Bylaws Article II, Section 8, as amended October 18, 2000
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge determined that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof required to show the Association violated the purported Bylaws amendment, and therefore, the petition was denied.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the validity or implementation of the purported Bylaws amendment, and the language of the amendment itself was found not to be compulsory in requiring a subsequent meeting.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged failure to hold a second and subsequent meeting of the membership with a diminished quorum.
Petitioner alleged the Association violated its Bylaws by failing to hold a second meeting with a diminished 15% quorum after failing to meet the initial 25% quorum at the Annual Meeting on January 16, 2024, despite a motion and second being made to adjourn and reset the meeting.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(1)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Bylaws, Quorum, Annual Meeting, Burden of Proof, Invalid Document, Continuance
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(1)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
24F-H035-REL Decision – 1163387.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:04 (48.4 KB)
24F-H035-REL Decision – 1163395.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:08 (7.2 KB)
24F-H035-REL Decision – 1165696.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:11 (49.1 KB)
24F-H035-REL Decision – 1165699.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:13 (7.3 KB)
24F-H035-REL Decision – 1179128.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:15 (53.7 KB)
24F-H035-REL Decision – 1179136.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:19 (7.6 KB)
24F-H035-REL Decision – 1209016.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:23 (146.3 KB)
Questions
Question
If a document appears on the HOA's website, is it automatically considered a valid governing document?
Short Answer
No. The presence of a document on a website does not prove it was voted on or adopted.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found that simply finding a document on the association's website is insufficient to prove it is a valid, adopted amendment. There must be evidence that members participated in a vote or that the association officially adopted it.
Alj Quote
The document’s presence on the Association’s website does not establish or tend to suggest that members participated in a vote on or about October 18, 2000, or that the Association adopted an amendment to Bylaw Article II Section 8 thereafter.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact No. 7
Topic Tags
governing documents
website
validity
Question
What specific features does a bylaw amendment need to be considered valid and enforceable?
Short Answer
It generally requires signatures, stamps, seals, or filing receipts to prove it isn't just a draft.
Detailed Answer
To be considered a valid governing document rather than a failed proposal or draft, the document should ideally have an embossed stamp, seal, or at least one signature indicating it was finalized and adopted.
Alj Quote
Moreover, the document itself does not have an embossed stamp or seal, or reflect at least one (1) signature that would reasonably suggest it was indeed a valid governing document, rather than a failed proposal or draft, which is supported by the fact that a filing receipt was not affixed.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact No. 7
Topic Tags
governing documents
signatures
enforceability
Question
If the bylaws mention a reduced quorum for a 'second meeting', is the HOA required to hold that second meeting?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. If the language doesn't explicitly say the HOA 'must' hold the meeting, it may be optional.
Detailed Answer
Even if a bylaw provision states that a second meeting 'shall require' a lower quorum, this does not automatically compel the HOA to hold that meeting. Unless words like 'shall' or 'must' apply specifically to the act of holding the meeting itself, the HOA may not be required to schedule it.
Alj Quote
There are no accompanying words that are inherently binding such as shall or must that would require Respondent to hold a second meeting based on the aforementioned verbiage used.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact No. 8
Topic Tags
meetings
quorum
bylaw interpretation
Question
Who is responsible for proving that an HOA violated the rules?
Short Answer
The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition is responsible for proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the HOA committed the alleged violation.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory violation.
Legal Basis
Conclusions of Law No. 3
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
procedure
Question
Does it matter if the HOA hasn't followed a specific rule for many years?
Short Answer
Yes. Long-term non-enforcement or lack of awareness by the board can be evidence that the rule was never validly adopted.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ considered the fact that the petitioner and board members were unaware of the amendment for years, and had failed to use it during previous quorum failures, as evidence weighing against the document's validity.
Alj Quote
Petitioner conceded that during his tenure on the Board and thereafter he was unaware of the purported amendment’s existence, notwithstanding several instances over a number of years where voting members failed to meet quorum requirements and did not utilize the provisions of the alleged amendment.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact No. 7
Topic Tags
past practice
board conduct
validity
Question
What standard of proof is used in these HOA hearings?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing that a contention is more probably true than not. It is based on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the number of witnesses.
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
Conclusions of Law No. 4
Topic Tags
legal standards
evidence
Case
Docket No
24F-H035-REL
Case Title
Jesse Freeman v. Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association
Decision Date
2024-08-09
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
If a document appears on the HOA's website, is it automatically considered a valid governing document?
Short Answer
No. The presence of a document on a website does not prove it was voted on or adopted.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found that simply finding a document on the association's website is insufficient to prove it is a valid, adopted amendment. There must be evidence that members participated in a vote or that the association officially adopted it.
Alj Quote
The document’s presence on the Association’s website does not establish or tend to suggest that members participated in a vote on or about October 18, 2000, or that the Association adopted an amendment to Bylaw Article II Section 8 thereafter.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact No. 7
Topic Tags
governing documents
website
validity
Question
What specific features does a bylaw amendment need to be considered valid and enforceable?
Short Answer
It generally requires signatures, stamps, seals, or filing receipts to prove it isn't just a draft.
Detailed Answer
To be considered a valid governing document rather than a failed proposal or draft, the document should ideally have an embossed stamp, seal, or at least one signature indicating it was finalized and adopted.
Alj Quote
Moreover, the document itself does not have an embossed stamp or seal, or reflect at least one (1) signature that would reasonably suggest it was indeed a valid governing document, rather than a failed proposal or draft, which is supported by the fact that a filing receipt was not affixed.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact No. 7
Topic Tags
governing documents
signatures
enforceability
Question
If the bylaws mention a reduced quorum for a 'second meeting', is the HOA required to hold that second meeting?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. If the language doesn't explicitly say the HOA 'must' hold the meeting, it may be optional.
Detailed Answer
Even if a bylaw provision states that a second meeting 'shall require' a lower quorum, this does not automatically compel the HOA to hold that meeting. Unless words like 'shall' or 'must' apply specifically to the act of holding the meeting itself, the HOA may not be required to schedule it.
Alj Quote
There are no accompanying words that are inherently binding such as shall or must that would require Respondent to hold a second meeting based on the aforementioned verbiage used.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact No. 8
Topic Tags
meetings
quorum
bylaw interpretation
Question
Who is responsible for proving that an HOA violated the rules?
Short Answer
The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition is responsible for proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the HOA committed the alleged violation.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory violation.
Legal Basis
Conclusions of Law No. 3
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
procedure
Question
Does it matter if the HOA hasn't followed a specific rule for many years?
Short Answer
Yes. Long-term non-enforcement or lack of awareness by the board can be evidence that the rule was never validly adopted.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ considered the fact that the petitioner and board members were unaware of the amendment for years, and had failed to use it during previous quorum failures, as evidence weighing against the document's validity.
Alj Quote
Petitioner conceded that during his tenure on the Board and thereafter he was unaware of the purported amendment’s existence, notwithstanding several instances over a number of years where voting members failed to meet quorum requirements and did not utilize the provisions of the alleged amendment.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact No. 7
Topic Tags
past practice
board conduct
validity
Question
What standard of proof is used in these HOA hearings?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing that a contention is more probably true than not. It is based on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the number of witnesses.
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
Conclusions of Law No. 4
Topic Tags
legal standards
evidence
Case
Docket No
24F-H035-REL
Case Title
Jesse Freeman v. Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association
Decision Date
2024-08-09
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Jesse Freeman(petitioner) Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association Member Spelling varies as 'Jesse Freemen' in some sources; also served as Treasurer on the Board 2017-2018.
Nicholas Belisi(witness) Potential witness for Petitioner; seconded the motion to adjourn and reconvene the meeting.
Respondent Side
Augustus H. Shaw IV(HOA attorney) Shaw & Lines, LLC Counsel for Respondent Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association.
Brandon David Moore(senior community manager/witness) Brown Property Management Senior Community Manager for Respondent Millett Ranch HOA, testified as a witness.
Christopher Redden(Board President/witness) Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association Former Board President (9 years) and Board Member (13-14 years), testified as a witness.
Mark Saul(HOA attorney) Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association Identified by Petitioner as the association's attorney who abruptly ended the January 16, 2024 meeting.
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) ADRE
vnunez(ADRE staff (Recipient)) ADRE Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
djones(ADRE staff (Recipient)) ADRE Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
labril(ADRE staff (Recipient)) ADRE Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
mneat(ADRE staff (Recipient)) ADRE Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
akowaleski(ADRE staff (Recipient)) ADRE Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
gosborn(ADRE staff (Recipient)) ADRE Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioners' petition, concluding they failed to meet their burden of proving a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248 regarding the May 19, 2023, Executive Board Meeting.
Why this result: Petitioners failed to prove the statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence, as the Executive Session was deemed appropriate for receiving legal advice or conducting discussion related thereto, which falls under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)(1).
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of open meeting law concerning Executive Board Meeting on May 19, 2023
Petitioners alleged the Association violated ARS § 33-1248 by improperly conducting business (Code of Conduct review and vote on minutes) in a closed Executive Session on May 19, 2023, and by failing to provide 48-hour notice.
