Tag Archives: Burden of Proof

Travis Prall v. Villas at Tierra Buena HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818053-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-01-31
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Travis Prall Counsel —
Respondent Villas at Tierra Buena Homeowners Association Counsel Lydia Pierce Linsmeier

Alleged Violations

Section 7.1.4 of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition following a rehearing, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated Section 7.1.4 of the CC&Rs because there was no credible evidence that the disputed landscaping (tree) had been originally installed by the developer.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the landscaping was originally installed by the Declarant, which was a prerequisite for HOA maintenance responsibility under the relevant CC&R section.

Key Issues & Findings

Neglecting yard maintenance in visible public yards

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&R Section 7.1.4 by failing to maintain a tree in his back yard, arguing the back yard qualified as a 'Public Yard' and the tree was originally installed by the Declarant.

Orders: The Petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA maintenance, CC&R interpretation, burden of proof, landscaping
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818053-REL Decision – 686236.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:46:58 (116.2 KB)

18F-H1818053-REL Decision – 661820.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:47:00 (107.3 KB)

18F-H1818053-REL Decision – 686236.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:14:18 (116.2 KB)

18F-H1818053-REL Decision – 661820.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:14:22 (107.3 KB)

Briefing: Prall v. Villas at Tierra Buena HOA Dispute

Executive Summary

This briefing synthesizes the findings and legal rationale from a homeowners’ association dispute between Petitioner Travis Prall and Respondent Villas at Tierra Buena HOA. The case centered on whether the HOA was responsible for maintaining a tree in the Petitioner’s backyard. The Petitioner alleged the HOA violated Section 7.1.4 of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by neglecting maintenance in what he defined as a “Public Yard.”

The dispute was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, resulting in two decisions, an initial ruling and a subsequent ruling on rehearing, both of which dismissed the Petitioner’s case. The critical takeaway is that the case was decided not on the ambiguous definition of “Public” versus “Private” yards, but on a crucial qualifying clause in the CC&Rs. Section 7.1.4 obligates the HOA to maintain landscaping only “as originally installed by Declarant.”

The Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that the tree in question was part of the original developer’s landscaping. Conversely, the HOA presented credible testimony from an early homeowner and board member stating that all backyards in the community were sold as “just dirt,” with no developer-installed landscaping or irrigation. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Petitioner’s arguments were based on “suppositions and inferences” and did not meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard required to prove his claim.

Case Overview

This dispute was initiated by a petition filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate and adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings. The core issue was the interpretation of HOA maintenance responsibilities as defined in the community’s governing documents.

Case Detail

Information

Case Number

18F-H1818053-REL

Petitioner

Travis Prall

Respondent

Villas at Tierra Buena HOA

Adjudicator

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

Initial Hearing

September 4, 2018

Initial Decision

September 24, 2018 (Petition Dismissed)

Rehearing

January 11, 2019

Final Decision

January 31, 2019 (Petition Dismissed)

Timeline of Key Events

• 2010: Petitioner Travis Prall purchases his home, an “interior” unit, and believes the HOA is responsible for both front and backyard maintenance.

• July 26, 2014: A storm knocks over a large tree in the Petitioner’s backyard. He pays for its removal while asserting it was the HOA’s responsibility.

• Post-2014: The tree regrows from its remaining trunk.

• 2018: The HOA observes that the regrown tree’s roots are causing a “pony wall” to buckle and hires Sun King Fencing & Gates to perform repairs. The repair company recommends removing the tree to prevent recurrence.

• May 3, 2018: The HOA issues a “Courtesy Letter” to the Petitioner, requesting he “trim or remove the tree in the back yard causing damage to the pony wall.”

• June 4, 2018: In response, the Petitioner files a Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, initiating the legal proceedings.

Central Allegation and Dispute

The Petitioner alleged that the Villas at Tierra Buena HOA violated Section 7.1.4 of its CC&Rs by “neglecting yard maintenance in visible public yards.” His central claim was that his backyard, though enclosed, qualifies as a “Public Yard” under the CC&Rs and that the HOA was therefore responsible for the maintenance and removal of the problematic tree. The HOA’s demand that he handle the tree himself constituted, in his view, a violation of their duties.

Analysis of Arguments and Evidence

The case presented conflicting interpretations of the CC&Rs and opposing accounts of historical maintenance practices.

Petitioner’s Position (Travis Prall)

The Petitioner’s case was built on his interpretation of the CC&Rs and inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence.

• CC&R Interpretation: Argued that his backyard is a “Public Yard” because, while enclosed by a four-foot wall (two-foot block plus two-foot aluminum fence), it is “generally visible from Neighboring Property” via a community walkway.

• Claim of Prior Maintenance: Testified that from 2010 to 2013, the HOA did provide landscaping maintenance for his backyard.

• Inferences about Original Landscaping:

◦ Posited that the large size of the tree in 2010 indicated it must have been planted by the original developer around 2000.

◦ Argued that the similar design of irrigation systems across the community suggested they were all installed during original construction, including those in backyards.

◦ Noted that the sprinkler system in his backyard wrapped around the tree, further suggesting they were installed together by the developer.

Respondent’s Position (Villas at Tierra Buena HOA)

The Respondent’s defense relied on its own interpretation of the CC&Rs, consistent historical practice, and direct testimony regarding the community’s development.

• CC&R Interpretation: Argued that an “enclosed” yard is, by definition, a “Private Yard,” making the homeowner responsible for its maintenance.

• Denial of Prior Maintenance: Stated unequivocally that it had never provided landscaping services for any resident’s backyard. Its responsibility is limited to front yards and common areas.

• Practical and Liability Concerns: Argued that it has no access to control backyard irrigation systems and that its workers entering enclosed yards would create liability issues, such as pets escaping.

• Crucial Rehearing Testimony: Presented testimony from Maureen Karpinski, the HOA Board President.

◦ Ms. Karpinski, a real estate agent, purchased her home from the developer in 2002 and was involved with the community during its construction phase.

◦ She testified with certainty that her backyard was “just dirt” with no landscaping or irrigation when she purchased it.

◦ She stated that, to the best of her knowledge, “none of the homes in Respondent’s community were sold with any landscaping or irrigation in the back yards and were just dirt.”

Interpretation of Governing CC&R Sections

The dispute revolved around the specific language in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements.

Section

Provision

Significance in the Case

The HOA must “Replace and maintain all landscaping and other Improvements as originally installed by Declarant on the Public Yards of Lots…“

This became the dispositive clause. The Petitioner’s entire claim depended on proving the tree was “originally installed by Declarant.”

“Private Yard” means that portion of a Yard which is enclosed or shielded from view… so that it is not generally Visible from Neighboring Property. “Public Yard” means that portion of a Yard which is generally visible from Neighboring Property…

This created a central point of interpretive conflict. The Petitioner argued the clause meant “enclosed and not visible,” while the HOA argued it meant “enclosed or shielded.” The Judge ultimately did not rule on this ambiguity.

“Visible from Neighboring Property” means… visible to a person six feet tall standing on any part of such neighboring property…

This definition supported the Petitioner’s claim that his backyard was, in fact, “visible” from the common area walkway.

Administrative Law Judge’s Rulings and Rationale

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the Petitioner’s case in both the initial hearing and the rehearing, focusing on the burden of proof related to a single, critical phrase in the CC&Rs.

Initial Decision (September 24, 2018)

• Avoidance of Ambiguity: The ALJ acknowledged the potential merit of the Petitioner’s interpretation of “Public Yard,” stating “the language of the CC&Rs may lend itself to a reading that Respondent is responsible for the maintenance of the enclosed back yards of the interior homes.” However, the ALJ concluded the tribunal was “not required to reach that issue in this matter.”

• Focus on “Originally Installed by Declarant”: The decision hinged entirely on Section 7.1.4. The ALJ found that the “Petitioner failed to present any evidence that the tree at issue was originally installed by the Declarant.”

• Lack of Proof: The ALJ noted that the tree’s rapid regrowth from 2013 to 2018 made it impossible to conclude that the original tree must have been planted by the developer in 2000.

• Conclusion: The Petitioner failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” burden of proof, and the petition was dismissed.

Rehearing Decision (January 31, 2019)

• Rejection of Petitioner’s Inferences: The ALJ characterized the Petitioner’s evidence regarding the tree’s age and the irrigation system as “suppositions and inferences.”

• Credibility of Respondent’s Testimony: In contrast, the ALJ found the testimony of HOA President Maureen Karpinski to be “the only credible evidence offered regarding the landscaping of the homes.”

• Definitive Factual Finding: Based on Ms. Karpinski’s testimony, the ALJ concluded there was “no evidence there was any landscaping or improvements originally installed by Declarant.”

• Final Conclusion: As the precondition of Section 7.1.4 (that landscaping be “originally installed by Declarant”) was not met, the HOA had no maintenance duty for the Petitioner’s backyard. The Petitioner again failed to establish his case by a preponderance of the evidence, and the petition was dismissed with finality.

Study Guide: Prall v. Villas at Tierra Buena HOA

Short Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following ten questions based on the provided legal decisions. Each answer should be two to three sentences long.

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

2. What specific section of the governing documents did the Petitioner allege was violated, and what was the central claim of his petition?

3. Describe the key physical differences between the “interior homes” and “exterior homes” within the Villas at Tierra Buena community as detailed in the hearing.

4. What incident in 2018 prompted the HOA to issue a “Courtesy Letter” to the Petitioner, and what action did the letter request?

5. Explain the two conflicting interpretations of the term “Private Yard” as argued by the Petitioner and the Respondent.

6. What was the Petitioner’s claim regarding the HOA’s past maintenance practices in his backyard, and how did the Respondent counter this assertion?

7. What is the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and how is this standard defined in the legal decision?

8. According to the Administrative Law Judge’s decisions, what was the single most critical point the Petitioner failed to prove, which ultimately led to the dismissal of his case?

9. During the rehearing, what crucial testimony was provided by the HOA’s witness, Maureen Karpinski, and why was it deemed the “only credible evidence” on the matter?

10. What was the final outcome of both the initial hearing on September 4, 2018, and the subsequent rehearing on January 11, 2019?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. Who were the primary parties in this legal dispute, and what were their respective roles? The Petitioner was Travis Prall, the homeowner who filed the dispute. The Respondent was the Villas at Tierra Buena Homeowners Association (HOA), which was defending against the Petitioner’s claims. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer.

2. What specific section of the governing documents did the Petitioner allege was violated, and what was the central claim of his petition? The Petitioner alleged a violation of Section 7.1.4 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (CC&Rs). His central claim was that the HOA violated this section by neglecting its duty to perform yard maintenance in his backyard, which he argued was a “visible public yard.”

3. Describe the key physical differences between the “interior homes” and “exterior homes” within the Villas at Tierra Buena community as detailed in the hearing. The exterior homes feature six to seven-foot-tall block wall fences enclosing their backyards. In contrast, the interior homes, including the Petitioner’s, have a shorter back wall consisting of a two-foot block wall topped with a two-foot aluminum fence, making the total height approximately four feet and more visible from a common walkway.

4. What incident in 2018 prompted the HOA to issue a “Courtesy Letter” to the Petitioner, and what action did the letter request? In 2018, the HOA had a “pony wall” in the Petitioner’s backyard repaired and was informed by the repair company, Sun King Fencing & Gates, that the wall had buckled due to tree roots. Consequently, the HOA issued a Courtesy Letter on May 3, 2018, requesting that the Petitioner “trim or remove the tree in the back yard causing damage to the pony wall.”

5. Explain the two conflicting interpretations of the term “Private Yard” as argued by the Petitioner and the Respondent. The Respondent argued that a yard is considered a “Private Yard” if it is enclosed or shielded from view, meaning any enclosed yard qualified. The Petitioner argued that the definition should be read to mean a yard is private only if it is enclosed so that it is not generally visible from neighboring property, implying visibility was the key factor.

6. What was the Petitioner’s claim regarding the HOA’s past maintenance practices in his backyard, and how did the Respondent counter this assertion? The Petitioner testified that from 2010 to 2013, the HOA had provided landscaping maintenance for his backyard. The Respondent denied this claim, stating that it had never provided any landscaping maintenance to any backyards in the community and raised liability concerns about entering residents’ enclosed yards.

