Tag Archives: Burden of Proof

Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton vs Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, INC.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H027-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-08-06
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $150.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton Counsel Craig L. Cline
Respondent Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel Nikolas Thompson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §§ 10-11601, 10-11620, 33-1805, 33-1810, Bylaws Article 10.1.1, 10.3, 7.6.3, 7.6.4, 5.1, and CC&R Article X Section 3
A.R.S. § 33-1803, CC&Rs Article IX Section 10, Section 18, Article XI Section 1, Section 5, HOA Hearing and Fine Policy

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition entirely, concluding that Petitioners failed to establish any of the alleged violations of statutes, CC&Rs, or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence. The ALJ found that the HOA provided reasonable explanations regarding delays in document production and that the Petitioners' security camera created a nuisance for a neighbor, requiring the submission of a Design Modification Request (DMR).

Why this result: Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof for the numerous alleged violations. The records requests claims failed because Petitioners did not satisfy prerequisites (e.g., payment, inspection request) or because the HOA provided reasonable explanations for delays. The security camera issue failed because the device created a nuisance and Petitioners refused to submit a required DMR.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to follow governing documents & State laws with respect to preparation of mandatory records and documents; retention of required records and documents; and/or fulfillment of Owner requests for same.

Petitioners alleged the HOA failed to timely produce requested board minutes and financial compilations for 2022 and 2023. The ALJ found that A.R.S. §§ 10-11601 and 10-11620 were inapplicable. Regarding A.R.S. §§ 33-1805 and 33-1810, the HOA provided reasonable explanations for delays (management transition, accountant extension). Petitioners failed to establish violations, noting they did not request inspection, offer to pay for copies, or inform the HOA of the missing 2022 compilation.

Orders: No action required of Respondent. Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • A.R.S. § 10-11620
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 33-1810
  • Bylaws Article 10.1.1
  • Bylaws Article 10.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.4
  • Bylaws Article 5.1
  • CC&R Article X Section 3

Misinterpreting the CC&Rs in regards to the Petitioners' security devices.

Petitioners argued their security camera installation was exempt (a “carve out”) from requiring a Design Modification Request (DMR). They also alleged improper notice and fining under A.R.S. § 33-1803 and CC&Rs Article XI Sec 5. The ALJ found the camera created a nuisance for the neighbor by invading privacy. Although the HOA may have had a technical violation in notice (Article XI Sec 5), Petitioners failed to establish overall violations, noting Petitioners refused to submit a DMR as required of all homeowners.

Orders: No action required of Respondent. Petition dismissed. Petitioners are required to submit a DMR.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No, Civil penalty: $150.00

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 10
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 18
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 1
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 5
  • HOA Hearing and Fine Policy

Analytics Highlights

Topics: records, minutes, financial statements, audit, compilation, security camera, nuisance, design modification request, DMR, failure to submit DMR, notice violation, burden of proof
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • A.R.S. § 10-11620
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 33-1810
  • Bylaws Article 10.1.1
  • Bylaws Article 10.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.4
  • Bylaws Article 5.1
  • CC&R Article X Section 3
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 10
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 18
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 1
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 5
  • HOA Hearing and Fine Policy




Briefing Doc – 25F-H027-REL


Briefing on the Administrative Hearing: Schafer & Lawton v. Sycamore Springs HOA

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision in the matter of Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton v. Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. (No. 25F-H027-REL). The dispute centered on two core issues: the Homeowners Association’s (HOA) alleged failure to properly prepare, retain, and provide mandatory corporate records, and its alleged misinterpretation of governing documents concerning the installation of a security camera by the petitioners.

Following a hearing on July 22, 2025, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella issued a decision on August 6, 2025, dismissing the petition in its entirety. The ALJ concluded that the petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof on all allegations.

Key findings indicate that the HOA’s explanations for delays and missing records—namely, a difficult transition between management companies and a tax filing extension—were deemed reasonable. Regarding the security camera, the ALJ determined that the device constituted a nuisance to a neighbor, a finding within the HOA board’s discretion, and upheld the HOA’s requirement for a Design Modification Request (DMR). The decision affirmed the respondent’s central legal argument distinguishing the duty to “keep” records from a requirement to “take” them.

Case Overview

Case Name

Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton, Petitioners, v. Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc., Respondent.

Case Number

25F-H027-REL

Tribunal

State of Arizona, Office of Administrative Hearings

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella

Hearing Date

July 22, 2025

Decision Date

August 6, 2025

Petitioners

Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton (Represented by Craig Cline, Esq.)

Respondent

Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. (Represented by Nikolas Thompson, Esq.)

The matter was subject to several continuances at the request of the Respondent, moving the final hearing date to July 22, 2025.

Core Allegations and Disputed Issues

The dispute was formally divided into two primary areas of contention, each involving alleged violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs and Bylaws).

Issue 1: Records and Document Management

• Petitioners’ Allegations: The HOA systematically failed to follow governing documents and state laws regarding the preparation, retention, and fulfillment of owner requests for mandatory records. This included the failure to provide five specific sets of board meeting minutes and the annual financial compilations for fiscal years 2022 and 2023 in a timely manner. Petitioners argued this constituted a breach of fiduciary duty and a violation of multiple statutes and bylaws.

• Respondent’s Position: The HOA contended that governing documents and statutes require them to keep records of minutes taken, but not to take minutes for every meeting. This interpretation was based on advice from legal counsel. They argued that most documents were available on the homeowner portal and that the failure to produce one specific set of minutes (December 2023) was due to them being lost by a previous “garbage” management company. The delay in providing the 2023 financial compilation was attributed to a reasonable circumstance: an extension filed for the association’s taxes.

Issue 2: Security Camera Installation

• Petitioners’ Allegations: The HOA misinterpreted its own CC&Rs by requiring a DMR for the petitioners’ security camera. Petitioners argued that Article IX, Section 18 of the CC&Rs provides a specific “carve out” for “security devices used exclusively for security purposes.” They further contended they were being targeted, as the HOA had no history of enforcing such a requirement for security cameras until after their device was installed and a neighbor complained.

• Respondent’s Position: The HOA board interpreted the CC&R “carve out” as applying only to sound-emitting devices (e.g., alarms, bells), as the clause is situated within a paragraph on noise nuisances. They argued a security camera is an “attachment to an existing structure,” which requires approval from the Architectural Control Committee under a separate CC&R article. Furthermore, the installation created a nuisance by invading a neighbor’s privacy, obligating the board to act. The HOA asserted that all homeowners, including the board president, were subsequently required to submit DMRs for their cameras to ensure consistent enforcement.

Key Testimony and Evidence

Patricia Lawton (Petitioner)

• A former HOA board president for three years, Ms. Lawton testified to having an expert-level understanding of the governing documents.

• Regarding records, she stated that of five requested sets of board minutes, only one was provided, and it was delivered late. She claimed she never received the 2022 financial compilation, only tax returns, and that the 2023 compilation was not provided within the statutorily required timeframe.

• She disputed the validity of the HOA’s tax-extension excuse, testifying that the association operates on a cash basis of accounting, which should not have prevented the timely completion of the compilation.

• She testified that due to security concerns (fear of being hacked), she does not have a registered account for the homeowner portal and accesses it through other community members.

• On the security camera, she asserted it was a residential-grade device installed in response to trespassing and property damage. She maintained that the CC&Rs provided a clear exemption and that the HOA’s enforcement action was retaliatory and inconsistent with historical practice.

Kristen Rowlette (HOA Board President)

• Ms. Rowlette testified that critical documents, including the December 2023 minutes, were lost during a problematic transition from a prior management company, Adams LLC, to the current one, Mission Management. She stated Ms. Lawton was aware of these difficulties as she attended every board meeting.

• She admitted that the board made a decision to stop taking minutes for meetings where no votes were held. She stated this was done on the advice of legal counsel (Smith and Wamsley) and was a direct response to feeling “inundated with requests from Patricia.”

