Tag Archives: CC&R

Nicholas Thomas v. Tanglewood Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H037-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-07-13
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Nicholas Thomas Counsel —
Respondent Tanglewood Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Page 2, Section A; and Management Agreement, Pages 33-34, Clause Four, subsection a., b., and f.

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the two-issue Petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Tanglewood Association violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or Management Agreement. The HOA was declared the prevailing party.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. Regarding the plumbing maintenance (Issue #1), the HOA demonstrated they took action but were legally constrained by contract limitations requiring Board approval/owner vote for costly repairs ($5,000 threshold). Regarding the failure to hire a property manager (Issue #2), the governing documents were vague, and the violation was not proven.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to maintain Association standards of acceptable living standards and make proper repairs to plumbing in the properties.

Petitioner filed a two-issue petition alleging HOA failed to timely fix a major plumbing issue (Issue #1) that caused flooding/sink backup, making his unit uninhabitable and resulting in lost rent. The second issue (Issue #2) alleged the HOA failed to hire a property management company, which Petitioner claimed led to the untimely handling of Issue #1. The HOA responded that repairs were delayed due to financial constraints requiring a successful special assessment vote.

Orders: The Petition was denied, and the HOA was determined to be the prevailing party. Petitioner was ordered to bear his filing fees. OAH cannot award damages, such as lost rent reimbursement.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Page 2, Section A
  • Management Agreement, Pages 33-34, Clause Four, subsection a., b., and f.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Plumbing, CC&R, Self-Managed, Special Assessment, Filing Fee, Damages Denied
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H037-REL Decision – 1300705.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:18:44 (49.8 KB)

25F-H037-REL Decision – 1327762.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:18:48 (147.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H037-REL


Briefing Document: Nicholas Thomas v. Tanglewood Association (Case No. 25F-H037-REL)

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of Case No. 25F-H037-REL, a dispute between property owner Nicholas Thomas (Petitioner) and the Tanglewood Association (HOA/Respondent). The case was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, with a final decision issued on July 13, 2025.

The Petitioner filed a two-issue petition alleging that the HOA (1) failed in its duty to perform timely plumbing repairs, rendering his unit uninhabitable, and (2) failed to hire a professional property management company, leading to systemic financial and operational issues.

The HOA countered that the repair delays were not due to inaction but to severe financial constraints and the procedural necessity of securing a majority vote from homeowners for a special assessment. This funding was required for the extensive and costly repairs needed for the property’s aging infrastructure. The HOA highlighted that the Petitioner had never participated in these critical votes.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately denied the petition in its entirety, finding that the Petitioner had not met his burden of proof. The decision concluded that the HOA’s actions were constrained by its financial reality and governing documents, not a breach of duty. The delays were attributed to the failed attempts to secure owner-approved funding via special assessment votes in prior years. The HOA was determined to be the prevailing party, and the Petitioner was ordered to bear his own filing fees.

I. Case Overview

• Case Number: 25F-H037-REL

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Nicholas Thomas, owner of Unit 141, Building 4

◦ Respondent: Tanglewood Association (HOA), represented by Co-President Hector Saavedra

• Adjudicating Body: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn

• Timeline:

◦ Petition Filed: February 7, 2025

◦ Hearing Date: May 16, 2025

◦ Decision Issued: July 13, 2025

The Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging the HOA violated its CC&Rs by failing to maintain the property and by not hiring professional management. The matter was referred to the OAH for an evidentiary hearing.

II. Complaint #1: Failure to Repair Plumbing Issue

Petitioner’s Position

The central claim was that the HOA failed to address a severe plumbing issue in a timely manner, which stemmed from common lines outside the Petitioner’s unit.

• Timeline of Events:

◦ October 2024: The Petitioner first became aware of a plumbing issue causing the kitchen sink to back up. A private plumber determined the issue was external to the unit.

◦ November 18, 2024: The HOA was formally notified of the problem.

◦ January/February 2025: Communication from the HOA ceased, prompting the Petitioner to file his complaint.

◦ February 18, 2025: The Petitioner canceled the lease with his tenants as the unit was deemed “uninhabitable” due to flooding and a non-functional sink.

• Consequences: The Petitioner cited damage to the kitchen floor and walls, the loss of rental income, and the ongoing uninhabitable state of the unit. The water line to the sink was eventually capped in February 2025 to stop the flooding, but this did not resolve the underlying issue.

• Key Quote: “The plumbing issue has been in place for 7 months. It has not been addressed. The house is currently unlivable, uninhabitable, still has damage in it. Um, and I do believe the HOA has failed in its required responsibilities to address this issue.” – Nicholas Thomas

• Requested Relief:

1. An order for the HOA to fix the plumbing with a specific timeline.

2. Reimbursement of the $500 portion of the filing fee for this complaint.

3. Reimbursement for lost rent.

Respondent’s Position (Tanglewood HOA)

The HOA argued that the delay was a direct result of financial insolvency and procedural requirements stipulated in its governing documents, not negligence.

• Systemic Problem: The plumbing issues were not isolated to the Petitioner’s unit but were part of a larger problem with the property’s aging infrastructure, dating back to 1965. A similar issue in another building cost $15,000 to repair two years prior.

• Financial & Procedural Hurdles: The estimated cost for the current repairs was initially $15,000 but rose to $50,000. The HOA stated it was “flat broke” with minimal reserves. The CC&Rs mandate a majority vote of over 50% (50.1%) of owners to approve a special assessment for such funding.

• Key Quote: “It should be noted that the board cannot increase the dues of the HOA or or ask for an special assessment unless we have a 50.01% vote from the owners. Mr. Thomas hasn’t voted in two three years and the things that he’s been asking for need their vote to make them happen.” – Hector Saavedra

• Voting History: Attempts to pass a special assessment failed in 2022 and 2023 due to a lack of owner participation. The Petitioner acknowledged he had never voted.