Orders: Petitioners' petition was denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)(1)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Open Meeting Law, Executive Session, Legal Advice Exception, Code of Conduct, Burden of Proof, Condominium Association Statute, Filing Fee
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)(1)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
24F-H024-REL Decision – 1138580.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:38 (54.3 KB)
24F-H024-REL Decision – 1144884.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:41 (50.1 KB)
24F-H024-REL Decision – 1146526.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:44 (61.9 KB)
24F-H024-REL Decision – 1161533.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:47 (48.9 KB)
24F-H024-REL Decision – 1179547.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:52 (132.9 KB)
Questions
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law in a hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA committed the alleged violation. This means showing that the claim is more likely true than not.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory violation.
Legal Basis
Preponderance of the Evidence
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
procedure
Question
Can the HOA board go into a closed executive session to get legal advice?
Short Answer
Yes, the board may close a meeting to receive legal advice from the association's attorney.
Detailed Answer
State statute explicitly allows portions of meetings to be closed if limited to consideration of legal advice from an attorney for the board or association. Legal advice is defined broadly as guidance given by lawyers to their clients.
Alj Quote
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that 'Any portion of a meeting may be closed only if that portion of the meeting is limited to consideration of one or more of the following: (1) legal advice from an attorney for the board or the association.'
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(1)
Topic Tags
executive session
legal advice
open meeting laws
Question
If I file a petition for one specific violation, can I bring up other issues during the hearing?
Short Answer
No, the tribunal will generally only address the specific issue paid for in the petition.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ may refuse to address tangential issues or additional complaints raised during the hearing if the petitioner only paid the filing fee for the adjudication of a single specific issue.
Alj Quote
Because Petitioners only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may not address all of the tangential issues Petitioners raised during the presentation of their case or closing arguments, including whether the Association properly provided notice of its May 19, 2023, Board Meeting.
Legal Basis
Procedural Scope
Topic Tags
hearing procedure
filing fees
scope of hearing
Question
Does draft language stating a policy 'has been approved' prove the board secretly voted on it?
Short Answer
No, the tense used in a draft document is considered irrelevant if the document was not actually adopted.
Detailed Answer
Even if a proposed document uses language like 'The Board… has approved,' this is considered a 'red herring' if the evidence shows the document was merely a proposal that board members were advised to sign but ultimately declined.
Alj Quote
The fact that language in the proposal used current language, rather than future tense, is a Red Herring argument and irrelevant.
Legal Basis
N/A
Topic Tags
evidence
board documents
voting
Question
Is it a violation for the board to discuss public materials (like a website printout) in executive session?
Short Answer
Not necessarily, provided that discussing those materials was not the sole purpose of the closed session.
Detailed Answer
While discussing public materials alone is technically not legal advice, it does not invalidate an executive session if the session also included legitimate purposes, such as receiving counsel's advice on other matters.
Alj Quote
While it is accurate that going into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing reading materials printed from a public website regarding revision of Association’s governing documents is not technically legal advice, as it is inherently unprivileged documentation, this record reflects that this was not the sole purpose of closing the Board Meeting from the public.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1248
Topic Tags
executive session
public records
violations
Question
What is the standard of proof required to win an HOA dispute case?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
This standard requires proof that convinces the judge that the claim is 'more probably true than not.' It is based on the convincing force and weight of the evidence, not just the number of witnesses.
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
Standard of Proof
Topic Tags
legal standards
evidence
Question
Can the board discuss a Code of Conduct in executive session?
Short Answer
Yes, if the discussion involves receiving legal advice or guidance from the association's attorney.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found no violation when the board went into executive session to discuss a Code of Conduct because the board members were receiving information, asking questions, and being advised by counsel regarding the document.
Alj Quote
The crux of the underlying issue is that newly elected Board Members, Petitioners, were provided with information regarding the Code of Conduct, the opportunity to discuss and ask questions privately, and advised to sign by Counsel for the Association; which they declined as was their right.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(1)
Topic Tags
code of conduct
executive session
board meetings
Case
Docket No
24F-H024-REL
Case Title
Jeffrey Connell & Corey Cox v. Casa Del Monte, Inc.
Decision Date
2024-05-20
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law in a hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA committed the alleged violation. This means showing that the claim is more likely true than not.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory violation.
Legal Basis
Preponderance of the Evidence
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
procedure
Question
Can the HOA board go into a closed executive session to get legal advice?
Short Answer
Yes, the board may close a meeting to receive legal advice from the association's attorney.
Detailed Answer
State statute explicitly allows portions of meetings to be closed if limited to consideration of legal advice from an attorney for the board or association. Legal advice is defined broadly as guidance given by lawyers to their clients.
Alj Quote
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that 'Any portion of a meeting may be closed only if that portion of the meeting is limited to consideration of one or more of the following: (1) legal advice from an attorney for the board or the association.'
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(1)
Topic Tags
executive session
legal advice
open meeting laws
Question
If I file a petition for one specific violation, can I bring up other issues during the hearing?
Short Answer
No, the tribunal will generally only address the specific issue paid for in the petition.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ may refuse to address tangential issues or additional complaints raised during the hearing if the petitioner only paid the filing fee for the adjudication of a single specific issue.
Alj Quote
Because Petitioners only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may not address all of the tangential issues Petitioners raised during the presentation of their case or closing arguments, including whether the Association properly provided notice of its May 19, 2023, Board Meeting.
Legal Basis
Procedural Scope
Topic Tags
hearing procedure
filing fees
scope of hearing
Question
Does draft language stating a policy 'has been approved' prove the board secretly voted on it?
Short Answer
No, the tense used in a draft document is considered irrelevant if the document was not actually adopted.
Detailed Answer
Even if a proposed document uses language like 'The Board… has approved,' this is considered a 'red herring' if the evidence shows the document was merely a proposal that board members were advised to sign but ultimately declined.
Alj Quote
The fact that language in the proposal used current language, rather than future tense, is a Red Herring argument and irrelevant.
Legal Basis
N/A
Topic Tags
evidence
board documents
voting
Question
Is it a violation for the board to discuss public materials (like a website printout) in executive session?
Short Answer
Not necessarily, provided that discussing those materials was not the sole purpose of the closed session.
Detailed Answer
While discussing public materials alone is technically not legal advice, it does not invalidate an executive session if the session also included legitimate purposes, such as receiving counsel's advice on other matters.
Alj Quote
While it is accurate that going into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing reading materials printed from a public website regarding revision of Association’s governing documents is not technically legal advice, as it is inherently unprivileged documentation, this record reflects that this was not the sole purpose of closing the Board Meeting from the public.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1248
Topic Tags
executive session
public records
violations
Question
What is the standard of proof required to win an HOA dispute case?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
This standard requires proof that convinces the judge that the claim is 'more probably true than not.' It is based on the convincing force and weight of the evidence, not just the number of witnesses.
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
Standard of Proof
Topic Tags
legal standards
evidence
Question
Can the board discuss a Code of Conduct in executive session?
Short Answer
Yes, if the discussion involves receiving legal advice or guidance from the association's attorney.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found no violation when the board went into executive session to discuss a Code of Conduct because the board members were receiving information, asking questions, and being advised by counsel regarding the document.
Alj Quote
The crux of the underlying issue is that newly elected Board Members, Petitioners, were provided with information regarding the Code of Conduct, the opportunity to discuss and ask questions privately, and advised to sign by Counsel for the Association; which they declined as was their right.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(1)
Topic Tags
code of conduct
executive session
board meetings
Case
Docket No
24F-H024-REL
Case Title
Jeffrey Connell & Corey Cox v. Casa Del Monte, Inc.
Decision Date
2024-05-20
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Jeffrey Connell(petitioner) Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA Also served as a board member.
Corey Cox(petitioner) Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA Also served as a board member.
Ross Meyer(attorney) Meyer & Partners, PLLC; Enara Law PLLC Counsel for Petitioners.
Jonathan Dessaules(witness) The Sol Law Group Testified as a subject matter expert/HOA attorney.
Matthew Elias(attorney) Enara Law PLLC Counsel for Petitioners; listed in final decision transmittal.
Respondent Side
Lori N. Brown(attorney) Gordon Rees Scully Mansukahani, LLP Counsel for Respondent.
Benjamin Bednarek(attorney) Gordon Rees Scully Mansukahani, LLP Counsel for Respondent.
Curtis Ekmark(HOA attorney) Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA Association Corporate Counsel/General Counsel.
Solomon Krotzer(attorney) Gordon Rees Scully Mansukahani, LLP Counsel for Respondent; appeared at hearing (referred to as 'Paulo' once).
Mary Lou Ehmann(property manager) Pride Management Former Community Manager for Casa Del Monte; provided testimony.
Jonathan Ryder(board president) Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA Also referred to as John Ryder.
Jean Yen(board member) Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA Also referred to as Jeannie Yen; Treasurer.