7. What is the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and how is this standard defined in the legal decision? The Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” representing the greater weight of evidence.

8. According to the Administrative Law Judge’s decisions, what was the single most critical point the Petitioner failed to prove, which ultimately led to the dismissal of his case? The judge ruled that the Petitioner failed to present evidence proving that the tree in his backyard was “originally installed by the Declarant” (the developer). According to Section 7.1.4 of the CC&Rs, the HOA’s maintenance responsibility only applied to landscaping and improvements installed by the original community developer.

9. During the rehearing, what crucial testimony was provided by the HOA’s witness, Maureen Karpinski, and why was it deemed the “only credible evidence” on the matter? Maureen Karpinski testified that none of the homes in the community were sold with any landscaping or irrigation in the backyards and that they were “just dirt” at the time of purchase. Her testimony was considered credible because she was a real estate agent involved in the initial sales, had walked the community with many buyers during construction, and was herself an original buyer.

10. What was the final outcome of both the initial hearing on September 4, 2018, and the subsequent rehearing on January 11, 2019? In both the initial decision issued on September 24, 2018, and the final decision issued after the rehearing on January 31, 2019, the Petitioner’s petition was dismissed. The judge concluded in both instances that the Petitioner had failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA had violated the CC&Rs.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style answers. Do not provide answers.

1. Analyze the competing interpretations of “Public Yard” versus “Private Yard” as defined in Section 1.38 of the CC&Rs. Explain why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found it unnecessary to rule on this specific issue to reach a decision.

2. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied in this case. How did the “preponderance of the evidence” standard shape the proceedings, and what specific types of evidence (or lack thereof) were most influential in the judge’s final decision?

3. Trace the timeline of the dispute over the tree in Travis Prall’s backyard, from the 2014 storm to the final legal decision in 2019. How did each key event contribute to the escalation of the conflict and the arguments presented at the hearings?

4. Compare the evidence presented by Travis Prall with the evidence presented by the Villas at Tierra Buena HOA at the rehearing. Why did the judge characterize Prall’s evidence as “suppositions and inferences” while deeming the HOA’s evidence “credible”?

5. Section 7.1.4 of the CC&Rs contains the phrase “as originally installed by Declarant.” Explain the critical importance of this phrase to the outcome of the case and how it became the dispositive legal issue, overshadowing all other arguments.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official who presides over administrative hearings, weighs evidence, and makes legal decisions, in this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)

The state agency with which the initial Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition was filed.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof.

An acronym for Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements, which are the governing legal documents for a planned community.

Common Area

Areas within the community maintained by the HOA for the benefit of all residents. The HOA provides landscaping for these areas.

Courtesy Letter

A formal notice sent by the HOA to a homeowner regarding a potential violation or required action. In this case, it requested the removal of a tree causing damage.

Declarant

The original developer of the planned community who installed the initial infrastructure and landscaping.

HOA Dispute Process Petition

The formal document filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate by a homeowner to initiate a legal hearing regarding an alleged violation by their HOA.

Improvements

A term used in the CC&Rs referring to any additions to a lot other than the main residential dwelling, including landscaping.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or files a petition. In this case, the homeowner Travis Prall.

Pony Wall

A term used to describe the short, two-foot-tall block wall in the backyards of the interior homes, which was buckling due to tree roots.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case, defined as evidence that is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other,” making a contention “more probably true than not.”

Private Yard

As defined in the CC&Rs, a portion of a yard “which is enclosed or shielded from view… so that it is not generally Visible from Neighboring Property.” The interpretation of this definition was a point of contention.

Public Yard

As defined in the CC&Rs, the portion of a yard “which is generally visible from Neighboring Property,” regardless of its location on the lot. The HOA is responsible for maintaining landscaping originally installed by the Declarant in Public Yards.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed; the party that must respond to the claims. In this case, the Villas at Tierra Buena HOA.

Visible from Neighboring Property

A term defined in the CC&Rs to mean an object that would be visible to a six-foot-tall person standing on a neighboring property. It includes a specific exception for objects visible only through a wrought iron fence.

As defined in the CC&Rs, “the portion of the Lot devoted to Improvements other than the Residential Dwelling.”

⚖️

18F-H1818053-REL-RHG

2 sources

These documents are two Administrative Law Judge Decisions from the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings concerning a dispute between Travis Prall, the Petitioner, and the Villas at Tierra Buena HOA, the Respondent. The first document outlines the initial decision, dated September 24, 2018, which dismissed Mr. Prall’s petition arguing the HOA violated their Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements (CC&Rs) by neglecting yard maintenance. The second document is the decision following a rehearing requested by the Petitioner, dated January 31, 2019, which reaffirmed the initial dismissal, concluding that Mr. Prall failed to prove that the landscaping in question was originally installed by the Declarant, a prerequisite for the HOA’s maintenance responsibility under the CC&Rs. Both decisions rely heavily on interpreting sections of the CC&Rs, particularly the definitions of “Public Yard” versus “Private Yard,” to determine the HOA’s obligation. Ultimately, both rulings found that the Petitioner did not meet his burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Travis Prall (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Lydia Pierce Linsmeier (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
    Represented Villas at Tierra Buena HOA
  • Nicole Payne (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
    Represented Villas at Tierra Buena HOA
  • Maureen Karpinski (board member)
    Villas at Tierra Buena HOA
    President of the Board; testified
  • Frank Peake (property manager)
    Pride Community Management
    Owner of Pride Community Management; testified
  • Rebecca Stowers (community manager)
    Community Manager; testified at initial hearing

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Patricia Davies-Brown vs. Starwood Estates Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818039-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-09-14
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome The Petitioners' request alleging that the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association violated community documents by approving a copper-colored metal roof was denied. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioners failed to establish the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, noting that the guidelines prohibiting reflective surfaces applied primarily to windows and doors, not roofs.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs; Bylaws; Architectural Guidelines

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

Orders: Petitioners' petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818039-REL Decision – 653217.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:12:08 (41.6 KB)

18F-H1818039-REL Decision – 659968.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:12:20 (104.6 KB)

18F-H1818039-REL Decision – 653217.pdf

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

18F-H1818039-REL Decision – 659968.pdf

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

Briefing Document: Davies-Brown v. Starwood Estates HOA

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

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

• Case Number: 18F-H1818039-REL

• Forum: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

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

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

• Final Decision Date: September 14, 2018

Key Parties and Representatives

Name(s)

Representation / Contact

Petitioners

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

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

Respondent

Starwood Estates Homeowners Association

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

Homeowners

Jeff and Karen Martin

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

Core Dispute: The Martin Residence Roof

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

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

Petitioners’ Allegations and Arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Procedural Violations:

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

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

Respondent’s Defense and Arguments

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

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

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

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

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

Referenced Governing Documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence Presented

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

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

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

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

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

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

Conclusions of Law

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

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

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

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

Final Order

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions for Further Study

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition in Context

ACC (Architectural Committee)

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

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

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

Architectural Guidelines

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

Board of Directors (Board)

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

Bylaws

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

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

Conclusions of Law

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

Findings of Fact

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

Petitioner

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

Preponderance of the evidence

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

Respondent

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

Restrictive Covenant

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

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

Introduction: The Neighborhood Dispute That Went to Court

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Before You Build or Battle, Do Your Homework

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

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

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

Charles Mandela vs. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1817006-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-12-06
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the homeowner's petition, finding that the HOA did not violate its CC&Rs by allowing play structures on properties that already contained a detached garage or shed, because play structures are not easily convertible into a second residence, which was the underlying concern of the relevant CC&R section.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Charles Mandela Counsel —
Respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association Counsel Brian C. Axt, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs § 3.1(a); Architectural Committee Aligned Standard 3(D)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the homeowner's petition, finding that the HOA did not violate its CC&Rs by allowing play structures on properties that already contained a detached garage or shed, because play structures are not easily convertible into a second residence, which was the underlying concern of the relevant CC&R section.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&R § 3.1. The ALJ determined that the HOA correctly clarified the status of play structures through an amendment to the Architectural Committee's regulations.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&Rs § 3.1(a) and Architectural Committee regulation 3(D) regarding allowing play structures (swing sets, treehouses) when another detached structure (garage or shed) is present.

Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs § 3.1(a) and Architectural Committee regulation 3(D) by permitting members to construct play structures (swingsets, treehouses, etc.) on properties that already contained one detached structure (garage or shed), arguing that the rules allowed only one detached structure of any type.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied because he failed to establish that CC&R § 3.1 prohibits play structures under any circumstances. All play structures that the Architectural Committee has previously approved are allowed to remain, and the Architectural Committee may consider and grant future Play Structure Approval Requests.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA governance, CC&R interpretation, detached structures, play structures, Architectural Committee regulations, burden of proof
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1817006-REL Decision – 604710.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:07:52 (155.4 KB)

18F-H1817006-REL Decision – 604710.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:21:47 (155.4 KB)

Briefing Document: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association (No. 18F-H1817006-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision regarding a dispute between a homeowner, Charles Mandela (“Petitioner”), and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association (“Respondent”). The core issue was whether the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by permitting homeowners to install play structures (e.g., swing sets, treehouses) on lots that already contained another detached structure, such as a garage or shed.

The Petitioner argued that the HOA had historically enforced a strict “one detached structure” rule and that its recent allowance of play structures constituted a violation of CC&R § 3.1. In contrast, the Respondent contended that the underlying intent of the CC&Rs was to prevent secondary residential dwellings, not to prohibit recreational structures consistent with a family-oriented community. The HOA asserted it had properly amended its Architectural Committee regulations, not the CC&Rs, to clarify this distinction.

The ALJ ruled decisively in favor of the Respondent HOA. The central finding was that the intent of the restrictive covenant was to maintain the single-family residential character of the community. Because play structures cannot be easily converted into secondary residences, they are not inconsistent with this intent. The ALJ concluded that the HOA was not required to amend the CC&Rs (which requires a 75% member vote) but acted within its authority to amend its rules and regulations via a simple board vote. The Petitioner’s petition was denied.

Case Overview

• Case Number: 18F-H1817006-REL

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Charles Mandela

◦ Respondent: Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association

• Hearing Date: November 28, 2017

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky

• Core Allegation: The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R § 3.1(a) and Architectural Committee Aligned Standard 3(D) by allowing members to build play structures, swing sets, or treehouses on properties that already had another detached structure like a garage or shed.

Central Arguments and Presented Evidence

Petitioner’s Position (Charles Mandela)

The Petitioner’s case was built on the premise of a long-standing, strict interpretation of the “one detached structure” rule.

• Core Argument: For 18 years, the Respondent interpreted CC&R § 3.1 to permit only one detached structure on any given lot, regardless of its type.

• Evidence and Testimony:

◦ Historical Enforcement: Testified that between 2002 and 2016, the HOA enforced this rule by removing nine non-compliant structures, including a gazebo, a playhouse, an observation deck, and a zipline structure.

◦ 2006 Legal Opinion: Submitted a February 7, 2006, letter from the law firm Carpenter Hazlewood, PLC, which opined on the ambiguity of CC&R § 3.1. The letter stated, “It still appears that only one structure (garage or shed) is permitted,” and supported the HOA’s ability to “enforce the ‘one detached structure’ requirement.” The letter did not specifically mention play structures.

◦ Invalid Approval Form: Presented a “Play Structure Approval Request” form he had drafted while on the board. This form incorrectly stated that the Board of Directors had voted on June 25, 2016, “to adopt changes to the CCR’s [sic], which will allow play structures.” Petitioner argued this was invalid because changing the CC&Rs requires a 75% vote of the membership, which was not obtained.

◦ Ancillary Documents: Submitted documents related to a housing discrimination claim filed by the HOA’s current president, Joseph Hancock, and a letter concerning another member. Petitioner testified these matters involved play structures, though the documents themselves did not mention CC&R § 3.1.

Respondent’s Position (Blue Ridge Estates HOA)

The Respondent’s defense centered on the purpose of the CC&Rs and its authority as a board to clarify and amend its own rules and regulations.

• Core Argument: The HOA did not violate the CC&Rs because the intent of the relevant articles is to prohibit secondary residential dwellings, not recreational structures suitable for a community intended to be a “uniquely planned recreation property.”