• Eventual Success: In 2025, after significant effort, the HOA secured a 50.35% vote to approve a $70,000 special assessment. This was structured in three phases to ease the financial burden on owners.

• Current Action Plan: At the time of the hearing, the HOA had collected approximately $40,000, made a $15,000 down payment to a plumbing contractor, and was scheduling the work. The repairs were set to begin with Building 4, which includes the Petitioner’s unit and was identified as having the most severe damage.

III. Complaint #2: Lack of Professional Management

Petitioner’s Position

This complaint asserted that the root cause of the HOA’s problems was its self-managed, volunteer-run structure, which was incapable of handling the property’s complex needs.

• Core Argument: A volunteer board lacks the time, expertise, and resources for effective financial management, enforcement of dues collection (including foreclosure on delinquent owners), and timely handling of maintenance. The Petitioner’s brother, Lucas Thomas, testified that in his 15 years as a property manager, he has consistently seen self-managed HOAs fail to operate correctly.

• Alleged Financial Mismanagement: The Petitioner argued the HOA should have been proactively increasing dues up to the 20% annual limit allowed by Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1803) without an owner vote, which would have built necessary reserves.

• Key Quote: “Every time that there is a self-managed HOA, the volunteers just don’t have the knowledge or the knowhow or the connections to locals that they need to properly facilitate a giant management especially for 42 units.” – Lucas Thomas

• Requested Relief:

1. An order for the HOA to hire a professional property management company.

2. Reimbursement of the $500 portion of the filing fee for this complaint.

Respondent’s Position (Tanglewood HOA)

The HOA acknowledged the challenges of a volunteer board but maintained that its primary obstacle was financial, not a lack of willingness to act.

• Affordability: The board had discussed hiring a professional management company but concluded it could not afford the expense. They feared that passing the cost to owners would result in even greater delinquency in dues payments.

• Volunteer Effort and Investment: The board is comprised of unpaid owner volunteers who live on the property and are personally impacted by the issues. Mr. Saavedra noted the immense personal time and stress involved, stating, “We are working we understand there’s around seven units right now that are vacant just like Mr. Thomas’s. We understand the pain of not being able to collect money from that from rent.”

• Invitation to Participate: The HOA extended an invitation to Mr. Thomas to join the board and contribute to finding solutions.

IV. Administrative Law Judge’s Decision & Rationale

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the Petitioner’s petition on all counts, finding the evidence did not support a conclusion that the HOA had violated its duties.

• Final Order:

◦ The Petitioner’s Petition is denied.

◦ The HOA is the prevailing party.

◦ The Petitioner shall bear his own filing fees ($1,000.00).

◦ The OAH does not have the authority to award damages, such as lost rent.

• Rationale for Denying Complaint #1 (Plumbing Repair):

◦ The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving the HOA was not performing its duties.

◦ The evidence demonstrated that upon receiving complaints, the HOA hired a vendor and investigated the issue. The subsequent delay was a direct result of the high cost of repair and the HOA’s lack of funds.

◦ The HOA’s governing documents prevent a property manager or agent from spending more than $5,000, even in an emergency, without Board approval. Therefore, an immediate, large-scale repair was contractually and financially impossible without the owner-approved special assessment. The delay was thus a consequence of procedural and financial constraints, not a failure of duty.

• Rationale for Denying Complaint #2 (Professional Management):

◦ The ALJ found the hearing record to be “simply vague” on this issue.

◦ It could not be determined whether the HOA ever had a property manager in the past or to whom the “Management Agreement” clauses in the CC&Rs currently apply. Without a clearer record, a violation could not be established.

V. Key Participants & Testimony

Participant

Key Testimony & Contributions

Nicholas Thomas

Petitioner, Owner of Unit 141

Outlined the 7-month timeline of the plumbing failure, the resulting uninhabitability of his unit, and the financial losses incurred. Argued for professional management and acknowledged he had never voted in HOA elections or assessments.

Hector Saavedra

Respondent, Co-President of Tanglewood HOA

Explained the HOA’s financial insolvency, the procedural requirement for a majority owner vote to pass special assessments, and the history of failed votes. Detailed the successful 2025 vote and the current plan to begin repairs. Invited the Petitioner to join the board.

Carl Kesler

Petitioner’s Property Manager

Corroborated the timeline of events and communications with the HOA. Confirmed the plumbing issue was localized to the kitchen and stemmed from a mainline sewer problem. Stated he had never been to the unit in person and did not forward all HOA correspondence to the Petitioner.

Lucas Thomas

Petitioner’s Brother, Former Property Manager

Testified from his 15 years of experience that self-managed HOAs are typically ineffective. Argued that a professional firm is necessary for proper financial management and maintenance, citing a past lawsuit where he forced another HOA to hire a management company, which turned the property around.






