Rs regarding ARC dissolution and architectural approval authority.
Petitioner alleged that the HOA Board violated CC&Rs §§ 3.2 and 7.7 by dissolving the ARC and then acting as the ARC to approve a modification (detached garage) for a homeowner.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied because he failed to establish that CC&Rs §§ 3.2 or 7.7 prohibited the Respondent HOA from replacing non-Board ARC members, appointing its own members to act as the ARC, or approving the detached garage application.
Administrative Law Judge Decision Briefing: Dwight vs. Whisper Mountain HOA
Executive Summary
This document summarizes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision in case number 19F-H1918027-REL, concerning a dispute between homeowner N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. (“Petitioner”) and the Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (“Respondent”). The Petitioner alleged that the HOA Board violated the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by suspending the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and subsequently approving a homeowner’s construction application.
The ALJ denied the petition in its entirety, finding that the HOA Board acted within its authority. The decision established that upon the departure of the original developer (the “Declarant”), the Board inherited the Declarant’s full rights and responsibilities, including the power to both appoint and remove members of the ARC. The Judge explicitly rejected the Petitioner’s argument that ARC members held lifetime appointments, deeming such an interpretation contrary to the democratic principles of HOA governance. Consequently, the Board’s decision to remove the non-Board ARC members and appoint itself to serve as the ARC was ruled a valid exercise of its powers, and its subsequent approval of the construction application was not a violation of the CC&Rs.
Case Overview
Entity
Petitioner
N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. (Homeowner and former ARC member)
Respondent
Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (HOA)
Adjudicator
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Case Number
19F-H1918027-REL
Hearing Date
January 14, 2019
Decision Date
January 29, 2019
Core Allegation
The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent’s Board violated two sections of the CC&Rs:
1. § 7.7 (Improvements and Alterations): By approving a homeowner’s application to build a detached garage on September 19, 2018, without the approval of a properly constituted ARC.
2. § 3.2 (Appeal): By creating a situation where the body making an architectural decision (the Board acting as the ARC) is the same body that would hear an appeal of that decision, rendering the appeal process meaningless.
This was based on the Petitioner’s central claim that the Board’s action on August 6, 2018, to “dissolve” or “suspend” the ARC was a violation of the governing documents.
Key Factual Background & Timeline
• Prior to 2015: The developer, VIP Homes (“Declarant”), establishes the ARC as required by the CC&Rs.
• 2015: The Declarant turns over control of the HOA to the resident-elected Board of Directors.
• March 15, 2016: The Board adopts an ARC Charter, which explicitly states: “The right to appoint and remove all appointed [ARC] members at any time is hereby vested solely in the Board.” The Petitioner is appointed as one of three non-Board members to the ARC.
• 2017 or 2018: A proposed amendment to the CC&Rs to formally replace references to “Declarant” with “Board” or “Association” is not adopted by the general membership.
• July 17, 2018: The ARC meets to consider a detached garage application from homeowners Mark and Connie Wells. The meeting is contentious, with the Petitioner expressing doubts about the ARC’s authority to grant a variance from city setback requirements. The meeting adjourns abruptly after the applicant allegedly “verbally threatened the committee.”
• August 6, 2018: The HOA Board meets and passes a motion “to suspend the ARC committee for 60 days until guidelines/expectations are clarified.” The motion states that in the interim, the Board will review and approve all ARC submissions.
• August 24, 2018: The Board sends a letter to the non-Board ARC members, including the Petitioner, informing them of the 60-day suspension.
• September 17, 2018: The Board meets and approves a revised application from the Wells, which now aligns with City of Mesa code.
• September 19, 2018: The Board, formally acting as the ARC, reviews and approves the Wells’ revised application.
• October 22, 2018: The Petitioner files his complaint with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• November 19, 2018: The Board adopts a “Resolution Regarding the ARC” to clarify its position. The resolution states the Board had “(i) temporarily removed the current members of the [ARC] (via a suspension) and (ii) chose to act and serve as the current [ARC].” It also formally ratifies the approval of the Wells’ garage.
Central Arguments Presented
Petitioner’s Position (N. Wayne Dwight, Jr.)
• Limited Board Authority: The CC&Rs (§ 3.4) grant the Declarant the “sole right to appoint and remove” ARC members. After the Declarant’s departure, this section states that members “shall be appointed by the Board.” The Petitioner argued this only conferred the power to appoint, not to remove.
• Failed Amendment: The failure of the membership to amend the CC&Rs to explicitly grant the Board the Declarant’s powers proves that the Board does not possess the power of removal.
• Lifetime Appointments: The Petitioner argued that once appointed, ARC members could only be removed for specific cause (e.g., moving out of the community, incapacitation) and were otherwise entitled to serve for life.
• Improper ARC Suspension: The Board’s action to suspend the committee was a violation of the CC&Rs, as the Board lacked the authority to do so.
• Invalid Approval: Because the ARC was improperly suspended, the Board’s subsequent approval of the Wells’ application violated § 7.7, which requires ARC approval for all alterations.
• Meaningless Appeals: If the Board can act as the ARC, the appeal process outlined in § 3.2, which allows a homeowner to appeal an ARC decision to the Board, becomes an “exercise in futility.”
Respondent’s Position (Whisper Mountain HOA)
• Inherited Powers: Upon the Declarant’s departure, the Board assumed all of its rights and responsibilities under the CC&Rs, including the power to both appoint and remove ARC members.
• Authority from ARC Charter: The ARC Charter, adopted in 2016, explicitly grants the Board the sole right to remove ARC members at any time.
• Intent of the Board: The Board’s intent was not to abolish the ARC, but to address concerns about the committee’s conduct, including its “way of questioning applicants” and a need for more civility, fairness, and consistency.
• Clarification of “Suspension”: The use of the word “suspend” in communications by the management company (Mariposa Group) was “unfortunate and inaccurate.” The Board’s true action, clarified in its November 19 resolution, was to remove the non-Board members and appoint its own members to serve as the ARC.
• Valid Approval: The Board was legitimately acting as the ARC when it approved the Wells’ application; therefore, § 7.7 was not violated.
Administrative Law Judge’s Analysis and Conclusions
Interpretation of Governing Documents
The ALJ concluded that restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted to give effect to the intent of the parties. The Judge found the Petitioner’s interpretation of the CC&Rs to be unpersuasive and ultimately harmful to the community.
• The Judge stated that the Petitioner’s interpretation “elevates non-elected members of ARC above elected Board members, abrogates any community control over ARC, and does not serve the underlying purposes of the CC&Rs.”
• This “unelected lifetime appointment” concept was found to be contrary to the “democratic principles underlying HOA law in Arizona.”
On the Board’s Authority
The ALJ affirmed the HOA’s authority to manage the ARC as it did.
• Assumption of Powers: The decision concludes that “When Declarant turned Respondent HOA over to its Board, the Board assumed all of Declarant’s rights and responsibilities under the CC&Rs and related documents.” This included the power to remove ARC members.
• ARC Charter: The Judge noted that the ARC Charter also “expressly provided that the Board had the power to remove as well as to appoint members of the ARC.”
• Legitimacy of Actions: The Board was found to have acted within its authority in August 2018 when it “removed the three non-Board members of the ARC and appointed itself to perform the functions of the ARC.”
On the Alleged Violations
Based on the finding that the Board acted within its authority, the ALJ concluded that no violations occurred.
• Conclusion on CC&R § 7.7 (ARC Approval): The petition failed on this point because the Board was legitimately acting as the ARC when it approved the Wells’ application in September 2018.
• Conclusion on CC&R § 3.2 (Appeals): The petition failed on this point because the CC&Rs do not prohibit Board members from acting as the ARC. While acknowledging that appealing a decision to the same body “may be an exercise in futility,” the Judge noted that under the CC&Rs, the Board is not required to hear appeals in any event.
Final Order and Implications
Order: The petition filed by N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. was denied. The Judge found he had not established that the HOA violated CC&Rs §§ 3.2 or 7.7.
Implications: This decision establishes a strong precedent for interpreting HOA governing documents in a manner that favors functional, democratic governance over literal interpretations that could lead to impractical or absurd outcomes. It affirms that an HOA Board generally inherits the full operational powers of the original developer unless explicitly restricted, and that a Board can act to reform or reconstitute committees to ensure they serve the community’s best interests.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918027-REL
Study Guide: Dwight v. Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. vs. Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (No. 19F-H1918027-REL). It includes a quiz to test factual recall, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms as defined within the context of the legal document.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer each of the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing exclusively from the provided source document.
1. What were the two specific allegations made by the Petitioner, N. Wayne Dwight, Jr., in his petition filed on October 22, 2018?
2. Identify the key parties in this case and describe their respective roles or relationships to the dispute.
3. What was the purpose and outcome of the ARC meeting held on July 17, 2018, regarding the Wells’ property?
4. Explain the actions taken by the Respondent’s Board of Directors during its meeting on August 6, 2018, regarding the Architectural Review Committee (ARC).
5. What was the Petitioner’s interpretation of CC&R § 3.4 regarding the removal of ARC members, and what was the potential consequence of this interpretation as noted by the Administrative Law Judge?
6. According to the Respondent’s Board president, Greg Robert Wingert, what were the primary reasons for removing the non-Board members of the ARC?
7. Describe the role of the Mariposa Group LLC in this case and explain how its communications created confusion.
8. How did the Board clarify its actions and ratify its decisions in the November 19, 2018 Resolution?
9. What is the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and how is it defined in the case documents?
10. What was the final ruling of the Administrative Law Judge, and what was the core reasoning behind the decision regarding CC&Rs §§ 3.2 and 7.7?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent’s Board violated Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) §§ 3.2 and 7.7. The specific violations cited were the dissolution or suspension of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) on August 6, 2018, and the subsequent approval of an application from two members to build a detached garage on September 19, 2018.
2. The key parties are N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. (the “Petitioner”), a property owner and former ARC member, and the Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (the “Respondent”). The case also involves Greg Robert Wingert, the President of the Respondent’s Board, and Mark and Connie Wells, the homeowners who applied to build a detached garage. The dispute centers on the Respondent’s authority over the ARC, of which the Petitioner was a member.
3. The purpose of the July 17, 2018, meeting was for the ARC, including the Petitioner, to consider Mark and Connie Wells’ application for a detached garage. The meeting was abruptly adjourned after the applicant allegedly threatened the committee, and no formal vote was conducted at that time. However, a letter dated July 30, 2018, later informed the Wells that the ARC had approved their request.