• Evidence and Testimony:

◦ Community Status: There are currently 16 swingsets or play structures within the 193-lot development. The HOA president, Joseph Hancock, testified he has a swingset used by his children, grandchildren, and neighbors.

◦ Legal Counsel: The HOA retained the firm of Poli & Ball, PLC, which opined that because the community is for recreation and family use, “[p]lay structures are perfectly consistent with recreation and family use.” The firm advised that the Architectural Committee’s regulations could be changed to reflect this without amending the CC&Rs. Another law firm, Carpenter Hazlewood, generally agreed with this opinion.

◦ Correction of Clerical Error: Mr. Hancock testified that the form submitted by the Petitioner contained a typographical error. The board’s intent in its June 25, 2016, vote was to amend the Architectural Committee’s regulations, not the CC&Rs.

◦ Board Meeting Minutes: The HOA submitted minutes from board meetings in December 2016 and October 2017. These minutes document the board’s discovery of the error on the website form and subsequent votes to formally clarify that the change was to the rules and regulations, not the CC&Rs, thereby ratifying its decision.

◦ Amended Approval Form: Respondent submitted the corrected “Play Structure Approval Request” form, which states, “Per the modified Rules and Regulations dated April 6, 2016, this form must be submitted to Architectural Committee for approval of any Play Structure.”

Governing Rules and Covenants

The dispute hinged on the interpretation and interplay of several key provisions in the community’s governing documents.

Document / Section

Key Provision

CC&R § 3.1

“No building or structure shall be erected or maintained separate from the Single Family Residence located on any Lot, other than a garage… No garage or shed shall be built prior to the issuance of a Coconino County building permit for the construction of a Single Family Residence.”

Architectural Regulation 3(D)

“One detached structure may, with Architectural Committee approval, be constructed on a property. The residence must be constructed and completed before the detached structure is built.”

CC&R § 4.2

“By a majority vote of the Board, the Association may, from time to time… adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations to be known as the ‘Rules and Regulations.’”

CC&R § 12.2

Amending the Declaration of CC&Rs requires “the affirmative vote… or written consent of Members owning at least seventy-five percent (75%) of all Lots.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Legal Rationale

The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof and that the Respondent acted properly within its authority.

• Intent of the Covenant: The Judge determined that CC&R Article III is fundamentally “concerned with keeping Respondent single-family residential by prohibiting structures and vehicles that could be used as a second residential dwelling on a lot.” This interpretation is supported by other rules in the article prohibiting mobile homes and clarifying that “If you can live/sleep in it, you cannot park it” in the development.

• Status of Play Structures: The decision concludes that a play structure “cannot be easily converted into a second residence.” Therefore, permitting a play structure in addition to a garage or shed is not inconsistent with the primary purpose of CC&R § 3.1.

• Board Authority vs. Member Vote: Because allowing play structures was not inconsistent with the CC&Rs, the Respondent was not required to amend the CC&Rs through a 75% member vote. Instead, the Board was empowered by CC&R § 4.2 to “amend the Architectural Committee’s regulations to provide clarification on the status of play structures” through a majority vote of the Board.

• History of Enforcement: The Judge found that the Petitioner failed to establish a uniform history of enforcement against play structures. Rather, “it appears that the status of play structures, swingsets, and tree houses has been unsettled and the subject of some contention,” partly due to the Petitioner’s own advocacy.

• Conclusion: The Respondent properly resolved the ambiguity by amending its regulations.

Final Order and Implications

• Decision: The petition was denied because the Petitioner did not establish that CC&R § 3.1 prohibits play structures under any circumstances.

• Outcome for the Community:

1. The HOA’s amendment of its rules to explicitly permit play structures was deemed valid.

2. All play structures previously approved by the Architectural Committee are allowed to remain on members’ properties.

3. The Architectural Committee is authorized to consider and approve future Play Structure Approval Requests that are submitted in accordance with the established regulations.

Study Guide for Administrative Law Judge Decision No. 18F-H1817006-REL

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, based on the provided source document.

1. Who were the primary parties in case No. 18F-H1817006-REL, and what was their relationship?

2. What specific violation did the Petitioner, Charles Mandela, allege against the Respondent?

3. What is the legal standard of proof required in this case, and which party bears the initial burden?

4. According to the CC&Rs, what is the procedural difference between amending the CC&Rs and amending the “Rules and Regulations”?

5. What was the Petitioner’s primary evidence to support his claim that the HOA historically enforced a “one detached structure” rule?

6. How did the Respondent, Blue Ridge Estates HOA, legally justify its decision to permit play structures even on lots that already had a detached garage or shed?

7. How did the Respondent explain the document from its website which stated that the Board had voted to “adopt changes to the CCR’s”?

8. What did the law firm Poli & Ball conclude regarding the permissibility of play structures within the community?

9. What did Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky determine was the primary intent of Article III of the CC&Rs?

10. What was the final Recommended Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Quiz Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Charles Mandela, and the Respondent, Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association. Mr. Mandela is a homeowner within the Blue Ridge Estates development and a member of the homeowners’ association.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated CC&Rs § 3.1(a) and Architectural Committee regulation 3(D). He claimed the HOA wrongly allowed members to build play structures, swing sets, or treehouses on their properties when another detached structure, such as a garage or shed, already existed.

3. The legal standard is “preponderance of the evidence,” which means the evidence must convince the judge that a contention is more probably true than not. The Petitioner, Charles Mandela, bears the initial burden of proof to establish that a violation occurred.

4. To amend the CC&Rs (the Declaration), an affirmative vote or written consent from members owning at least 75% of all lots is required. In contrast, the Board of Directors can adopt, amend, or repeal “Rules and Regulations” by a simple majority vote of the Board.

5. The Petitioner testified that between 2002 and 2016, the HOA removed nine non-compliant structures, including a gazebo and a playhouse. He also submitted a 2006 letter from the law firm Carpenter Hazlewood, which opined that the HOA could enforce a “one detached structure” requirement.

6. The Respondent argued that the intent of the CC&Rs was to prevent second residential dwellings on a lot, not to prohibit recreational items consistent with a family community. Therefore, the Board acted within its authority under CC&R § 4.2 to amend the Architectural Committee’s regulations to clarify that play structures are permitted.

7. The Respondent’s president, Joseph Hancock, testified that the wording was a typographical error made by the previous Chair of the Architectural Committee (the Petitioner). Board meeting minutes from December 2016 and October 2017 were submitted as evidence to show the Board’s actual intent was to modify the rules and regulations, not the CC&Rs.

8. The Poli & Ball law firm opined that play structures are “perfectly consistent with recreation and family use” in a community intended to be a planned recreation property. The firm concluded that the HOA could change the Architectural Committee’s regulations to allow them as long as the change was consistent with the CC&Rs.

9. The Judge concluded that the purpose of Article III is to keep the community single-family residential by prohibiting structures and vehicles that could be used as a second dwelling. Since a play structure cannot be easily converted into a second residence, allowing one did not violate the intent of the CC&Rs.

10. The Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The Judge found that the Petitioner had not established that CC&R § 3.1 prohibits play structures under any circumstances, and that the HOA had properly resolved the issue by amending its regulations.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response for each, drawing upon specific facts, arguments, and legal principles from the source document.

1. Discuss the critical distinction between amending the community’s CC&Rs and amending the Architectural Committee’s regulations. Explain how this distinction became the central pivot upon which the entire case turned.

2. Analyze the evidence presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s exhibits and testimony, and explain why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found the Respondent’s evidence more persuasive.

3. The “Conclusions of Law” section discusses the legal principle of interpreting restrictive covenants based on the “intent of the parties.” How did Judge Mihalsky apply this principle to CC&R § 3.1, and how did the community’s stated purpose as a “uniquely planned recreation property” influence this interpretation?

4. Charles Mandela, the Petitioner, was a former board member and president of the Architectural Committee who drafted one of the key documents in question. Discuss how his past involvement in HOA governance may have shaped his legal position and the evidence he presented.

5. Trace the timeline of the “play structure” controversy as detailed in the hearing evidence, from the 2015 discrimination claim to the “clarification vote” in October 2017. How does this sequence of events illustrate the challenges of community governance and rule interpretation within a homeowners’ association?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent, impartial judge who presides over administrative hearings at government agencies. In this case, the ALJ from the Office of Administrative Hearings heard the dispute between the homeowner and the HOA.

Architectural Committee

A committee within the homeowners’ association responsible for approving any construction, alteration, or improvement to the exterior of any property to ensure it complies with community standards.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this hearing, the Petitioner had the burden to prove his claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

A legally binding document that governs a planned community or subdivision. It outlines the rights and obligations of the homeowners and the homeowners’ association.

Declaration

The formal legal document that creates the homeowners’ association and its CC&Rs. In this case, amending the Declaration required a 75% vote of the members.

Detached Structure

A building on a property that is separate from the main residence. The dispute centered on whether play structures counted as the “one detached structure” permitted by the CC&Rs.

Improvements

A broad term defined in the CC&Rs (§ 1.17) to include buildings, garages, fences, walls, landscaping, and all other structures of every type and kind on a property.

Jurisdiction

The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The judge noted that if Title 33 did not apply, the Office of Administrative Hearings would lack jurisdiction to hear the case.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, homeowner Charles Mandela.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases. It requires the trier of fact (the judge) to be convinced that a claim is more probably true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association.

Restrictive Covenant

A provision in a deed or CC&Rs that limits the use of the property. The “one detached structure” rule is an example of a restrictive covenant.

Single Family Residential Use

The designated purpose of the properties in Blue Ridge Estates, meaning they are to be used exclusively as private homes for single families, not for commercial or multi-family dwelling purposes.

Briefing Document: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association (No. 18F-H1817006-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision regarding a dispute between a homeowner, Charles Mandela (“Petitioner”), and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association (“Respondent”). The core issue was whether the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by permitting homeowners to install play structures (e.g., swing sets, treehouses) on lots that already contained another detached structure, such as a garage or shed.

The Petitioner argued that the HOA had historically enforced a strict “one detached structure” rule and that its recent allowance of play structures constituted a violation of CC&R § 3.1. In contrast, the Respondent contended that the underlying intent of the CC&Rs was to prevent secondary residential dwellings, not to prohibit recreational structures consistent with a family-oriented community. The HOA asserted it had properly amended its Architectural Committee regulations, not the CC&Rs, to clarify this distinction.

The ALJ ruled decisively in favor of the Respondent HOA. The central finding was that the intent of the restrictive covenant was to maintain the single-family residential character of the community. Because play structures cannot be easily converted into secondary residences, they are not inconsistent with this intent. The ALJ concluded that the HOA was not required to amend the CC&Rs (which requires a 75% member vote) but acted within its authority to amend its rules and regulations via a simple board vote. The Petitioner’s petition was denied.

Case Overview

• Case Number: 18F-H1817006-REL

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Charles Mandela

◦ Respondent: Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association

• Hearing Date: November 28, 2017

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky

• Core Allegation: The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R § 3.1(a) and Architectural Committee Aligned Standard 3(D) by allowing members to build play structures, swing sets, or treehouses on properties that already had another detached structure like a garage or shed.

Central Arguments and Presented Evidence

Petitioner’s Position (Charles Mandela)

The Petitioner’s case was built on the premise of a long-standing, strict interpretation of the “one detached structure” rule.

• Core Argument: For 18 years, the Respondent interpreted CC&R § 3.1 to permit only one detached structure on any given lot, regardless of its type.

• Evidence and Testimony:

◦ Historical Enforcement: Testified that between 2002 and 2016, the HOA enforced this rule by removing nine non-compliant structures, including a gazebo, a playhouse, an observation deck, and a zipline structure.

◦ 2006 Legal Opinion: Submitted a February 7, 2006, letter from the law firm Carpenter Hazlewood, PLC, which opined on the ambiguity of CC&R § 3.1. The letter stated, “It still appears that only one structure (garage or shed) is permitted,” and supported the HOA’s ability to “enforce the ‘one detached structure’ requirement.” The letter did not specifically mention play structures.

◦ Invalid Approval Form: Presented a “Play Structure Approval Request” form he had drafted while on the board. This form incorrectly stated that the Board of Directors had voted on June 25, 2016, “to adopt changes to the CCR’s [sic], which will allow play structures.” Petitioner argued this was invalid because changing the CC&Rs requires a 75% vote of the membership, which was not obtained.