Study Guide – 25F-H037-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H037-REL”, “case_title”: “Nicholas Thomas v. Tanglewood Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-07-13”, “alj_name”: “Kay A. Abramsohn”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can I get monetary damages (like lost rent) from my HOA through an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “No, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) does not have the legal authority to award damages.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the OAH can order an HOA to follow its governing documents, it cannot award financial compensation for losses such as lost rent or property damage.”, “alj_quote”: “OAH does not have authority to award damages.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.”, “topic_tags”: [ “damages”, “jurisdiction”, “compensation” ] }, { “question”: “If my HOA fails to make repairs due to lack of funds, is it considered a violation?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily, especially if the HOA is taking steps to secure funding through a special assessment.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the ALJ found that the HOA could not be held in violation for failing to make immediate repairs when it lacked the necessary funds and was actively seeking a special assessment vote from owners to cover the costs.”, “alj_quote”: “Given its financial situation, HOA determined the overall plumbing issues could not be repaired absent a special assessment to cover those specific and projected expenses… Therefore, the hearing record demonstrates that more immediate action to repair either Petitioner’s plumbing issues or the overall plumbing issues could not have been taken.”, “legal_basis”: “Governing Documents / Financial Feasibility”, “topic_tags”: [ “repairs”, “finances”, “special assessment” ] }, { “question”: “Who acts as the ‘burden of proof’ in a hearing against an HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the violation occurred.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA violated its community documents or relevant statutes.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent HOA violated the alleged CC&R provisions.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standard”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Can I force my HOA board to hire a professional property management company?”, “short_answer”: “Likely no, unless you can prove a specific requirement in the governing documents is being violated.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that the homeowner did not meet the burden of proof to show that the HOA was violating its duties by not hiring a property manager, noting the evidence regarding the requirement was vague.”, “alj_quote”: “The Tribunal concludes that Petitioner has not met his burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that HOA was not timely performing ‘their duties outlined’ in CC&Rs Page 2, Section A; and Management Agreement… regarding property management, the hearing record is simply vague.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs / Management Agreement”, “topic_tags”: [ “property management”, “board duties”, “self-management” ] }, { “question”: “Does an HOA manager have unlimited spending power for emergency repairs?”, “short_answer”: “No, governing documents often place specific dollar limits on spending without board/association approval.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision cites a management agreement that limits emergency repair spending (e.g., to $5,000) without prior approval from the Association.”, “alj_quote”: “Agent shall not incur liabilities (direct or contingent) which will at any time exceed the aggregate of $5,000.00 … without first obtaining the approval of the Association.”, “legal_basis”: “Management Agreement Contracts”, “topic_tags”: [ “spending limits”, “emergency repairs”, “budget” ] }, { “question”: “If I lose my case against the HOA, do I get my filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “No, if the petition is denied, the petitioner is typically responsible for their own filing fees.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ordered that the Petitioner bear his own filing fees after Tanglewood Association was determined to be the prevailing party.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall bear his filing fees.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Order”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “costs”, “penalties” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 25F-H037-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H037-REL”, “case_title”: “Nicholas Thomas v. Tanglewood Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-07-13”, “alj_name”: “Kay A. Abramsohn”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can I get monetary damages (like lost rent) from my HOA through an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “No, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) does not have the legal authority to award damages.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the OAH can order an HOA to follow its governing documents, it cannot award financial compensation for losses such as lost rent or property damage.”, “alj_quote”: “OAH does not have authority to award damages.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.”, “topic_tags”: [ “damages”, “jurisdiction”, “compensation” ] }, { “question”: “If my HOA fails to make repairs due to lack of funds, is it considered a violation?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily, especially if the HOA is taking steps to secure funding through a special assessment.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the ALJ found that the HOA could not be held in violation for failing to make immediate repairs when it lacked the necessary funds and was actively seeking a special assessment vote from owners to cover the costs.”, “alj_quote”: “Given its financial situation, HOA determined the overall plumbing issues could not be repaired absent a special assessment to cover those specific and projected expenses… Therefore, the hearing record demonstrates that more immediate action to repair either Petitioner’s plumbing issues or the overall plumbing issues could not have been taken.”, “legal_basis”: “Governing Documents / Financial Feasibility”, “topic_tags”: [ “repairs”, “finances”, “special assessment” ] }, { “question”: “Who acts as the ‘burden of proof’ in a hearing against an HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the violation occurred.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA violated its community documents or relevant statutes.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent HOA violated the alleged CC&R provisions.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standard”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Can I force my HOA board to hire a professional property management company?”, “short_answer”: “Likely no, unless you can prove a specific requirement in the governing documents is being violated.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that the homeowner did not meet the burden of proof to show that the HOA was violating its duties by not hiring a property manager, noting the evidence regarding the requirement was vague.”, “alj_quote”: “The Tribunal concludes that Petitioner has not met his burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that HOA was not timely performing ‘their duties outlined’ in CC&Rs Page 2, Section A; and Management Agreement… regarding property management, the hearing record is simply vague.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs / Management Agreement”, “topic_tags”: [ “property management”, “board duties”, “self-management” ] }, { “question”: “Does an HOA manager have unlimited spending power for emergency repairs?”, “short_answer”: “No, governing documents often place specific dollar limits on spending without board/association approval.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision cites a management agreement that limits emergency repair spending (e.g., to $5,000) without prior approval from the Association.”, “alj_quote”: “Agent shall not incur liabilities (direct or contingent) which will at any time exceed the aggregate of $5,000.00 … without first obtaining the approval of the Association.”, “legal_basis”: “Management Agreement Contracts”, “topic_tags”: [ “spending limits”, “emergency repairs”, “budget” ] }, { “question”: “If I lose my case against the HOA, do I get my filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “No, if the petition is denied, the petitioner is typically responsible for their own filing fees.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ordered that the Petitioner bear his own filing fees after Tanglewood Association was determined to be the prevailing party.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall bear his filing fees.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Order”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “costs”, “penalties” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Nicholas Thomas (petitioner)
    Represented self; Unit owner
  • Carl Kesler (property manager)
    Managed Petitioner's unit; testified as witness
  • Lucas Thomas (witness)
    Brother of Petitioner; former property manager of the unit

Respondent Side

  • Hector Saavedra (board member)
    Tanglewood Association
    Co-President; represented the Respondent Association

Neutral Parties

  • Kay A. Abramsohn (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Also referred to as K. Abramson
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of the decision

Keith A. Shadden v. Las Brisas Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