• Regarding the camera, she testified that the issue arose only after a neighbor filed a formal complaint citing privacy concerns for their children. She described visiting the neighbor’s property and observing the camera’s “eye” actively tracking her movements.

• She confirmed that following the complaint, the board, on legal advice, required all homeowners to retroactively submit DMRs for any existing security cameras to ensure uniform enforcement.

Central Legal Arguments

The “Keep” vs. “Take” Debate

The primary legal conflict regarding the meeting minutes centered on the interpretation of a single word.

• Petitioners’ Argument: Counsel for the petitioners argued that the phrase “keep the minutes” must be interpreted through a “common sense application,” meaning “maintaining a written record of proceedings and decisions.” It was described as a standard practice for nonprofit organizations for decades, and the respondent’s narrow definition was “overly simplistic.”

• Respondent’s Argument: Counsel for the HOA focused on a strict textual interpretation. He argued, “they cannot point to any language in any of the governing documents in any of the statutes that requires associations to take minutes. It just doesn’t exist. What they’ve done is they’ve conflated the word keep… to mean take.” He cited dictionary definitions to assert that “keep” means to hold, maintain, or retain, not to create.

The Security Camera “Carve Out”

The dispute over the camera hinged on whether it fell under an exception in the nuisance clause of the CC&Rs.

• Petitioners’ Argument: Article IX, Section 18 exempts “security devices used exclusively for security purposes” from the general prohibition on sound devices. Petitioners argued their camera fit this description, and this carve-out, combined with a total lack of historical enforcement or specific design guidelines for cameras, meant a DMR was not required.

• Respondent’s Argument: The exemption is located in a provision focused on noise nuisances (“speakers, horns, whistles, bells or other sound devices”). The board’s interpretation was that the exception logically applies only to sound-emitting security devices like driveway alarms. The camera, as a physical modification, was governed by architectural rules requiring a DMR and was also subject to the board’s “sole discretion” to determine if it constituted a nuisance to neighbors.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding the petitioners failed to establish their claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

Rationale on Issue 1 (Records)

Alleged Violation

ALJ Conclusion

Rationale

A.R.S. §§ 10-11601, 10-11620 (Corporate Records)

No Jurisdiction

The tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to Title 33 (planned communities) and does not extend to these Title 10 (nonprofit corporations) statutes.

A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Records Availability)

No Violation

Respondent made records “reasonably available.” The loss of minutes during a management transition and the delay of financials due to a tax extension were deemed reasonable explanations.

A.R.S. § 33-1810 (Annual Audit)

No Violation

The request was made in 2024, entitling petitioners only to 2023 statements. The CC&Rs require owners to pay for audited statements, which petitioners did not offer to do.

CC&R Article X Section 3 & Bylaws Article 10.3 (Inspection)

No Violation

These provisions govern the inspection of documents. Petitioners requested copies without offering to pay for reproduction and never formally requested an in-person inspection.

Bylaws Articles 7.6.3, 7.6.4, 5.1 (Secretary/Treasurer Duties, Meetings)

No Violation

Petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence that the Secretary or Treasurer failed in their duties or that meetings were not held as required.

Rationale on Issue 2 (Camera)

Alleged Violation

ALJ Conclusion

Rationale

CC&Rs Art. IX §§ 10, 18 (Nuisance)

No Violation

The CC&Rs grant the Board “sole discretion” to determine the existence of a nuisance. The ALJ found the evidence credible that the camera invaded the neighbor’s privacy, thus creating a nuisance.

CC&Rs Art. XI § 1 (Enforcement)

No Violation

Petitioners were notified of their right to a hearing before the Board. The HOA’s request for a DMR was a reasonable enforcement action applied to all community members.

CC&Rs Art. XI § 5 (Notice by Mail)

Technical Violation, No Harm

While there may have been a “technical violation” of the certified mail requirement, the ALJ found that the “Petitioners clearly received all notices” and were not prejudiced.


Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton vs Sycamore Springs Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H027-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-08-06
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $150.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton Counsel Craig L. Cline
Respondent Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel Nikolas Thompson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §§ 10-11601, 10-11620, 33-1805, 33-1810, Bylaws Article 10.1.1, 10.3, 7.6.3, 7.6.4, 5.1, and CC&R Article X Section 3
A.R.S. § 33-1803, CC&Rs Article IX Section 10, Section 18, Article XI Section 1, Section 5, HOA Hearing and Fine Policy

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition entirely, concluding that Petitioners failed to establish any of the alleged violations of statutes, CC&Rs, or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence. The ALJ found that the HOA provided reasonable explanations regarding delays in document production and that the Petitioners' security camera created a nuisance for a neighbor, requiring the submission of a Design Modification Request (DMR).

Why this result: Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof for the numerous alleged violations. The records requests claims failed because Petitioners did not satisfy prerequisites (e.g., payment, inspection request) or because the HOA provided reasonable explanations for delays. The security camera issue failed because the device created a nuisance and Petitioners refused to submit a required DMR.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to follow governing documents & State laws with respect to preparation of mandatory records and documents; retention of required records and documents; and/or fulfillment of Owner requests for same.

Petitioners alleged the HOA failed to timely produce requested board minutes and financial compilations for 2022 and 2023. The ALJ found that A.R.S. §§ 10-11601 and 10-11620 were inapplicable. Regarding A.R.S. §§ 33-1805 and 33-1810, the HOA provided reasonable explanations for delays (management transition, accountant extension). Petitioners failed to establish violations, noting they did not request inspection, offer to pay for copies, or inform the HOA of the missing 2022 compilation.

Orders: No action required of Respondent. Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • A.R.S. § 10-11620
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 33-1810
  • Bylaws Article 10.1.1
  • Bylaws Article 10.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.4
  • Bylaws Article 5.1
  • CC&R Article X Section 3

Misinterpreting the CC&Rs in regards to the Petitioners' security devices.

Petitioners argued their security camera installation was exempt (a “carve out”) from requiring a Design Modification Request (DMR). They also alleged improper notice and fining under A.R.S. § 33-1803 and CC&Rs Article XI Sec 5. The ALJ found the camera created a nuisance for the neighbor by invading privacy. Although the HOA may have had a technical violation in notice (Article XI Sec 5), Petitioners failed to establish overall violations, noting Petitioners refused to submit a DMR as required of all homeowners.

Orders: No action required of Respondent. Petition dismissed. Petitioners are required to submit a DMR.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No, Civil penalty: $150.00

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 10
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 18
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 1
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 5
  • HOA Hearing and Fine Policy

Analytics Highlights

Topics: records, minutes, financial statements, audit, compilation, security camera, nuisance, design modification request, DMR, failure to submit DMR, notice violation, burden of proof
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • A.R.S. § 10-11620
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 33-1810
  • Bylaws Article 10.1.1
  • Bylaws Article 10.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.4
  • Bylaws Article 5.1
  • CC&R Article X Section 3
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 10
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 18
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 1
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 5
  • HOA Hearing and Fine Policy

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1275948.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:16:25 (49.4 KB)

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1275971.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:16:29 (8.8 KB)

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1297318.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:16:33 (49.2 KB)

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1302228.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:16:37 (49.4 KB)

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1302231.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:16:42 (8.6 KB)

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1336572.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:16:45 (212.3 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H027-REL


Briefing on the Administrative Hearing: Schafer & Lawton v. Sycamore Springs HOA

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision in the matter of Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton v. Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. (No. 25F-H027-REL). The dispute centered on two core issues: the Homeowners Association’s (HOA) alleged failure to properly prepare, retain, and provide mandatory corporate records, and its alleged misinterpretation of governing documents concerning the installation of a security camera by the petitioners.

Following a hearing on July 22, 2025, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella issued a decision on August 6, 2025, dismissing the petition in its entirety. The ALJ concluded that the petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof on all allegations.