◦ Ancillary Documents: Submitted documents related to a housing discrimination claim filed by the HOA’s current president, Joseph Hancock, and a letter concerning another member. Petitioner testified these matters involved play structures, though the documents themselves did not mention CC&R § 3.1.

Respondent’s Position (Blue Ridge Estates HOA)

The Respondent’s defense centered on the purpose of the CC&Rs and its authority as a board to clarify and amend its own rules and regulations.

• Core Argument: The HOA did not violate the CC&Rs because the intent of the relevant articles is to prohibit secondary residential dwellings, not recreational structures suitable for a community intended to be a “uniquely planned recreation property.”

• Evidence and Testimony:

◦ Community Status: There are currently 16 swingsets or play structures within the 193-lot development. The HOA president, Joseph Hancock, testified he has a swingset used by his children, grandchildren, and neighbors.

◦ Legal Counsel: The HOA retained the firm of Poli & Ball, PLC, which opined that because the community is for recreation and family use, “[p]lay structures are perfectly consistent with recreation and family use.” The firm advised that the Architectural Committee’s regulations could be changed to reflect this without amending the CC&Rs. Another law firm, Carpenter Hazlewood, generally agreed with this opinion.

◦ Correction of Clerical Error: Mr. Hancock testified that the form submitted by the Petitioner contained a typographical error. The board’s intent in its June 25, 2016, vote was to amend the Architectural Committee’s regulations, not the CC&Rs.

◦ Board Meeting Minutes: The HOA submitted minutes from board meetings in December 2016 and October 2017. These minutes document the board’s discovery of the error on the website form and subsequent votes to formally clarify that the change was to the rules and regulations, not the CC&Rs, thereby ratifying its decision.

◦ Amended Approval Form: Respondent submitted the corrected “Play Structure Approval Request” form, which states, “Per the modified Rules and Regulations dated April 6, 2016, this form must be submitted to Architectural Committee for approval of any Play Structure.”

Governing Rules and Covenants

The dispute hinged on the interpretation and interplay of several key provisions in the community’s governing documents.

Document / Section

Key Provision

CC&R § 3.1

“No building or structure shall be erected or maintained separate from the Single Family Residence located on any Lot, other than a garage… No garage or shed shall be built prior to the issuance of a Coconino County building permit for the construction of a Single Family Residence.”

Architectural Regulation 3(D)

“One detached structure may, with Architectural Committee approval, be constructed on a property. The residence must be constructed and completed before the detached structure is built.”

CC&R § 4.2

“By a majority vote of the Board, the Association may, from time to time… adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations to be known as the ‘Rules and Regulations.’”

CC&R § 12.2

Amending the Declaration of CC&Rs requires “the affirmative vote… or written consent of Members owning at least seventy-five percent (75%) of all Lots.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Legal Rationale

The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof and that the Respondent acted properly within its authority.

• Intent of the Covenant: The Judge determined that CC&R Article III is fundamentally “concerned with keeping Respondent single-family residential by prohibiting structures and vehicles that could be used as a second residential dwelling on a lot.” This interpretation is supported by other rules in the article prohibiting mobile homes and clarifying that “If you can live/sleep in it, you cannot park it” in the development.

• Status of Play Structures: The decision concludes that a play structure “cannot be easily converted into a second residence.” Therefore, permitting a play structure in addition to a garage or shed is not inconsistent with the primary purpose of CC&R § 3.1.

• Board Authority vs. Member Vote: Because allowing play structures was not inconsistent with the CC&Rs, the Respondent was not required to amend the CC&Rs through a 75% member vote. Instead, the Board was empowered by CC&R § 4.2 to “amend the Architectural Committee’s regulations to provide clarification on the status of play structures” through a majority vote of the Board.

• History of Enforcement: The Judge found that the Petitioner failed to establish a uniform history of enforcement against play structures. Rather, “it appears that the status of play structures, swingsets, and tree houses has been unsettled and the subject of some contention,” partly due to the Petitioner’s own advocacy.

• Conclusion: The Respondent properly resolved the ambiguity by amending its regulations.

Final Order and Implications

• Decision: The petition was denied because the Petitioner did not establish that CC&R § 3.1 prohibits play structures under any circumstances.

• Outcome for the Community:

1. The HOA’s amendment of its rules to explicitly permit play structures was deemed valid.

2. All play structures previously approved by the Architectural Committee are allowed to remain on members’ properties.

3. The Architectural Committee is authorized to consider and approve future Play Structure Approval Requests that are submitted in accordance with the established regulations.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Charles Mandela (petitioner)
    Appeared and testified on his own behalf; previously served as president of the Architectural Committee.

Respondent Side

  • Brian C. Axt (attorney)
    Resnick & Louis, P.C.
    Represented Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association.
  • Joseph Hancock (board member)
    Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association
    Board's president; presented testimony/witness for Respondent.
  • Jason Miller (counsel)
    Carpenter Hazlewood
    Provided an email opinion supporting the Respondent's position.

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

John Shields vs. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717034-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-02-26
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John L. Shields Counsel —
Respondent Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch Counsel Maria R. Kupillas

Alleged Violations

CC&R § 6.2(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated its CC&Rs by approving the wall extension, as the HOA’s approval duties were limited to aesthetic considerations under CC&R § 7.2 and did not extend to enforcing or ensuring adjoining owner approval required by CC&R § 6.2(A).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent erroneously approved the proposal, as Respondent's duties under CC&R § 7.2 did not require considering adjoining neighbor approval specified in CC&R § 6.2(A).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&Rs by HOA improperly approving a neighbor's block wall extension without adjoining owner's approval.

Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R § 6.2(A) by approving a neighbor's block wall extension that served as a party wall because Petitioner, the adjoining owner, had not approved the wall. Respondent argued their approval duties under CC&R § 7.2 only concerned aesthetics, not ensuring neighbor approval.

Orders: The petition is dismissed and no action is required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • CC&R § 6.2(A)
  • CC&R § 7.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Architectural Control Committee, Fence, Party Wall, Rehearing, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717034-REL Decision – 619560.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:05:20 (90.8 KB)

17F-H1717034-REL Decision – 592935.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:05:24 (115.2 KB)

Briefing Document: Analysis of Administrative Law Judge Decision in Shields v. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from the Administrative Law Judge Decision in Case No. 17F-H1717034-REL-RHG, dated February 26, 2018. The central issue was a petition filed by homeowner John L. Shields against the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch Homeowners’ Association (HOA), alleging the HOA improperly approved a wall extension built by his neighbor, Joe Johnson, without Mr. Shields’ required consent.

The petition was ultimately dismissed. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the petitioner, Mr. Shields, failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA had violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The decision rests on a critical distinction between the responsibilities of a homeowner and the responsibilities of the HOA under separate articles of the CC&Rs. The ALJ determined that the obligation to secure an adjoining neighbor’s approval for a wall alteration (under CC&R § 6.2) falls exclusively on the homeowner undertaking the project. In contrast, the HOA’s duty (under CC&R § 7.2) is limited to an aesthetic review of the proposed alteration, which it conducted appropriately. The HOA had no legal obligation to enforce or verify neighbor-to-neighbor approval.

I. Case Overview

Case Name

John L. Shields (Petitioner) vs. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch (Respondent)

Case Number

17F-H1717034-REL-RHG

Jurisdiction

Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

Date of Decision

February 26, 2018

Core Dispute

The petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&R § 6.2(A) by approving a neighbor’s approximately 5’ x 6’ block wall extension without the petitioner’s consent.

Final Outcome

The petition was dismissed, with no action required of the respondent HOA.

II. Petitioner’s Claim and Arguments

John L. Shields, a homeowner at 20431 E. Bronco Drive within the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch development, filed a petition against the HOA concerning a wall extension built by his next-door neighbor, Joe Johnson.

• Core Allegation: After vacillating on the specifics of his complaint during the hearing, Mr. Shields firmly asserted that his single issue was that the HOA improperly approved Mr. Johnson’s proposal to build a block wall extension and move his gate forward.

• Basis of Claim: The petitioner argued that under CC&R § 6.2, the HOA should have withheld its approval because Mr. Johnson had not demonstrated that he had first obtained Mr. Shields’ approval for the wall extension between their properties.

• Evidence and Testimony: Mr. Shields denied ever having approved the wall. He submitted a photograph he had taken from his front porch and testified that the block wall extension “was an eyesore.”

III. Respondent’s Position and Evidence

The Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch HOA, represented by board president Kristi Hancock, denied all complaint items and argued its actions were consistent with the governing CC&Rs.

• Basis of Approval: The HOA contended that its approval was based solely on the criteria outlined in CC&R § 7.2. The board, acting as the Architectural Control Committee, reviewed Mr. Johnson’s proposal for its aesthetic qualities and consistency with other properties in the development.

• Aesthetic Review: Ms. Hancock testified that the board inspected other wall extensions and gates and found Mr. Johnson’s proposal to be “aesthetically pleasing and consistent with the other properties.”

• Neighbor Consent Issue: The HOA acknowledged its awareness of Mr. Shields’ objection to the wall after it was built. However, Ms. Hancock testified that the board’s understanding of whether Mr. Shields had approved the wall before construction was unclear. She stated that “at least four witnesses had stated that they heard Petitioner either actually approve of or fail to state an objection to the block wall extension while, in Petitioner’s presence, Mr. Johnson discussed having the block wall extension built.”

• Separation of Duties: The HOA’s position was that its duty under § 7.2 was distinct from the homeowner’s duty under § 6.2. The HOA was not responsible for obtaining or verifying neighbor approval.

IV. Chronology of Key Events

1. October 13, 2016 (approx.): Mr. Johnson has the block wall extension built without first obtaining approval from the HOA’s board or committee.

2. October 16, 2016 (approx.): Mr. Shields expresses his disapproval of the newly built wall to Mr. and Mrs. Johnson.

3. November 2, 2016 (approx.): Mr. Johnson retroactively submits his proposal for the wall extension and a plan to move his gate forward to the Architectural Control Committee for approval.

4. November 2016: The HOA’s newly elected board meets as the Committee and verbally approves Mr. Johnson’s wall but advises him that “he will need to seek neighboring property owner’s approval.”

5. January 2017: The board formally approves Mr. Johnson’s proposal for the wall extension and gate move.

6. May 3, 2017 (approx.): Mr. Shields files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

7. September 27, 2017: An initial hearing is held, and Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky dismisses the petition.

8. December 5, 2017: The Real Estate Commissioner grants Mr. Shields’ request for a rehearing based on his claims of legal errors and judicial misconduct.

9. February 5, 2018: A rehearing is held before Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer.

V. Analysis of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The judge’s decision hinged on the distinct and separate functions of two key CC&R sections.

This section governs alterations to shared fences and walls.

Such Party Walls and Fences shall not be altered, or changed in design, color, material or construction from the original installation made by the Developer without [the] approval of the adjoining Owner(s), if any, and the [Architectural Control] Committee.

• Interpretation: The ALJ interpreted this section as creating two separate approval requirements for the homeowner making the alteration: one from the adjoining owner and one from the Committee. It does not obligate the Committee to enforce the adjoining owner’s approval.

This section defines the scope and limits of the Architectural Control Committee’s power.

No . . . fences . . . shall be commenced [or] erected . . . until the plans and specifications showing the same shall have been submitted to and approved by the Committee. Approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. However, the Committee shall have the right to refuse to approve any Alteration which is not suitable or desirable in their opinion for aesthetic or other reasons…

• Interpretation: The ALJ found that this section limits the Committee’s review to specific criteria, including aesthetics, harmony with surroundings, and effect on neighboring property. It explicitly states that approval “shall not be unreasonably withheld” and does not require the Committee to verify compliance with other CC&Rs or city ordinances.

VI. Judge’s Conclusions of Law and Rationale for Dismissal

The ALJ’s decision to dismiss the petition was based on a clear legal interpretation of the CC&Rs and the petitioner’s failure to meet the burden of proof.

• Distinct and Separate Obligations: The core of the ruling is that the CC&Rs create parallel but separate responsibilities.

1. Homeowner’s Responsibility: The duty to obtain an adjoining neighbor’s approval for a shared wall alteration under § 6.2(A) rests solely with the homeowner performing the work (Mr. Johnson).