4. At the August 6, 2018, meeting, the Board of Directors discussed the need for more consistency and guidelines for the ARC. Citing these reasons and safety concerns from a prior meeting, the Board passed a motion to “suspend the ARC committee for 60 days” and announced that in the interim, the Board itself would review and approve all ARC submissions.
5. The Petitioner argued that CC&R § 3.4 only allowed the Board to appoint, not remove, ARC members. He contended that once appointed, members could only be removed for cause and were otherwise entitled to serve for life. The Judge noted this interpretation would elevate unelected ARC members above the elected Board and abrogate community control.
6. Greg Robert Wingert testified that the Board removed the non-Board ARC members due to concerns about the “manner in which questioning was done in a public forum.” The Board’s intent was not to eliminate the ARC, but to continue the review process while making it more civil, fair, consistent, and transparent.
7. The Mariposa Group LLC was the Respondent’s management company. Its employees, such as Ed Ericksen, were responsible for drafting official communications like minutes and letters. These communications used inaccurate words like “suspend” and “dissolve” to describe the Board’s actions regarding the ARC, which Mr. Wingert testified was an “unfortunate and inaccurate” choice of words that did not reflect the Board’s true intent.
8. The November 19, 2018, Resolution clarified that the Board had removed the existing ARC members and appointed itself to act and serve as the ARC, as was its right under CC&R § 3.4. The resolution explicitly stated that the Board members were the current members of the ARC and ratified all prior architectural decisions made by the Board while serving in this capacity, including the approval of the garage on Lot 18.
9. The Petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not, representing the greater weight of evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue.
10. The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The Judge concluded that the Board acted within its authority when it removed the non-Board ARC members and appointed itself to perform ARC functions, meaning it did not violate CC&R § 7.7 by approving the Wells’ application. The Judge also found no violation of CC&R § 3.2, noting that the CC&Rs do not prohibit Board members from acting as the ARC.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
The following questions are designed for longer-form analysis. Formulate a comprehensive response based solely on the facts and legal interpretations presented in the source document.
1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of the CC&Rs, particularly § 3.4. How does this interpretation address the transfer of power from the “Declarant” to the Board, and how does it counter the Petitioner’s argument for lifetime appointments?
2. Discuss the concept of an “appeal” as outlined in CC&R § 3.2. Evaluate the potential conflict of interest and the issue of futility raised when the Board of Directors also serves as the Architectural Review Committee.
3. Trace the timeline of events surrounding the Wells’ application for a detached garage. How did this specific application serve as the catalyst for the broader conflict between the Petitioner and the Respondent’s Board?
4. Examine the role of communication and language in this dispute. How did the specific wording used by the management company in official documents (e.g., “suspend”) differ from the Board’s stated intent, and how did this discrepancy fuel the conflict?
5. Based on the evidence presented, evaluate the argument that the Board’s actions were a necessary measure to ensure a “civil, fair, consistent, and transparent” architectural review process versus the argument that the Board overstepped its authority as defined by the CC&Rs.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition within the Source Context
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judicial officer (Diane Mihalsky) from the Office of Administrative Hearings tasked with conducting an evidentiary hearing and rendering a decision on the petition.
Architectural Review Committee (ARC)
A committee established to review and approve or deny any improvements, alterations, or other work that alters the exterior appearance of a property. Per the CC&Rs, its decisions are final unless appealed to the Board.
ARC Charter
A document adopted by the Respondent’s Board on March 15, 2016, which provided that the ARC would consist of up to four members appointed by the Board and that the Board vested itself with the sole right to appoint and remove all appointed ARC members at any time.
Board of Directors (Board)
The elected body that conducts the affairs of the Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association. The document presumes they are elected by members to specific terms.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing documents for the Whisper Mountain planned community, recorded on September 7, 2016. They outline the rules for property use, the structure of the HOA, and the functions of bodies like the ARC.
Declarant
The original developer who built the planned community, identified as VIP Homes. The Declarant initially held the sole right to appoint and remove ARC members, a right that transferred to the Board after the developer was no longer involved.
Mariposa Group LLC
The management company employed by the Respondent HOA. Its employees, such as Douglas Egan and Ed Ericksen, were responsible for drafting official communications like meeting minutes and approval letters.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency to which the Department of Real Estate referred the petition for an evidentiary hearing.
Petitioner
N. Wayne Dwight, Jr., a property owner in the Whisper Mountain development and a former member of the ARC. He filed the petition alleging the HOA violated its CC&Rs.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required for the Petitioner to win the case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Respondent
The Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (“HOA”), the governing body for the development. The Respondent was represented by its Board and legal counsel.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918027-REL
Select all sources
685758.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
19F-H1918027-REL
1 source
The provided text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute between a homeowner, N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. (Petitioner), and the Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged that the HOA’s Board violated the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by dissolving or suspending the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and subsequently approving an application for a detached garage. The decision details the background, evidence presented at the hearing, and the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) findings and conclusions of law. Ultimately, the ALJ denied the petition, finding that the Board acted within its authority under the governing documents to remove non-Board ARC members and appoint itself to fulfill the ARC’s functions. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated the specified CC&Rs.
Based on 1 source
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
N. Wayne Dwight, Jr.(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf; former ARC member; testified on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Troy B. Stratman(attorney) Stratman Law Firm, PLC Represented Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association
Greg Robert Wingert(board member/witness) Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association Board President; Chairman of the ARC; testified for Respondent
Pam Cohen(board member) Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association Seconded motions; identified as 'Pam' in meeting minutes
Ronna(board member) Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association Made motion to suspend ARC
Gary(board member) Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association
Douglas Egan(property manager) Mariposa Group LLC Sent approval letter for garage application
Ed Ericksen(property manager) Mariposa Community Manager; sent approval/clarification letters regarding Wells' request
Neutral Parties
Diane Mihalsky(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Felicia Del Sol(staff) Transmitted decision
Other Participants
Mark Wells(owner/applicant) Whisper Mountain development Submitted application for detached garage (Lot 18)
Connie Wells(owner/applicant) Whisper Mountain development Submitted application for detached garage (Lot 18)
Phil Hoyt(owner/member) Whisper Mountain development (Lot 16)
Andy Horn(owner/member) Whisper Mountain development (Lot 1)
Jason Komorowski(owner/member) Whisper Mountain development (Lot 51)
Connie Harrison(neighbor) Whisper Mountain development Mentioned regarding Lot 18 variance condition
Don Berry(owner/member) Whisper Mountain development (Lot 45)
Blue Ridge Estates of Coconino County Homeowners' Association
Counsel
Paul K. Frame, Esq.
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs § 3.1(a)
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the homeowner's petition in its entirety, finding the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated CC&R § 3.1(a) when denying the construction of a cedar patio structure.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish that the HOA violated CC&R 3.1(a). The proposed structure was found to be a second detached structure and/or a temporary structure barred by the community documents, and the Petitioner had previously failed to submit sufficient information for an attached structure proposal.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of CC&Rs § 3.1(a) by denying request for patio structure while allowing another member to erect a Tuff Shed.
Petitioner alleged the HOA improperly denied his request for a detached cedar patio structure (150 sq ft) based on CC&R § 3.1(A) which limits properties to one detached structure (Petitioner already had a tool shed). The ALJ found Petitioner failed to establish the violation, concluding the proposed structure was a second barred detached structure or a temporary structure (as concrete pavers were not equivalent to a required cement/block foundation). Petitioner also failed to provide sufficient architectural details for an attached structure request.
Blue Ridge Estates of Coconino County Homeowners' Association
Counsel
Paul K. Frame, Esq.
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs § 3.1(a)
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the homeowner's petition in its entirety, finding the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated CC&R § 3.1(a) when denying the construction of a cedar patio structure.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish that the HOA violated CC&R 3.1(a). The proposed structure was found to be a second detached structure and/or a temporary structure barred by the community documents, and the Petitioner had previously failed to submit sufficient information for an attached structure proposal.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of CC&Rs § 3.1(a) by denying request for patio structure while allowing another member to erect a Tuff Shed.
Petitioner alleged the HOA improperly denied his request for a detached cedar patio structure (150 sq ft) based on CC&R § 3.1(A) which limits properties to one detached structure (Petitioner already had a tool shed). The ALJ found Petitioner failed to establish the violation, concluding the proposed structure was a second barred detached structure or a temporary structure (as concrete pavers were not equivalent to a required cement/block foundation). Petitioner also failed to provide sufficient architectural details for an attached structure request.
Briefing Document: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates HOA
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and conclusions from two administrative law hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner Charles P. Mandela and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association of Coconino County (“Blue Ridge”). The core of the dispute was Blue Ridge’s repeated denial of Mr. Mandela’s requests to construct a 150-square-foot cedar patio structure on his property.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately denied Mr. Mandela’s petition in both an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing, finding that the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish any violation of the association’s governing documents. The ALJ’s decisions affirmed that Blue Ridge acted within its authority and correctly applied its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and architectural regulations.
Key takeaways from the rulings include:
• Violation of Detached Structure Limit: Mr. Mandela’s request for a detached patio was denied because he already had a tool shed, and the HOA rules explicitly permit only one detached structure per property.
• Improper “Play Structure” Request: An initial request framing the patio as a “play structure” was correctly denied as its proposed 150 sq. ft. size exceeded the 80 sq. ft. limit for certain play structures.
• Insufficient Plans for Attached Structure: A separate request to attach the structure to his home was denied due to Mr. Mandela’s failure to provide the required detailed architectural plans and construction drawings, which the HOA deemed necessary for approval.
• Arguments Found Lacking: Mr. Mandela’s arguments—including claims of selective enforcement, discrimination against homeowners without children, and misinterpretation of the term “temporary structure”—were found to be unsubstantiated by evidence. The ALJ concluded the structure would be a prohibited temporary structure as the proposed concrete pavers do not constitute a permanent foundation under the HOA’s definition.
Case Overview
Parties Involved
Description
Petitioner
Charles P. Mandela
A homeowner and member of the Blue Ridge Estates HOA.
Respondent
Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association of Coconino County
The governing homeowners’ association for the Blue Ridge Estates development.
Adjudicator
Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings.
Timeline of Key Events
c. Feb 1, 2018
Mr. Mandela submits his first request for a 150 sq. ft. patio, using a “Play Structure Approval Request” form. Blue Ridge denies it for exceeding the size limit.
c. Mar 2, 2018
Mr. Mandela submits a second request, this time to attach a cedar patio shade to his home. Blue Ridge requests detailed plans and materials.
c. Mar 8, 2018
Blue Ridge denies the request for an attached structure due to “incomplete information,” instructing Mr. Mandela to provide formal drawings as per CC&R guidelines.
c. Mar 23, 2018
Mr. Mandela files an internal appeal with Blue Ridge, which is subsequently denied for the same reason of incomplete construction information.