Key findings indicate that the HOA’s explanations for delays and missing records—namely, a difficult transition between management companies and a tax filing extension—were deemed reasonable. Regarding the security camera, the ALJ determined that the device constituted a nuisance to a neighbor, a finding within the HOA board’s discretion, and upheld the HOA’s requirement for a Design Modification Request (DMR). The decision affirmed the respondent’s central legal argument distinguishing the duty to “keep” records from a requirement to “take” them.

Case Overview

Case Name

Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton, Petitioners, v. Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc., Respondent.

Case Number

25F-H027-REL

Tribunal

State of Arizona, Office of Administrative Hearings

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella

Hearing Date

July 22, 2025

Decision Date

August 6, 2025

Petitioners

Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton (Represented by Craig Cline, Esq.)

Respondent

Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. (Represented by Nikolas Thompson, Esq.)

The matter was subject to several continuances at the request of the Respondent, moving the final hearing date to July 22, 2025.

Core Allegations and Disputed Issues

The dispute was formally divided into two primary areas of contention, each involving alleged violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs and Bylaws).

Issue 1: Records and Document Management

• Petitioners’ Allegations: The HOA systematically failed to follow governing documents and state laws regarding the preparation, retention, and fulfillment of owner requests for mandatory records. This included the failure to provide five specific sets of board meeting minutes and the annual financial compilations for fiscal years 2022 and 2023 in a timely manner. Petitioners argued this constituted a breach of fiduciary duty and a violation of multiple statutes and bylaws.

• Respondent’s Position: The HOA contended that governing documents and statutes require them to keep records of minutes taken, but not to take minutes for every meeting. This interpretation was based on advice from legal counsel. They argued that most documents were available on the homeowner portal and that the failure to produce one specific set of minutes (December 2023) was due to them being lost by a previous “garbage” management company. The delay in providing the 2023 financial compilation was attributed to a reasonable circumstance: an extension filed for the association’s taxes.

Issue 2: Security Camera Installation

• Petitioners’ Allegations: The HOA misinterpreted its own CC&Rs by requiring a DMR for the petitioners’ security camera. Petitioners argued that Article IX, Section 18 of the CC&Rs provides a specific “carve out” for “security devices used exclusively for security purposes.” They further contended they were being targeted, as the HOA had no history of enforcing such a requirement for security cameras until after their device was installed and a neighbor complained.

• Respondent’s Position: The HOA board interpreted the CC&R “carve out” as applying only to sound-emitting devices (e.g., alarms, bells), as the clause is situated within a paragraph on noise nuisances. They argued a security camera is an “attachment to an existing structure,” which requires approval from the Architectural Control Committee under a separate CC&R article. Furthermore, the installation created a nuisance by invading a neighbor’s privacy, obligating the board to act. The HOA asserted that all homeowners, including the board president, were subsequently required to submit DMRs for their cameras to ensure consistent enforcement.

Key Testimony and Evidence

Patricia Lawton (Petitioner)

• A former HOA board president for three years, Ms. Lawton testified to having an expert-level understanding of the governing documents.

• Regarding records, she stated that of five requested sets of board minutes, only one was provided, and it was delivered late. She claimed she never received the 2022 financial compilation, only tax returns, and that the 2023 compilation was not provided within the statutorily required timeframe.

• She disputed the validity of the HOA’s tax-extension excuse, testifying that the association operates on a cash basis of accounting, which should not have prevented the timely completion of the compilation.

• She testified that due to security concerns (fear of being hacked), she does not have a registered account for the homeowner portal and accesses it through other community members.

• On the security camera, she asserted it was a residential-grade device installed in response to trespassing and property damage. She maintained that the CC&Rs provided a clear exemption and that the HOA’s enforcement action was retaliatory and inconsistent with historical practice.

Kristen Rowlette (HOA Board President)

• Ms. Rowlette testified that critical documents, including the December 2023 minutes, were lost during a problematic transition from a prior management company, Adams LLC, to the current one, Mission Management. She stated Ms. Lawton was aware of these difficulties as she attended every board meeting.

• She admitted that the board made a decision to stop taking minutes for meetings where no votes were held. She stated this was done on the advice of legal counsel (Smith and Wamsley) and was a direct response to feeling “inundated with requests from Patricia.”

• Regarding the camera, she testified that the issue arose only after a neighbor filed a formal complaint citing privacy concerns for their children. She described visiting the neighbor’s property and observing the camera’s “eye” actively tracking her movements.

• She confirmed that following the complaint, the board, on legal advice, required all homeowners to retroactively submit DMRs for any existing security cameras to ensure uniform enforcement.

Central Legal Arguments

The “Keep” vs. “Take” Debate

The primary legal conflict regarding the meeting minutes centered on the interpretation of a single word.

• Petitioners’ Argument: Counsel for the petitioners argued that the phrase “keep the minutes” must be interpreted through a “common sense application,” meaning “maintaining a written record of proceedings and decisions.” It was described as a standard practice for nonprofit organizations for decades, and the respondent’s narrow definition was “overly simplistic.”

• Respondent’s Argument: Counsel for the HOA focused on a strict textual interpretation. He argued, “they cannot point to any language in any of the governing documents in any of the statutes that requires associations to take minutes. It just doesn’t exist. What they’ve done is they’ve conflated the word keep… to mean take.” He cited dictionary definitions to assert that “keep” means to hold, maintain, or retain, not to create.

The Security Camera “Carve Out”

The dispute over the camera hinged on whether it fell under an exception in the nuisance clause of the CC&Rs.

• Petitioners’ Argument: Article IX, Section 18 exempts “security devices used exclusively for security purposes” from the general prohibition on sound devices. Petitioners argued their camera fit this description, and this carve-out, combined with a total lack of historical enforcement or specific design guidelines for cameras, meant a DMR was not required.

• Respondent’s Argument: The exemption is located in a provision focused on noise nuisances (“speakers, horns, whistles, bells or other sound devices”). The board’s interpretation was that the exception logically applies only to sound-emitting security devices like driveway alarms. The camera, as a physical modification, was governed by architectural rules requiring a DMR and was also subject to the board’s “sole discretion” to determine if it constituted a nuisance to neighbors.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding the petitioners failed to establish their claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

Rationale on Issue 1 (Records)

Alleged Violation

ALJ Conclusion

Rationale

A.R.S. §§ 10-11601, 10-11620 (Corporate Records)

No Jurisdiction

The tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to Title 33 (planned communities) and does not extend to these Title 10 (nonprofit corporations) statutes.

A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Records Availability)

No Violation

Respondent made records “reasonably available.” The loss of minutes during a management transition and the delay of financials due to a tax extension were deemed reasonable explanations.

A.R.S. § 33-1810 (Annual Audit)

No Violation

The request was made in 2024, entitling petitioners only to 2023 statements. The CC&Rs require owners to pay for audited statements, which petitioners did not offer to do.

CC&R Article X Section 3 & Bylaws Article 10.3 (Inspection)

No Violation

These provisions govern the inspection of documents. Petitioners requested copies without offering to pay for reproduction and never formally requested an in-person inspection.

Bylaws Articles 7.6.3, 7.6.4, 5.1 (Secretary/Treasurer Duties, Meetings)

No Violation

Petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence that the Secretary or Treasurer failed in their duties or that meetings were not held as required.

Rationale on Issue 2 (Camera)

Alleged Violation

ALJ Conclusion

Rationale

CC&Rs Art. IX §§ 10, 18 (Nuisance)

No Violation

The CC&Rs grant the Board “sole discretion” to determine the existence of a nuisance. The ALJ found the evidence credible that the camera invaded the neighbor’s privacy, thus creating a nuisance.

CC&Rs Art. XI § 1 (Enforcement)

No Violation

Petitioners were notified of their right to a hearing before the Board. The HOA’s request for a DMR was a reasonable enforcement action applied to all community members.