Bill McMichael(board member) Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA Vice President.
Jim Burton(board member) Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA Secretary.
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) ADRE
AHansen(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of official case transmission.
vnunez(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of official case transmission.
djones(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of official case transmission.
labril(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of official case transmission.
kvanfredenberg(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of official case transmission.
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof to show the Respondent violated the open meeting statute (A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)). The Board provided open meetings where the management contract discussions and votes occurred, including allowing the Petitioner and other homeowners to comment.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by a preponderance of the evidence.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of the open meeting statute regarding entering into a contract with a new Community Association Management Company.
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by canceling the existing community management contract and entering a contract with a new company (Haywood Realty & Investment, Inc.) without allowing open discussion, member comment, motion, and a vote regarding the change and the acquisition of Requests for Proposals (RFPs).
Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Open Meetings, Management Contract, Request for Proposals, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:
ARS 33-1804(A)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
24F-H011-REL Decision – 1116173.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:52 (111.6 KB)
Study Guide – 24F-H011-REL
Select all sources
1112606.aac
1116173.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
24F-H011-REL
2 sources
These sources document an administrative hearing regarding a dispute between Samuel T. Paparazzo and the Coronado Ranch Community Association over alleged open meeting violations. The petitioner contended that the board hired a new management company without proper public discussion, member input, or a formal vote as required by Arizona law. In response, the board treasurer testified that the transition was discussed across multiple open sessions and that the final decision was made during a meeting where the petitioner himself provided verbal testimony. Evidence showed that while the official meeting minutes were occasionally incomplete, the board had made significant efforts to inform homeowners through Facebook and email. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the association provided sufficient opportunity for member participation before executing the new contract.
What was the final outcome of the HOA dispute hearing?
How did the treasurer defend the board’s decision-making process?
Explain the member’s specific complaints about the new contract.
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 3:35 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 24F-H011-REL
Select all sources
1112606.aac
1116173.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
24F-H011-REL
2 sources
These sources document an administrative hearing regarding a dispute between Samuel T. Paparazzo and the Coronado Ranch Community Association over alleged open meeting violations. The petitioner contended that the board hired a new management company without proper public discussion, member input, or a formal vote as required by Arizona law. In response, the board treasurer testified that the transition was discussed across multiple open sessions and that the final decision was made during a meeting where the petitioner himself provided verbal testimony. Evidence showed that while the official meeting minutes were occasionally incomplete, the board had made significant efforts to inform homeowners through Facebook and email. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the association provided sufficient opportunity for member participation before executing the new contract.
What was the final outcome of the HOA dispute hearing?
How did the treasurer defend the board’s decision-making process?
Explain the member’s specific complaints about the new contract.
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 3:35 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Samuel T. Paparazzo(petitioner) Also appeared as Samuel Gene Everzo; testified on his own behalf.
Respondent Side
Ashley Turner(HOA attorney) Goodman Law Group Counsel for Coronado Ranch Community Association.
Kimberly Jackson(board member/treasurer) Coronado Ranch Community Association Board Appeared as a witness; sometimes referred to as Jim Jackson.
Sheree(board member) Coronado Ranch Community Association Board Director who obtained RFPs.
Michelle(board member) Coronado Ranch Community Association Board Director who obtained RFPs.
Cathy / Cassie(board member/secretary) Coronado Ranch Community Association Board Board member who read documents aloud; secretary who inadvertently left information off minutes.
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Also identified as Sandra Vanella.
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
A. Hansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of decision transmission.
V. Nunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of decision transmission.
D. Jones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of decision transmission.
L. Abril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of decision transmission.
Other Participants
Erica Martinson(attorney) prison law
Tony Rosetti(lawist) Spelled R O SS KTI.
Miss Lee(potential witness) Did not testify.
Rob Bishop(community manager) Renaissance Community Partners Son of owner of previous management company; facilitated virtual mic for Petitioner.
Tamara Lens(community assistant) Renaissance Community Partners Sent official meeting notice email.
Linda Palmer(homeowner) Coronado Ranch Community Association member Commented at the meeting.
Section 2.1 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements (CC&Rs)
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove that the Association violated CC&Rs Section 2.1 by adopting the Residential Parking Policy. The Policy was deemed a valid clarification authorized by existing CC&R provisions (4.2(t) and 5.3).
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish a violation of the governing documents.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of CC&Rs Section 2.1 regarding adoption of Residential Parking Policy
Petitioner alleged that the Association's adoption of the Residential Parking Policy violated CC&Rs Section 2.1 because the policy used the unauthorized term 'Rules and Regulations' rather than 'restrictions,' thereby attempting to amend the CC&Rs without following the proper process, particularly concerning the use of government-owned property.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA, CC&Rs, Parking Policy, Rules vs Restrictions, Burden of Proof, Planned Community
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
24F-H009-REL Decision – 1101544.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:45 (47.0 KB)
24F-H009-REL Decision – 1111460.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:48 (102.6 KB)
Questions
Question
Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over disputes regarding HOA document violations?
Short Answer
Yes, owners or associations may petition the department for hearings concerning violations of community documents.
Detailed Answer
The Department is authorized by statute to receive petitions regarding disputes between owners and associations, specifically concerning violations of community documents or statutes regulating planned communities.
Alj Quote
The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities as long as the petitioner has filed a petition with the department and paid a filing fee as outlined in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq.
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
dispute resolution
Question
Can an HOA enforce restrictions on public streets or government-owned property within the community?
Short Answer
Yes, if the CC&Rs explicitly state that restrictions apply to owners concerning the use of such property.
Detailed Answer
Even if property is dedicated to the public, the CC&Rs can impose restrictions on owners and residents regarding their use of that property, which remain applicable at all times.
Alj Quote
Section 2.1 of the CC&Rs in pertinent part states, 'property within Lakewood which is not part of a Lot or Parcel and which is owned by or dedicated to the public or governmental entity shall not be subject to this Declaration although restrictions imposed in this Declaration upon the Owners and Residents concerning the use and maintenance of such property shall be applicable at all times.'
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Section 2.1
Topic Tags
parking
public streets
authority
Question
Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence; it is not the HOA's initial burden to disprove the claim.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Section 2.1 of the CC&Rs.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
procedural
burden of proof
Question
What standard of evidence is used to decide HOA disputes?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
This standard requires evidence that convinces the judge that the claim is more probably true than not.
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 (1960)
Topic Tags
evidence
legal standard
Question
Can an HOA Board pass a parking policy without amending the CC&Rs?
Short Answer
Yes, if the CC&Rs grant the Board the authority to adopt rules and regulations.
Detailed Answer
If the CC&Rs allow the Board to adopt reasonable rules by majority vote, a policy passed in compliance with that section is valid, provided it clarifies rather than subverts the existing CC&Rs.
Alj Quote
It was undisputed Respondent passed the Parking Policy by majority vote in compliance with Section 5.3. … The Parking Policy did not subvert Section 4.2(t) nor did it contradict said policy, rather it further clarified prohibited on-street parking.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Section 5.3
Topic Tags
board authority
rules vs amendments
Question
Does the specific terminology 'rules' vs. 'restrictions' invalidate a policy?
Short Answer
Generally, no. Semantic differences are often considered irrelevant if the authority to regulate exists.
Detailed Answer
Arguments relying on semantic distinctions between 'rules and regulations' and 'restrictions' may fail if the Board has the clear authority to regulate the activity (e.g., parking) under the CC&Rs.
Alj Quote
Petitioner’s assertion that the semantic difference between the terms 'rules and regulations' and 'rules and restrictions' is irrelevant in determining whether Respondent had the authority under Section 2.1 of the CC&Rs to clarify Section 4.2(t).
Legal Basis
N/A
Topic Tags
legal interpretation
semantics
Question
What happens if a homeowner fails to meet the burden of proof?
Short Answer
The petition will be dismissed.
Detailed Answer
If the evidence presented is insufficient to establish that the HOA violated its documents, the Administrative Law Judge must dismiss the case.
Alj Quote
The undersigned Administrative Law Judge concludes that, because Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof that Respondent committed the alleged violation, his petition must be dismissed.
Legal Basis
N/A
Topic Tags
outcome
dismissal
Question
How long does a party have to request a rehearing after an ALJ decision?
Short Answer
30 days.
Detailed Answer
A request for rehearing must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Topic Tags
appeal
deadlines
Case
Docket No
24F-H009-REL
Case Title
Thomas P. Hommrich v The Lakewood Community Association
Decision Date
2023-11-09
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over disputes regarding HOA document violations?
Short Answer
Yes, owners or associations may petition the department for hearings concerning violations of community documents.
Detailed Answer
The Department is authorized by statute to receive petitions regarding disputes between owners and associations, specifically concerning violations of community documents or statutes regulating planned communities.
Alj Quote
The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities as long as the petitioner has filed a petition with the department and paid a filing fee as outlined in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq.
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
dispute resolution
Question
Can an HOA enforce restrictions on public streets or government-owned property within the community?
Short Answer
Yes, if the CC&Rs explicitly state that restrictions apply to owners concerning the use of such property.