Post-Mar 23, 2018
Mr. Mandela submits a third request for a detached 150 sq. ft. cedar patio structure. Blue Ridge denies it because he already has a detached tool shed.
c. Jul 31, 2018
Mr. Mandela files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging Blue Ridge violated CC&R § 3.1(a) by denying his request while allowing another member a Tuff Shed.
Oct 17, 2018
An evidentiary hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Nov 6, 2018
The ALJ issues the initial decision, denying Mr. Mandela’s petition.
Dec 12, 2018
The Arizona Department of Real Estate orders a rehearing of the matter.
Feb 8, 2019
The rehearing is held before the same ALJ.
Feb 28, 2019
The ALJ issues the final decision, again finding in favor of Blue Ridge and denying Mr. Mandela’s petition.
Analysis of Construction Requests and Denials
Mr. Mandela made three distinct applications to the Blue Ridge Architectural Committee for his proposed 150 sq. ft. cedar patio structure, each of which was denied for different reasons based on the HOA’s governing documents.
Request 1: Detached “Play Structure”
Mr. Mandela’s initial application on February 1, 2018, was submitted using a “Play Structure Approval Request” form.
• HOA Rule: The form, based on modified Rules and Regulations from April 6, 2016, states: “Cannot exceed 80 SF if it’s a Tree House, Tree Viewing Stand, Play House/Fort.”
• Denial Rationale: Blue Ridge denied the request because the proposed 150 sq. ft. size of the structure exceeded the 80 sq. ft. limit specified for this type of structure.
Request 2: Attached Cedar Patio Shade
On March 2, 2018, Mr. Mandela submitted a new request to attach the structure to his home.
• HOA Action: The committee chairman, John Hart, requested documents showing the structure would not be free-standing, such as plans and material specifications.
• Mandela’s Response: In a March 3 email, Mr. Mandela stated: “I am building this myself. I am not an Architect, I have not software to show (6) 2 by 4”s to attach from the single family roof lie to the roof lien of the same roof.” He asserted that photos of other attached structures were sufficient.
• Denial Rationale: The request was denied on March 8 due to “incomplete information.” The denial letter explicitly instructed Mr. Mandela to submit all required documents, including drawings that “match exactly what you are going to build,” per CC&R Section 10.3. His subsequent appeal was also denied, with Blue Ridge noting that a manufacturer’s representative stated they would not warranty the product if the design was altered and reiterating the need for detailed elevation drawings.
Request 3: Detached Cedar Patio Structure
Following the denial of his appeal, Mr. Mandela submitted a third request for a detached version of the patio.
• HOA Rule: According to CC&R § 3.1(A) and Architectural Committee Aligned Standard 3(D), “One detached structure may… be constructed on a property.”
• Denial Rationale: Blue Ridge denied this request because Mr. Mandela already had one detached structure—a tool shed—on his property. The rules permit only one such structure.
Key Arguments and Rulings from Administrative Hearings
At the initial hearing and subsequent rehearing, both parties presented arguments regarding the application of the HOA’s rules. The ALJ systematically addressed and ruled on each point, ultimately concluding that the petitioner failed to prove his case.
Petitioner’s Core Arguments (Charles P. Mandela)
• Definition of “Detached Structure”: He argued that his proposed patio was not a “detached structure” under the CC&Rs because, based on his misinterpretation of a prior administrative ruling, a detached structure is one that can be easily converted into a second residence.
• Selective Enforcement: He alleged that Blue Ridge approved a “Tuff Shed” for another member and was not enforcing the 80 sq. ft. play structure size limit against other homeowners, thus discriminating against him.
• Discriminatory Rules: He contended that the rule allowing a second detached structure if it is a “play structure” violates CC&R 3.1 because it discriminates against people without children. He stated he wanted the patio for his mother.
• Definition of “Temporary Structure”: He asserted the structure was not a prohibited temporary structure because he planned to use concrete pavers, which he claimed constituted a “cement foundation” under the rules, and the materials had a 5-year warranty.
• One Detached Structure Rule: The rules unambiguously limit homeowners to one detached structure, and Mr. Mandela already had one.
• Incomplete Submissions: The request for an attached structure lacked the necessary architectural details to ensure it was properly and safely constructed, as required by the CC&Rs. Joseph Hancock, Vice President of Blue Ridge and a former contractor, testified that Mr. Mandela failed to consider critical factors like height and width differentials.
• Temporary Structure Violation: Mr. Hancock testified that a concrete paver is not the equivalent of a “cement or slab foundation.” Therefore, the proposed structure would be a prohibited temporary structure under the CC&Rs.
• No Selective Enforcement: Mr. Hancock refuted Mr. Mandela’s claims of selective enforcement, testifying that the lots Mr. Mandela cited either had structures built before 2003 (predating certain rules) or had no detached structures at all.
Administrative Law Judge’s Final Conclusions
The ALJ found that Mr. Mandela failed to establish his claims by a preponderance of the evidence. The final order denied his petition based on the following conclusions of law:
• Burden of Proof: The petitioner did not meet his burden to prove that Blue Ridge violated CC&R Article III, Section 3.1(a).
• Second Detached Structure: It was undisputed that Mr. Mandela had a shed on his property. The proposed 150 sq. ft. patio therefore constituted a barred second detached structure.
• Prior Rulings Not Precedent: The ALJ noted that Mr. Mandela misinterpreted the prior administrative decision he cited and, furthermore, that “prior administrative law judge decisions are not precedent or binding on future administrative law decisions.”
• Temporary Structure: The preponderance of the evidence showed the proposed structure is a temporary structure under the CC&Rs because “concrete pavers are not the equivalent of cement or block foundation.”
• Denial of Attached Structure: The denial of the request to attach the structure was proper, as the “Petitioner failed to provide sufficient details to illustrate how he would attach the cedar patio structure to his home.”
• No Evidence of Discrimination: The petitioner failed to establish that Blue Ridge approved other oversized play structures or that the denial of his requests was discriminatory. The ALJ also noted the tribunal lacked jurisdiction over potential constitutional claims under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Relevant HOA Governing Documents
Document/Section
Key Provision / Definition
CC&R § 3.1
Permitted Uses and Restrictions – Single Family: “No building or structure shall be erected or maintained separate from the Single Family Residence located on any Lot, other than a garage…”
Architectural Committee Aligned Standard 3(D)
Detached Structures: “One detached structure may, with Architectural Committee approval, be constructed on a property.”
CC&R § 3.6 & Aligned Standard
Temporary Structures: Prohibits temporary structures. A temporary structure is defined as one “without a cement or block foundation to which the structure or building is permanently attached.”
Modified Rules and Regulations (April 6, 2016)
Play Structures: Allows up to two play structures but specifies they “Cannot exceed 80 SF if it’s a Tree House, Tree Viewing Stand, Play House/Fort.”
CC&R § 3.24
Architectural Approval: “No building, fence, wall, screen, residence or other structure shall be commenced, erected, maintained, improved or altered… without the prior written approval of the… Architectural Committee.”
CC&R § 10.3
Architectural Submission Guidelines: Specifies the format and information required for submittals to the architectural committee.
CC&R § 12.2
Declaration Amendments: Requires an affirmative vote or written consent of members owning at least 75% of all lots to amend the Declaration.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918006-REL
Study Guide: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates HOA
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between petitioner Charles P. Mandela and respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association of Coconino County. The case revolves around Mr. Mandela’s multiple attempts to gain approval for a patio structure on his property and the subsequent legal proceedings. The material is drawn from two Administrative Law Judge Decisions, dated November 6, 2018, and February 28, 2019.
——————————————————————————–
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing your information directly from the provided case documents.
1. What were the three distinct requests Mr. Mandela submitted to the Blue Ridge Estates HOA, and what was the outcome of each?
2. Explain the HOA’s rule regarding detached structures and why Mr. Mandela’s third request for a detached patio was denied under this rule.
3. On what grounds did the HOA deny Mr. Mandela’s second request to attach a cedar patio shade to his home?
4. What was Mr. Mandela’s primary allegation in his initial petition filed with the Department of Real Estate on July 31, 2018?
5. How do the Blue Ridge rules define a “temporary structure,” and why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude Mr. Mandela’s proposed patio fell into this category?
6. Describe Mr. Mandela’s discrimination argument regarding the HOA’s policy on play structures.
7. What is the legal standard of proof the petitioner was required to meet in this case, and what does this standard mean?
8. Mr. Mandela cited a prior administrative law judge decision to support his case. What was his interpretation of that decision, and how did the presiding judge respond to this line of argument?
9. Who is Joseph Hancock, and what key pieces of testimony did he provide on behalf of the HOA during the rehearing?
10. According to the CC&Rs, what is the procedural difference between amending the Declaration (the CC&Rs themselves) versus adopting new “Rules and Regulations”?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. Mr. Mandela first submitted a “Play Structure Approval Request” for a 150-square-foot patio, which was denied for exceeding the 80-square-foot size limit for such structures. His second request was to attach a cedar patio shade to his home, which was denied due to incomplete information and a lack of adequate plans. His third request was for a detached 150-square-foot patio structure, which was denied because he already had another detached structure on his property.
2. According to CC&Rs § 3.1(A) and Architectural Committee regulation 3(D), a property is permitted to have only one detached structure. Mr. Mandela’s third request was denied because it was undisputed that he already had a tool shed on his property. The proposed detached patio would have constituted a prohibited second detached structure.
3. The HOA denied the request to attach the patio shade because Mr. Mandela submitted incomplete information and failed to provide sufficient plans. The HOA requested detailed elevation drawings showing construction methods, dimensions, foundation details, and attachment methods, which Mr. Mandela did not provide.
4. In his petition of July 31, 2018, Mr. Mandela alleged that the Blue Ridge HOA had violated CC&Rs § 3.1(a). His specific claim was that the HOA discriminated against him by denying his request to place a patio structure in his backyard while allowing another member to erect a Tuff Shed.
5. The Architectural Committee rules define a temporary structure as one “without a cement or block foundation to which the structure or building is permanently attached.” The judge concluded the proposed patio was a temporary structure because Mr. Mandela planned to use concrete pavers, which, according to the credible testimony of Joseph Hancock, are not the equivalent of a permanent cement or block foundation.
6. Mr. Mandela argued that the modified rule allowing a second detached play structure (up to 80 sq ft) violates CC&R 3.1 because it discriminates against people who do not have children. He asserted the policy was unfair because he wanted to build the structure for his mother to rest outside, not for children’s play.