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

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

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

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

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

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

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1298924.pdf

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

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

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

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1303564.pdf

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

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1312135.pdf

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

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1312136.pdf

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

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1314210.pdf

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

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1315443.pdf

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

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1315444.pdf

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

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1316546.pdf

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

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1316554.pdf

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

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1317444.pdf

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

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1317445.pdf

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

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1317647.pdf

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

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1317648.pdf

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

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1325514.pdf

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

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1325661.pdf

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

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1325928.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





Briefing Doc – 25F-H043-REL


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

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

Case Overview

Case Name

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

Case Number

25F-H043-REL

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Presiding Judge

Velva Moses-Thompson, Administrative Law Judge

Hearing Date

June 16, 2025

Decision Date

July 7, 2025

Petitioner

Keith A. Shadden (representing himself)

Respondent

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

Core Dispute and Allegations

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

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

Relevant Governing Documents

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

Section

Full Text

Article 5.10

Windows

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

Article 5.12

Garages and Driveways

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

Arguments and Evidence Presented at Hearing

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

Petitioner’s Case (Keith A. Shadden)

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

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

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

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

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

Respondent’s Case (Las Brisas Community Association)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Decision and Legal Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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






Study Guide – 25F-H043-REL


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






Blog Post – 25F-H043-REL


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


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

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

Harry G. Turner v. MountainGate Home Owners Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H045-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-08-14
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Harry G. Turner Counsel —
Respondent Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

Article 10 Section 4 of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner Harry G. Turner failed to meet his burden of proof to demonstrate that the Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc. violated Article 10 Section 4 of the CC&Rs by planning drainage construction in Tract H.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to reconcile conflicting designations of Tract H in the plat map (Preserved/Active Open Space vs. Drainage), thus failing to prove that the drainage ditch constituted a prohibited change of use.

Key Issues & Findings

Required membership vote for common area use change (Tract H drainage ditch)

Petitioner alleged the HOA (Respondent) violated CC&Rs Article 10 Section 4 by planning to dig a drainage ditch in Tract H, arguing this was a change of use requiring a 2/3rds membership vote. Respondent argued Tract H was already designated for drainage in the 'Conveyance and Dedication' portion of the plat map, negating the need for a vote.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed. Petitioner's request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Article 10 Section 4 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for Mountain Gate Homes, a Townhouse Project

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Drainage, Common Area, Change of Use, Burden of Proof, Planned Community, Plat Map
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Article 10 Section 4 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for Mountain Gate Homes, a Townhouse Project

Video Overview

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/1KAeIyRL8kVCBXnkJx4Gy7

Decision Documents

23F-H045-REL Decision – 1055488.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:36 (49.7 KB)

23F-H045-REL Decision – 1057334.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:40 (43.7 KB)

23F-H045-REL Decision – 1083773.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:42 (105.1 KB)

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that an HOA violated the community's CC&Rs in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In a hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings, it is not the HOA's job to disprove the allegations initially. The homeowner must provide sufficient evidence to prove the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Article 10 Section 4 of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • procedure

Question

What is the legal standard of evidence required to win a case against an HOA?

Short Answer

The standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim is more probable than not.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner does not need to prove the violation beyond a reasonable doubt. They must simply show that their version of events or interpretation of the documents is more likely true than the HOA's version.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Preponderance of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • legal definitions

Question

What happens if community documents (like a plat map) contain conflicting descriptions of a common area?

Short Answer

If the homeowner cannot prove why their preferred description should control, they fail to meet their burden of proof, and the case may be dismissed.

Detailed Answer

In this case, one section of the plat map described the land as 'Open Space' while another described it as 'Drainage.' Because the homeowner could not legally establish why the 'Open Space' description superseded the 'Drainage' description, the judge ruled against them.

Alj Quote

Neither party presented sufficient evidence to determine why their characterization of Tract “H” controlled. Petitioner bears the burden of proof and has failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet his burden.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • document interpretation
  • common areas

Question

Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over CC&R disputes?

Short Answer

Yes, they have jurisdiction over disputes between owners and associations regarding violations of community documents or statutes.

Detailed Answer

Homeowners can petition the department for a hearing regarding alleged violations of the community's governing documents (CC&Rs) or state laws regulating planned communities.

Alj Quote

This matter lies within the Department’s jurisdiction… regarding a dispute between an owner and a planned community association. The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • regulatory authority

Question

If an HOA modifies a common area (e.g., digging a ditch), does it always require a member vote?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. If the modification aligns with a designated use in the governing documents (like 'drainage'), it may not constitute a 'change of use' requiring a vote.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner argued a vote was required to change 'Open Space' to a drainage ditch. The HOA argued the land was already dedicated for 'drainage,' so no use change occurred. The judge dismissed the complaint because the homeowner failed to prove it wasn't already a drainage area.

Alj Quote

Respondent argued it did not violate the CC&Rs because it did not change the characteristic of the common area and therefore no change protocols needed to be observed… Petitioner failed to meet his burden.

Legal Basis

CC&R Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • common areas
  • voting rights

Question

Can I request a civil penalty be levied against my HOA?

Short Answer

You can request it, but it will be denied if you fail to prove the violation.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, the judge explicitly denied the petitioner's request for a civil penalty after dismissing the petition.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • remedies

Case

Docket No
23F-H045-REL
Case Title
Harry G. Turner v Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-08-14
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that an HOA violated the community's CC&Rs in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In a hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings, it is not the HOA's job to disprove the allegations initially. The homeowner must provide sufficient evidence to prove the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Article 10 Section 4 of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • procedure

Question

What is the legal standard of evidence required to win a case against an HOA?