Detailed Answer
Even if property is dedicated to the public, the CC&Rs can impose restrictions on owners and residents regarding their use of that property, which remain applicable at all times.
Alj Quote
Section 2.1 of the CC&Rs in pertinent part states, 'property within Lakewood which is not part of a Lot or Parcel and which is owned by or dedicated to the public or governmental entity shall not be subject to this Declaration although restrictions imposed in this Declaration upon the Owners and Residents concerning the use and maintenance of such property shall be applicable at all times.'
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Section 2.1
Topic Tags
parking
public streets
authority
Question
Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence; it is not the HOA's initial burden to disprove the claim.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Section 2.1 of the CC&Rs.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
procedural
burden of proof
Question
What standard of evidence is used to decide HOA disputes?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
This standard requires evidence that convinces the judge that the claim is more probably true than not.
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 (1960)
Topic Tags
evidence
legal standard
Question
Can an HOA Board pass a parking policy without amending the CC&Rs?
Short Answer
Yes, if the CC&Rs grant the Board the authority to adopt rules and regulations.
Detailed Answer
If the CC&Rs allow the Board to adopt reasonable rules by majority vote, a policy passed in compliance with that section is valid, provided it clarifies rather than subverts the existing CC&Rs.
Alj Quote
It was undisputed Respondent passed the Parking Policy by majority vote in compliance with Section 5.3. … The Parking Policy did not subvert Section 4.2(t) nor did it contradict said policy, rather it further clarified prohibited on-street parking.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Section 5.3
Topic Tags
board authority
rules vs amendments
Question
Does the specific terminology 'rules' vs. 'restrictions' invalidate a policy?
Short Answer
Generally, no. Semantic differences are often considered irrelevant if the authority to regulate exists.
Detailed Answer
Arguments relying on semantic distinctions between 'rules and regulations' and 'restrictions' may fail if the Board has the clear authority to regulate the activity (e.g., parking) under the CC&Rs.
Alj Quote
Petitioner’s assertion that the semantic difference between the terms 'rules and regulations' and 'rules and restrictions' is irrelevant in determining whether Respondent had the authority under Section 2.1 of the CC&Rs to clarify Section 4.2(t).
Legal Basis
N/A
Topic Tags
legal interpretation
semantics
Question
What happens if a homeowner fails to meet the burden of proof?
Short Answer
The petition will be dismissed.
Detailed Answer
If the evidence presented is insufficient to establish that the HOA violated its documents, the Administrative Law Judge must dismiss the case.
Alj Quote
The undersigned Administrative Law Judge concludes that, because Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof that Respondent committed the alleged violation, his petition must be dismissed.
Legal Basis
N/A
Topic Tags
outcome
dismissal
Question
How long does a party have to request a rehearing after an ALJ decision?
Short Answer
30 days.
Detailed Answer
A request for rehearing must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Topic Tags
appeal
deadlines
Case
Docket No
24F-H009-REL
Case Title
Thomas P. Hommrich v The Lakewood Community Association
Decision Date
2023-11-09
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Thomas P. Hommrich(petitioner) Property owner, appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Quinten Cupps(HOA attorney) VIal Fotheringham, LLP Represented The Lakewood Community Association
Sandra Smith(community manager) Lakewood Community Association Witness who testified on behalf of Respondent
Neutral Parties
Brian Del Vecchio(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Administrative Law Judge for the hearing and final decision
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Administrative Law Judge who issued the October 12, 2023 Order
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Moses Thompson(Judge) Judge cited in precedent case (Brian Seatic v Lake Resort Condominium)
Other Participants
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmission/contact
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmission/contact
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmission/contact
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmission/contact
Brian Seatic(party) Party in precedent case (Brian Seatic v Lake Resort Condominium) cited during the hearing
The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association
Counsel
Lydia Linsmeier
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs Article 4.4
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to establish a violation of Article 4.4 of the CC&Rs, finding that the Association's regulation of the lap pool temperature was authorized and reasonable, and dismissed the petition.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated CC&Rs Article 4.4. Petitioner's preference for warmer water did not establish discrimination or a rule violation.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association (Respondent) is in violation of CC&Rs Article 4.4 for “turning off the lap pool heater … [f]or approximately one month” which Petitioner further alleges constitutes discrimination against senior residents.
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs Article 4.4 by turning off the lap pool heater around mid-April 2023, making the temperature too cold for her use and constituting discrimination against senior residents who rely on the pool for exercise. The ALJ found Petitioner failed to prove a violation of CC&Rs Article 4.4 or age-based discrimination.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
CC&Rs Article 4.4
The Villages at Rancho El Dorado RULES & REGULATIONS 3.5.7(e)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Dispute, CC&R Violation, Pool Heating, Discrimination Claim, Common Area Use, Burden of Proof, Planned Community
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-106
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
CC&Rs Article 4.4
CC&Rs 8.2(c)(12)
The Villages at Rancho El Dorado RULES & REGULATIONS 3.5.7
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
24F-H001-REL Decision – 1089588.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:27 (52.0 KB)
24F-H001-REL Decision – 1102316.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:31 (136.7 KB)
Study Guide – 24F-H001-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H001-REL”, “case_title”: “Kristeen L. Herron v. The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-10-16”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove the violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.””, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing, the petitioner (homeowner) is responsible for proving that the HOA violated a community document. The standard of proof is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means showing that the claim is more likely true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated a community document.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Does an HOA rule regarding amenity usage constitute discrimination if it negatively affects senior citizens’ preferences?”, “short_answer”: “No, if the rule is applied neutrally and is within the HOA’s authority, personal preference does not equate to discrimination.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that rules regarding common area maintenance (such as pool temperature) do not amount to age-based discrimination simply because they do not meet the personal preferences of senior residents, provided the HOA has the authority to govern the property use.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s argument that she was unable to use the lap pool because the temperature was outside of her preference does not amount to age-based discrimination.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Article 4.4”, “topic_tags”: [ “discrimination”, “common areas”, “amenities” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA board adopt rules that restrict the use of common areas like pools?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the CC&Rs typically grant the Board the power to adopt rules governing property use.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision affirms that the HOA Board has the authority to adopt, amend, and repeal rules regarding the use of the property, including common areas, as long as those rules do not discriminate among owners and are consistent with the declaration.”, “alj_quote”: “By action of the Board, the Association may, from time to time and subject to the provisions of this Declaration, adopt, amend, and repeal rules and regulations to be known as the ‘Rules.’ The Rules may restrict and govern the use of the Property”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Article 4.4”, “topic_tags”: [ “HOA authority”, “rules and regulations”, “common areas” ] }, { “question”: “Does the administrative court have the power to interpret the CC&Rs as a contract?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ confirmed that the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and the property owner, and the OAH has the legal authority to interpret this contract during a dispute.”, “alj_quote”: “Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner… OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.”, “legal_basis”: “Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195”, “topic_tags”: [ “contract law”, “jurisdiction”, “CC&Rs” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA follows its written rules regarding maintenance (e.g., heating schedules), is it liable for a violation?”, “short_answer”: “No, if the HOA acts in accordance with the established rules, there is no violation.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA rules specified heating the pool during the ‘winter season’ to a specific range. Because there was no evidence the HOA failed to meet these specific written requirements, the ALJ found no violation.”, “alj_quote”: “There is no evidence in the record that would support the contention that the Association failed to do so through April 2023.”, “legal_basis”: “Recreation Center Complex Rule 3.5.7(e)”, “topic_tags”: [ “maintenance”, “compliance”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “What is the definition of ‘preponderance of the evidence’?”, “short_answer”: “It is evidence that convinces the judge the claim is ‘more probably true than not.'”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision defines this legal standard as the greater weight of the evidence, which inclines a fair mind to one side of the issue, even if it doesn’t wholly free the mind from doubt.”, “alj_quote”: “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”, “legal_basis”: “MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal definitions”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “Does a homeowner have to pay a fee to file a petition against their HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, a filing fee is required by statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “The petitioner in this case was required to tender a $500.00 filing fee to the Department of Real Estate when submitting their petition.”, “alj_quote”: “On July 07, 2023, tendered $500.00 to the Department as a filing fee for the petition at issue.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “filing process”, “procedure” ] } ] }