CC&Rs Art. XI § 5 (Notice by Mail)

Technical Violation, No Harm

While there may have been a “technical violation” of the certified mail requirement, the ALJ found that the “Petitioners clearly received all notices” and were not prejudiced.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Kevin W. Schafer (petitioner)
  • Patricia A. Lawton (petitioner)
    Testified on her own behalf; Former HOA Board President
  • Craig L. Cline (petitioner attorney)
    Udall Law Firm, LLP
  • Maile L. Belongie (petitioner attorney)
    Udall Law Firm, LLP
  • c zauner (petitioner attorney staff)
    Udall Law Firm, LLP
    Listed on email distribution list

Respondent Side

  • Nikolas Thompson (respondent attorney)
    MEAGHER & GEER, P.L.L.P.
  • Kristen Rowlette (board member)
    Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc.
    HOA President; Testified as witness
  • Jennifer Pembertton (property manager)
    Mission Management
    Community Manager; Mentioned as present at hearing
  • Kurt M. Zitzer (respondent attorney)
    MEAGHER & GEER, P.L.L.P.
  • William Custer (witness)
    Neighbor/Complainant regarding security camera

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on email distribution list
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on email distribution list
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on email distribution list
  • mneat (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on email distribution list
  • lrecchia (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on email distribution list
  • gosborn (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on email distribution list

Other Participants

  • Eric Harris (board member)
    Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. (Former)
    Former HOA Secretary

Marilyn J Fogelsong

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H050-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-08-05
Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marilyn J. Fogelsong Counsel —
Respondent Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, INC. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 (A) and (F)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's petition was DENIED because Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged violations, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to enforce the alleged violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof on all four issues. Issues 1, 2, and 3 lacked sufficient evidentiary support or statutory violation proof. Issue 4 was dismissed due to lack of OAH jurisdiction over ARS § 10-830.

Key Issues & Findings

The HOA failed to disclose conflicts-of-interest when hiring an HOA property manager to manage the HOA which is a violation of ARS 33-1811.

Petitioner alleged that the hiring of TRT (Tucson Realty & Trust Company, Management Services, LLC) as the HOA manager constituted an undisclosed conflict of interest because TRT also managed individual townhouses within the community.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811

The HOA has violated paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs by directing an HOA property manager to pursue an unsanctioned project for individual townhouses which is beyond the scope of HOA management for common areas.

The HOA manager solicited bids to paint the exteriors of all townhouses. Petitioner argued the HOA lacked authority to manage improvements for individual units, as Paragraph 19 limits HOA authority to common areas.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs

The board has violated the open meeting laws of ARS 33-1804 (A) and (F) by holding a private board meeting without notice; failing to provide material information, minutes, financial statements, and a budget upon request; and by failing to communicate via the designated representative.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting laws by failing to provide proper notice for meetings and failing to provide requested documentation (minutes, financial statements, etc.).

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

The board has violated ARS 10-830(A) by failing to act in good faith with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would act by failing to perform their duties.

Petitioner alleged the board failed to perform required duties in a timely or prudent manner, including failing to elect officers, manage the bank account, check the post office box, and schedule a backflow test.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Management, Conflict of Interest, Open Meeting Law, Jurisdiction, Planned Community, CC&Rs, Director Duty, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Park Association

Marilyn J Fogelsong vs Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, INC.

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

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H050-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-08-05
Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marilyn J. Fogelsong Counsel —
Respondent Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, INC. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 (A) and (F)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's petition was DENIED because Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged violations, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to enforce the alleged violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof on all four issues. Issues 1, 2, and 3 lacked sufficient evidentiary support or statutory violation proof. Issue 4 was dismissed due to lack of OAH jurisdiction over ARS § 10-830.

Key Issues & Findings

The HOA failed to disclose conflicts-of-interest when hiring an HOA property manager to manage the HOA which is a violation of ARS 33-1811.

Petitioner alleged that the hiring of TRT (Tucson Realty & Trust Company, Management Services, LLC) as the HOA manager constituted an undisclosed conflict of interest because TRT also managed individual townhouses within the community.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811

The HOA has violated paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs by directing an HOA property manager to pursue an unsanctioned project for individual townhouses which is beyond the scope of HOA management for common areas.

The HOA manager solicited bids to paint the exteriors of all townhouses. Petitioner argued the HOA lacked authority to manage improvements for individual units, as Paragraph 19 limits HOA authority to common areas.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs

The board has violated the open meeting laws of ARS 33-1804 (A) and (F) by holding a private board meeting without notice; failing to provide material information, minutes, financial statements, and a budget upon request; and by failing to communicate via the designated representative.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting laws by failing to provide proper notice for meetings and failing to provide requested documentation (minutes, financial statements, etc.).

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

The board has violated ARS 10-830(A) by failing to act in good faith with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would act by failing to perform their duties.

Petitioner alleged the board failed to perform required duties in a timely or prudent manner, including failing to elect officers, manage the bank account, check the post office box, and schedule a backflow test.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Management, Conflict of Interest, Open Meeting Law, Jurisdiction, Planned Community, CC&Rs, Director Duty, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Park Association

Marilyn J Fogelsong vs Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, INC

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H050-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-08-05
Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marilyn J. Fogelsong Counsel —
Respondent Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, INC. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 (A) and (F)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's petition was DENIED because Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged violations, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to enforce the alleged violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof on all four issues. Issues 1, 2, and 3 lacked sufficient evidentiary support or statutory violation proof. Issue 4 was dismissed due to lack of OAH jurisdiction over ARS § 10-830.

Key Issues & Findings

The HOA failed to disclose conflicts-of-interest when hiring an HOA property manager to manage the HOA which is a violation of ARS 33-1811.

Petitioner alleged that the hiring of TRT (Tucson Realty & Trust Company, Management Services, LLC) as the HOA manager constituted an undisclosed conflict of interest because TRT also managed individual townhouses within the community.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811

The HOA has violated paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs by directing an HOA property manager to pursue an unsanctioned project for individual townhouses which is beyond the scope of HOA management for common areas.

The HOA manager solicited bids to paint the exteriors of all townhouses. Petitioner argued the HOA lacked authority to manage improvements for individual units, as Paragraph 19 limits HOA authority to common areas.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs

The board has violated the open meeting laws of ARS 33-1804 (A) and (F) by holding a private board meeting without notice; failing to provide material information, minutes, financial statements, and a budget upon request; and by failing to communicate via the designated representative.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting laws by failing to provide proper notice for meetings and failing to provide requested documentation (minutes, financial statements, etc.).

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

The board has violated ARS 10-830(A) by failing to act in good faith with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would act by failing to perform their duties.

Petitioner alleged the board failed to perform required duties in a timely or prudent manner, including failing to elect officers, manage the bank account, check the post office box, and schedule a backflow test.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Management, Conflict of Interest, Open Meeting Law, Jurisdiction, Planned Community, CC&Rs, Director Duty, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Park Association

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H050-REL Decision – 1336348.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:33 (157.7 KB)

25F-H050-REL Decision – 1348020.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:37 (43.9 KB)

25F-H050-REL Decision – 1380164.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:41 (51.8 KB)

25F-H050-REL Decision – 1384549.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:45 (49.0 KB)

25F-H050-REL Decision – 1384804.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:50 (7.5 KB)

25F-H050-REL Decision – 1393862.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-12T19:19:32 (59.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H050-REL


Briefing Document: Fogelsong vs. Park Townhouses Homeowners Association (Docket No. 25F-H050-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the legal dispute between Marilyn J. Fogelsong (“Petitioner”) and the Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, Inc. (“Respondent”). The case was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

The Petitioner, a co-owner of a unit in the eight-unit Park Townhouses community, filed a petition on or about March 31, 2025, alleging four distinct violations by the HOA board. These allegations included failure to disclose a conflict of interest in hiring an HOA manager, violating the community’s CC&Rs by pursuing projects for individual units, violating state open meeting laws, and failing to act in good faith as fiduciaries.

An evidentiary hearing was conducted on July 16, 2025, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Nicole Robinson. The Respondent did not appear at the hearing, and the Petitioner provided sole testimony.