2. HOA’s Responsibility: The HOA’s duty under § 7.2 is limited to reviewing the project on its aesthetic merits and consistency within the community.

• Key Legal Finding: The decision explicitly states the separation of these duties:

• Scope of HOA Review: The ALJ affirmed that the HOA’s scope of review was properly limited.

• Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: Because the HOA acted within the authority and limitations defined by CC&R § 7.2, the petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA had violated its governing documents.

• Other Responsibilities: The decision also noted that the responsibility for ensuring compliance with City of Queen Creek ordinances (related to the gate move) ultimately rested with Mr. Johnson, not the HOA.

VII. Final Order

Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge ordered that the petition be dismissed.

• No action is required of the Respondent, Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch HOA.

• The decision, issued as a result of a rehearing, is binding on the parties.

• Any appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served.

Study Guide: Shields v. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 17F-H1717034-REL-RHG, involving John L. Shields and the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch homeowners’ association. It includes a short-answer quiz to test factual recall, an answer key for verification, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms as defined and used within the context of the legal decision.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing all information directly from the provided legal decision.

1. Who are the Petitioner and the Respondent in this case, and what is their relationship?

2. What was the specific, single-issue claim that the Petitioner, John L. Shields, filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on May 3, 2017?

3. What is a “party wall” according to CC&R § 6.2(A), and what specific approval is required to alter one?

4. What was the timeline of the wall extension’s construction and Mr. Johnson’s subsequent submission for approval to the Committee?

5. On what grounds did the Respondent’s board, acting as the Architectural Control Committee, approve Mr. Johnson’s proposal?

6. What was the Petitioner’s central argument for why the Respondent should not have approved Mr. Johnson’s proposal?

7. Why was a rehearing granted after the initial hearing on September 27, 2017?

8. What contradictory evidence did the Respondent’s board consider regarding whether the Petitioner had approved the wall extension before it was built?

9. What is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, and who bore the burden of proof in this case?

10. What was the final recommended order from Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer, and what was the core legal reasoning for this decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner is John L. Shields, who owns a home at 20431 E. Bronco Drive. The Respondent is the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch, a homeowners’ association in Queen Creek, Arizona. Mr. Shields is a member of the Respondent association.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated § 6.2(A) of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The violation claim was based on the Respondent approving a common block wall extension built by his neighbor, Joe Johnson, without the Petitioner’s required approval.

3. According to CC&R § 6.2(A), a “party wall” is a fence constructed upon the back of a lot. To alter or change the design, color, material, or construction of such a wall, approval is required from both the adjoining owner(s) and the Architectural Control Committee.

4. Mr. Johnson had the wall extension built on or about October 13, 2016, without prior approval. He subsequently submitted his proposal to the Committee for approval on or about November 2, 2016.

5. The board approved the proposal based on the criteria in CC&R § 7.2, which required it to consider if the alteration was aesthetically pleasing and harmonious with its surroundings. The board inspected other extensions in the development and found Mr. Johnson’s proposal to be consistent with them.

6. The Petitioner argued that the Respondent’s approval was improper because Mr. Johnson had not demonstrated that he had first obtained the Petitioner’s approval for the block wall extension, which is a stated requirement in CC&R § 6.2.

7. A rehearing was granted by Commissioner Judy Lowe on December 5, 2017. The Petitioner requested it based on claims of errors in the admission or rejection of evidence, other errors of law, and alleged misconduct by the initial Administrative Law Judge that deprived him of a fair hearing.

8. The board knew the Petitioner objected to the wall after it was built. However, the board was also aware of at least four witnesses who stated they heard the Petitioner either actually approve of the extension or fail to object while Mr. Johnson discussed building it in his presence.

9. “Preponderance of the evidence” is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. In this case, the Petitioner, John L. Shields, bore the burden of proof to establish his claim by this standard.

10. The judge ordered that the petition be dismissed and that no action was required of the Respondent. The reasoning was that under CC&R § 6.2(A), the responsibility to get an adjoining neighbor’s approval lies with the property owner (Mr. Johnson), not the Respondent, and CC&R § 7.2 only required the Respondent to consider aesthetic factors, which it did.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to provoke deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, structuring your answer in a standard essay format.

1. Analyze the distinct responsibilities assigned to the homeowner (Mr. Johnson) and the homeowners’ association (Respondent) by CC&R § 6.2(A) and § 7.2. How did the separation of these duties form the crux of the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision?

2. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined in the decision. Explain why the evidence presented by the Petitioner, including his testimony and photograph of the wall, failed to meet this burden of proof against the Respondent.

3. Examine the role and limitations of the Architectural Control Committee as described in CC&R § 7.2. In your analysis, consider what the committee is required to evaluate, what it is explicitly not responsible for, and the provision that its approval “shall not be unreasonably withheld.”

4. Trace the procedural history of this case, from the initial petition filing to the final order after the rehearing. What does this progression reveal about the administrative hearing process and the grounds upon which a rehearing can be granted?

5. Although the petition was dismissed, the facts indicate that Mr. Johnson built the wall extension before receiving any approval and that the City of Queen Creek later found his plan to move the gate violated city codes. Argue whether the Respondent (the HOA) bears any ethical, if not legal, responsibility in a situation where its approval process is disconnected from neighbor consent and municipal law compliance.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition in Context

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official, in this case Tammy L. Eigenheer, from the Office of Administrative Hearings who presides over evidentiary hearings and issues decisions on matters referred by state agencies like the Department of Real Estate.

Architectural Control Committee (“the Committee”)

A body within the homeowners’ association, in this case comprised of the board members, responsible for reviewing and approving or denying proposed alterations to properties, such as fences, based on aesthetic and other specified criteria.

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01

The Arizona Revised Statute that permits an owner in a planned community to file a petition with the Department of Real Estate concerning violations of community documents.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal case to provide evidence that proves its claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden to prove his claim by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The governing legal documents that set forth the rules for a planned community. This case centers on the interpretation of § 6.2(A) and § 7.2 of the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch CC&Rs.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. The Respondent, Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch, is an HOA.

Party Wall

As defined in CC&R § 6.2(A), a fence constructed upon the back of any lot that is shared between adjoining properties. Alterations require approval from the adjoining owner and the Committee.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or petition. In this case, John L. Shields, a homeowner and member of the Respondent association.

Preponderance of the Evidence

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

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case, granted in this instance because the Petitioner claimed there were errors of law and misconduct by the judge in the first proceeding that deprived him of a fair hearing.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch homeowners’ association.

4 Surprising Lessons From a Homeowner’s Lawsuit Against His HOA

It’s a scenario many homeowners can imagine: a neighbor erects a new wall along the property line without your consent. Your first instinct is to escalate the issue to your Homeowners’ Association (HOA), assuming it’s their job to enforce the community’s rules. This common assumption—that the HOA is the ultimate authority responsible for mediating all disputes between neighbors—is powerful, but is it always correct?

A real-life administrative court case, Shields v. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch, provides a valuable case study in the delineation of duties within a planned community, revealing that the answer can be a surprising “no.” This case offers critical insights into the true roles and responsibilities of an HOA. Here are the top four counter-intuitive takeaways from this legal decision that every homeowner should understand.

——————————————————————————–

1. Your HOA Isn’t a Referee for Neighbor-to-Neighbor Agreements

Mr. Shields sued his HOA because it approved a neighbor’s wall extension that he, the adjoining owner, had not approved. He believed this violated the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), specifically § 6.2(A), which requires approval from the adjoining owner for such changes.

The Administrative Law Judge, however, found the HOA had no legal duty to enforce this particular rule. The responsibility to secure the neighbor’s approval fell solely on the property owner making the change, not the HOA. The judge’s finding on this point was direct and unambiguous:

CC&R § 6.2(A) required that the property owner, Mr. Johnson, obtain the adjoining property owner’s, Petitioner’s, approval before he built the block wall extension. Respondent [the HOA] had no obligation under CC&R § 6.2(A) to obtain or ensure Petitioner approved the block wall extension.

This ruling clarifies that an HOA’s role is not that of a quasi-judicial body for resolving all private disputes; its enforcement powers are limited to the specific duties enumerated in its governing documents. CC&R § 6.2(A) effectively creates a private right of action between neighbors, which the HOA is not a party to. The HOA’s role is to enforce rules that obligate the homeowner to the association, not necessarily to other homeowners.

2. The Architectural Committee’s Job Is Narrower Than You Think

In its defense, the HOA’s board, acting as the Architectural Control Committee, argued that its review was based on a different rule entirely: CC&R § 7.2. The judge agreed, highlighting the Committee’s very narrow scope of responsibility.

According to the case findings, the Committee’s only legal obligation was to determine if the proposed wall was “aesthetically pleasing and consistent” with other properties in the development. Its review under § 7.2 did not require it to confirm whether the neighbor had obtained Mr. Shields’ approval as mandated by the separate rule. This legal structure isolates the two duties, and the homeowner’s error was conflating them. The HOA’s limited aesthetic review reinforces the conclusion from our first lesson: it is not responsible for policing the separate neighbor-approval requirement. An architectural green light is often purely about community harmony, not a verification of compliance with every other covenant.

3. Building First and Asking Permission Later Creates Confusion

The sequence of events in this case was disorderly, which ultimately clouded the legal issues. From the outset, the petitioner himself “vacillated on whether his issue with Respondent was that it improperly approved Mr. Johnson’s proposal… or that it failed to enforce the requirement that Mr. Johnson had to obtain Petitioner’s approval,” foreshadowing the difficulty in proving a specific violation.

The timeline further illustrates the breakdown in process:

• October 13, 2016: The neighbor, Mr. Johnson, built the wall extension before seeking any approval.

• October 16, 2016: Mr. Shields expressed his disapproval directly to the neighbor.

• November 2, 2016: The neighbor submitted his proposal to the HOA for approval—weeks after the wall was already built.

• November 2016: The HOA Board verbally approved the wall but astutely “advised him that ‘he will need to seek neighboring property owner’s approval.’”

This retroactive process, combined with a dispute clouded by conflicting testimony—four witnesses claimed they heard Mr. Shields either approve of the wall or fail to object—muddied the waters, making it impossible for the petitioner to meet his burden of proof regarding the HOA’s actions. The messiness of the facts directly contributed to the legal failure.

4. The Burden of Proof Rests Entirely on You

In a legal dispute with an HOA, the “burden of proof” falls on the petitioner. Mr. Shields had to establish his case by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which the court defines simply as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Crucially, he had to prove that the HOA specifically violated a statute or a rule within the CC&Rs. It wasn’t enough to demonstrate that his neighbor violated a rule or that the situation felt unjust. He had to prove the HOA failed to perform a duty for which it was explicitly responsible.

The judge ultimately dismissed the petition because Mr. Shields could not meet this burden. He failed to prove the HOA had a duty to deny the application based on his lack of approval. A subjective sense of unfairness is insufficient to meet the legal standard; a petitioner must prove a direct breach of a specified duty by the association.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Know Your Rules, Not Just Your Rights

The overarching lesson from the Shields case is that CC&Rs are a legal contract with a precise, and sometimes non-obvious, allocation of responsibilities among the homeowner, their neighbors, and the association itself. The HOA is not an all-powerful enforcer but an organization with a defined, and sometimes surprisingly limited, set of duties. Homeowners, in turn, have their own responsibilities—including, at times, enforcing certain rights directly with their neighbors.