Short Answer

The standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim is more probable than not.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner does not need to prove the violation beyond a reasonable doubt. They must simply show that their version of events or interpretation of the documents is more likely true than the HOA's version.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Preponderance of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • legal definitions

Question

What happens if community documents (like a plat map) contain conflicting descriptions of a common area?

Short Answer

If the homeowner cannot prove why their preferred description should control, they fail to meet their burden of proof, and the case may be dismissed.

Detailed Answer

In this case, one section of the plat map described the land as 'Open Space' while another described it as 'Drainage.' Because the homeowner could not legally establish why the 'Open Space' description superseded the 'Drainage' description, the judge ruled against them.

Alj Quote

Neither party presented sufficient evidence to determine why their characterization of Tract “H” controlled. Petitioner bears the burden of proof and has failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet his burden.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • document interpretation
  • common areas

Question

Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over CC&R disputes?

Short Answer

Yes, they have jurisdiction over disputes between owners and associations regarding violations of community documents or statutes.

Detailed Answer

Homeowners can petition the department for a hearing regarding alleged violations of the community's governing documents (CC&Rs) or state laws regulating planned communities.

Alj Quote

This matter lies within the Department’s jurisdiction… regarding a dispute between an owner and a planned community association. The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • regulatory authority

Question

If an HOA modifies a common area (e.g., digging a ditch), does it always require a member vote?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. If the modification aligns with a designated use in the governing documents (like 'drainage'), it may not constitute a 'change of use' requiring a vote.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner argued a vote was required to change 'Open Space' to a drainage ditch. The HOA argued the land was already dedicated for 'drainage,' so no use change occurred. The judge dismissed the complaint because the homeowner failed to prove it wasn't already a drainage area.

Alj Quote

Respondent argued it did not violate the CC&Rs because it did not change the characteristic of the common area and therefore no change protocols needed to be observed… Petitioner failed to meet his burden.

Legal Basis

CC&R Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • common areas
  • voting rights

Question

Can I request a civil penalty be levied against my HOA?

Short Answer

You can request it, but it will be denied if you fail to prove the violation.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, the judge explicitly denied the petitioner's request for a civil penalty after dismissing the petition.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • remedies

Case

Docket No
23F-H045-REL
Case Title
Harry G. Turner v Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-08-14
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Harry G. Turner (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Michael Luden (president/representative)
    Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc.
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent. Identified as President of the Homeowners Association
  • Brenda Anderson (witness/secretary)
    Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc.
    Witness for Respondent; Secretary of Mountain Gate Homeowners Association
  • Kelly Callahan (HOA attorney)
    HOA's attorney who wrote an email regarding the drainage ditch proposal

Neutral Parties

  • Brian Del Vecchio (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed in transmission list
  • Jeremiah Lloyd (Community Development Director)
    Pinetop Lakeside
    Community Development Director for Pinetop Lakeside
  • Bill Best (County Engineer)
    Navajo County
    Navajo County Engineer
  • Emory Ellsworth (engineer)
    Painted Sky Engineering and Surveying
    Engineer consulted by Petitioner
  • John Murphy (engineer)
    Murphy Engineering Group
    Engineer whose company provided original certified plans

Other Participants

  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed in transmission list
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed in transmission list
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed in transmission list
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed in transmission list
  • Ken Anderson (community member)
    Mentioned as being present when a document was allegedly falsified
  • Gary Lao (developer)
    Original developer

Anthony Payson v. The Foothills Homeowners Association #1

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H041-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-05-01
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Anthony Payson Counsel —
Respondent The Foothills Homeowners Association #1 Counsel Sean K. Mohnihan

Alleged Violations

CC&R Section 5.4

Outcome Summary

The petition was dismissed after the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent HOA did not violate CC&R Section 5.4, finding that this section applies to use restrictions on individual Lots and Members, not the Association itself.

Why this result: The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Section 5.4 because the HOA does not own or operate the nuisance-causing television, and the CC&R section governs restrictions on lot Owners/Members, not the Association. OAH jurisdiction is limited to finding the governing document or statute violated by the respondent.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA's alleged failure to enforce nuisance provision (CC&R Section 5.4) regarding neighbor's outdoor television.

Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA failed to perform its duty to enforce CC&R Section 5.4 by refusing to seek removal of a neighbor's large, outdoor television that created noise disturbances and was deemed a nuisance.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §32- 2199.02(A)
  • CC&R Section 5.4

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Homeowners Association, CC&R, Nuisance, Enforcement, Jurisdiction, Outdoor TV
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §32- 2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/74bT2mijNKJ5SUal3ovDor

Decision Documents

23F-H041-REL Decision – 1047496.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:55:58 (57.5 KB)

23F-H041-REL Decision – 1053240.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:01 (98.4 KB)