Blog Post – 24F-H001-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H001-REL”, “case_title”: “Kristeen L. Herron v. The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-10-16”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove the violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.””, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing, the petitioner (homeowner) is responsible for proving that the HOA violated a community document. The standard of proof is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means showing that the claim is more likely true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated a community document.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Does an HOA rule regarding amenity usage constitute discrimination if it negatively affects senior citizens’ preferences?”, “short_answer”: “No, if the rule is applied neutrally and is within the HOA’s authority, personal preference does not equate to discrimination.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that rules regarding common area maintenance (such as pool temperature) do not amount to age-based discrimination simply because they do not meet the personal preferences of senior residents, provided the HOA has the authority to govern the property use.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s argument that she was unable to use the lap pool because the temperature was outside of her preference does not amount to age-based discrimination.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Article 4.4”, “topic_tags”: [ “discrimination”, “common areas”, “amenities” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA board adopt rules that restrict the use of common areas like pools?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the CC&Rs typically grant the Board the power to adopt rules governing property use.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision affirms that the HOA Board has the authority to adopt, amend, and repeal rules regarding the use of the property, including common areas, as long as those rules do not discriminate among owners and are consistent with the declaration.”, “alj_quote”: “By action of the Board, the Association may, from time to time and subject to the provisions of this Declaration, adopt, amend, and repeal rules and regulations to be known as the ‘Rules.’ The Rules may restrict and govern the use of the Property”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Article 4.4”, “topic_tags”: [ “HOA authority”, “rules and regulations”, “common areas” ] }, { “question”: “Does the administrative court have the power to interpret the CC&Rs as a contract?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ confirmed that the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and the property owner, and the OAH has the legal authority to interpret this contract during a dispute.”, “alj_quote”: “Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner… OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.”, “legal_basis”: “Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195”, “topic_tags”: [ “contract law”, “jurisdiction”, “CC&Rs” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA follows its written rules regarding maintenance (e.g., heating schedules), is it liable for a violation?”, “short_answer”: “No, if the HOA acts in accordance with the established rules, there is no violation.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA rules specified heating the pool during the ‘winter season’ to a specific range. Because there was no evidence the HOA failed to meet these specific written requirements, the ALJ found no violation.”, “alj_quote”: “There is no evidence in the record that would support the contention that the Association failed to do so through April 2023.”, “legal_basis”: “Recreation Center Complex Rule 3.5.7(e)”, “topic_tags”: [ “maintenance”, “compliance”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “What is the definition of ‘preponderance of the evidence’?”, “short_answer”: “It is evidence that convinces the judge the claim is ‘more probably true than not.'”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision defines this legal standard as the greater weight of the evidence, which inclines a fair mind to one side of the issue, even if it doesn’t wholly free the mind from doubt.”, “alj_quote”: “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”, “legal_basis”: “MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal definitions”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “Does a homeowner have to pay a fee to file a petition against their HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, a filing fee is required by statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “The petitioner in this case was required to tender a $500.00 filing fee to the Department of Real Estate when submitting their petition.”, “alj_quote”: “On July 07, 2023, tendered $500.00 to the Department as a filing fee for the petition at issue.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “filing process”, “procedure” ] } ] }
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Kristeen L. Herron(petitioner) The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association Property owner and member of the Association
Karen Ellis(witness) The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association Witness for Petitioner; property owner/member
LouAnne Schmidt(observer) Potential witness for Petitioner, not permitted to testify
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner Harry G. Turner failed to meet his burden of proof to demonstrate that the Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc. violated Article 10 Section 4 of the CC&Rs by planning drainage construction in Tract H.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to reconcile conflicting designations of Tract H in the plat map (Preserved/Active Open Space vs. Drainage), thus failing to prove that the drainage ditch constituted a prohibited change of use.
Key Issues & Findings
Required membership vote for common area use change (Tract H drainage ditch)
Petitioner alleged the HOA (Respondent) violated CC&Rs Article 10 Section 4 by planning to dig a drainage ditch in Tract H, arguing this was a change of use requiring a 2/3rds membership vote. Respondent argued Tract H was already designated for drainage in the 'Conveyance and Dedication' portion of the plat map, negating the need for a vote.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed. Petitioner's request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Article 10 Section 4 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for Mountain Gate Homes, a Townhouse Project
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA, CC&R, Drainage, Common Area, Change of Use, Burden of Proof, Planned Community, Plat Map
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Article 10 Section 4 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for Mountain Gate Homes, a Townhouse Project
Who is responsible for proving that an HOA violated the community's CC&Rs in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In a hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings, it is not the HOA's job to disprove the allegations initially. The homeowner must provide sufficient evidence to prove the violation occurred.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Article 10 Section 4 of the CC&Rs.
Legal Basis
Burden of Proof
Topic Tags
legal standards
procedure
Question
What is the legal standard of evidence required to win a case against an HOA?
Short Answer
The standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim is more probable than not.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner does not need to prove the violation beyond a reasonable doubt. They must simply show that their version of events or interpretation of the documents is more likely true than the HOA's version.
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
Preponderance of Evidence
Topic Tags
evidence
legal definitions
Question
What happens if community documents (like a plat map) contain conflicting descriptions of a common area?
Short Answer
If the homeowner cannot prove why their preferred description should control, they fail to meet their burden of proof, and the case may be dismissed.
Detailed Answer
In this case, one section of the plat map described the land as 'Open Space' while another described it as 'Drainage.' Because the homeowner could not legally establish why the 'Open Space' description superseded the 'Drainage' description, the judge ruled against them.
Alj Quote
Neither party presented sufficient evidence to determine why their characterization of Tract “H” controlled. Petitioner bears the burden of proof and has failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet his burden.
Legal Basis
Burden of Proof
Topic Tags
document interpretation
common areas
Question
Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over CC&R disputes?
Short Answer
Yes, they have jurisdiction over disputes between owners and associations regarding violations of community documents or statutes.
Detailed Answer
Homeowners can petition the department for a hearing regarding alleged violations of the community's governing documents (CC&Rs) or state laws regulating planned communities.
Alj Quote
This matter lies within the Department’s jurisdiction… regarding a dispute between an owner and a planned community association. The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
regulatory authority
Question
If an HOA modifies a common area (e.g., digging a ditch), does it always require a member vote?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. If the modification aligns with a designated use in the governing documents (like 'drainage'), it may not constitute a 'change of use' requiring a vote.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner argued a vote was required to change 'Open Space' to a drainage ditch. The HOA argued the land was already dedicated for 'drainage,' so no use change occurred. The judge dismissed the complaint because the homeowner failed to prove it wasn't already a drainage area.
Alj Quote
Respondent argued it did not violate the CC&Rs because it did not change the characteristic of the common area and therefore no change protocols needed to be observed… Petitioner failed to meet his burden.
Legal Basis
CC&R Interpretation
Topic Tags
common areas
voting rights
Question
Can I request a civil penalty be levied against my HOA?
Short Answer
You can request it, but it will be denied if you fail to prove the violation.
Detailed Answer
In this decision, the judge explicitly denied the petitioner's request for a civil penalty after dismissing the petition.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.
Legal Basis
Administrative Order
Topic Tags
penalties
remedies
Case
Docket No
23F-H045-REL
Case Title
Harry G. Turner v Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-08-14
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Who is responsible for proving that an HOA violated the community's CC&Rs in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In a hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings, it is not the HOA's job to disprove the allegations initially. The homeowner must provide sufficient evidence to prove the violation occurred.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Article 10 Section 4 of the CC&Rs.
Legal Basis
Burden of Proof
Topic Tags
legal standards
procedure
Question
What is the legal standard of evidence required to win a case against an HOA?
Short Answer
The standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim is more probable than not.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner does not need to prove the violation beyond a reasonable doubt. They must simply show that their version of events or interpretation of the documents is more likely true than the HOA's version.
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
Preponderance of Evidence
Topic Tags
evidence
legal definitions
Question
What happens if community documents (like a plat map) contain conflicting descriptions of a common area?
Short Answer
If the homeowner cannot prove why their preferred description should control, they fail to meet their burden of proof, and the case may be dismissed.
Detailed Answer
In this case, one section of the plat map described the land as 'Open Space' while another described it as 'Drainage.' Because the homeowner could not legally establish why the 'Open Space' description superseded the 'Drainage' description, the judge ruled against them.
Alj Quote
Neither party presented sufficient evidence to determine why their characterization of Tract “H” controlled. Petitioner bears the burden of proof and has failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet his burden.
Legal Basis
Burden of Proof
Topic Tags
document interpretation
common areas
Question
Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over CC&R disputes?
Short Answer
Yes, they have jurisdiction over disputes between owners and associations regarding violations of community documents or statutes.
Detailed Answer
Homeowners can petition the department for a hearing regarding alleged violations of the community's governing documents (CC&Rs) or state laws regulating planned communities.
Alj Quote
This matter lies within the Department’s jurisdiction… regarding a dispute between an owner and a planned community association. The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
regulatory authority
Question
If an HOA modifies a common area (e.g., digging a ditch), does it always require a member vote?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. If the modification aligns with a designated use in the governing documents (like 'drainage'), it may not constitute a 'change of use' requiring a vote.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner argued a vote was required to change 'Open Space' to a drainage ditch. The HOA argued the land was already dedicated for 'drainage,' so no use change occurred. The judge dismissed the complaint because the homeowner failed to prove it wasn't already a drainage area.
Alj Quote
Respondent argued it did not violate the CC&Rs because it did not change the characteristic of the common area and therefore no change protocols needed to be observed… Petitioner failed to meet his burden.
Legal Basis
CC&R Interpretation
Topic Tags
common areas
voting rights
Question
Can I request a civil penalty be levied against my HOA?