7. The petitioner, Mr. Mandela, had the burden of proof to establish his claim by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as evidence that has the most convincing force and is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of an issue rather than the other, meaning the contention is more probably true than not.
8. Mr. Mandela argued that a prior administrative law judge decision had found that a “detached structure” under Blue Ridge CC&Rs is a structure that can be easily converted into a second residence, which his patio could not. The presiding judge dismissed this by stating that Mr. Mandela misinterpreted the prior ruling and, more importantly, that prior administrative law judge decisions are not binding precedent for future decisions.
9. Joseph Hancock is the Vice President of the Blue Ridge HOA and a former general, electrical, and HVAC contractor. He testified that concrete pavers are not equivalent to a cement or block foundation, that Mr. Mandela’s plans for attaching the structure were insufficient, and that he had investigated lots Mr. Mandela cited for alleged violations and found none.
10. According to the CC&Rs, adopting, amending, or repealing “Rules and Regulations” can be done by a majority vote of the Board (§ 4.2). In contrast, amending the Declaration of CC&Rs themselves is a much more stringent process, requiring the affirmative vote or written consent of members owning at least seventy-five percent (75%) of all lots (§ 12.2).
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate your answers in a standard essay format, using specific evidence from the source documents to support your arguments.
1. Analyze the progression of Mr. Mandela’s three distinct requests to the HOA. How did the denial of his first request (as a “Play Structure”) appear to influence his subsequent applications and legal arguments?
2. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies in this case. Explain why Mr. Mandela ultimately failed to convince the Administrative Law Judge that the HOA violated its own rules, citing specific examples of his failed arguments (e.g., the temporary structure definition, claims of selective enforcement, and the adequacy of his submitted plans).
3. Examine the distinction made in the Blue Ridge Estates governing documents between the core CC&Rs and the “Rules and Regulations” adopted by the Board. How did this distinction allow the HOA to have a rule permitting a second “play structure” while the main CC&Rs seem to limit properties to a single residence and one other detached structure (a garage)?
4. The HOA denied Mr. Mandela’s request for an attached structure due to “incomplete information.” Based on the evidence presented in the decisions, evaluate the reasonableness of the HOA’s request for detailed plans versus Mr. Mandela’s assertion that he had provided sufficient information for approval.
5. Trace Mr. Mandela’s various claims of unfair treatment, including selective enforcement (the Tuff Shed), discrimination (the play structure rule), and his interpretation of key terms like “detached structure.” For each claim, explain the HOA’s counter-position or the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings for state agencies, such as the one between Mr. Mandela and the HOA. In this case, the ALJ was Velva Moses-Thompson.
Architectural Committee
A committee within the HOA granted authority by CC&R § 10.2 to approve or deny proposed construction and promulgate regulations aligned with the CC&Rs. It denied all of Mr. Mandela’s requests.
Burden of Proof
The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this case, the petitioner (Mr. Mandela) bore the burden of proof.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the primary governing documents for the Blue Ridge Estates community, outlining land use, permitted structures, and rules members must follow.
Detached Structure
A building or structure on a property that is separate from the main single-family residence. According to Architectural Committee regulation 3(D), only one such structure is permitted per lot.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Charles P. Mandela is the petitioner.
Play Structure
A structure defined by the HOA’s modified rules to include items like Swing Sets, Jungle Gyms, Tree Houses, and Ground Placed Play Houses/Forts. Play Houses/Forts and Tree Houses are limited to 80 square feet.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this case. It is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” representing the greater weight of the evidence.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association is the respondent.
Rules and Regulations
Rules that can be adopted, amended, or repealed by a majority vote of the HOA Board, as distinct from the CC&Rs which require a 75% vote of all lot owners to amend. The “Play Structure” rules are an example.
Temporary Structure
As defined by the Architectural Committee regulations, a structure “without a cement or block foundation to which the structure or building is permanently attached.” Such structures are prohibited by CC&R § 3.6.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918006-REL
Select all sources
669528.pdf
692294.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
19F-H1918006-REL-RHG
2 sources
These sources document two decisions from the Office of Administrative Hearings concerning a dispute between Charles P. Mandela and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association (HOA). The first document presents the initial Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision which denied Mr. Mandela’s petition, finding he failed to prove the HOA violated its governing documents by denying his request to build a patio structure. The second document is the ALJ Decision following a rehearing, which reaffirms the initial denial, concluding that Mr. Mandela’s proposed structure was either a prohibited second detached structure or a temporary structure lacking a proper foundation, and that he failed to provide sufficient plans for an attached structure. Both sources establish that Mr. Mandela did not meet his burden of proof to show the HOA discriminated against him or otherwise violated the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
What were the specific reasons the HOA denied Charles Mandela’s requests?
How did the HOA Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions govern detached structures?
What was the ultimate outcome of Charles Mandela’s petition and subsequent rehearing?
Based on 2 sources
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Charles P. Mandela(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Paul Frame(HOA attorney) FRAME LAW PLLC
John Hart(HOA Chairman) Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association Reviewed petitioner's requests
Joseph Hancock(HOA Vice President, witness) Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association Presented testimony
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) OAH
Judy Lowe(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmitted decision
Other Participants
Felicia Del Sol(administrative staff) Transmitted decision electronically
Camelback Country Club Estates I & II Homeowners Association
Counsel
Diana J. Elston, J. Gary Linder
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs Section 12
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition related to landscaping (18F-H1818030-REL), but deemed Petitioner the prevailing party and ordered the refund of the $500 filing fee regarding the petition concerning the additional mailbox (18F-H1818031-REL) because the HOA improperly based the fine on CC&R Section 12.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the olive tree was alive, and a dead tree could be reasonably considered a violation of CC&R Section 28 requiring neatly trimmed/properly cultivated plantings (Case 18F-H1818030-REL).
Key Issues & Findings
Improper fine regarding additional freestanding mailbox
Petitioner challenged fines for an additional mailbox lacking architectural approval. The ALJ found that CC&R Section 12 (related to 'building') could not be applied to a mailbox, rendering the fine imposed under that section a violation by the Respondent. Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party in this docket number (18F-H1818031-REL).
Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $500.00 filing fee refund within thirty days.
Briefing Document: Holyoak v. Camelback Country Club Estates HOA
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes the findings and conclusions from an Administrative Law Judge Decision concerning two consolidated petitions filed by homeowner Jon Paul Holyoak against the Camelback Country Club Estates I & II Homeowners Association (HOA). The disputes centered on HOA-issued violations for landscaping maintenance and the presence of a freestanding mailbox.
The final judgment produced a split decision. The Petitioner, Mr. Holyoak, failed to prove the HOA acted improperly in the landscaping case and his petition was denied. However, he was deemed the prevailing party in the mailbox case, with the judge concluding the HOA had violated its own community documents (CC&Rs) by imposing a fine based on an inapplicable section. As the prevailing party in one of the two matters, Mr. Holyoak was awarded his $500 filing fee, to be paid by the HOA. The initial decision document required two subsequent nunc pro tunc orders to correct typographical errors.
Key Takeaways:
• Landscaping Petition (Denied): Mr. Holyoak was cited for failing to remove a “dead” olive tree. He argued the tree was merely “in distress.” The judge ruled that a reasonable person would consider the tree dead and that Mr. Holyoak failed to provide sufficient evidence to the contrary. A dead tree was found to be a potential violation of CC&R Section 28, which requires plantings to be “neatly trimmed” and “properly cultivated.”
• Mailbox Petition (Upheld): Mr. Holyoak was cited for an “additional mailbox” that was present when he purchased the property in 2012. The judge found the HOA’s enforcement problematic for two primary reasons:
1. The HOA cited three different CC&R sections across multiple notices.
2. The fine was ultimately based on Section 12, which pertains to “buildings” and was deemed inapplicable to a mailbox.
• Final Order: The HOA was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee. The decision is binding on the parties.
——————————————————————————–
Case Overview
The matter involves two petitions filed on February 2, 2018, by Petitioner Jon Paul Holyoak with the Arizona Department of Real Estate against the Respondent, Camelback Country Club Estates I & II Homeowners Association. The petitions alleged that the HOA had improperly cited Mr. Holyoak for violations of the community’s Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The two cases were consolidated for a single hearing.
This petition alleged that the HOA improperly cited Mr. Holyoak for violating Section 28 of the CC&Rs, which governs landscape maintenance.
HOA Actions and Timeline
The HOA, through its inspection team Associa Arizona, issued a series of notices regarding the landscaping on Mr. Holyoak’s property.
Notice Type
Description
Oct 17, 2017
Courtesy Notice
“Please remove the dead foliage on your lot.”
Dec 13, 2017
Courtesy Notice
“Please remove the dead olive tree in the front yard.”
Dec 13, 2017
Courtesy Notice
“There are several other trees that need to be removed as they have dead branches including the cassia…”
Jan 25, 2018
Notice of Violation
“2nd notice…There are several other trees that need to be removed as they have dead branches…” (Included photo of backyard).
Arguments Presented
• Petitioner’s Position (Holyoak):
◦ The olive tree in the front yard was not “dead” but rather “in distress,” and he was actively trying to nurse it back to health. He eventually had the tree removed on April 25, 2018, after months of effort.
◦ Regarding the backyard photo attached to the fine notice, he argued that the olive tree visible was healthy and that no dead trees were depicted.
◦ He requested that the fine be abated.
• Respondent’s Position (HOA):
◦ Board member Terry Rogers testified that the front yard olive tree had no leaves, appeared dead from the roadway, and was therefore not “properly trimmed” as required.
◦ He stated the backyard notice referred to a eucalyptus tree with several dead branches visible from the sidewalk bordering the property.
Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusion
The judge ruled in favor of the HOA in this matter.
• Burden of Proof: The Petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence, beyond “his self-serving statements,” that the olive tree was alive.
• Reasonable Interpretation: The judge concluded that “Any reasonable person viewing the olive tree, as depicted in the photographs presented, would understand the tree to be dead.”
• Violation of CC&Rs: A dead tree could reasonably be considered as not being “neatly trimmed” or “properly cultivated” in accordance with Section 28.
• Verdict: The Petitioner’s petition was denied. The judge found that the HOA had not improperly fined him for the landscaping violation.
This petition alleged that the HOA improperly cited Mr. Holyoak for having an “additional mailbox” in violation of the CC&Rs.
HOA Actions and Timeline
The HOA’s notices for the mailbox cited three different sections of the CC&Rs over time.
Notice Type
Description
CC&R Section Cited
Oct 17, 2017
Courtesy Notice
“Please remove the additional mailbox on your lot.”