Study Guide – 23F-H041-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H041-REL”, “case_title”: “In the Matter of Anthony Payson vs The Foothills Homeowners Association #1”, “decision_date”: “2023-05-01”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can I use the ADRE administrative hearing process to force my HOA to enforce CC&R rules against a neighbor?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no, if the specific rule applies to member conduct rather than Association conduct.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) clarified that the dispute process is for determining if the Respondent (the HOA) violated a statute or governing document. If a CC&R provision restricts how a ‘lot’ may be used, a violation of that rule is a breach by the member (the neighbor), not the Association. Therefore, the HOA cannot be found guilty of violating a rule that governs homeowner behavior.”, “alj_quote”: “These provisions refer to what members may and may not do within the Association. Therefore, any breach of this Article would be a breach by a Member, not the Association. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent violated CC&R Section 5.4.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 5.4; OAH Jurisdiction”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement”, “jurisdiction”, “neighbor disputes” ] }, { “question”: “Does the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) have jurisdiction to decide if my HOA was negligent or violated common law duties?”, “short_answer”: “No, the OAH jurisdiction is strictly limited to violations of statutes and governing documents.”, “detailed_answer”: “The tribunal does not have the authority to hear claims based on common law, such as negligence or general failure to perform a duty, unless it is a specific violation of the statutes or the community documents tailored to the Association’s conduct.”, “alj_quote”: “To the extent that Petitioner alleged that Respondent may have violated common law, or any other laws, the OAH lacks jurisdiction to make such a determination.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “common law”, “negligence” ] }, { “question”: “What remedies or penalties can I request from the administrative judge if I win my case against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Relief is limited to a finding of violation, an order to comply, return of filing fees, and civil penalties.”, “detailed_answer”: “The administrative process cannot award damages for things like pain, suffering, or lost property value. The remedies are strictly defined by statute: finding a violation occurred, ordering the HOA to abide by the provision, returning the petitioner’s filing fee, and levying a civil penalty.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s relief in this venue is limited to e is limited to a finding that the governing document or statute at issue has been violated by the respondent, an order that Respondent abide by the provision in the future, and to have the filing fee returned to the petitioner and a civil penalty levied against Respondent.”, “legal_basis”: “Ariz. Rev. Stat. §32- 2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “remedies”, “penalties”, “civil penalty” ] }, { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner bringing the case must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It is not the HOA’s job to disprove the claims initially; the burden lies with the person filing the petition.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated on its CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “evidence”, “legal standard” ] }, { “question”: “What is the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard used in these hearings?”, “short_answer”: “It means the claim is more probable than not to be true.”, “detailed_answer”: “This legal standard requires that the evidence presented must convince the judge that the petitioner’s argument is more likely true than the opposing side’s argument. It is described as the ‘greater weight of the evidence.'”, “alj_quote”: ““A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.””, “legal_basis”: “Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standard”, “definitions”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “How are vague or ambiguous rules in the CC&Rs interpreted by the judge?”, “short_answer”: “They are construed to give effect to the intent of the parties and the underlying purpose of the document.”, “detailed_answer”: “When interpreting restrictive covenants, the judge looks at the document as a whole. If the covenant is unambiguous, it is enforced exactly as written to match the intent.”, “alj_quote”: ““Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.””, “legal_basis”: “Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553”, “topic_tags”: [ “interpretation”, “CC&Rs”, “legal principles” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 23F-H041-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H041-REL”, “case_title”: “In the Matter of Anthony Payson vs The Foothills Homeowners Association #1”, “decision_date”: “2023-05-01”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can I use the ADRE administrative hearing process to force my HOA to enforce CC&R rules against a neighbor?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no, if the specific rule applies to member conduct rather than Association conduct.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) clarified that the dispute process is for determining if the Respondent (the HOA) violated a statute or governing document. If a CC&R provision restricts how a ‘lot’ may be used, a violation of that rule is a breach by the member (the neighbor), not the Association. Therefore, the HOA cannot be found guilty of violating a rule that governs homeowner behavior.”, “alj_quote”: “These provisions refer to what members may and may not do within the Association. Therefore, any breach of this Article would be a breach by a Member, not the Association. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent violated CC&R Section 5.4.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 5.4; OAH Jurisdiction”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement”, “jurisdiction”, “neighbor disputes” ] }, { “question”: “Does the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) have jurisdiction to decide if my HOA was negligent or violated common law duties?”, “short_answer”: “No, the OAH jurisdiction is strictly limited to violations of statutes and governing documents.”, “detailed_answer”: “The tribunal does not have the authority to hear claims based on common law, such as negligence or general failure to perform a duty, unless it is a specific violation of the statutes or the community documents tailored to the Association’s conduct.”, “alj_quote”: “To the extent that Petitioner alleged that Respondent may have violated common law, or any other laws, the OAH lacks jurisdiction to make such a determination.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “common law”, “negligence” ] }, { “question”: “What remedies or penalties can I request from the administrative judge if I win my case against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Relief is limited to a finding of violation, an order to comply, return of filing fees, and civil penalties.”, “detailed_answer”: “The administrative process cannot award damages for things like pain, suffering, or lost property value. The remedies are strictly defined by statute: finding a violation occurred, ordering the HOA to abide by the provision, returning the petitioner’s filing fee, and levying a civil penalty.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s relief in this venue is limited to e is limited to a finding that the governing document or statute at issue has been violated by the respondent, an order that Respondent abide by the provision in the future, and to have the filing fee returned to the petitioner and a civil penalty levied against Respondent.”, “legal_basis”: “Ariz. Rev. Stat. §32- 2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “remedies”, “penalties”, “civil penalty” ] }, { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner bringing the case must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It is not the HOA’s job to disprove the claims initially; the burden lies with the person filing the petition.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated on its CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “evidence”, “legal standard” ] }, { “question”: “What is the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard used in these hearings?”, “short_answer”: “It means the claim is more probable than not to be true.”, “detailed_answer”: “This legal standard requires that the evidence presented must convince the judge that the petitioner’s argument is more likely true than the opposing side’s argument. It is described as the ‘greater weight of the evidence.'”, “alj_quote”: ““A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.””, “legal_basis”: “Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standard”, “definitions”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “How are vague or ambiguous rules in the CC&Rs interpreted by the judge?”, “short_answer”: “They are construed to give effect to the intent of the parties and the underlying purpose of the document.”, “detailed_answer”: “When interpreting restrictive covenants, the judge looks at the document as a whole. If the covenant is unambiguous, it is enforced exactly as written to match the intent.”, “alj_quote”: ““Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.””, “legal_basis”: “Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553”, “topic_tags”: [ “interpretation”, “CC&Rs”, “legal principles” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Anthony Payson (petitioner)
    Homeowner