Short Answer
You can request it, but it will be denied if you fail to prove the violation.
Detailed Answer
In this decision, the judge explicitly denied the petitioner's request for a civil penalty after dismissing the petition.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.
Legal Basis
Administrative Order
Topic Tags
penalties
remedies
Case
Docket No
23F-H045-REL
Case Title
Harry G. Turner v Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-08-14
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Harry G. Turner(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Michael Luden(president/representative) Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc. Appeared on behalf of Respondent. Identified as President of the Homeowners Association
Brenda Anderson(witness/secretary) Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc. Witness for Respondent; Secretary of Mountain Gate Homeowners Association
Kelly Callahan(HOA attorney) HOA's attorney who wrote an email regarding the drainage ditch proposal
Neutral Parties
Brian Del Vecchio(ALJ) OAH Administrative Law Judge
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed in transmission list
Jeremiah Lloyd(Community Development Director) Pinetop Lakeside Community Development Director for Pinetop Lakeside
Bill Best(County Engineer) Navajo County Navajo County Engineer
Emory Ellsworth(engineer) Painted Sky Engineering and Surveying Engineer consulted by Petitioner
John Murphy(engineer) Murphy Engineering Group Engineer whose company provided original certified plans
Other Participants
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed in transmission list
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed in transmission list
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed in transmission list
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed in transmission list
Ken Anderson(community member) Mentioned as being present when a document was allegedly falsified
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Alhambra Terrace Condominium Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to fully satisfy sub-requirements 6, 7, and/or 8 of the Preliminary Architectural Approval Letter, as the documentation provided (specifically from the plumbing company and designer) lacked the necessary professional weight or specificity required by the Association to address structural and plumbing concerns.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of statute regarding denial of interior modification request.
Petitioner alleged the Association violated ARS § 33-1221 by denying his request to combine two units and add two bathrooms, claiming the denial was unsupported by facts or governing documents. The ALJ found Petitioner failed to prove the violation.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 9, Article 3
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Analytics Highlights
Topics: condominium modification, HOA denial, structural integrity, plumbing concerns, burden of proof, architectural approval
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 9, Article 3
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H060-REL Decision – 1081134.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:25 (189.0 KB)
Questions
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner alleging an HOA violation?
Short Answer
The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition is responsible for proving their case. They must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the HOA violated the relevant statutes or community documents.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243.
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA hearing?
Short Answer
It means the evidence must show the claim is more probably true than not.
Detailed Answer
To win a hearing, the evidence presented must carry more weight than the opposing side's evidence. It doesn't necessarily mean having more witnesses, but rather having evidence with superior convincing force that inclines an impartial mind to one side.
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
Common Law / Legal Standard
Topic Tags
legal standards
evidence
definitions
Question
Can I combine two adjoining condo units I own by removing the wall between them?
Short Answer
Yes, generally, provided the removal does not impair structural integrity or mechanical systems.
Detailed Answer
Arizona law allows a unit owner who acquires an adjoining unit to remove or alter intervening partitions. However, this is strictly conditioned on the requirement that such acts do not weaken the building's structural integrity, mechanical systems, or support.
Alj Quote
After acquiring an adjoining unit… [a unit owner] may remove or alter any intervening partition or create apertures in intervening partitions… if those acts do not impair the structural integrity or mechanical systems or lessen the support of any portion of the condominium.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221(3)
Topic Tags
homeowner rights
renovations
condominiums
Question
Does the administrative law judge have the power to interpret the HOA's contract (CC&Rs)?
Short Answer
Yes, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.
Detailed Answer
When a dispute involves the community documents (like CC&Rs), the Administrative Law Judge has the legal authority to interpret those documents to decide the contested case.
Alj Quote
OAH has the authority to hear and decide the contested case at bar. OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
CC&Rs
contract interpretation
Question
Can the HOA reject my renovation if I provide a plumber's report instead of the requested structural engineer's report?
Short Answer
Yes, the HOA can reject the request if the specific professional expertise requested (e.g., structural engineering) is not provided.
Detailed Answer
If an HOA requests a specific type of expert opinion (such as a structural engineer) to ensure the integrity of the building, providing a report from a different type of professional (such as a plumbing company) may be considered insufficient evidence, justifying a denial.
Alj Quote
Paradise Valley Plumbing Company, Inc. is not a licensed structural engineering firm, so unfortunately the attestation of its Qualifying Party cannot be afforded much weight, if any.
Do I need written permission from the HOA to change the exterior appearance of my condo?
Short Answer
Yes, changing the exterior appearance or common elements requires written permission.
Detailed Answer
State statute explicitly prohibits unit owners from changing the appearance of common elements or the exterior of a unit without obtaining written permission from the association.
Alj Quote
Shall not change the appearance of the common elements, or the exterior appearance of a unit or any other portion of the condominium, without written permission of the association.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221(2)
Topic Tags
exterior changes
architectural control
common elements
Question
If I hire a structural engineer, must their report specifically address the HOA's stated concerns?
Short Answer
Yes, simply hiring an engineer is not enough; the report must address the specific items requested by the HOA (e.g., integrity of pipes, fans, vents).
Detailed Answer
Submitting an engineer's letter that does not address the specific technical concerns raised by the HOA (such as the condition of pipes or venting plans) may result in a denial because the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof regarding safety and structural integrity.
Alj Quote
While Mr. Young is undoubtedly a licensed structural engineer… it is unclear if he made determinations regarding the integrity of the Association’s pipes, fans, and vents as required by sub-requirements 6-8 of the Association’s PRELIMINARY ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL LETTER.
Legal Basis
Evidence sufficiency
Topic Tags
renovations
compliance
engineering reports
Case
Docket No
23F-H060-REL
Case Title
Ryan McMahon vs. Alhambra Terrace Condominium Association
Decision Date
2023-08-07
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner alleging an HOA violation?
Short Answer
The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition is responsible for proving their case. They must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the HOA violated the relevant statutes or community documents.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243.
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA hearing?
Short Answer
It means the evidence must show the claim is more probably true than not.
Detailed Answer
To win a hearing, the evidence presented must carry more weight than the opposing side's evidence. It doesn't necessarily mean having more witnesses, but rather having evidence with superior convincing force that inclines an impartial mind to one side.
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
Common Law / Legal Standard
Topic Tags
legal standards
evidence
definitions
Question
Can I combine two adjoining condo units I own by removing the wall between them?
Short Answer
Yes, generally, provided the removal does not impair structural integrity or mechanical systems.
Detailed Answer
Arizona law allows a unit owner who acquires an adjoining unit to remove or alter intervening partitions. However, this is strictly conditioned on the requirement that such acts do not weaken the building's structural integrity, mechanical systems, or support.
Alj Quote
After acquiring an adjoining unit… [a unit owner] may remove or alter any intervening partition or create apertures in intervening partitions… if those acts do not impair the structural integrity or mechanical systems or lessen the support of any portion of the condominium.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221(3)
Topic Tags
homeowner rights
renovations
condominiums
Question
Does the administrative law judge have the power to interpret the HOA's contract (CC&Rs)?
Short Answer
Yes, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.
Detailed Answer
When a dispute involves the community documents (like CC&Rs), the Administrative Law Judge has the legal authority to interpret those documents to decide the contested case.
Alj Quote
OAH has the authority to hear and decide the contested case at bar. OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
CC&Rs
contract interpretation
Question
Can the HOA reject my renovation if I provide a plumber's report instead of the requested structural engineer's report?
Short Answer
Yes, the HOA can reject the request if the specific professional expertise requested (e.g., structural engineering) is not provided.
Detailed Answer
If an HOA requests a specific type of expert opinion (such as a structural engineer) to ensure the integrity of the building, providing a report from a different type of professional (such as a plumbing company) may be considered insufficient evidence, justifying a denial.
Alj Quote
Paradise Valley Plumbing Company, Inc. is not a licensed structural engineering firm, so unfortunately the attestation of its Qualifying Party cannot be afforded much weight, if any.
Do I need written permission from the HOA to change the exterior appearance of my condo?
Short Answer
Yes, changing the exterior appearance or common elements requires written permission.
Detailed Answer
State statute explicitly prohibits unit owners from changing the appearance of common elements or the exterior of a unit without obtaining written permission from the association.
Alj Quote
Shall not change the appearance of the common elements, or the exterior appearance of a unit or any other portion of the condominium, without written permission of the association.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221(2)
Topic Tags
exterior changes
architectural control
common elements
Question
If I hire a structural engineer, must their report specifically address the HOA's stated concerns?
Short Answer
Yes, simply hiring an engineer is not enough; the report must address the specific items requested by the HOA (e.g., integrity of pipes, fans, vents).
Detailed Answer
Submitting an engineer's letter that does not address the specific technical concerns raised by the HOA (such as the condition of pipes or venting plans) may result in a denial because the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof regarding safety and structural integrity.