Before escalating your next neighborhood issue, have you read the fine print to see who is truly responsible for what?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John Shields (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Maria R. Kupillas (HOA attorney)
    Law Offices of Farley Choate & Bergin
    Represented Respondent Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch
  • Joe Johnson (neighbor/member)
    Lot owner who built the wall extension; Husband of Sandy Johnson
  • Sandy Johnson (neighbor/witness)
    Wife of Joe Johnson; next-door neighbor to Petitioner; testified in initial hearing
  • Dean Kabanuk (board member/witness)
    Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch Board
    Respondent’s board president; testified in initial hearing
  • Kristi Hancock (board member/witness)
    Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch Board
    Attorney; served as VP (Nov 2016-Nov 2017) and President (since Nov 2017); testified in both hearings
  • Brenda Campbell (property manager/witness)
    Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch
    Respondent’s community manager; testified in initial hearing
  • A.J. Denardo (witness)
    Lives near Petitioner; testified in initial hearing regarding Petitioner's tacit approval

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Issued the initial Administrative Law Judge Decision (October 11, 2017)
  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Issued the Administrative Law Judge Decision following rehearing (February 26, 2018)
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Granted Petitioner's request for rehearing; decision transmitted to Commissioner
  • Felicia Del Sol (OAH staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Transmitted the rehearing decision

Jay Janicek vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717033-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-08-14
Administrative Law Judge Dorinda M. Lang
Outcome The ALJ found that the Petitioner did not establish a violation of the Respondent's CC&Rs and recommended the petition be denied. The ALJ specifically noted the lack of proof that fees were inappropriate and that Petitioner failed to provide legal authority requiring equal benefit. The petition was denied, and the Respondent was not ordered to pay the Petitioner's filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jay Janicek Counsel —
Respondent Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA Counsel Evan Thompson

Alleged Violations

Article 11. Section 11.5 of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The ALJ found that the Petitioner did not establish a violation of the Respondent's CC&Rs and recommended the petition be denied. The ALJ specifically noted the lack of proof that fees were inappropriate and that Petitioner failed to provide legal authority requiring equal benefit. The petition was denied, and the Respondent was not ordered to pay the Petitioner's filing fee.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish a violation of the CC&Rs.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&Rs regarding disproportionate assessment fees

Petitioner alleged Respondent was in violation of its CC&Rs because Master HOA fees were disproportionately borne by existing homeowners and did not benefit the whole development equally. Petitioner failed to establish a violation because required evidentiary documents (plat attached as 'Exhibit B') were missing, and Petitioner offered no legal authority requiring fees to be equally beneficial or even-handed.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied. Respondent shall not pay the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01 to the Petitioner.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CC&Rs, Master HOA, Assessment Fees, Common Areas, Burden of Proof, Rule Against Perpetuities
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717033-REL Decision – 575166.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:20:21 (39.1 KB)

17F-H1717033-REL Decision – 582189.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:20:24 (69.4 KB)

17F-H1717033-REL Decision – 584918.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:20:27 (674.1 KB)

Administrative Hearing Briefing: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the key findings and legal proceedings in case number 17F-H1717033-REL, wherein Petitioner Jay Janicek filed a complaint against Respondent Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA. The petition was ultimately denied by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), a decision formally adopted and finalized by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

The core of the dispute centered on the Petitioner’s allegation that the HOA’s fee structure violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Specifically, Janicek argued that payments made by his first-level association to a master association for common area expenses—most egregiously for a roadway loan—were improper because the benefits were not distributed equally among all homeowners.

The denial of the petition hinged on a critical failure of proof by the Petitioner. The CC&Rs define “Common Areas” by referencing a plat map (“Exhibit B”) that was not submitted into evidence by the Petitioner. Without this crucial document, it was impossible to prove that the fees collected by the HOA were for purposes outside the scope of the CC&Rs. Furthermore, the Petitioner failed to provide any legal authority or provision within the governing documents requiring that association fees be “even-handed or equally beneficial to all homeowners.” A secondary argument regarding the “rule against perpetuities,” introduced post-hearing, was also addressed and dismissed by the ALJ as legally inapplicable to the matter.

Case Overview

The following table outlines the principal parties and details of the administrative hearing.

Case Detail

Information

Petitioner

Jay Janicek

Respondent

Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

Respondent’s Counsel

Evan Thompson, Thompson Krone PLC

Respondent’s Representative

Steve Russo

Case Number

17F-H1717033-REL

Docket Number

17F-H1717033-REL

Hearing Date

July 12, 2017

Presiding Judge

Dorinda M. Lang, Administrative Law Judge

Hearing Observers

John Shields, Margery and Mathew Janicek

Petitioner’s Allegations

The petition filed by Jay Janicek alleged that Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA was in violation of its governing CC&Rs. The central arguments presented were:

• Unequal Distribution of Costs and Benefits: The Petitioner contended that expenses paid by the Respondent association to the Sycamore Vista Master Home Owner’s Association (“Master HOA”) did not benefit all homeowners equally. The most “egregious” example cited was the payment toward a loan for a roadway within the master development.

• Violation of CC&Rs: The Petitioner argued that this unequal cost burden was a direct violation of Article 11, Section 11.5 of the Respondent’s CC&Rs. This section stipulates:

• Discrepancy Among Associations: The Petitioner asserted that another first-level association within the master development receives more benefit from the common areas but does not pay into the Master HOA.

• Rule Against Perpetuities: In a post-hearing submission, the Petitioner introduced a new argument that a “rule against perpetuities” was at stake in the matter.

Adjudication and Findings of Fact

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was based on the Petitioner’s failure to meet the required burden of proof through a preponderance of the evidence.

Evidentiary Failure

The Petitioner’s case failed primarily due to a lack of sufficient evidence to prove a violation of the CC&Rs.

• Missing ‘Exhibit B’: The definition of “Common Areas” was essential to the case. According to Article 1, Section 1.6 of the CC&Rs, these areas are delineated on a plat that was supposed to be attached as “Exhibit B.”

• Critical Finding: The ALJ noted, “Unfortunately, there was no plat attached to the document that was offered into evidence and it was not to be found among the other exhibits. Therefore, Petitioner was unable to establish that Respondent’s fees pay for anything that is not provided for in the CC&Rs.”

• Petitioner’s Concession: The Petitioner did not dispute the Respondent’s argument that the Master HOA fees, including those for roads, were for Common Areas.

Lack of Legal Authority

The Petitioner’s core premise—that fees must be proportional to benefits received—was not substantiated by legal or documentary support.

• The ALJ found that the “Petitioner offered no legal authority that requires that all first level associations must pay the same into a master association or that all homeowners must receive the same benefit from or contribute the same amount (or even a proportionate share) to the common areas.”

• The argument that association fees were “disproportionately heavy” was not established to be a violation of any provision in the CC&Rs.

Post-Hearing Submissions

The record was held open until August 1, 2017, allowing for additional documentation from both parties.

• Petitioner (Exhibit 6): Submitted financial documentation, emails, and the argument concerning the rule against perpetuities.

• Respondent (Exhibit H): Submitted a Notice of Lien and attachments. This exhibit demonstrated that, regarding a lien for water services on properties not part of the Respondent HOA, the “Respondent’s homeowners are not responsible for it.”

Conclusions of Law and Final Decision

Based on the evidence and arguments presented, the ALJ denied the petition, a decision later finalized by the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Denial of Petition

• The primary conclusion of law was that the “Petitioner has not established that Respondent is in violation of its CC&Rs.”

• The payment for Common Areas was found to be in comportment with the CC&Rs.

Rejection of Key Arguments

• Equal Benefit: The ALJ explicitly concluded: “Petitioner has offered no legal authority or provision of the CC&Rs that requires the association fees to be even-handed or equally beneficial to all homeowners.”

• Rule Against Perpetuities: While this argument was not part of the original petition, the ALJ addressed it to “lay a concern to rest.” The judge explained that the rule, which states that property ownership must vest within a lifetime plus 21 years, evolved from estate law and does not apply to HOA property sales where ownership vests immediately in the developer or a new owner. The judge concluded, “the rule against perpetuities does not apply to a homeowner’s association and it clearly does not apply in this matter.”

Timeline of Orders

1. July 12, 2017: An “Order Holding Record Open” was issued by ALJ Dorinda M. Lang.

2. August 14, 2017: The “Administrative Law Judge Decision” was issued, ordering that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.

3. August 21, 2017: A “Final Order” was issued by Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, adopting the ALJ’s decision and officially denying the petition.

Post-Decision Procedures

The Final Order, effective August 21, 2017, concluded the administrative action and outlined the subsequent options available to the parties.

• The order is binding unless a rehearing is granted. A request for rehearing must be filed within 30 days of the service of the final order.

• A rehearing may be granted for the following causes:

1. Irregularity in the proceedings or any order or abuse of discretion that deprived a party of a fair hearing.

2. Misconduct by the Department, ALJ, or the prevailing party.

3. Accident or surprise that could not have been prevented by ordinary prudence.

4. Newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.

5. Excessive or insufficient penalties.

6. Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.

7. The findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

8. The findings of fact or decision is not supported by the evidence or is contrary to law.

• Parties may appeal the final administrative action by filing a complaint for judicial review.

Study Guide: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative hearing case No. 17F-H1717033-REL, Jay Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a thorough understanding of the case’s facts, arguments, and legal conclusions.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, based on the information provided in the case documents.

1. Who were the primary parties in this legal matter, and what were their designated roles?

2. What was the central allegation made by the Petitioner against the Respondent?

3. Which specific article and section of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) did the Petitioner claim the Respondent had violated?

4. Explain the key piece of evidence that was missing and why its absence was critical to the case’s outcome.

5. What was the Respondent’s main argument regarding the fees paid to the Master HOA?

6. According to the case documents, who held the burden of proof, and what was the required standard of proof?

7. What was the “rule against perpetuities,” and what reason did the Administrative Law Judge give for its inapplicability to this case?

8. What was the ultimate decision of the Administrative Law Judge, and on what date was it issued?

9. After the hearing, the record was held open. What was the purpose of this, and what types of materials were submitted by the parties during this period?

10. What action did the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate take after receiving the Administrative Law Judge’s decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Jay Janicek, designated as the Petitioner, and Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA, designated as the Respondent. The Petitioner is the party who filed the complaint, and the Respondent is the party against whom the complaint was filed.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA was in violation of its CC&Rs. He argued that the fees his association paid to the Master HOA for a roadway loan did not benefit the whole development equally and were therefore inappropriate expenses for all homeowners to pay.

3. The Petitioner cited Article 11, Section 11.5 of the Respondent’s CC&Rs. This section, titled “Costs of Improvements,” details how the costs for improving Unimproved Lots and Common Areas in Phase 3 and Phase 4 are to be borne by the owners of lots within those specific phases.

4. The key missing evidence was a plat, referred to as “Exhibit B” in the CC&Rs. This plat was supposed to define the “Common Areas,” and without it, the Petitioner was unable to establish that the fees paid by the Respondent were for anything not provided for in the governing documents.

5. The Respondent argued that the Master HOA fees were used to pay for the development’s common areas. They maintained that the CC&Rs permit these payments and that there is no legal authority requiring all homeowners to receive the same benefit or for all first-level associations to contribute equally.

6. Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-19-119(B), the Petitioner, Jay Janicek, had the burden of proof in this matter. The standard of proof was a preponderance of the evidence, as established by A.A.C. R2-19-119(A).

7. The rule against perpetuities states that property ownership must vest within a time frame of an existing lifetime plus 21 years. The Judge ruled it did not apply because it evolved to handle estates bequeathed to a series of heirs and is not generally applicable to property sales where rights transfer at once; in the HOA’s case, ownership of undeveloped lots had already vested in the developer.

8. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. This decision was made on August 14, 2017.

9. The record was held open until August 1, 2017, to allow the Respondent to submit additional documentation and for the Petitioner to submit written objections. During this time, the Petitioner submitted financial documentation, emails, and a new argument about the rule against perpetuities (admitted as Exhibit 6), while the Respondent submitted a Notice of Lien (admitted as Exhibit H).

10. The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. This was formalized in a Final Order dated August 21, 2017, which accepted the ALJ’s recommendation and denied the Petitioner’s petition.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate a detailed essay-style response for each.

1. Analyze the critical evidentiary failure that led to the denial of Jay Janicek’s petition. How did the absence of the plat referred to as “Exhibit B” directly impact his ability to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard of proof?

2. Discuss the legal reasoning behind the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that there is no requirement for HOA fees to be “even-handed or equally beneficial to all homeowners.” How does this principle relate to the hierarchical structure of Master and first-level associations described in the case?

3. Explain the concept of the “rule against perpetuities” as described in the legal decision. Detail why the Administrative Law Judge, despite noting the argument was outside the original petition, addressed it and ultimately found it inapplicable to the case of a homeowner’s association.

4. Trace the procedural path of this case from the initial hearing to the final binding order. Identify the key dates, decisions, and entities involved at each stage, including the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Department of Real Estate.