Respondent Side

  • Sean K. Mohnihan (HOA attorney)
    Smith & Wamsley, PLLC
    Appeared for Respondent The Foothills Homeowners Association #1
  • Jason E Smith (attorney)
    Smith & Wamsley, PLLC
    Listed with counsel
  • Gabron (board member)
    The Foothills Homeowners Association #1
    Board representative/potential witness
  • Linda Armo (board member)
    The Foothills Homeowners Association #1
    Board representative/potential witness
  • Philip Brown (former HOA attorney)
    Previously represented the HOA; wrote a letter to Petitioner

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

  • Barry Callahan (neighbor)
    Alleged violator of CC&Rs, neighbor to Petitioner

Carolyn Wefsenmoe v. Summit View Homeowner’s Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H017-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-03-08
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Carolyn Wefsenmoe Counsel —
Respondent Summit View Homeowner's Association Counsel Chad M. Gallacher, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R’s Article XI, Sections 1, 2, and 3; Summit View Community Plat Notes

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, ruling that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the walls were built on the common area. Since HOA maintenance responsibility primarily attached to the common area, and the location of the walls relative to the lots remained unproven, the HOA was not found in violation of its maintenance obligations.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the walls were located in a common area. No survey evidence was presented to determine whether the walls were on the individual lots (Owner responsibility) or the common area (HOA responsibility).

Key Issues & Findings

HOA failure to maintain perimeter walls and improper charging of homeowners for repairs.

Petitioner alleged that the HOA (SVHA) violated CC&R Article XI, Sections 1, 2, and 3, and the Community Plat Notes by failing to maintain the subdivision perimeter walls and charging homeowners for repairs, arguing the walls abutted and were part of the Common Area (NAOS), making maintenance the HOA's responsibility.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 1
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 2
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 3
  • Summit View Community Plat Notes

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Maintenance, Perimeter Walls, CC&R, Common Area, Burden of Proof, NAOS, Lot Line Dispute
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 1
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 2
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 3
  • Summit View Plat Notes

Video Overview

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/71FsAzQZjyvSrdExtF4eXX

Decision Documents

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1018596.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:51:50 (52.8 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1018616.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:51:54 (5.6 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1031301.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:51:57 (53.6 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032541.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:02 (258.1 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032542.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:05 (723.8 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032543.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:10 (487.6 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032544.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:15 (3029.4 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032545.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:21 (81.9 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032546.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:29 (3401.3 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032547.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:33 (2346.1 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1035846.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:37 (114.5 KB)

Questions

Question

Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner files a petition against their HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the person filing the petition is responsible for proving that the HOA committed the alleged violations. The HOA does not have to disprove the allegations initially; the homeowner must first provide sufficient evidence to support their claim.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • procedural requirements

Question

What level of evidence is required to win a dispute against an HOA?

Short Answer

A 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' like in criminal cases. Instead, the homeowner must show that their version of the facts is more probable than the HOA's version. It relies on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the number of witnesses.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • evidence
  • hearings

Question

If a wall touches an HOA common area, does the HOA automatically have to maintain it?

Short Answer

No. The location of the wall's foundation (on the lot vs. common area) determines responsibility.

Detailed Answer

Simply abutting a common area does not make a structure part of the common area. Unless the homeowner can prove the structure was actually built *on* the common area land, the HOA may not be responsible for its maintenance.

Alj Quote

There was no persuasive evidence presented that simply because on the other side of the wall there was a common area, does not prove that the wall was actually built on the common area.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

  • maintenance
  • common areas
  • boundaries

Question

Is a professional survey necessary to prove a boundary or maintenance dispute?

Short Answer

Yes, often. Without a survey, it is difficult to prove exactly where a structure lies.

Detailed Answer

If there is a dispute about whether a wall or structure is on private property or common area, failing to provide a professional survey can result in losing the case. The judge generally cannot assume a location without specific evidence.

Alj Quote

However, again, no evidence was presented to determine exactly where the wall was built. Perhaps if this evidence was presented there may be a different result.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • surveys
  • property lines

Question

Does the alignment of walls affect who is responsible for them?

Short Answer

Yes. If walls are not uniformly aligned, it suggests they follow individual lot lines rather than a subdivision perimeter.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, the judge noted that because the walls were not in a straight, uniform line across lots (likely due to varying lot sizes), it supported the conclusion that the walls were built on individual lots rather than being a single common area perimeter wall.

Alj Quote

Further, the tribunal notes that the walls were not uniformly even across the individual lots. This was presumably because each lot is a different size, which also would lead to the conclusion that each wall was built on each individual lot.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

  • maintenance
  • construction
  • HOA obligations

Question

Can I rely solely on Plat Notes to prove HOA maintenance responsibility?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, especially if physical evidence contradicts the interpretation that a structure is a 'perimeter wall'.

Detailed Answer

Even if a Plat Note says the HOA maintains 'subdivision perimeter walls,' the homeowner must still prove that the specific wall in question fits that definition and location. If the evidence suggests the wall is on a private lot, the general note may not apply.

Alj Quote

Petitioner testified that she believed that based upon the 'Notes' section on the plat map, this created an obligation on the SVHA… [However] Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the walls in questions are in a common area.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

  • cc&rs
  • plat maps
  • interpretation

Case

Docket No
23F-H017-REL
Case Title
Carolyn Wefsenmoe vs Summit View Homeowner's Association
Decision Date
2023-03-08
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner files a petition against their HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the person filing the petition is responsible for proving that the HOA committed the alleged violations. The HOA does not have to disprove the allegations initially; the homeowner must first provide sufficient evidence to support their claim.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • procedural requirements

Question

What level of evidence is required to win a dispute against an HOA?