Section 27
Dec 14, 2017
Courtesy Notice
“…there is an additional mailbox on your lot. In research of our files, there is no architectural application on file for the modification.”
Section 12
Jan 25, 2018
Notice of Violation
“2nd notice…Please remove the mailbox or provide the approved architectural application.” (Mailbox was painted bright pink and yellow at this time).
Section 12
Jan 25, 2018¹
Notice of Violation
“3rd notice…Please remove the mailbox or provide the approved architectural application.”
Section 8
¹The decision document states this notice was sent on January 25, 2018, but references a violation noted on March 15, 2018. The judge’s conclusions later clarify a notice referencing Section 8 was issued April 11, 2018, and was not properly before the tribunal.
Arguments Presented
• Petitioner’s Position (Holyoak):
◦ The freestanding mailbox was already in place when he purchased the home in 2012.
◦ At the time of purchase, he received a statement that there were no known covenant violations on the property.
◦ He argued the mailbox is required by the United States Postal Service (USPS), which no longer provides walking delivery and requires mailboxes to be reachable from a vehicle. The home’s other mailbox, built into a monument, is approximately 15 feet from the curb.
◦ A USPS mail carrier had confirmed this delivery requirement.
• Respondent’s Position (HOA):
◦ Board member Terry Rogers testified that the USPS mail carrier told him he would prefer to deliver to the permanent monument mailbox because the freestanding one was not secure.
◦ The mailbox had become an “eyesore,” as it was faded, peeling, and “listing to one side.”
◦ Of the 61 homes in the community, only three have freestanding mailboxes, and the Petitioner is the only one with two mailboxes.
Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusion
The judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner in this matter.
• Inconsistent Enforcement: The judge found it “problematic” that the HOA relied on three different sections of the CC&Rs in its notices.
• Pre-existing Structure: The Petitioner established that the mailbox was present at the time of his 2012 home purchase and that he was told of no existing violations. Therefore, the HOA’s argument regarding the lack of an architectural approval was “without merit.”
• Inapplicable CC&R Section: The fine was imposed based on Section 12 of the CC&Rs. The judge determined the plain language of this section relates to a “building” and “cannot be read to apply to Petitioner’s mailbox.”
• Violation by HOA: By imposing a fine based on an inapplicable section, the HOA was in violation of the CC&Rs.
• Verdict: The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The judge noted that the HOA could potentially impose fines for failure to maintain the mailbox or for painting it without approval, but those specific violations were not before the court.
——————————————————————————–
Final Order and Subsequent Corrections
• Order of May 25, 2018:
1. Petitioner’s petition in Case Number 18F-H1818030-REL (Landscaping) is denied.
2. Petitioner is deemed the prevailing party in Case Number 18F-H1818031-REL (Mailbox).
3. Respondent (HOA) is ordered to pay Petitioner his $500.00 filing fee within thirty days.
• Order Nunc Pro Tunc of May 30, 2018:
◦ This order corrected a typographical error in the original decision. The original text mistakenly stated the petition for the mailbox case (31-REL) was denied.
◦ Correction: The denial was correctly applied to the landscaping case: “it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition in Case Number 18F-H1818031-REL 18F-H1818030-REL is denied.”
• Order Nunc Pro Tunc of May 31, 2018:
◦ This order corrected a typographical error in the May 30 order, which had misstated the date of the original decision.
◦ Correction: “On April 26 May 25, 2018, the Administrative Law Judge issued the Administrative Law Judge Decision…”
——————————————————————————–
Key CC&R Sections Cited
• Section 8 (Architectural Control): Requires written approval from the Committee before any “building or other structure” is erected, altered, or repaired. This includes exterior finish, color, and architectural style.
• Section 12 (Buildings): States that “No building may be erected or maintained upon any Lot except one single family dwelling with private appurtenant garage and customary outbuildings” without prior written approval.
• Section 27 (Maintenance): Prohibits any building or structure from falling into disrepair and requires owners to keep them in good condition and adequately painted.
• Section 28 (Landscaping): Requires the owner of each lot to “at all times keep shrubs, trees, grass and plantings of every kind, on his lot mostly trimmed, properly cultivated, and free of trash, weeds and other unsightly material.”
Camelback Country Club Estates I & II Homeowners Association
Counsel
Diana J. Elston, J. Gary Linder
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs Section 12
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition related to landscaping (18F-H1818030-REL), but deemed Petitioner the prevailing party and ordered the refund of the $500 filing fee regarding the petition concerning the additional mailbox (18F-H1818031-REL) because the HOA improperly based the fine on CC&R Section 12.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the olive tree was alive, and a dead tree could be reasonably considered a violation of CC&R Section 28 requiring neatly trimmed/properly cultivated plantings (Case 18F-H1818030-REL).
Key Issues & Findings
Improper fine regarding additional freestanding mailbox
Petitioner challenged fines for an additional mailbox lacking architectural approval. The ALJ found that CC&R Section 12 (related to 'building') could not be applied to a mailbox, rendering the fine imposed under that section a violation by the Respondent. Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party in this docket number (18F-H1818031-REL).
Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $500.00 filing fee refund within thirty days.
Briefing Document: Holyoak v. Camelback Country Club Estates HOA
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes the findings and conclusions from an Administrative Law Judge Decision concerning two consolidated petitions filed by homeowner Jon Paul Holyoak against the Camelback Country Club Estates I & II Homeowners Association (HOA). The disputes centered on HOA-issued violations for landscaping maintenance and the presence of a freestanding mailbox.
The final judgment produced a split decision. The Petitioner, Mr. Holyoak, failed to prove the HOA acted improperly in the landscaping case and his petition was denied. However, he was deemed the prevailing party in the mailbox case, with the judge concluding the HOA had violated its own community documents (CC&Rs) by imposing a fine based on an inapplicable section. As the prevailing party in one of the two matters, Mr. Holyoak was awarded his $500 filing fee, to be paid by the HOA. The initial decision document required two subsequent nunc pro tunc orders to correct typographical errors.
Key Takeaways:
• Landscaping Petition (Denied): Mr. Holyoak was cited for failing to remove a “dead” olive tree. He argued the tree was merely “in distress.” The judge ruled that a reasonable person would consider the tree dead and that Mr. Holyoak failed to provide sufficient evidence to the contrary. A dead tree was found to be a potential violation of CC&R Section 28, which requires plantings to be “neatly trimmed” and “properly cultivated.”
• Mailbox Petition (Upheld): Mr. Holyoak was cited for an “additional mailbox” that was present when he purchased the property in 2012. The judge found the HOA’s enforcement problematic for two primary reasons:
1. The HOA cited three different CC&R sections across multiple notices.
2. The fine was ultimately based on Section 12, which pertains to “buildings” and was deemed inapplicable to a mailbox.
• Final Order: The HOA was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee. The decision is binding on the parties.
——————————————————————————–
Case Overview
The matter involves two petitions filed on February 2, 2018, by Petitioner Jon Paul Holyoak with the Arizona Department of Real Estate against the Respondent, Camelback Country Club Estates I & II Homeowners Association. The petitions alleged that the HOA had improperly cited Mr. Holyoak for violations of the community’s Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The two cases were consolidated for a single hearing.
This petition alleged that the HOA improperly cited Mr. Holyoak for violating Section 28 of the CC&Rs, which governs landscape maintenance.
HOA Actions and Timeline
The HOA, through its inspection team Associa Arizona, issued a series of notices regarding the landscaping on Mr. Holyoak’s property.
Notice Type
Description
Oct 17, 2017
Courtesy Notice
“Please remove the dead foliage on your lot.”
Dec 13, 2017
Courtesy Notice
“Please remove the dead olive tree in the front yard.”
Dec 13, 2017
Courtesy Notice
“There are several other trees that need to be removed as they have dead branches including the cassia…”
Jan 25, 2018
Notice of Violation
“2nd notice…There are several other trees that need to be removed as they have dead branches…” (Included photo of backyard).
Arguments Presented
• Petitioner’s Position (Holyoak):
◦ The olive tree in the front yard was not “dead” but rather “in distress,” and he was actively trying to nurse it back to health. He eventually had the tree removed on April 25, 2018, after months of effort.
◦ Regarding the backyard photo attached to the fine notice, he argued that the olive tree visible was healthy and that no dead trees were depicted.
◦ He requested that the fine be abated.
• Respondent’s Position (HOA):
◦ Board member Terry Rogers testified that the front yard olive tree had no leaves, appeared dead from the roadway, and was therefore not “properly trimmed” as required.
◦ He stated the backyard notice referred to a eucalyptus tree with several dead branches visible from the sidewalk bordering the property.
Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusion
The judge ruled in favor of the HOA in this matter.
• Burden of Proof: The Petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence, beyond “his self-serving statements,” that the olive tree was alive.
• Reasonable Interpretation: The judge concluded that “Any reasonable person viewing the olive tree, as depicted in the photographs presented, would understand the tree to be dead.”
• Violation of CC&Rs: A dead tree could reasonably be considered as not being “neatly trimmed” or “properly cultivated” in accordance with Section 28.
• Verdict: The Petitioner’s petition was denied. The judge found that the HOA had not improperly fined him for the landscaping violation.
This petition alleged that the HOA improperly cited Mr. Holyoak for having an “additional mailbox” in violation of the CC&Rs.
HOA Actions and Timeline
The HOA’s notices for the mailbox cited three different sections of the CC&Rs over time.
Notice Type
Description
CC&R Section Cited
Oct 17, 2017
Courtesy Notice
“Please remove the additional mailbox on your lot.”
Section 27
Dec 14, 2017
Courtesy Notice
“…there is an additional mailbox on your lot. In research of our files, there is no architectural application on file for the modification.”
Section 12
Jan 25, 2018
Notice of Violation
“2nd notice…Please remove the mailbox or provide the approved architectural application.” (Mailbox was painted bright pink and yellow at this time).
Section 12
Jan 25, 2018¹
Notice of Violation
“3rd notice…Please remove the mailbox or provide the approved architectural application.”
Section 8
¹The decision document states this notice was sent on January 25, 2018, but references a violation noted on March 15, 2018. The judge’s conclusions later clarify a notice referencing Section 8 was issued April 11, 2018, and was not properly before the tribunal.
Arguments Presented
• Petitioner’s Position (Holyoak):
◦ The freestanding mailbox was already in place when he purchased the home in 2012.
◦ At the time of purchase, he received a statement that there were no known covenant violations on the property.