On August 5, 2025, the ALJ issued a decision denying the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety. The judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence for three of the four issues. The fourth issue was dismissed on the grounds that the OAH lacked the jurisdiction to enforce the specific statute cited (A.R.S. § 10-830). A subsequent request for a rehearing filed by the Petitioner was rejected by the OAH as it was submitted to the incorrect office after the OAH’s jurisdiction had ended.

Case Overview

Case Number

25F-H050-REL

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Administrative Law Judge

Nicole Robinson

Petitioner

Marilyn J. Fogelsong

Respondent

Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, Inc.

Subject Property

Park Townhouses, an 8-unit planned community in Tucson, AZ

Petition Filed

On or about March 31, 2025

Hearing Date

July 16, 2025

Decision Issued

August 5, 2025

Final Outcome

Petition DENIED

The Parties and Property

• Petitioner Marilyn J. Fogelsong: A partial owner of unit 2467 East 1st Street since April 2021, co-owning with her 39-year-old son who resides in the unit. Fogelsong previously served as the HOA board president for three years, with her last term ending in September 2024.

• Respondent Park Townhouses HOA: A planned community association for an eight-unit townhouse development in Tucson, Arizona. Each unit owner is responsible for their own structure and lot.

• The Property: The community consists of two buildings, each with four townhouses facing each other across a 20-foot wide common driveway.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Testimony

During the July 16, 2025 hearing, Ms. Fogelsong, representing herself, presented testimony on the four issues outlined in her petition. The HOA did not appear.

Issue #1: Conflict of Interest (A.R.S. § 33-1811)

The Petitioner alleged that the HOA failed to disclose conflicts of interest when hiring Tucson Realty & Trust Company (TRT) as the HOA property manager, rendering the contract void.

• Core Allegation: On February 17, 2025, the HOA board presented only one proposal—from TRT—and asked homeowners to approve the hire without disclosing pertinent conflicts.

• Identified Conflicts:

◦ TRT’s property management division manages two units within the community (2463 and 2467) owned by then-current board members Mark Schlang (Treasurer) and Gerald Schwarzenb[erger] (Secretary).

◦ Both the property management and HOA management divisions of TRT operate under the same broker, Deborah Garcia.

• History of Misconduct by TRT: The Petitioner testified to a history of issues with TRT that she believed constituted conflicts of interest:

◦ TRT collected parking violation fines from a tenant but failed to remit them to the HOA.

◦ TRT failed to provide tenant contact information to the HOA upon request, which is a violation of Arizona law.

◦ TRT’s attorney, BL Edmonson, sent a “cease and desist” letter to Fogelsong and then invoiced the HOA for the legal fees, which Fogelsong, as president at the time, rejected. The invoice was resubmitted to the HOA 18 months later.

Issue #2: CC&R Violation (Paragraph 19)

The Petitioner alleged the HOA violated Paragraph 19 of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by directing the HOA manager to pursue an “unsanctioned project for individual townhouses.”

• Core Allegation: The HOA manager (TRT) met with a painting company on March 31, 2025, to solicit bids for painting the exteriors of all townhouses. The Petitioner argued this action is beyond the scope of the HOA’s authority, which is limited to maintaining common areas.

• Supporting Evidence:

◦ The Petitioner cited a legal opinion she obtained from an HOA attorney, Jason Smith, which concluded that the HOA does not have the right to conduct repairs on individual units.

◦ She referenced a past incident where another homeowner, David Zinfeld, paid an assessment for awning wood repair “under protest” because the funds were being used for an individual unit, not a common area.

Issue #3: Open Meeting Law Violations (A.R.S. § 33-1804)

The Petitioner claimed the board violated Arizona’s open meeting laws through multiple actions.

• Secret Meeting: The board held a private meeting to approve TRT as the manager before the February 17, 2025, homeowners meeting where the vote occurred. No notice of this prior board meeting was given to homeowners.

• Failure to Provide Information: The Petitioner made multiple requests for documents that were ignored. She requested management proposals on February 4, 2025, and later requested minutes, financial statements, and property management agreements, none of which were provided.

• Disregarded Standing: In its written response to the petition, the HOA claimed the Petitioner lacked “sufficient standing” due to her “limited ownership stake,” a position the Petitioner refutes based on her recorded deed.

Issue #4: Failure to Act in Good Faith (A.R.S. § 10-830A)

The Petitioner alleged the board failed to perform its duties with the care an “ordinarily prudent person” would exercise.

• Dereliction of Duties:

◦ The board, elected in September 2024, waited 10 weeks to meet and elect officers.

◦ The board failed to take control of the HOA bank account until March 2025, approximately six months into its one-year term.

◦ It failed to schedule a required annual backflow test for the irrigation system, resulting in the water being shut off.

◦ It failed to replace a dead tree that was on the agenda for replacement in fall 2024.

◦ It failed to check the HOA’s post office box, leading to the return of dues checks from homeowners.

◦ It did not abate new graffiti for six weeks, at which point the Petitioner did so herself after receiving permission.

Respondent’s Position

Although the HOA was not present at the hearing, its positions were articulated in a five-page written response submitted to the Department of Real Estate on May 8, 2025, and were referenced during the hearing.

• Denial of Claims: The Respondent denied all of the Petitioner’s claims.

• Challenge to Standing: The HOA’s formal position was that Ms. Fogelsong lacked sufficient standing due to her “limited ownership stake.”

• Allegation of Ulterior Motive: The Respondent accused the Petitioner of a “calculated and systematic attempt to devalue the property and agitate the owners to possibly sell their respective units to Miss Fogong [sic] and her son at a below market value.” They claimed several owners could testify to her “repeated suggestions and solicitations to sell.”

• Claim of Non-cooperation: The HOA stated that the Petitioner had “not been fully cooperative in the transition process” regarding missing documentation after her term as president ended.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision

On August 5, 2025, ALJ Nicole Robinson issued a decision denying the petition. The core finding was that the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving the violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Findings on Each Issue

• Issue #1 (Conflict of Interest): No Violation Found. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove the hiring of TRT constituted a conflict of interest as defined by A.R.S. § 33-1811. The evidence showed that a prior management company (McElwain) also managed individual units while serving as the HOA manager, suggesting this was an established practice. The statute specifically addresses benefits to board members or their families, which was not sufficiently established by the evidence presented.

• Issue #2 (CC&R Violation): No Violation Found. The decision stated that the Petitioner failed to submit the entirety of the CC&Rs and Bylaws, providing only “snippets.” Without the complete governing documents, the tribunal could not definitively determine the scope of the HOA’s authority regarding projects on individual units. Furthermore, the evidence only showed that a bid was solicited for painting; there was no evidence that work was actually performed.

• Issue #3 (Open Meeting Law): No Violation Found. The ALJ found that the February 17, 2025, meeting was properly noticed via email. Regarding a March 5, 2025, email the Petitioner did not receive, the evidence showed her co-owner son did receive it, meaning the unit was properly notified. A December 2024 meeting was deemed emergent, for which the statute does not require prior notice.

• Issue #4 (Failure to Act in Good Faith): No Jurisdiction. The ALJ concluded that the Office of Administrative Hearings lacks jurisdiction to enforce A.R.S. § 10-830. The OAH’s authority is limited by statute to adjudicating violations of Title 33 (Planned Communities and Condominiums) and community documents, not Title 10 (Corporations and Associations).

Post-Decision Events

• On August 26, 2025, the Petitioner filed a request for a rehearing.

• On September 8, 2025, the OAH issued a Minute Entry stating that the request would not be considered because it was “inappropriately sent to the Office of Administrative Hearings.”