5. Based on the Final Order, outline the process and potential grounds for requesting a rehearing. What were the eight specific causes listed in the order that could materially affect a moving party’s rights and justify a rehearing or review?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions. In this case, Dorinda M. Lang served as the ALJ.

A.A.C.

Abbreviation for Arizona Administrative Code, a compilation of rules and regulations of Arizona state agencies.

A.R.S.

Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, the collection of all the laws of the state of Arizona.

Areas of Association Responsibility

Locations that the Homeowner’s Association is responsible for maintaining, as defined within its governing documents.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this case, the burden of proof was on the Petitioner.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community or subdivision.

Common Areas

Areas within a housing development that are owned by the association for the use and benefit of all homeowners. The definition of these areas was a central issue in the case.

Commissioner

The head of a government department. In this context, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, who adopted the ALJ’s decision.

First Level Association

An individual homeowner’s association within a larger development that also has a master association. The Respondent, Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA, is a first level association.

Master HOA

The Sycamore Vista Master Home Owner’s Association. An overarching organization that governs expenses and common areas concerning an entire development composed of multiple first-level associations.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

The state agency that conducts administrative hearings for other state agencies. This case was referred to the OAH by the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or brings an action in a legal proceeding. In this case, Jay Janicek.

A map, drawn to scale, showing the divisions of a piece of land. The missing plat in this case was intended to show the “Common Areas.”

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases. It requires that the evidence shows a claim is more likely to be true than not true.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed or who is responding to a legal action. In this case, Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA.

Rule Against Perpetuities

A legal rule that prevents a property owner from controlling the disposition of their property for an indefinite period after their death. The ALJ found it did not apply in this HOA context.

Unimproved Lot Assessments

Fees imposed on the owners of undeveloped lots to pay for the costs of improving certain areas, as described in Section 6.13 of the CC&Rs.

Unimproved Lots

Parcels of land within the development that have not yet been built upon.

Select all sources
575166.pdf
582189.pdf
584918.pdf

No emoji found

Loading

17F-H1717033-REL

3 sources

These documents chronicle the legal proceedings of a dispute between Jay Janicek, the Petitioner, and Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA, the Respondent, before the Office of Administrative Hearings. The first source is an “Order Holding Record Open,” dated July 12, 2017, which temporarily extends the deadline for submitting additional evidence. The subsequent sources contain the “Administrative Law Judge Decision” issued on August 14, 2017, which outlines the hearing details and the judge’s recommendation to deny the petition because Janicek failed to establish a violation of the HOA’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. Finally, the third document presents the “Final Order” from the Department of Real Estate Commissioner on August 21, 2017, which accepts and affirms the Administrative Law Judge’s decision to deny the petition. Janicek’s core claim argued that certain master association fees were disproportionately applied and did not benefit all homeowners equally, which the judge ultimately dismissed due to a lack of supporting legal authority or CC&R provisions.

3 sources

Based on 3 sources

00:00
00:00

NotebookLM can be inaccurate; please double check its responses.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jay Janicek (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Evan Thompson (HOA attorney)
    Thompson Krone PLC
    Attorney for Respondent
  • Steve Russo (respondent representative)

Neutral Parties

  • Dorinda M. Lang (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Dan Gardner (HOA Coordinator)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Addressee for rehearing request

Other Participants

  • John Shields (observer)
  • Margery Janicek (observer)
  • Mathew Janicek (observer)
  • M. Aguirre (unknown)
    Thompson Krone PLC
    Listed on transmittal documents

Brian Sopatk vs. The Lakeshore Village Condo. Assoc., Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716004-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-08-10
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition because the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1260. The contested $660 fee was determined to be a working capital contribution authorized by the Association's CC&Rs (section 8.13), which is distinct from the resale disclosure fees limited by statute.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Brian Sopatyk Counsel Nathan Andrews, Esq. and Jill Kennedy, Esq.
Respondent The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc. Counsel Bradley R. Jardine, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition because the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1260. The contested $660 fee was determined to be a working capital contribution authorized by the Association's CC&Rs (section 8.13), which is distinct from the resale disclosure fees limited by statute.

Why this result: The Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof to show a statutory violation because the fee in question was a valid working capital fee collected under the CC&Rs, not an illegal transfer fee under A.R.S. § 33-1260.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of statutory maximum fee for resale disclosure/transfer documents.

Petitioner alleged the Association charged a $660 transfer fee, plus a $30 statement fee, violating A.R.S. § 33-1260, which limits aggregate fees for resale disclosure and transfer services to $400. The ALJ found the $660 fee was a working capital fee authorized by CC&R section 8.13, not a statutory disclosure fee, despite being mislabeled by the Association.

Orders: Petitioner Brian D. Sopatyk's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(A)(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA fees, transfer fee, working capital fund, statutory compliance, burden of proof, condominium association, resale disclosure
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(A)(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.R.S. § 1-243

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17f-H1716004-REL Decision – 531040.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:44:10 (67.9 KB)

17f-H1716004-REL Decision – 540004.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:44:12 (154.0 KB)

17f-H1716004-REL Decision – 531040.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:06:02 (67.9 KB)

17f-H1716004-REL Decision – 540004.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:06:07 (154.0 KB)

Briefing Document: Sopatyk v. The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the legal proceedings and outcomes of the case Brian Sopatyk v. The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc. (Case No. 17F-H1716004-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute was Petitioner Brian Sopatyk’s allegation that the Respondent Condominium Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1260 by charging a $660 “transfer fee” upon the sale of a condominium unit, which exceeded the statutory maximum of $400 for resale disclosure services.

The Association’s defense centered on the argument that the $660 charge was not a disclosure fee but a separate “working capital fee” authorized by its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Association contended that this fee had been erroneously mislabeled as a “transfer fee” due to a clerical error inherited by its current manager. The actual statutory fee for disclosure documents, the Association argued, was a separate $30 charge paid by the seller.

After an initial hearing in November 2016 and a subsequent re-hearing in June 2017, the Administrative Law Judge consistently found that Mr. Sopatyk failed to prove the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The court concluded that the evidence supported the Association’s claim of a mislabeled working capital fee. Consequently, Mr. Sopatyk’s petition was dismissed on both occasions, and the Association was deemed the prevailing party.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Parties and Jurisdiction

Representation

Petitioner

Brian Sopatyk

On his own behalf (Initial Hearing); Nathan Andrews, Esq. & Jill Kennedy, Esq. (Re-Hearing)

Respondent

The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc.

Bradley R. Jardine, Esq. (Both Hearings)

Jurisdiction

Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)

Authority under A.R.S. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11.

Adjudicator

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden

Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, AZ

Core Allegation and Governing Statute

• Allegation: Brian Sopatyk alleged that The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260 by charging fees exceeding the statutory maximum for resale disclosure services. Specifically, a $660 fee labeled as a “transfer fee” was charged when he purchased his unit.

• Petitioner’s Request: Mr. Sopatyk sought an order for the Association to comply with the statute, issue refunds to all who paid fees in excess of the maximum, and for a civil penalty to be imposed.

• Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1260 stipulates that a condominium association “may charge the unit owner a fee of no more than an aggregate of four hundred dollars to compensate the association for the costs incurred in the preparation of a statement or other documents furnished… for purposes of resale disclosure, lien estoppel and any other services related to the transfer or use of the property.” The statute explicitly forbids charging any other fees for these services except as authorized.

——————————————————————————–

Chronology of Legal Proceedings

March 2, 2015

The Association issues a “Disclosure Form” for Mr. Sopatyk’s purchase, listing a $660 transfer fee and a $30 statement fee.

May 18, 2016

The Association’s Board of Directors meets to address Mr. Sopatyk’s claim. They conclude the $660 fee was a mislabeled working capital fee and direct corrective accounting.

August 9, 2016

Mr. Sopatyk files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

November 14, 2016

The initial hearing is conducted before ALJ Thomas Shedden.

November 29, 2016

ALJ Shedden issues a decision dismissing Mr. Sopatyk’s petition.

December 13, 2016

The ADRE Commissioner, Judy Lowe, adopts the ALJ’s decision, issuing a Final Order dismissing the case.

February 7, 2017

A Notice of Re-Hearing is issued after Mr. Sopatyk requests one.

June 9, 2017

A re-hearing is conducted before ALJ Thomas Shedden.

June 26, 2017

ALJ Shedden issues a new decision, again dismissing Mr. Sopatyk’s petition.

August 1, 2017

The deadline passes for the ADRE to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s re-hearing decision. No action is taken.

August 10, 2017

The Office of Administrative Hearings certifies the ALJ’s decision from the re-hearing as the final administrative decision in the matter.

——————————————————————————–

Analysis of Arguments and Evidence

Petitioner’s Position (Brian Sopatyk)

• Primary Argument: The Association’s own documents, specifically the Disclosure Form and the HUD-1 settlement statement, explicitly labeled the $660 charge as a “Transfer Fee.” This amount is a prima facie violation of the $400 statutory cap in A.R.S. § 33-1260.

• Evidence Presented:

◦ March 2, 2015 Disclosure Form: Showed a required payment of a $660 “transfer fee” and a $30 “statement fee.”

◦ HUD-1 Settlement Statement: Documented that the $660 Transfer Fee was paid to the Association, with $330 paid from the Borrower’s (Sopatyk’s) funds and $330 from the Seller’s funds. It also showed the Seller paid a separate $30 Resale Statement Fee.

• Contradictory Testimony: In his sworn petition, Mr. Sopatyk stated the $660 fee was “split between the seller and the buyer.” However, during the re-hearing, he testified that he had “in fact paid the entire $660 as part of the negotiated price of the unit.” The ALJ noted this discrepancy, stating “either Mr. Sopatyk’s sworn statement or his testimony must be false.”

Respondent’s Position (The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association)

• Primary Argument: The $660 fee was not for resale disclosure services but was a working capital fee authorized by the Association’s CC&Rs. The “transfer fee” label was a historical clerical error that the Board had since identified and corrected.

• Evidence and Testimony:

◦ CC&R Section 8.13 (“Transfer Fee and Working Capital Fund”): This provision authorizes the Association to assess each new owner a fee of “at least twice the average monthly assessment” to be deposited into the working capital fund (referred to as the Reserve Fund). The monthly assessment was $328.83, making the $660 fee consistent with this rule.

◦ Testimony of Amy Telnes (Association Manager): Ms. Telnes testified that when she became manager, she was incorrectly informed that the working capital fee was the transfer fee. She affirmed that the $660 fee was deposited into the Association’s reserve fund and that the separate $30 fee was the one charged pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1260.

◦ May 18, 2016 Board Meeting Minutes: These minutes, entered into evidence, documented the Board’s conclusion that it was collecting a working capital contribution but “erroneously calling it a transfer fee.” The Board directed Ms. Telnes to perform an accounting and transfer all such fees collected after October 1, 2013, to the Reserve Account. The minutes also show the Board voted to change its fee structure moving forward to a single $400 fee to avoid future confusion.

——————————————————————————–

Judicial Findings and Final Disposition

Standard and Burden of Proof

Across both hearings, the ALJ established that the standard of proof was a preponderance of the evidence, defined as evidence with “the most convincing force” that is “sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.” The burden of proof rested entirely on the petitioner, Mr. Sopatyk, to demonstrate that a violation had occurred.

Initial Hearing Decision (November 29, 2016)

• Findings of Fact: The ALJ found that the Association was charging a $660 working capital fee in accordance with its CC&Rs but had been mislabeling it. It was also charging a separate $30 document preparation fee.

• Conclusion of Law: Mr. Sopatyk did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260.

• Order: The petition was dismissed, and the decision was adopted as final by the ADRE Commissioner on December 13, 2016.

Re-Hearing Decision (June 26, 2017)

• Findings of Fact: The re-hearing produced more detailed findings but led to the same conclusion. The ALJ found that the Association had authority under its CC&Rs to collect the $660 working capital fee and that the statutory disclosure statute did not apply to this charge. The fee applicable to the statute was the $30 charge paid by the seller.

• Conclusion of Law: The ALJ reiterated that Mr. Sopatyk failed to meet his burden of proof. The Association’s argument that the claim should fail because Sopatyk did not personally pay over $400 was deemed “not persuasive,” as the statute applies to all violations regardless of particularized harm.

• Order: The petition was again ordered to be dismissed.