◦ He argued the mailbox is required by the United States Postal Service (USPS), which no longer provides walking delivery and requires mailboxes to be reachable from a vehicle. The home’s other mailbox, built into a monument, is approximately 15 feet from the curb.
◦ A USPS mail carrier had confirmed this delivery requirement.
• Respondent’s Position (HOA):
◦ Board member Terry Rogers testified that the USPS mail carrier told him he would prefer to deliver to the permanent monument mailbox because the freestanding one was not secure.
◦ The mailbox had become an “eyesore,” as it was faded, peeling, and “listing to one side.”
◦ Of the 61 homes in the community, only three have freestanding mailboxes, and the Petitioner is the only one with two mailboxes.
Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusion
The judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner in this matter.
• Inconsistent Enforcement: The judge found it “problematic” that the HOA relied on three different sections of the CC&Rs in its notices.
• Pre-existing Structure: The Petitioner established that the mailbox was present at the time of his 2012 home purchase and that he was told of no existing violations. Therefore, the HOA’s argument regarding the lack of an architectural approval was “without merit.”
• Inapplicable CC&R Section: The fine was imposed based on Section 12 of the CC&Rs. The judge determined the plain language of this section relates to a “building” and “cannot be read to apply to Petitioner’s mailbox.”
• Violation by HOA: By imposing a fine based on an inapplicable section, the HOA was in violation of the CC&Rs.
• Verdict: The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The judge noted that the HOA could potentially impose fines for failure to maintain the mailbox or for painting it without approval, but those specific violations were not before the court.
——————————————————————————–
Final Order and Subsequent Corrections
• Order of May 25, 2018:
1. Petitioner’s petition in Case Number 18F-H1818030-REL (Landscaping) is denied.
2. Petitioner is deemed the prevailing party in Case Number 18F-H1818031-REL (Mailbox).
3. Respondent (HOA) is ordered to pay Petitioner his $500.00 filing fee within thirty days.
• Order Nunc Pro Tunc of May 30, 2018:
◦ This order corrected a typographical error in the original decision. The original text mistakenly stated the petition for the mailbox case (31-REL) was denied.
◦ Correction: The denial was correctly applied to the landscaping case: “it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition in Case Number 18F-H1818031-REL 18F-H1818030-REL is denied.”
• Order Nunc Pro Tunc of May 31, 2018:
◦ This order corrected a typographical error in the May 30 order, which had misstated the date of the original decision.
◦ Correction: “On April 26 May 25, 2018, the Administrative Law Judge issued the Administrative Law Judge Decision…”
——————————————————————————–
Key CC&R Sections Cited
• Section 8 (Architectural Control): Requires written approval from the Committee before any “building or other structure” is erected, altered, or repaired. This includes exterior finish, color, and architectural style.
• Section 12 (Buildings): States that “No building may be erected or maintained upon any Lot except one single family dwelling with private appurtenant garage and customary outbuildings” without prior written approval.
• Section 27 (Maintenance): Prohibits any building or structure from falling into disrepair and requires owners to keep them in good condition and adequately painted.
• Section 28 (Landscaping): Requires the owner of each lot to “at all times keep shrubs, trees, grass and plantings of every kind, on his lot mostly trimmed, properly cultivated, and free of trash, weeds and other unsightly material.”
Study Guide – 18F-H1818030-REL
Study Guide: Holyoak v. Camelback Country Club Estates I & II HOA
This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative hearing case between petitioner Jon Paul Holyoak and the respondent, Camelback Country Club Estates I & II Homeowners Association. It covers the core disputes, arguments, legal interpretations, and the final decision rendered by the Administrative Law Judge.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the case documents.
1. Who were the primary parties in this administrative case, and what were their roles?
2. What were the two distinct case numbers, and what violation did each one address?
3. According to Section 28 of the CC&Rs, what is the responsibility of a lot owner regarding landscaping?
4. What was the petitioner’s primary defense regarding the citation for a “dead” olive tree in his front yard?
5. What was the respondent’s argument for why the olive tree was a violation of the CC&Rs?
6. What key fact did the petitioner establish regarding the freestanding mailbox that was central to the judge’s decision in that matter?
7. Why did the Administrative Law Judge find the respondent’s enforcement actions regarding the mailbox to be “problematic”?
8. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge rule that the respondent violated the CC&Rs by fining the petitioner for the mailbox under Section 12?
9. What was the final outcome and financial penalty ordered in the consolidated cases?
10. What is an “Order Nunc Pro Tunc,” and why were two such orders issued after the initial decision?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Jon Paul Holyoak, the homeowner, who acted as the Petitioner. The Respondent was the Camelback Country Club Estates I & II Homeowners Association, which was represented by Gary Linder and Diana Elston.
2. The first case, No. 18F-H1818030-REL, addressed alleged landscaping violations under Section 28 of the CC&Rs concerning dead trees and foliage. The second case, No. 18F-H1818031-REL, addressed an alleged violation for an additional freestanding mailbox, primarily under Section 12 of the CC&Rs.
3. Section 28 of the CC&Rs requires that the owner of each lot shall at all times keep shrubs, trees, grass, and plantings neatly trimmed, properly cultivated, and free of trash, weeds, and other unsightly material.
4. The petitioner testified that the olive tree was not “dead” but was “in distress,” and that he and his landscaper were actively trying to nurse it back to health. He argued he should not be forced to remove a tree with dead branches while attempting to save it.
5. The respondent’s board member, Terry Rogers, testified that the olive tree had no leaves and appeared dead from the roadway. He contended that a dead tree could not be considered “properly trimmed” as required by the CC&Rs.
6. The petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the freestanding mailbox was already in place when he purchased the property in 2012. Furthermore, at the time of purchase, he was notified that there were no known covenant violations on the property.
7. The Judge found the respondent’s actions problematic because, over the course of four notices sent to the petitioner about the mailbox, the respondent relied on three different sections of the CC&Rs (Sections 27, 12, and 8). This inconsistency weakened the respondent’s position.
8. The Judge ruled that the plain language of Section 12 of the CC&Rs relates to a “building,” such as a single-family dwelling or garage. The Judge concluded that a mailbox cannot be considered a “building” under this section, making the fine imposed under this rule a violation of the CC&Rs by the respondent.
9. The petitioner’s petition regarding landscaping (18F-H1818030-REL) was denied. However, the petitioner was deemed the prevailing party in the mailbox case (18F-H1818031-REL), and the respondent was ordered to pay the petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.
10. “Nunc Pro Tunc” is a legal term for an order that corrects a clerical error in a prior court decision, with the correction being retroactive. The first order corrected the case number in the final ruling, and the second order corrected a date referenced in the first corrective order.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: Consider the following questions. Formulate a detailed response that synthesizes facts and arguments from the case documents to support your position.
1. Explain the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the decision and analyze how the petitioner met this burden of proof in the mailbox case but failed to meet it in the landscaping case.
2. Discuss the legal significance of the HOA’s inconsistent application of its CC&Rs in the mailbox dispute. Why did citing three different sections (27, 12, and 8) undermine the HOA’s case?
3. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of Section 12 of the CC&Rs. How does the “plain language” of the rule factor into the decision that a mailbox is not a “building”?
4. Examine the arguments presented by both parties regarding the freestanding mailbox, including the conflicting accounts of conversations with the USPS mail carrier. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s position.
5. The Judge noted that while the fine under Section 12 was improper, the HOA could potentially impose fines for failure to maintain the mailbox or for painting it without approval. Based on the facts presented, construct a hypothetical argument the HOA could have made that might have been successful.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
To reduce or remove. In the context of the hearing, the Petitioner asked that the fines be abated, meaning he requested they be cancelled or removed.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions, similar to a judge in a court of law. In this case, the ALJ was Tammy L. Eigenheer.
Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing legal documents that set forth the rules and regulations for a planned community or subdivision. The petitioner and respondent both based their arguments on interpretations of these documents.
Conclusions of Law
The section of a legal decision where the judge applies legal principles and rules (like the CC&Rs and state statutes) to the facts of the case to reach a final judgment.
Findings of Fact
The section of a legal decision that establishes the factual record of the case based on the evidence and testimony presented during the hearing.
Jurisdiction
The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The Arizona Department of Real Estate was determined to have jurisdiction to hear disputes between a property owner and a homeowners association.
Nunc Pro Tunc
A Latin phrase meaning “now for then.” It refers to a legal order that corrects a clerical error in a previous order, making the correction retroactive to the original date of the decision.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a lawsuit or files a petition seeking a legal remedy. In this case, Jon Paul Holyoak was the Petitioner.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in most civil cases. It means the greater weight of the evidence shows that a fact is more likely than not to be true. The Petitioner bore this burden of proof.
Prevailing Party
The party in a lawsuit who is found to have won the legal dispute. In case 18F-H1818031-REL, the Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party, which entitled him to have his filing fee reimbursed.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed; the defending party. In this case, the Camelback Country Club Estates I & II Homeowners Association was the Respondent.
Blog Post – 18F-H1818030-REL
Select all sources
636748.pdf
637227.pdf
637433.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
18F-H1818030-REL
3 sources
The sources document an Administrative Law Judge Decision concerning a dispute between Jon Paul Holyoak (Petitioner) and the Camelback Country Club Estates I & II Homeowners Association (Respondent), along with subsequent orders correcting clerical errors. The initial decision addresses two consolidated petitions: one regarding landscaping violations (dead trees) under CC&R Section 28, and a second concerning a disputed mailbox under various CC&R sections, particularly Section 12. While the Petitioner failed to prove the association improperly fined him for the dead tree, the judge determined the association was in violation of the CC&Rs for improperly citing Section 12 for the mailbox issue, leading the Petitioner to be deemed the prevailing party in the mailbox case and awarded his $500 filing fee. The subsequent documents, titled Order Nunc Pro Tunc, are procedural corrections to typographical errors found in the original decision’s text and date.
Based on 3 sources
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
John Paul Holyoak(petitioner) Also appears as 'Jon Paul Holyoak'
Respondent Side
Terry Rogers(board member) Camelback Country Club Estates I & II HOA Testified at hearing
Gary Linder(attorney) Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C. Also listed as 'J. Gary Linder'
Diana J. Elston(attorney) Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
Neutral Parties
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ)
Judy Lowe(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
Felicia Del Sol(clerk) Transmitting agent
LDettorre(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
DGardner(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
ncano(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
Bridgewood Nine 30 Property Owners Association, Inc. aka Bridgewood Townhomes
Counsel
Mark E. Lines and R. Patrick Whelan
Alleged Violations
CC&R § 5(G)
Outcome Summary
The ALJ denied the petition, concluding the Respondent HOA did not unreasonably deny the Petitioner's architectural request. The HOA's standard specification requiring 4” x 8” x 16” CMU blocks for courtyard walls was found to be reasonable for maintaining architectural continuity consistent with the original Al Beadle design of the community.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove that the HOA's denial was unreasonable or that the specified 4” x 8” x 16” CMU block was inferior to the 8” x 8” x 16” CMU block she requested, and compliance with the HOA's reasonable specifications was required.