• The OAH’s jurisdiction over the matter had concluded with the August 5 decision. The Petitioner was advised to address any further requests to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Marilyn J. Fogelsong (petitioner)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Represented herself; former HOA President/Treasurer
  • Levi Benjamin Lazarus (co-owner/son of petitioner)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Co-owner of petitioner's unit
  • Jason Smith (HOA attorney)
    Consulted by petitioner regarding CC&R interpretation for unit repairs

Respondent Side

  • Gerald Schwarzenb (board member/Secretary)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Current HOA board member; his unit managed by TRT
  • Mark Schlang (board member/Treasurer/architect)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Current HOA board member; his unit managed by TRT
  • Deborah Garcia (broker/HOA manager)
    TRT Property Management
    Broker of TRT; homeowners voted to accept her as HOA manager
  • Andrew Viscara (HOA property manager)
    TRT Property Management
    TRT representative designated for Park Townhouses HOA management
  • Mary Lord Lr (property manager)
    TRT Property Management
    Property manager for unit 2465
  • B.L. Edmonson (attorney)
    TRT Property Management
    Wrote cease and desist letter to petitioner; billed HOA

Neutral Parties

  • Nicole Robinson (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE

Other Participants

  • David Zinfeld (homeowner/former Treasurer)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Property owner; prior treasurer during self-managed period; paid assessment under protest
  • Ray Floyd (former board member)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Served on board with petitioner during self-managed period
  • Sasha Flores (bank account signer)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Wife of Rick Flores; co-signer on HOA bank account
  • Rick Flores (homeowner/delegate)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Delegated authority to wife Sasha Flores for bank account deeds

Keith A. Shadden v. Las Brisas Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H043-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-07-07
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Keith A. Shadden Counsel —
Respondent Las Brisas Community Association Counsel Emily Cooper, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article 5.10 & Article 5.12 of CC&Rs (Las Brisas Community Association)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof showing the HOA used incorrect CC&R sections for the violation concerning reflective material on garage door glass cutouts. The ALJ concluded that the plain meaning of "window" in CC&R Section 5.10 applies to any transparent opening and does not exclude garages.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its CC&Rs by using incorrect sections for the violation regarding reflective tint on garage door glass cutouts.

Key Issues & Findings

Allegation that Respondent is using incorrect CC&R section (5.10) to create violation for garage door glass cutouts which fall under section 5.12.

Petitioner alleged the HOA misapplied CC&R Section 5.10 (Windows) to enforce a violation regarding reflective tint on garage door glass cutouts, asserting that Section 5.10 was not intended to cover garage doors as they are addressed under Section 5.12.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • Title 33, Chapter 16
  • A.R.S. §§ 33-1801 to 33-1818
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • Powell, 211 Ariz. at 557 ¶ 16, 125 P.3d at 377

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Window Restriction, Garage Door, Reflective Material, Planned Communities Act, Burden of Proof, Violation Notice
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • Title 33, Chapter 16
  • A.R.S. §§ 33-1801 to 33-1818
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • Powell, 211 Ariz. at 557 ¶ 16, 125 P.3d at 377

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H043-REL Decision – 10_TAB H – Denial of Architectural Design hearing request.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:19:34 (284.5 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 11_TAB I – Email concerning unable to attend hearing on Architectural Design with HOA Board.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:19:39 (517.3 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1298924.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:19:43 (219.9 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 12_TAB J – HOA Board denial Letter of Architectural Design appeal.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:19:47 (5.2 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1303564.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:19:51 (78.0 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1312135.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:19:53 (77.0 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1312136.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:00 (5991.2 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1314210.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:04 (45.8 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1315443.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:08 (75.7 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1315444.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:13 (200.3 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1316546.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:19 (59.6 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1316554.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:23 (8.9 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1317444.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:27 (74.8 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1317445.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:32 (241.8 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1317647.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:36 (254.0 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1317648.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:39 (1112.7 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1325514.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:43 (71.8 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1325661.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:47 (88.3 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1325928.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:51 (17.7 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 13_TAB K – Email for HOA Board consideration before rendering Architectural Design Appeal Decision.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:56 (1963.4 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 14_TAB L – Email to Community Manager with Owner Building Option List for window blinds.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:00 (162.2 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 15_Table of Content.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:04 (56.7 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1_Homeowner Association HOA Dispute Process Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:09 (2571.3 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 2_Statement of Facts and Argument.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:14 (93.8 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 3_TAB A – Home Build option sheet.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:19 (391.9 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 4_TAB B – Violation notification from HOA.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:24 (446.9 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 5_TAB C – Hearing Request and communication with Community Manager.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:29 (472.4 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 6_TAB D – Las Brisas.3.Declaration of Covenants Conditions Restrictions.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:33 (175.1 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 7_TAB E – HOA Board Response Letter.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:36 (5.3 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 8_TAB F – Architectural Design Request.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:40 (13.8 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 9_TAB G – Architectural Design Request Response Letter.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:45 (60.7 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – Answer – Las Brisas (1).pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:50 (226.4 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – Arizona Corporation Commission.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:54 (149.1 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – Filing Fee Receipt.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:58 (92.7 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – Notice of Hearing.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:22:02 (235.6 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – Notice of Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:22:06 (496.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H043-REL


Briefing Document: Shadden v. Las Brisas Community Association, Case No. 25F-H043-REL

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal dispute between homeowner Keith A. Shadden (Petitioner) and the Las Brisas Community Association (Respondent) concerning a violation for reflective material on garage door windows. The case, adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, centered on whether the Association correctly applied its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

On July 7, 2025, Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson issued a decision dismissing Mr. Shadden’s petition. The judge ruled that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that the Association had violated its governing documents.

The core of the dispute was Mr. Shadden’s allegation that the Association improperly used CC&R Section 5.10 (“Windows”) to cite him for reflective tint on his garage door’s glass cutouts. He argued that the garage door should be governed by Section 5.12 (“Garages and Driveways”). His primary evidence was that the original builder, Taylor Morrison, did not install window treatments on the garage door (a requirement of 5.10), implying the builder did not consider the cutouts to be “windows.”

The Association maintained that the plain language of the CC&Rs prohibits reflective materials on windows, that the glass cutouts are functionally windows, and that this rule is consistently enforced throughout the community. The Judge ultimately agreed with the Association’s interpretation, defining a “window” in its plain meaning as “any transparent opening through which light passes” and noting that Section 5.10 does not explicitly exclude garages.

Case Overview

Case Name

In the Matter of: Keith A. Shadden v. Las Brisas Community Association

Case Number

25F-H043-REL

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Presiding Judge

Velva Moses-Thompson, Administrative Law Judge

Hearing Date

June 16, 2025

Decision Date

July 7, 2025

Petitioner

Keith A. Shadden (representing himself)

Respondent

Las Brisas Community Association, represented by Emily Cooper, Esq.

Core Dispute and Allegations

The central issue of the hearing, as defined in a June 5, 2025 order, was the Petitioner’s allegation that the Respondent was “using incorrect CC&R section (5.10) to create violation for garage door glass cutouts which fall under section 5.12”.

The dispute originated from a violation notice issued to Mr. Shadden on August 19, 2024, for having reflective material on his garage door windows. Subsequent notices with escalating fines were issued on February 13, 2025 (25fine),March21,2025(50 fine), and April 23, 2025 ($100 fine).

Relevant Governing Documents

The case revolved around the interpretation of two specific sections of the Las Brisas Community Association CC&Rs.

Section

Full Text

Article 5.10

Windows

“Within ninety (90) days of occupancy of a Residential Unit each Owner shall install permanent suitable window treatments that are Visible from Neighboring Property. No reflective materials, including, but without limitation, aluminum foil, reflective screens or glass, mirrors or similar type items, shall be installed or placed upon the outside or inside of any windows.”

Article 5.12

Garages and Driveways

“The interior of all garages situated on any lot shall be maintained in a neat and clean condition. Garages shall be used only for the parking of Vehicles and the storage of normal household supplies and materials and shall not be used for or converted to living quarters or recreational activities after the initial construction thereof without the prior written approval of the Architectural Committee. Garage doors shall be left open only as needed for ingress and egress.”