Alj Quote
While Mr. Young is undoubtedly a licensed structural engineer… it is unclear if he made determinations regarding the integrity of the Association’s pipes, fans, and vents as required by sub-requirements 6-8 of the Association’s PRELIMINARY ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL LETTER.
Legal Basis
Evidence sufficiency
Topic Tags
renovations
compliance
engineering reports
Case
Docket No
23F-H060-REL
Case Title
Ryan McMahon vs. Alhambra Terrace Condominium Association
Decision Date
2023-08-07
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Ryan McMahon(petitioner) Full name: Ryan Christopher McMahon
Christina Samaras(witness) Petitioner's fiance and observer. Also referred to as Christina Cincer.
Robert A. Young(engineer/consultant) Structural Engineer (PE) providing documentation for Petitioner
Scott Olsson(plumber/consultant) Paradise Valley Plumbing Company, Inc. Licensed plumber/Qualifying Party providing statements for Petitioner
Gary Devol(designer/consultant) Designs by Devol LLC Designer who created the modification plans
Respondent Side
Mike Yohler(attorney) Farmers Insurance Counsel of record for Respondent
Kent William Groseth(board member) Alhamra Terrace Condominium Association Board President and witness
Emma(property manager representative) AMCOR Property Professionals, Inc. Exchanged correspondence with Petitioner regarding denial
Mia(board member) Alhamra Terrace Condominium Association HOA president at the time of initial request
Jim Nelson(board member) Alhamra Terrace Condominium Association Co-vice president
Robin(property manager representative) AMCOR Property Professionals, Inc. Vice President involved in email correspondence
Miss Morgan(attorney) Previous counsel replaced by Mike Yohler
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH Administrative Law Judge
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) ADRE Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition, finding that the Respondent HOA did not violate Article XV of the Articles of Incorporation during the dissolution vote. The required 2/3 majority was achieved with 11 votes in favor, and the requirement for signed assent was met by the signatures provided on the ballot envelopes.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of voting requirements for dissolution of the Homeowners Association
Petitioner alleged that the dissolution vote was invalid because the ballots were not signed, and Respondent failed to achieve the 2/3 authorized votes needed, noting only 9 ballots were cast for dissolution. Respondent argued that 11 votes were cast, meeting the 2/3 requirement (10 votes needed), and that signatures on the ballot envelopes satisfied the Article XV requirement for assent given in writing and signed by Owners.
Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 32-2199
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 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)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA, Articles of Incorporation, Voting Rights, Dissolution, Burden of Proof, Planned Community
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 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)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H033-REL Decision – 1035350.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:11 (55.1 KB)
23F-H033-REL Decision – 1049512.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:15 (100.5 KB)
Questions
Question
If my HOA requires votes to be 'in writing and signed,' does the ballot itself need a signature?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. If the governing documents do not explicitly specify that the ballot itself must be signed, a signature on the envelope containing the ballot may satisfy the requirement.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that if the Articles of Incorporation require assent 'in writing and signed' but do not specify that the ballot itself must be signed, a signature on the envelope containing the ballot is sufficient compliance. In this case, envelopes with the homeowner's signature, lot number, and date were deemed to satisfy the requirement.
Alj Quote
Article XV of the Articles of Incorporation does not specify that the ballot itself must signed, and in this case, the signatures are contained on the envelopes that held the corresponding ballots, thereby satisfying the language of the charged provision.
Legal Basis
Articles of Incorporation, Article XV
Topic Tags
voting
ballots
signatures
governing documents
Question
If I own multiple lots, do I need to submit a separate physical ballot for each lot?
Short Answer
No, unless you can cite specific legal authority or governing documents that require separate physical ballots.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ rejected the argument that separate ballots are required for each vote possessed by homeowners who own multiple lots, specifically noting that the petitioner failed to provide any authority supporting that claim.
Alj Quote
Petitioner further testified that there should have been separate ballots for each vote for homeowners who own two lots. However, Petitioner did not cite to any authority establishing such.
Legal Basis
Lack of citation to authority
Topic Tags
voting
multiple lots
ballots
Question
How are votes counted if some homeowners own more than one property?
Short Answer
Votes are counted based on 'authorized votes' rather than just the number of physical ballots cast. One ballot may represent multiple votes.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ accepted the calculation where fewer physical ballots were cast than the total vote count because some ballots represented multiple votes (one for each lot owned). The decision validated that 9 ballots could validly represent 11 authorized votes.
Alj Quote
In this case, eleven (11) votes were cast on nine (9) ballots, which represents at least 2/3 of the owners authorized to vote.
Legal Basis
Articles of Incorporation, Article XV
Topic Tags
voting
vote counting
authorized votes
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the rules?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the homeowner alleging the violation must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' It is not the HOA's job to disprove the allegation initially.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA dispute?
Short Answer
It means the claim is more likely true than not.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ defines this standard as proof that convinces the decision-maker that the contention is 'more probably true than not,' or holds the greater weight of evidence.
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
legal definitions
evidence
standard of proof
Case
Docket No
23F-H033-REL
Case Title
Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Decision Date
2023-04-14
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
If my HOA requires votes to be 'in writing and signed,' does the ballot itself need a signature?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. If the governing documents do not explicitly specify that the ballot itself must be signed, a signature on the envelope containing the ballot may satisfy the requirement.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that if the Articles of Incorporation require assent 'in writing and signed' but do not specify that the ballot itself must be signed, a signature on the envelope containing the ballot is sufficient compliance. In this case, envelopes with the homeowner's signature, lot number, and date were deemed to satisfy the requirement.
Alj Quote
Article XV of the Articles of Incorporation does not specify that the ballot itself must signed, and in this case, the signatures are contained on the envelopes that held the corresponding ballots, thereby satisfying the language of the charged provision.
Legal Basis
Articles of Incorporation, Article XV
Topic Tags
voting
ballots
signatures
governing documents
Question
If I own multiple lots, do I need to submit a separate physical ballot for each lot?
Short Answer
No, unless you can cite specific legal authority or governing documents that require separate physical ballots.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ rejected the argument that separate ballots are required for each vote possessed by homeowners who own multiple lots, specifically noting that the petitioner failed to provide any authority supporting that claim.
Alj Quote
Petitioner further testified that there should have been separate ballots for each vote for homeowners who own two lots. However, Petitioner did not cite to any authority establishing such.
Legal Basis
Lack of citation to authority
Topic Tags
voting
multiple lots
ballots
Question
How are votes counted if some homeowners own more than one property?
Short Answer
Votes are counted based on 'authorized votes' rather than just the number of physical ballots cast. One ballot may represent multiple votes.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ accepted the calculation where fewer physical ballots were cast than the total vote count because some ballots represented multiple votes (one for each lot owned). The decision validated that 9 ballots could validly represent 11 authorized votes.
Alj Quote
In this case, eleven (11) votes were cast on nine (9) ballots, which represents at least 2/3 of the owners authorized to vote.
Legal Basis
Articles of Incorporation, Article XV
Topic Tags
voting
vote counting
authorized votes
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the rules?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the homeowner alleging the violation must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' It is not the HOA's job to disprove the allegation initially.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA dispute?
Short Answer
It means the claim is more likely true than not.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ defines this standard as proof that convinces the decision-maker that the contention is 'more probably true than not,' or holds the greater weight of evidence.
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
legal definitions
evidence
standard of proof
Case
Docket No
23F-H033-REL
Case Title
Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Decision Date
2023-04-14
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Clifford S. Burnes(petitioner) Also referred to as Clifford (Norm) S. Burnes
Respondent Side
John T. Crotty(HOA attorney) LAW OFFICES OF COLLIN T. WELCH
Esmeralda Sarina Ayala-Martinez(HOA President, witness) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Also referred to as Sarina Martinez or Serena Martinez
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ)
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) ADRE
Tammy I(ALJ) Mentioned as presiding over related case
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association violated Article 2.1 of the Bylaws by not holding elections. The Bylaw states the annual meeting is for the purpose of 'electing or announcing the results of the election of Directors' and transacting 'other business' (which included dissolution), and the HOA was not required to hold elections if results could have been announced or if dissolution proceedings were underway.
Why this result: The Bylaws did not strictly require elections be held, and Petitioner failed to object to the board remaining in place to oversee the dissolution.
Key Issues & Findings
Annual meeting
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated Article 2.1 of the Bylaws by failing to hold Board of Directors elections at the 2021 annual meeting. Respondent argued the language ('for the purpose of electing or announcing the results') did not require elections and that the dissolution vote superseded the immediate need for elections, especially since no one objected at the meeting.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition was denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Video Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H031-REL Decision – 1035344.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:49 (51.8 KB)
23F-H031-REL Decision – 1049021.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:51 (114.7 KB)
Study Guide – 23F-H031-REL
Select all sources
1035344.pdf
1045278.aac
1049021.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
23F-H031-REL
3 sources
These sources document a legal dispute between Clifford S. Burnes and the Saguaro Crest Homeowners’ Association regarding an alleged violation of community bylaws. The conflict centers on a December 2021 annual meeting where the association voted to dissolve the organization but did not hold new elections for its leadership. Burnes argued that Article 2.1 of the bylaws mandated an election, while the association maintained that the dissolution vote rendered new elections unnecessary. An administrative hearing transcript captures the testimony of both parties, highlighting disagreements over meeting procedures and the legal interpretation of governing documents. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, concluding that no mandatory election requirement was violated. The final decision emphasizes that the petitioner failed to object during the meeting and did not meet the burden of proof for his claims.