Key Issues & Findings
Unreasonable denial of architectural request to build a courtyard wall
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&R § 5(G) by unreasonably denying her request to construct a courtyard wall using 8” x 8” x 16” CMU blocks, which did not comply with the HOA's Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions requiring 4” x 8” x 16” CMU blocks.
Orders: Petition denied because Petitioner failed to establish that CC&R § 5(G) required the Respondent to approve her Architectural Request which did not comply with Respondent’s Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions.
Briefing Document: Westerman v. Bridgewood Townhomes HOA (Case No. 18F-H1818028-REL)
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and decision in the case of Debbie Westerman versus the Bridgewood Nine 30 Property Owners Association, Inc. (HOA). The central conflict involved the HOA’s denial of Ms. Westerman’s architectural request to construct a courtyard wall using 8” x 8” x 16” concrete masonry unit (CMU) blocks, which deviated from the association’s established standard of 4” x 8” x 16” CMU blocks.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately denied the petitioner’s claim, ruling in favor of the HOA. The decision rested on the finding that the HOA’s architectural standards were reasonable and established to maintain the community’s original design integrity. The petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to show that the HOA’s denial was unreasonable or that the specified building materials were in any significant way inferior. The HOA successfully argued that its “Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions,” in place since 2005, were created to preserve the architectural continuity of the original “Al Beadle design” and have been consistently applied to numerous other homeowner projects.
1. Case Overview and Core Dispute
• Parties:
◦ Petitioner: Debbie Westerman, owner of condominium unit 31 in Bridgewood Townhomes.
◦ Respondent: Bridgewood Nine 30 Property Owners Association, Inc. (also known as Bridgewood Townhomes).
• Jurisdiction: The case was heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings following a petition filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on January 23, 2018.
• Core Allegation: The petitioner alleged that the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) § 5(G) by unreasonably denying her request to build a courtyard wall with 8” x 8” x 16” CMU blocks. The HOA’s established specification required the use of 4” x 8” x 16” CMU blocks.
2. Chronology of the Dispute
The key events leading to the administrative hearing occurred between October 2017 and January 2018.
Oct 25, 2017
Michael Brubaker, the HOA Board President, emailed the petitioner with the association’s “Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions.”
Oct 25, 2017
The petitioner submitted an Architectural Request to build a wall with 8″ x 8″ x 16″ CMU blocks, acknowledging the deviation from specifications.
Oct 25, 2017
Mr. Brubaker sent a follow-up email cautioning the petitioner not to pre-order non-conforming materials as her request was not yet approved.
Nov 29, 2017
Mr. Brubaker emailed the petitioner, acknowledging her request as “extraordinary” and stating the Board would need to meet to consider it.
Dec 28, 2017
The petitioner was formally notified of a Board meeting scheduled for January 2, 2018, to review her request.
Jan 2, 2018
The petitioner attended the Board meeting. The Board unanimously rejected her request because it was contrary to the established specifications and “the historical aspects of our compliance structure.” The Board noted its willingness to approve a compliant wall, but the petitioner “stated that she [was] unwilling to comply.”
Jan 8, 2018
The HOA’s attorney sent a letter to the petitioner summarizing the legal basis for the denial.
Jan 23, 2018
The petitioner filed her formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
3. Petitioner’s Arguments and Evidence (Debbie Westerman)
The petitioner’s case was built on three main arguments: the superiority of her proposed materials, the inconsistency of community standards, and the questionable validity of the HOA’s rules.
• Material Superiority: The petitioner claimed her proposed 8” x 8” x 16” blocks were stronger, less expensive, and visually identical to the required blocks.
◦ Evidence: She testified that three different contractors advised her that the larger blocks would be cheaper due to needing fewer units and less mortar.
◦ Evidence: Her subcontractor, Richard Ross, testified that using twice as many blocks (as required by the 4″ specification) “doubles the chance of the wall failing.”
• Inconsistent Community Standards: The petitioner argued that the HOA did not enforce a uniform aesthetic, negating the need for strict adherence to the block size specification.
◦ Evidence: She submitted photographs (Exhibits A5, A6) of walls at units 34 and 38, owned by Board President Michael Brubaker, which she claimed were built with larger blocks visible through stucco.
◦ Evidence: She submitted a photograph (Exhibit A11) showing courtyard walls of different heights, although wall height was not the subject of her dispute.
• Questionable Rule Authenticity: At the hearing, the petitioner challenged the validity of the “Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions” document itself.
◦ Argument: She argued the document was not authentic because the HOA did not produce the official Board meeting minutes from 2005 when the rules were allegedly adopted. This challenge was raised for the first time at the hearing.
4. Respondent’s Arguments and Evidence (Bridgewood HOA)
The HOA’s defense was centered on its legal authority, the reasonableness of its established architectural standards, and the consistent enforcement of its rules.
• Adherence to Established Architectural Standards: The HOA’s primary defense was that its denial was based on a reasonable and long-standing architectural rule.
◦ Authority: The HOA cited CC&R § 5(J), which grants the Board the authority to adopt reasonable rules concerning the use of common elements. Rule 7(a) requires Board approval for any exterior alterations.
◦ Evidence: The HOA submitted the “Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions” (Exhibit 3), which Mr. Brubaker credibly testified was adopted by the Board on March 22, 2005.
◦ Purpose of the Rule: Mr. Brubaker stated the rule’s purpose was to ensure architectural continuity. An email to the petitioner (Exhibit 7) explained:
• Consistent Enforcement: The HOA demonstrated that the rule was not arbitrary but had been consistently applied.
◦ Evidence: Mr. Brubaker testified that since the program’s adoption, “twenty-nine homeowners have had applications approved and constructed courtyard walls to specification.” Four additional compliant applications were approved since the petitioner’s submission. A photograph of a recently completed, compliant wall (Ms. Warren’s) was submitted as Exhibit 16.
• Rebuttal of Petitioner’s Claims: The HOA directly countered the petitioner’s key arguments.
◦ On Inconsistency: Mr. Brubaker testified that the non-conforming walls at units 34 and 38 were constructed before 1980 by the original developer, prior to the HOA assuming control of the property (Exhibit 14).
◦ On Structural Integrity: The HOA submitted two technical bulletins from the National Concrete Masonry Association (Exhibits 19 and 20). These documents stated that 4″ high (“half-high”) units can be considered “structurally equivalent to their corresponding 8-in. (203-mm) high unit” as long as the cross-section is the same.
◦ On Cost: The HOA submitted a bid from J E Bowen Construction for $6,165.00 to build a compliant wall for the petitioner’s unit (Exhibit 17). It also noted that another homeowner’s recent compliant wall cost only $4,268.23 (Exhibit 15).
5. Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions and Final Order
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found comprehensively in favor of the Respondent (HOA), denying the Petitioner’s petition.
• Burden of Proof: The ALJ established that the petitioner bore the burden of proving her case by a “preponderance of the evidence” and failed to do so.
• Reasonableness of HOA Standards: The decision affirmed the HOA’s right to establish and enforce aesthetic standards.
• Validity of Specifications: The petitioner’s challenge to the authenticity of the HOA’s rules was dismissed. The ALJ found that she “did not establish that Respondent’s Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions was fraudulent or improperly adopted.”
• Materiality of Block Type: The ALJ concluded that the petitioner failed to prove her central claim that the larger blocks were superior.
• Aesthetic Impact: The ALJ determined that the petitioner’s proposed wall would violate the community’s aesthetic standards, noting that a wall using the larger blocks “would be noticeably different from walls that were constructed in compliance with the Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions and other Al Beadle design elements.”
Final Order: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied because she has not established that CC&R § 5(G) required the Respondent to approve her Architectural Request to build a block wall around her patio that did not comply with Respondent’s Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions.”
The order, issued on April 26, 2018, is binding unless a rehearing is requested within 30 days of service.
Study Guide – 18F-H1818028-REL
Study Guide: Westerman v. Bridgewood Nine 30 Property Owners Association, Inc.
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case No. 18F-H1818028-REL, concerning a dispute between a homeowner and her homeowners’ association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a thorough understanding of the case.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following ten questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the information provided in the source document.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in this hearing, and what was their relationship?
2. What specific action by the Respondent was the Petitioner challenging in her petition?
3. According to the Respondent, what was the primary purpose of the “Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions”?
4. What were the three main arguments the Petitioner presented in favor of using 8” x 8” x 16” CMU blocks instead of the specified size?
5. How did the Petitioner attempt to demonstrate that the Respondent’s enforcement of wall specifications was inconsistent?
6. What was the Respondent’s explanation for the non-conforming walls cited by the Petitioner?
7. What evidence did the Respondent present to counter the Petitioner’s claim that the specified 4” x 8” x 16” CMU blocks were structurally inferior?
8. Which party bore the “burden of proof” in this case, and what did that require them to establish?
9. On what date did the Respondent’s Board of Directors originally adopt the Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions?
10. What was the final ruling in this case, and what was the judge’s primary reason for the decision?
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Debbie Westerman, the Petitioner, and the Bridgewood Nine 30 Property Owners Association, Inc., the Respondent. Ms. Westerman owns condominium unit 31 in the Bridgewood Townhomes development and is therefore a member of the Respondent homeowners’ association.
2. The Petitioner was challenging the Respondent’s denial of her Architectural Request to build a wall around her patio. Specifically, she alleged that the Respondent had unreasonably denied her request to use 8” x 8” x 16” concrete masonry unit (CMU) block, which violated the association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
3. The “Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions” were developed to provide architectural continuity and standards for courtyard walls. They were intended to ensure that any new walls conformed to the original Al Beadle design represented by other structures on the property, such as the perimeter wall and pool enclosure.
4. The Petitioner argued that her proposed 8” x 8” x 16” CMU blocks were stronger, less expensive (requiring fewer blocks and less mortar), and looked the same as the specified blocks. This information was based on advice she received from three different contractors.
5. The Petitioner submitted photographs of courtyard walls at unit nos. 34 and 38, which she testified had larger blocks visible through stucco. She used these examples to argue that walls within the community were not consistent.