Arguments and Evidence Presented at Hearing

The evidentiary hearing was conducted virtually via Google Meet on June 16, 2025. Both parties presented arguments, testimony, and exhibits.

Petitioner’s Case (Keith A. Shadden)

Mr. Shadden argued that the Association’s application of Section 5.10 to his garage door was incorrect and unreasonable.

• Argument from Declarant’s Intent: Mr. Shadden testified that as the original homeowner, he paid the declarant, Taylor Morrison, nearly $1,600 for window treatments on all windows in the home. Because Taylor Morrison did not install any treatments on the garage door’s glass cutouts, he contended this showed the declarant’s intent that these cutouts were not to be considered “windows” under Section 5.10.

• Unreasonable Application: He argued that applying the entirety of Section 5.10, including the requirement for window treatments like blinds, to a garage door is an “unrealistic expectation for a homeowner.”

• Conflicting Communication: Mr. Shadden presented an email (Exhibit M) from the assistant community manager, K. White, which stated, “you do not have to install window treatment you can leave the windows without the treatments or you may install window treatments.” He argued this showed the Association itself did not apply the full scope of Section 5.10 to the garage.

• Testimony on “Window” Definition: Under cross-examination, Mr. Shadden offered several definitions of a window, including “something you look through.” He eventually conceded that the glass cutouts meet a common-sense understanding of a window but maintained his position based on the specific context of the CC&Rs.

Respondent’s Case (Las Brisas Community Association)

The Association, represented by Emily Cooper, Esq., with testimony from Community Manager Jamie Cryblskey, argued its actions were proper and consistent.

• Plain Language Interpretation: The Association asserted that the governing documents, including the CC&Rs and Design Guidelines, have “clear and plain language” that expressly prohibits reflective materials on windows.

• Consistent Enforcement: Ms. Cryblskey testified that the rule against reflective tint is enforced consistently across all 1,321 lots in the community. She noted that at the time of the hearing, one or two other homeowners had active violations for the same issue and were being treated in the same manner.

• Definition of “Window”: The Association argued that a “garage window is a window.” Ms. Cryblskey testified that she personally considers the glass inserts in a garage door to be windows.

• Adherence to Due Process: The Association outlined the procedural history, noting Mr. Shadden was provided a hearing before the Board of Directors on October 15, 2024. After his dispute was denied, he was required to submit an architectural application, which was also denied. His subsequent appeal of that denial was heard and denied by the board on December 17, 2024.

• Compliance Status: During opening statements, Ms. Cooper noted that Mr. Shadden had since installed a charcoal tint, which is permissible, rendering the petition moot. During testimony, Mr. Shadden stated he had applied black masking tape. Ms. Cryblskey confirmed that as of her last inspection on June 12, 2025, the reflective material was removed and the lot was in compliance.

Final Decision and Legal Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge issued a final decision on July 7, 2025, dismissing Mr. Shadden’s petition.

• Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner, Mr. Shadden, bore the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent had violated its CC&Rs.

• Legal Interpretation: The judge’s central conclusion addressed the definition of “window.”

• Final Ruling: The judge found that Mr. Shadden failed to meet his evidentiary burden.

• Order: The recommended order stated, “IT IS ORDERED that Keith A. Shadden’s petition against Respondent Las Brisas Community Association is dismissed.” The decision is binding unless a party files for a rehearing within 30 days of the order.






Study Guide – 25F-H043-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H043-REL”, “case_title”: “Keith A. Shadden v. Las Brisas Community Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-07-07”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If I file a petition against my HOA, who is responsible for proving the violation occurred?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner filing the dispute must prove that the HOA violated the governing documents. It is not automatically the HOA’s job to prove they were right; the petitioner must first establish the violation.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated its CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “How much evidence do I need to win a hearing against my HOA?”, “short_answer”: “You need a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning your claim is more likely true than not.”, “detailed_answer”: “The standard is not ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ (like in criminal cases). It is a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means the evidence must show that the homeowner’s argument is more probably true than the HOA’s.”, “alj_quote”: ““A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.””, “legal_basis”: “Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5”, “topic_tags”: [ “evidence”, “legal standards”, “definitions” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA apply ‘Window’ restrictions (like tint bans) to glass cutouts in my garage door?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the cutouts function as windows (allow visibility) and the homeowner fails to prove the specific garage section overrides the window section.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the ALJ dismissed the homeowner’s claim that the HOA used the ‘incorrect’ CC&R section by applying window rules to garage door glass. The ALJ noted it was undisputed that one could see through the cutouts.”, “alj_quote”: “It was undisputed that there are glass door cut outs on Petitioner’s garage door. Petitioner admitted during hearing that a person can see through the glass door cut outs… Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to establish that Respondent used incorrect sections of the CC&Rs when it issued its VIOLATION NOTICE.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Section 5.10 vs 5.12”, “topic_tags”: [ “architectural control”, “garage doors”, “windows”, “interpretation” ] }, { “question”: “Does the HOA have to prove anything during the hearing?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the HOA asserts any ‘affirmative defenses,’ they must prove them.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the homeowner has the initial burden to prove the violation, if the HOA claims a specific legal defense justifies their actions, they carry the burden of proof for that specific defense.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent bears the burden to establish affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)”, “topic_tags”: [ “affirmative defense”, “burden of proof”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Can I argue that a restriction doesn’t apply because the builder didn’t install the item (like blinds) originally?”, “short_answer”: “That argument may fail if the text of the CC&Rs explicitly restricts the item in question.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner argued that because the builder didn’t put blinds on the garage door, the ‘Window’ section (requiring treatments and banning reflective tint) shouldn’t apply. The ALJ rejected this argument and dismissed the petition.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner contended that because Taylor Morrison did not place window treatment on the garage door cut outs, Taylor Morrison did intend for Section 5.10 of the CC&Rs to apply to garage doors… Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to establish that Respondent used incorrect sections of the CC&Rs”, “legal_basis”: “Preponderance of Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “builder intent”, “interpretation”, “architectural restrictions” ] }, { “question”: “What agency handles hearings regarding HOA disputes in Arizona?”, “short_answer”: “The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) receives petitions, which are heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).”, “detailed_answer”: “State law authorizes the Department of Real Estate to receive petitions from association members regarding violations of planned community documents.”, “alj_quote”: “The Arizona Department of Real Estate (hereinafter “the Department”) is authorized by statute to receive and to decide Petitions for Hearings from members of homeowners’ associations… concerning violations of planned community documents”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “ADRE”, “OAH” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 25F-H043-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H043-REL”, “case_title”: “Keith A. Shadden v. Las Brisas Community Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-07-07”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If I file a petition against my HOA, who is responsible for proving the violation occurred?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner filing the dispute must prove that the HOA violated the governing documents. It is not automatically the HOA’s job to prove they were right; the petitioner must first establish the violation.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated its CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “How much evidence do I need to win a hearing against my HOA?”, “short_answer”: “You need a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning your claim is more likely true than not.”, “detailed_answer”: “The standard is not ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ (like in criminal cases). It is a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means the evidence must show that the homeowner’s argument is more probably true than the HOA’s.”, “alj_quote”: ““A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.””, “legal_basis”: “Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5”, “topic_tags”: [ “evidence”, “legal standards”, “definitions” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA apply ‘Window’ restrictions (like tint bans) to glass cutouts in my garage door?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the cutouts function as windows (allow visibility) and the homeowner fails to prove the specific garage section overrides the window section.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the ALJ dismissed the homeowner’s claim that the HOA used the ‘incorrect’ CC&R section by applying window rules to garage door glass. The ALJ noted it was undisputed that one could see through the cutouts.”, “alj_quote”: “It was undisputed that there are glass door cut outs on Petitioner’s garage door. Petitioner admitted during hearing that a person can see through the glass door cut outs… Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to establish that Respondent used incorrect sections of the CC&Rs when it issued its VIOLATION NOTICE.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Section 5.10 vs 5.12”, “topic_tags”: [ “architectural control”, “garage doors”, “windows”, “interpretation” ] }, { “question”: “Does the HOA have to prove anything during the hearing?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the HOA asserts any ‘affirmative defenses,’ they must prove them.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the homeowner has the initial burden to prove the violation, if the HOA claims a specific legal defense justifies their actions, they carry the burden of proof for that specific defense.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent bears the burden to establish affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)”, “topic_tags”: [ “affirmative defense”, “burden of proof”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Can I argue that a restriction doesn’t apply because the builder didn’t install the item (like blinds) originally?”, “short_answer”: “That argument may fail if the text of the CC&Rs explicitly restricts the item in question.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner argued that because the builder didn’t put blinds on the garage door, the ‘Window’ section (requiring treatments and banning reflective tint) shouldn’t apply. The ALJ rejected this argument and dismissed the petition.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner contended that because Taylor Morrison did not place window treatment on the garage door cut outs, Taylor Morrison did intend for Section 5.10 of the CC&Rs to apply to garage doors… Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to establish that Respondent used incorrect sections of the CC&Rs”, “legal_basis”: “Preponderance of Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “builder intent”, “interpretation”, “architectural restrictions” ] }, { “question”: “What agency handles hearings regarding HOA disputes in Arizona?”, “short_answer”: “The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) receives petitions, which are heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).”, “detailed_answer”: “State law authorizes the Department of Real Estate to receive petitions from association members regarding violations of planned community documents.”, “alj_quote”: “The Arizona Department of Real Estate (hereinafter “the Department”) is authorized by statute to receive and to decide Petitions for Hearings from members of homeowners’ associations… concerning violations of planned community documents”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “ADRE”, “OAH” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Keith A. Shadden (petitioner)
    Homeowner of Lot #1-175; appeared pro se
  • Donna M. Shadden (petitioner)
    Co-owner of the property