What are the legal arguments for and against dissolving the HOA?
How did the judge interpret the ‘purpose’ of the annual meeting?
Explain the role of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 2:17 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 23F-H031-REL
Select all sources
1035344.pdf
1045278.aac
1049021.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
23F-H031-REL
3 sources
These sources document a legal dispute between Clifford S. Burnes and the Saguaro Crest Homeowners’ Association regarding an alleged violation of community bylaws. The conflict centers on a December 2021 annual meeting where the association voted to dissolve the organization but did not hold new elections for its leadership. Burnes argued that Article 2.1 of the bylaws mandated an election, while the association maintained that the dissolution vote rendered new elections unnecessary. An administrative hearing transcript captures the testimony of both parties, highlighting disagreements over meeting procedures and the legal interpretation of governing documents. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, concluding that no mandatory election requirement was violated. The final decision emphasizes that the petitioner failed to object during the meeting and did not meet the burden of proof for his claims.
What are the legal arguments for and against dissolving the HOA?
How did the judge interpret the ‘purpose’ of the annual meeting?
Explain the role of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 2:17 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Clifford S. Burnes(petitioner) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Member Also referred to as Clifford (Norm) Burnes.
Respondent Side
John T. Crotty(HOA attorney) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Esmerina Martinez(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association President; referred to as Serena Martinez or Esmerelda Martinez in sources.
Dave Madill(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Vice President; referred to as Dave Matt or Dave Mel in testimony.
Joseph Martinez(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) OAH
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmittal.
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmittal.
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmittal.
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmittal.
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Respondent, Citation Gardens Cooperative #1, does not meet the statutory definition of a planned community, and therefore, the statute prohibiting the denial of solar panels (A.R.S. § 33-1816) does not apply.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1816, as the ALJ determined a cooperative's purposes and functions are separate and distinct from those of a planned community, excluding it from the planned community definition.
Key Issues & Findings
Denial of request to install solar panels
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1816(A) by prohibiting the installation of a solar energy device, arguing the Cooperative qualifies as a planned community. Respondent argued it was a Cooperative Corporation, not a planned community, and the statute did not apply.
Orders: No action is required of Respondent in this matter, and the petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1816
A.R.S. § 33-1802
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Solar Energy Device, Planned Community Definition, Cooperative Housing, Statutory Applicability, Burden of Proof
Does the Arizona law protecting a homeowner's right to install solar panels apply to housing cooperatives?
Short Answer
No. The ALJ ruled that housing cooperatives do not fit the legal definition of a 'planned community,' so the solar protection statute (A.R.S. § 33-1816) does not apply to them.
Detailed Answer
In this case, a member of a cooperative sought to install solar panels, citing A.R.S. § 33-1816, which prevents planned communities from prohibiting solar devices. The judge determined that while the definition of a planned community does not explicitly list cooperatives as an exclusion, the nature and purpose of a cooperative are distinct enough that they do not fall under the planned community statutes. Therefore, the cooperative was not legally required to permit the installation.
Alj Quote
Although the definition of a planned community does not expressly exclude a cooperative, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that a cooperative does not fall within the definition of a planned community, as their purposes and functions are separate and distinct.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1802; A.R.S. § 33-1816
Topic Tags
solar panels
cooperatives
planned community definition
Question
What happens if the HOA or respondent fails to attend the administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The hearing proceeds without them.
Detailed Answer
If the respondent (the HOA or Cooperative) has been properly notified of the hearing time and date but fails to appear or request a continuance, the Administrative Law Judge will conduct the hearing in their absence. The petitioner will still present their case, but the respondent loses the opportunity to defend themselves in person.
Alj Quote
Consequently, given that Respondent was properly noticed of the hearing, the hearing proceeded in Respondent’s absence.
Legal Basis
Procedural Due Process
Topic Tags
hearing procedure
attendance
default
Question
Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute?
Short Answer
The petitioner (typically the homeowner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The person bringing the complaint must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It is not up to the HOA to disprove the claims initially; the homeowner must affirmatively establish that the HOA violated the governing documents or statutes.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
Question
Is a housing cooperative considered a 'planned community' under Arizona law?
Short Answer
No, a cooperative is legally distinct from a planned community.
Detailed Answer
The decision clarifies that a planned community generally involves real estate owned/operated by a nonprofit where owners are mandatory members. A cooperative, however, is formed to acquire, own, and operate a housing project where members hold shares. The judge ruled that these are separate legal concepts with different purposes, meaning statutes specific to 'planned communities' do not automatically apply to cooperatives.
Alj Quote
Respondent is a nonprofit corporation that was formed for the purpose of acquiring, owning and operating a cooperative housing project… the Administrative Law Judge concludes that a cooperative does not fall within the definition of a planned community…
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1802
Topic Tags
definitions
cooperatives
planned community
Question
What is the standard of evidence required to win a hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
To win, the evidence must show that the claim is 'more probably true than not.' This is a lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' used in criminal cases. It means the evidence must incline a fair mind to one side even slightly more than the other.
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
Common Law / A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
evidence
legal standards
Case
Docket No
23F-H026-REL
Case Title
Elizabeth Flint v. Citation Gardens Cooperative #1
Decision Date
2023-04-04
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Does the Arizona law protecting a homeowner's right to install solar panels apply to housing cooperatives?
Short Answer
No. The ALJ ruled that housing cooperatives do not fit the legal definition of a 'planned community,' so the solar protection statute (A.R.S. § 33-1816) does not apply to them.
Detailed Answer
In this case, a member of a cooperative sought to install solar panels, citing A.R.S. § 33-1816, which prevents planned communities from prohibiting solar devices. The judge determined that while the definition of a planned community does not explicitly list cooperatives as an exclusion, the nature and purpose of a cooperative are distinct enough that they do not fall under the planned community statutes. Therefore, the cooperative was not legally required to permit the installation.
Alj Quote
Although the definition of a planned community does not expressly exclude a cooperative, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that a cooperative does not fall within the definition of a planned community, as their purposes and functions are separate and distinct.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1802; A.R.S. § 33-1816
Topic Tags
solar panels
cooperatives
planned community definition
Question
What happens if the HOA or respondent fails to attend the administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The hearing proceeds without them.
Detailed Answer
If the respondent (the HOA or Cooperative) has been properly notified of the hearing time and date but fails to appear or request a continuance, the Administrative Law Judge will conduct the hearing in their absence. The petitioner will still present their case, but the respondent loses the opportunity to defend themselves in person.
Alj Quote
Consequently, given that Respondent was properly noticed of the hearing, the hearing proceeded in Respondent’s absence.
Legal Basis
Procedural Due Process
Topic Tags
hearing procedure
attendance
default
Question
Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute?
Short Answer
The petitioner (typically the homeowner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The person bringing the complaint must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It is not up to the HOA to disprove the claims initially; the homeowner must affirmatively establish that the HOA violated the governing documents or statutes.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
Question
Is a housing cooperative considered a 'planned community' under Arizona law?
Short Answer
No, a cooperative is legally distinct from a planned community.
Detailed Answer
The decision clarifies that a planned community generally involves real estate owned/operated by a nonprofit where owners are mandatory members. A cooperative, however, is formed to acquire, own, and operate a housing project where members hold shares. The judge ruled that these are separate legal concepts with different purposes, meaning statutes specific to 'planned communities' do not automatically apply to cooperatives.
Alj Quote
Respondent is a nonprofit corporation that was formed for the purpose of acquiring, owning and operating a cooperative housing project… the Administrative Law Judge concludes that a cooperative does not fall within the definition of a planned community…
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1802
Topic Tags
definitions
cooperatives
planned community
Question
What is the standard of evidence required to win a hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
To win, the evidence must show that the claim is 'more probably true than not.' This is a lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' used in criminal cases. It means the evidence must incline a fair mind to one side even slightly more than the other.
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
Common Law / A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
evidence
legal standards
Case
Docket No
23F-H026-REL
Case Title
Elizabeth Flint v. Citation Gardens Cooperative #1
Decision Date
2023-04-04
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Elizabeth Flint(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf and testified.
Respondent Side
Andrew Vizcarra(respondent representative) Tucson Realty & Trust Co. Management Services, L.L.C. Did not appear at the hearing; also referenced verbally as 'Andrew Biscara'.
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Other Participants
James Knupp(Acting Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed on the service list for the Order Setting Hearing dated Feb 2, 2023.
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed on the service list for the Decision dated April 4, 2023.
AHansen(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of case documents via email address.
vnunez(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of case documents via email address.
djones(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of case documents via email address.
labril(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of case documents via email address.