Final Administrative Disposition

The ADRE took no action to modify or reject the ALJ’s re-hearing decision by the statutory deadline of August 1, 2017. As a result, the Office of Administrative Hearings certified the June 26, 2017 decision as the final administrative decision on August 10, 2017, concluding the matter in favor of the Respondent Association.

Study Guide: Sopatyk v. The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc.

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

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

1. What specific Arizona Revised Statute did petitioner Brian Sopatyk allege that The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association violated, and what is the core requirement of that statute?

2. Identify the two fees charged in connection with Mr. Sopatyk’s unit purchase, the amount of each fee, and how they were documented on the HUD-1 disclosure statement.

3. What was the Association’s central argument for why the $660 fee did not violate the statute in question?

4. Who was the Association’s manager, and what explanation did she provide for the labeling of the $660 fee?

5. According to the Association’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), what is the purpose of the fee outlined in section 8.13?

6. What was the outcome of the initial administrative hearing held on November 14, 2016?

7. During the rehearing, a discrepancy was noted between Mr. Sopatyk’s sworn petition and his testimony regarding the payment of the $660 fee. What was this discrepancy?

8. What corrective actions did the Association’s Board vote to take during its meeting on May 18, 2016, after Mr. Sopatyk raised the issue?

9. What is the standard of proof the petitioner was required to meet in this case, and did the Administrative Law Judge find that he met it?

10. What was the final, certified administrative decision in this matter after the rehearing on June 9, 2017?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. Brian Sopatyk alleged a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260. This statute requires a condominium association to provide specific disclosure documents to a prospective purchaser and limits the aggregate fee for preparing these documents and other related services to no more than four hundred dollars.

2. The two fees were a $660 “Transfer Fee” and a $30 “Resale Statement Fee.” The HUD-1 disclosure statement shows the $660 fee was split, with $330 paid by the borrower (Sopatyk) and $330 paid by the seller, while the seller alone paid the $30 fee.

3. The Association’s central argument was that the $660 fee was not a transfer fee for disclosure services but was actually a “working capital fee” collected pursuant to section 8.13 of its CC&Rs. They contended that the fee had been incorrectly labeled as a “transfer fee” due to a clerical error.

4. The Association’s manager was Amy Telnes. She testified that when she became manager, she was incorrectly told the working capital fee was the transfer fee, and these fees had been mislabeled since that time.

5. According to CC&R section 8.13 (“Transfer Fee and Working Capital Fund”), each new unit owner is to be assessed a fee of at least twice the average monthly assessment. These fees are to be deposited into the working capital fund, which the Association refers to as its Reserve Fund.

6. Following the initial hearing, Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden found that Mr. Sopatyk had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the statute. The Judge’s decision was to dismiss Mr. Sopatyk’s petition, and this decision was adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate.

7. In his sworn petition, Mr. Sopatyk stated that the $660 fee was split between him and the seller. However, at the hearing, he testified that he had in fact paid the entire $660 as part of the negotiated price of the unit, meaning one of his statements had to be false.

8. The Board directed Ms. Telnes to account for all working capital fees and transfer them to the Reserve Account to correct the error. The Board also determined its system was confusing and voted to assess a single transfer fee of $400 (and no other fees) on all future transactions.

9. The petitioner, Mr. Sopatyk, bore the burden of proof and was required to meet the standard of a “preponderance of the evidence.” The Administrative Law Judge concluded in both hearings that Mr. Sopatyk did not meet this burden.

10. The final decision was that Mr. Sopatyk’s petition was dismissed again. On August 10, 2017, the Administrative Law Judge’s decision from the rehearing was certified as the final administrative decision of the Department of Real Estate because the Department took no action to reject or modify it.

——————————————————————————–

Suggested Essay Questions

1. Analyze the legal concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined and applied in this case. Explain in detail why the evidence presented by the Association was deemed to have greater convincing force than the evidence presented by the Petitioner, leading to the dismissal of his petition.

2. Discuss the critical role of the Association’s governing documents, specifically CC&R section 8.13, in its successful defense. How did the language of this section allow the Association to re-characterize the disputed $660 fee and differentiate it from the fees regulated by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1260?

3. Trace the procedural history of case No. 17F-H1716004-REL, from the filing of the petition to the final certified order. Identify the key dates, participants (judges, legal counsel, witnesses), and the function of the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Department of Real Estate in the process.

4. Examine the actions taken by the Association’s Board during its May 18, 2016, meeting. Evaluate whether these actions demonstrated good-faith governance and a proactive attempt to correct a procedural error, and discuss how the minutes from this meeting were used as evidence in the hearing.

5. Despite losing the case, Mr. Sopatyk’s petition prompted significant changes in the Association’s fee structure. Argue whether the petitioner’s actions ultimately served the public interest for future condominium purchasers in the Lakeshore Village community, even though he did not prevail in his specific legal claim.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Thomas Shedden, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision based on the evidence presented.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1260

The Arizona statute that requires a condominium association to furnish a prospective purchaser with disclosure documents and other information. It explicitly limits the fee an association can charge for these services to “no more than an aggregate of four hundred dollars.”

Burden of Proof

The responsibility of a party in a legal case to prove their claims. In this matter, the burden of proof was on the petitioner, Brian Sopatyk.

The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, which are the governing documents for the condominium association. Section 8.13 of the Lakeshore Village CC&Rs authorizes the collection of a fee for a working capital fund.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Brian Sopatyk.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case, defined as “The greater weight of the evidence… by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Respondent

The party defending against a petition. In this case, The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc.

Reserve Fund

The account into which the Association deposits its working capital fees. It is also referred to as the Working Capital Fund.

Statement Fee / Resale Statement Fee

A $30 fee, separate from the disputed $660, that was paid by the seller to the Association for the preparation of the resale statement. This fee was considered part of the allowable charges under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1260.

Transfer Fee

The label erroneously applied to the $660 fee on the disclosure statement and HUD-1 form. The central dispute of the case was whether this was a true transfer fee subject to the statutory cap or a mislabeled working capital fee.

Working Capital Fee

A fee authorized by CC&R section 8.13 to be assessed from each new unit owner for the purpose of funding the Association’s working capital fund (Reserve Fund). The Association successfully argued the $660 charge was this type of fee.

How a $660 Fee Sparked a Legal Showdown: 5 Surprising Lessons from a Homeowner vs. HOA Dispute

We sign, we initial, we pay—assuming every line item on our closing documents is gospel. When buying a home in a condominium association, the stack of paperwork and list of fees can feel overwhelming. But what if one of those “standard” fees wasn’t standard at all?

For homeowner Brian Sopatyk, a single $660 charge from The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association wasn’t just a number; it was a thread he pulled that unraveled a surprising story of HOA governance, legal strategy, and the power of asking “why?” This post breaks down the five most impactful takeaways from a seemingly minor dispute that went all the way through a formal hearing and re-hearing.

1. A Simple Label Can Ignite a Legal Firestorm

A clerical error triggers a full-blown legal dispute.

The entire case hinged on a single, crucial mistake: the HOA mislabeled a “working capital fee” as a “transfer fee” on its disclosure forms.

Why was this one word so important? Because Mr. Sopatyk’s formal petition alleged that by charging a “$660 transfer fee,” the HOA violated Arizona statute 33-1260, which caps fees for resale disclosure services at a maximum of $400. On its face, the $660 charge looked like a clear violation of state law.

The Association’s manager, Amy Telnes, testified that when she took over her position, she was given erroneous information that the working capital fee was the transfer fee. As a result, the charge had been incorrectly labeled ever since. This simple administrative error was enough to trigger a formal petition to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, a full administrative hearing, and eventually, a re-hearing, proving how a small clerical mistake can escalate into a significant legal conflict.

2. In the Eyes of the Law, Substance Can Trump Form

Why the fee’s purpose mattered more than its name.

The Association’s core defense was that while the name of the fee was wrong, its purpose and authority were legitimate. The $660 charge, they argued, wasn’t for resale documents (the service capped by state law), but was a “working capital fee” authorized by an entirely different rule: the Association’s own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

Specifically, Section 8.13 of the CC&Rs allowed for this assessment, with the funds designated for the Association’s reserve fund. This working capital fee, in contrast, was an assessment on the new owner as mandated by the CC&Rs to ensure the association’s financial health. The actual fee for the statutory disclosure documents was a separate, compliant $30 “Resale Statement Fee,” which was paid by the seller.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately agreed. The fee’s underlying purpose and the HOA’s authority to collect it (its substance) were deemed more important than its incorrect name on the form (its form). This is a crucial lesson for any homeowner challenging an HOA: it’s not enough to find a mistake on a form. You must be prepared to argue against the underlying authority and purpose of the action itself.

3. You Can Lose the Battle but Win the War

How a dismissed case led to a major policy victory.

Perhaps the most counter-intuitive outcome is that although Mr. Sopatyk’s petition was dismissed, his actions were the direct catalyst for a significant and positive policy change by the HOA.

In a summary of the Association’s May 18, 2016, Board Meeting, which was entered as evidence, the judge noted that the Board reviewed the very issue Mr. Sopatyk had raised. Under the pressure of his legal challenge, they came to a powerful conclusion about their own system, determining it was “confusing and unfair.”

As a direct result of this internal review prompted by the dispute, the Board voted to simplify its process. It resolved to assess a single, clear transfer fee of $400 on all future transactions, eliminating the other confusing fees. This proves that even an unsuccessful legal challenge can be a powerful tool, forcing an organization to confront and correct its own problematic practices for the benefit of all future members.

4. The ‘Burden of Proof’ Is More Than Just a Phrase

What it really means to have to prove your case.

In both the original decision and the re-hearing, the judge repeatedly stated that Mr. Sopatyk, as the petitioner, bore the “burden of proof.” This legal standard was critical to the outcome. It meant he had to prove his claim by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which the court documents defined as:

The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

In this case, it meant Mr. Sopatyk’s job was to prove that the $660 fee was, more likely than not, an illegal charge for resale documents. The HOA’s defense—that it was a legally separate “working capital fee” that was simply mislabeled—created enough doubt that he couldn’t clear this hurdle.

5. A Small Contradiction Can Damage Credibility

When every word you say (and write) is on the record.

A fascinating detail appeared in the re-hearing decision, highlighting how every word matters in a legal proceeding.

There was a discrepancy in Mr. Sopatyk’s statements. His sworn petition, filed on August 9, 2016, stated the $660 fee was “split between the seller and the buyer.” However, during the hearing, he testified that he had “in fact paid the entire $660.”

The judge noted this contradiction directly in footnote 3 of the re-hearing decision, stating: “either Mr. Sopatyk’s sworn statement or his testimony must be false.” While not the deciding factor, this kind of inconsistency can subtly erode a petitioner’s standing. Remember the “burden of proof” from Takeaway 4? It requires convincing a judge to “incline a fair and impartial mind” to your side. Contradictions, even small ones, make that inclination much harder to achieve.

Conclusion: The Devil Is in the Details

This case is the perfect microcosm of community association disputes. It began with a clerical error (form), was adjudicated on intent (substance), was lost on a technicality (the burden of proof), yet resulted in a victory for transparency. Mr. Sopatyk may not have won his case, but he won a better system for his neighbors.

The ultimate lesson? In an HOA, the most powerful tool isn’t always a lawsuit—sometimes, it’s a magnifying glass. It leaves us with a thought-provoking question: When is it worth challenging the system for clarity and fairness, even if the outcome isn’t a clear ‘win’ on paper?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Brian Sopatyk (petitioner)
  • Nathan Andrews (petitioner attorney)
    ASU Alumni Law Group
  • Jill M. Kennedy (petitioner attorney)
    ASU Alumni Law Group
  • Chance Peterson (petitioner attorney)
    ASU Alumni Law Group
  • Judy Sopatyk (party)
    Wife of petitioner and co-purchaser of the unit

Respondent Side

  • Bradley R. Jardine (HOA attorney)
    Jardine Baker Hickman & Houston
    Attorney for Respondent
  • Amy Telnes (property manager/witness)
    The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc.
    Association manager who testified
  • Michael Cibellis (association president/witness)
    The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc.
    Association president who testified at rehearing

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner
  • Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
    OAH
    Signed Certification of Decision
  • Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)
    ADRE
    Administrative contact for rehearing requests
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (administrative staff)
    Involved in copy mailing/distribution