6. The Respondent’s Board president, Michael Brubaker, testified that the walls for units 34 and 38 were constructed before 1980. This was before the original developer turned the property over to the Respondent homeowners’ association, and therefore before the current specifications were in place.
7. The Respondent submitted two technical documents (TEK 5-15 and TEK 2-2B) from the National Concrete Masonry Association. These documents stated that 4-inch high (“half-high”) units are structurally equivalent to their corresponding 8-inch high counterparts, provided the face shell and web thicknesses are the same.
8. The Petitioner, Ms. Westerman, bore the burden of proof. This required her to establish by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent violated CC&R § 5(G) by unreasonably denying her request.
9. Michael Brubaker, the Respondent’s Board president, credibly testified that the Board adopted the Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions on March 22, 2005.
10. The final ruling was that the Petitioner’s petition was denied. The judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish that the Respondent’s Board acted unreasonably in denying her request, as the Board’s decision to maintain architectural consistency with the original Al Beadle design was reasonable.
Suggested Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses to test a deeper understanding of the case’s themes and legal principles. Do not provide answers.
1. Analyze the legal concept of a “restrictive covenant.” Using the CC&Rs from the Bridgewood Townhomes development as an example, explain how these covenants function to regulate property use and how they are interpreted and enforced in a legal dispute.
2. Evaluate the evidence presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent regarding the structural integrity and cost of the different CMU block sizes. Discuss the quality of the evidence (e.g., expert testimony, technical documents, contractor bids) and explain which side made a more compelling argument on this point.
3. Discuss the role and authority of a homeowners’ association Board of Directors as demonstrated in this case. How did the Board use its authority under the CC&Rs to create and enforce the “Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions,” and what does the judge’s decision say about the reasonableness of its actions?
4. The concept of “architectural continuity” and preserving the original “Al Beadle design” was central to the Respondent’s argument. Explain the significance of this argument and analyze why the Administrative Law Judge found it to be a reasonable basis for denying the Petitioner’s request.
5. Trace the procedural history of this dispute, from the Petitioner’s initial Architectural Request in October 2017 through the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision. What do the steps taken by both parties reveal about the formal processes for dispute resolution within this planned community?
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition (as used in the source document)
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge (Diane Mihalsky) who presides over administrative hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an agency separate from the Department of Real Estate.
Architectural Request
A formal application submitted by a homeowner to the homeowners’ association for approval of any alterations or additions to the exterior of a unit.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. A set of rules recorded with the county that governs the rights and obligations of property owners within a planned community or condominium development.
Concrete Masonry Unit. A standard-size rectangular block used in construction. In this case, the dispute centered on two sizes: 4” x 8” x 16” and 8” x 8” x 16”.
Common Area
Areas within the development owned by the Homeowners’ Association in trust for the benefit and use of all lot owners.
Department
The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations.
Homeowners’ Association (HOA)
An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium development that makes and enforces rules for the properties within its jurisdiction. In this case, the Bridgewood Nine 30 Property Owners Association, Inc.
Limited Common Elements
Areas, such as the patios or courtyards adjacent to individual units, that are part of the common area but are reserved for the exclusive use of a specific owner.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, the homeowner, Debbie Westerman.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this civil case. It is defined as evidence that has the most convincing force and is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the homeowners’ association, Bridgewood Nine 30 Property Owners Association, Inc.
Restrictive Covenant
A provision in a deed or CC&R that limits the use of the property. The judge notes that if unambiguous, these are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties.
Subpoena Duces Tecum
A legal order requiring a person to appear and bring specified documents or evidence with them. The decision notes the Petitioner did not request one for the Board meeting minutes.
TEK 2-2B & TEK 5-15
Titles of technical publications from the National Concrete Masonry Association, submitted as evidence by the Respondent to demonstrate the structural equivalence of different-sized CMU blocks.
Blog Post – 18F-H1818028-REL
Why Your HOA Cares About Your Bricks: A Real-Life Legal Battle, Deconstructed
For many homeowners, the relationship with their Homeowners’ Association (HOA) is a source of quiet frustration. It often involves rules that seem arbitrary, overly specific, or just plain unreasonable. You want to make a practical improvement to your property, but the HOA’s governing documents stand in the way, citing regulations you never knew existed. This friction between individual desire and community standards is common, but rarely does it escalate into a formal legal dispute.
When it does, however, the results can be surprisingly illuminating. Such is the case of Debbie Westerman and the Bridgewood Townhomes HOA in Arizona. Their legal battle wasn’t over a major renovation or a loud party; it was about the specific size of concrete blocks for a new patio wall. On the surface, it seems like a minor disagreement. But a closer look at the administrative law judge’s decision reveals powerful, practical lessons for every homeowner about the hidden legal realities of community governance.
By deconstructing the judge’s final decision, we can uncover four critical lessons that reveal how HOAs wield power and how homeowners can protect themselves.
Takeaway 1: Aesthetic Vision Can Legally Outweigh Practicality
At the heart of the dispute was a simple disagreement over materials. The petitioner, Debbie Westerman, wanted to build her patio wall using 8″x8″x16″ concrete blocks. Her reasoning was entirely practical: a licensed contractor advised her that the larger blocks were “stronger, less expensive, and looks the same.” From a homeowner’s perspective, this seems like an open-and-shut case for approval.
The HOA, however, denied the request. Their position was based not on practicality, but on a specific design vision. The association’s rules, established back in 2005, explicitly required the use of 4″x8″x16″ blocks. The reason? To maintain “architectural continuity” with the property’s original “Al Beadle design.” This wasn’t a vague preference; it was a documented standard intended to conform new construction to the existing visual language of the community, as seen in the “property’s perimeter wall, the original block buildings, the pool area enclosure and buildings, the parking structures, and the walls around the parking areas.”
Ultimately, the judge sided with the HOA. The decision found that the association’s requirement was reasonable because it was aimed at keeping new construction consistent with “significant elements of Bridgewood Townhomes.” This is a crucial lesson: a homeowner’s logical arguments about cost, strength, and appearance can be legally superseded by a community’s well-documented commitment to a specific, even if less tangible, design aesthetic.
Takeaway 2: The Power is in the Paper Trail
The HOA’s entire case rested on the strength of a single key document: the “Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions.” This document, which the board officially adopted on March 22, 2005, clearly outlined the requirement for the 4-inch blocks.
Crucially, the petitioner only challenged the authenticity of this document for the first time during the hearing itself, arguing the HOA had not produced the original meeting minutes that adopted it. The judge deemed this last-minute challenge inadmissible. Why? Crucially, the judge noted that the homeowner had failed to use the proper legal procedures to demand the HOA produce those records ahead of time, making her challenge too little, too late. The HOA, meanwhile, demonstrated a long history of consistent enforcement. Before Ms. Westerman’s request, the association had already approved 29 other courtyard walls, all built according to the 2005 specifications.
This highlights a critical lesson: an HOA’s power is codified in its paper trail. The governing documents—from the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) down to specific board-adopted rules—carry immense legal weight.
Pro Tip:Your HOA’s governing documents are more than just the CC&Rs you received at closing. Formally request and review all board-adopted rules, architectural guidelines, and meeting minutes related to your planned project hiring a contractor or submitting an application.
Takeaway 3: The Burden of Proof Is on the Homeowner
Many people might assume that in a dispute, the powerful organization (the HOA) has the responsibility to prove its rules are fair and justified. The legal reality is often the exact opposite.
The judge’s decision explicitly stated that the “burden of proof” was on Ms. Westerman to establish that the HOA had acted unreasonably. It was not the HOA’s job to prove their rule was perfect; it was the homeowner’s job to prove the denial was improper. To meet this high legal standard, defined as a “preponderance of the evidence,” you need convincing proof.
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
This case provides a masterclass in what constitutes convincing proof. Ms. Westerman’s evidence that the 8-inch blocks were superior came from the testimony of her contractor’s unlicensed subcontractor. In sharp contrast, the HOA submitted two technical documents from the National Concrete Masonry Association—a neutral, expert authority—which demonstrated that the required 4-inch blocks are “structurally equivalent” to their 8-inch counterparts. The homeowner brought an opinion to a legal fight; the HOA brought expert documentation.
Actionable Advice:If you choose to challenge an HOA decision, understand that personal testimony and contractor opinions are often insufficient. To meet the ‘burden of proof,’ you must be prepared to counter the HOA’s documented rules with equally strong evidence, such as independent engineering reports, surveys, or expert testimony.
Takeaway 4: An HOA Rule Can Be a “Win-Win Program”
While it’s easy to view HOA rules as purely restrictive, the association’s board president, Michael Brubaker, offered a completely different perspective. He framed the wall policy not as a limitation, but as a benefit designed to increase the value and security of the entire community.
In an email to the petitioner, he explained the board’s original thinking behind allowing the walls in the first place, calling it a “win win program.”
A courtyard wall allowed homeowners to expand their homes with an exclusive-use courtyard space, enhance privacy, and improve security, which resulted in an increased individual property value that subsequently raised all property values. Additionally, the Association reduced costs by reducing the common area to be maintained. This is a win win program.
This viewpoint is bolstered by another critical fact: the HOA assumes maintenance responsibility for the walls after they are built. This reinforces the logic behind the rule. Uniformity isn’t just about aesthetics; it’s about the long-term, collective cost and labor of maintaining these structures, making a consistent standard a practical and financial concern for the entire association.
Conclusion: Beyond the Bricks
The dispute between Debbie Westerman and the Bridgewood Townhomes HOA was, on its face, about the size of concrete blocks. But the legal decision reveals a much deeper story about community living. It’s a story about how a shared aesthetic vision, when properly documented, can become legally enforceable. It’s a confirmation of the immense power of written rules and the critical importance of bringing credible evidence to a dispute. And it’s a reminder that the legal burden often falls on the individual to challenge the collective.
This case demonstrates that behind a seemingly petty disagreement lies a complex reality of legal precedent, established processes, and a community’s right to define and defend its character. The next time you encounter a seemingly arbitrary HOA rule, will you see it as a simple restriction, or will you look for the deeper story of community standards and legal precedent behind it?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Debbie Westerman(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf
Kelly Zernich(witness) Petitioner's realtor
Richard Ross(witness) Petitioner's contractor's subcontractor
Respondent Side
Mark E. Lines(attorney) Shaw & Lines, LLC
R. Patrick Whelan(attorney) Shaw & Lines, LLC
Michael Brubaker(board member/witness) Respondent's Board president
Neutral Parties
Diane Mihalsky(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Other Participants
Barb Warren(homeowner/applicant) Application approved by the Board (used for comparison)
Felicia Del Sol(unknown) Transmitted the decision electronically