Respondent Side

  • Emily E. Cooper (HOA attorney)
    CHDB Law LLP
    Appeared at hearing
  • Kyle Banfield (HOA attorney)
    CHDB Law LLP
    Attended hearing
  • Suzanne Hilborn (legal assistant)
    CHDB Law LLP
    Signed proofs of service
  • Jaime Cryblskey (property manager)
    City Property Management Company
    Community Manager; testified at hearing
  • Makayla White (property manager)
    City Property Management Company
    Community Assistant
  • Erica Golditch (property manager)
    City Property Management Company
    Observer at hearing
  • Lauren Nabulsi (board member)
    Las Brisas Community Association
    President
  • Dakota Ball (board member)
    Las Brisas Community Association
    Treasurer; asked question during October hearing
  • Terrance Thomas (board member)
    Las Brisas Community Association
    Vice-President
  • Frank Grigsby (board member)
    Las Brisas Community Association
    Secretary
  • Timothy J. Hansell (board member)
    Las Brisas Community Association
    Director

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presiding Administrative Law Judge
  • Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Gabe Osborn (agency staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Filed Notice of Hearing
  • Vivian Nunez (agency staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    HOA Dispute Process
  • Chandni Bhakta (mediator)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    ADRE Ombudsman

Other Participants

  • Barry Merklin (witness)
    Taylor Morrison
    Sales Associate listed on purchase agreement
  • Karla Paulsen (unknown)
    Taylor Morrison
    Authorized Officer listed on purchase agreement
  • G. Thomas Hennessy (board member)
    Taylor Morrison/Arizona, Inc.
    Declarant Vice President (2010)
  • Lynne M. Dugan (board member)
    Taylor Morrison/Arizona, Inc.
    Director (2010)
  • Leah Grogan (board member)
    Las Brisas Community Association
    Secretary/Treasurer (2010)
  • Amanda Shaw (unknown)
    Las Brisas Community Association
    Resigned Statutory Agent

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

Posted on by

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

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

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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




Briefing Doc – 24F-H050-REL


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

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

The Core Dispute: The Courtyard Wall

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

Alleged Violations by the HOA

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

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

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

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

The Homeowner’s (Goebel) Position and Timeline

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

Application and Approval Process

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

Dec 30, 2022

Initial consolidated application for all improvements submitted via email.

Jan 3, 2023

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

Jan 3, 2023

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

Jan 3, 2023

Additional comments received from Katie Sand requesting further changes.

Jan 3, 2023

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

Jan 5, 2023

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

Argument of Good Faith and Procedural Adherence

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

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

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

Construction Timeline and HOA Response

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

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

• April 7, 2023: Construction commenced.

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

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

Claims of Targeted Harassment

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

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

The Homeowners Association’s (HOA) Position

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

Insufficient Detail and Misleading Application

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

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

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

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

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

Architectural Committee’s Interpretation

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

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

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

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

Violation of Guideline 2.24 (“Pony Walls”)

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

Key Witness Testimony

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Final Decision: Administrative Law Judge Ruling

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

Ruling

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

Reasoning for the Decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Order

• The HOA’s petition was formally denied.

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


Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Justifiable Reliance

Topic Tags

  • architectural approval
  • committee oversight
  • homeowner reliance

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Exception to Guidelines

Topic Tags

  • guidelines
  • exceptions
  • compliance

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Reasonableness / Laches

Topic Tags

  • enforcement timing
  • stop work order
  • construction

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • legal procedure
  • evidence
  • burden of proof

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Arbitrary Enforcement / Precedent

Topic Tags

  • selective enforcement
  • consistency
  • precedent

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Due Process / Procedural Compliance

Topic Tags

  • application process
  • due diligence
  • homeowner obligations

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • penalties
  • costs

Case

Docket No

24F-H050-REL

Case Title

Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association v. Goebel

Decision Date

2024-09-11

Alj Name

Adam D. Stone

Tribunal

OAH

Agency

ADRE

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Justifiable Reliance

Topic Tags

  • architectural approval
  • committee oversight
  • homeowner reliance

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Exception to Guidelines

Topic Tags

  • guidelines
  • exceptions
  • compliance

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Reasonableness / Laches

Topic Tags

  • enforcement timing
  • stop work order
  • construction

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • legal procedure
  • evidence
  • burden of proof

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Arbitrary Enforcement / Precedent

Topic Tags

  • selective enforcement
  • consistency
  • precedent

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Due Process / Procedural Compliance

Topic Tags

  • application process
  • due diligence
  • homeowner obligations

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • penalties
  • costs

Case

Docket No

24F-H050-REL

Case Title

Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association v. Goebel

Decision Date

2024-09-11

Alj Name

Adam D. Stone

Tribunal

OAH

Agency

ADRE

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

Posted on by

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

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

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H050-REL Decision – 1222437.pdf

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





Briefing Doc – 24F-H050-REL


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

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

The Core Dispute: The Courtyard Wall

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

Alleged Violations by the HOA

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

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

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

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

The Homeowner’s (Goebel) Position and Timeline

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

Application and Approval Process

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

Dec 30, 2022

Initial consolidated application for all improvements submitted via email.

Jan 3, 2023

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

Jan 3, 2023

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

Jan 3, 2023

Additional comments received from Katie Sand requesting further changes.

Jan 3, 2023

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

Jan 5, 2023

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

Argument of Good Faith and Procedural Adherence

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

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

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

Construction Timeline and HOA Response

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

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

• April 7, 2023: Construction commenced.

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

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

Claims of Targeted Harassment

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

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

The Homeowners Association’s (HOA) Position

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

Insufficient Detail and Misleading Application

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

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

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

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

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

Architectural Committee’s Interpretation

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

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

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

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

Violation of Guideline 2.24 (“Pony Walls”)

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

Key Witness Testimony

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Final Decision: Administrative Law Judge Ruling

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

Ruling

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

Reasoning for the Decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Order

• The HOA’s petition was formally denied.

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






Study Guide – 24F-H050-REL


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






Blog Post – 24F-H050-REL


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


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

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