Short Answer

A 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' like in criminal cases. Instead, the homeowner must show that their version of the facts is more probable than the HOA's version. It relies on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the number of witnesses.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • evidence
  • hearings

Question

If a wall touches an HOA common area, does the HOA automatically have to maintain it?

Short Answer

No. The location of the wall's foundation (on the lot vs. common area) determines responsibility.

Detailed Answer

Simply abutting a common area does not make a structure part of the common area. Unless the homeowner can prove the structure was actually built *on* the common area land, the HOA may not be responsible for its maintenance.

Alj Quote

There was no persuasive evidence presented that simply because on the other side of the wall there was a common area, does not prove that the wall was actually built on the common area.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

  • maintenance
  • common areas
  • boundaries

Question

Is a professional survey necessary to prove a boundary or maintenance dispute?

Short Answer

Yes, often. Without a survey, it is difficult to prove exactly where a structure lies.

Detailed Answer

If there is a dispute about whether a wall or structure is on private property or common area, failing to provide a professional survey can result in losing the case. The judge generally cannot assume a location without specific evidence.

Alj Quote

However, again, no evidence was presented to determine exactly where the wall was built. Perhaps if this evidence was presented there may be a different result.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • surveys
  • property lines

Question

Does the alignment of walls affect who is responsible for them?

Short Answer

Yes. If walls are not uniformly aligned, it suggests they follow individual lot lines rather than a subdivision perimeter.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, the judge noted that because the walls were not in a straight, uniform line across lots (likely due to varying lot sizes), it supported the conclusion that the walls were built on individual lots rather than being a single common area perimeter wall.

Alj Quote

Further, the tribunal notes that the walls were not uniformly even across the individual lots. This was presumably because each lot is a different size, which also would lead to the conclusion that each wall was built on each individual lot.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

  • maintenance
  • construction
  • HOA obligations

Question

Can I rely solely on Plat Notes to prove HOA maintenance responsibility?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, especially if physical evidence contradicts the interpretation that a structure is a 'perimeter wall'.

Detailed Answer

Even if a Plat Note says the HOA maintains 'subdivision perimeter walls,' the homeowner must still prove that the specific wall in question fits that definition and location. If the evidence suggests the wall is on a private lot, the general note may not apply.

Alj Quote

Petitioner testified that she believed that based upon the 'Notes' section on the plat map, this created an obligation on the SVHA… [However] Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the walls in questions are in a common area.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

  • cc&rs
  • plat maps
  • interpretation

Case

Docket No
23F-H017-REL
Case Title
Carolyn Wefsenmoe vs Summit View Homeowner's Association
Decision Date
2023-03-08
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Carolyn Wefsenmoe (petitioner)
    Appeared via Google Meet on her own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Chad M. Gallacher (HOA attorney)
    Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
  • Bick Smith (witness/board president)
    Summit View Homeowner's Association
    Also referred to as Vic Smith; testified for Respondent
  • Henry (board member)
    Summit View Homeowner's Association
    Discussed erosion issues; toured walls with Bick Smith
  • Denise (board member)
    Summit View Homeowner's Association
    Participated in special board meeting
  • Larry Burns (property manager/GM)
    Summit View Homeowner's Association
    General Manager who wrote community painting update; participated in board meeting

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmitted minute entry to
  • James Knupp (Acting Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmitted order to
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmitted ALJ decision to
  • AHansen (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient for transmitted documents
  • vnunez (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient for transmitted documents
  • djones (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient for transmitted documents
  • labril (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient for transmitted documents
  • c. serrano (OAH Staff)
    OAH
    Signed minute entries for transmission
  • Helen Purcell (county recorder)
    Maricopa County
    Recorded Amended CC&R Declaration in 2004
  • Maria Rosana Pira (notary public)
    Maricopa County
    Notarized Amended CC&R and Bylaws in 2004

Other Participants

  • Elelliana (unknown)
    Correspondent in objected-to email exhibit
  • Beth Mulcahy (attorney)
    Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C.
    Firm filed the Amended CC&R Declaration in 2004
  • LizzieG (customer service rep)
    Brown Community Management
    Customer service contact listed on billing document

Brenda C Norman v. Rancho Del Lago Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

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

Outcome Summary

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221019-REL Decision – 939490.pdf

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Fines
  • Authority

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Evidence
  • Procedure

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Reimbursement
  • Prevailing Party

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3)

Topic Tags

  • Enforcement
  • Architectural Review
  • Lighting

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Evidentiary Standard

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • CC&Rs
  • Documentation

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?

Short Answer

It means the claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Arizona Law of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • Legal Definitions
  • Standards

Case

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Fines
  • Authority

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Evidence
  • Procedure

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Reimbursement
  • Prevailing Party

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3)

Topic Tags

  • Enforcement
  • Architectural Review
  • Lighting

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Evidentiary Standard

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • CC&Rs
  • Documentation

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?

Short Answer

It means the claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Arizona Law of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • Legal Definitions
  • Standards

Case

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

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

Lee & Kim Edwards v. Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association

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

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120028-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-07-28
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Lee & Kim Edwards Counsel Terry Foster, Esq.
Respondent Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1255

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs, Bylaws, or A.R.S. § 33-1255, ruling that the statute was inapplicable due to the specific provisions in the Declaration regarding the 1/26 assessment calculation.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, and the ALJ determined A.R.S. § 33-1255 was superseded by the Declaration, which mandated assessments based on the undivided 1/26 interest in the common elements.

Key Issues & Findings

Assessment calculation based on undivided interest in common areas

Petitioner challenged the Association's decision to change assessments from a historical square footage basis to a 1/26 interest calculation, arguing that this method violates A.R.S. § 33-1255 by charging for limited common elements (patios/parking).

Orders: The petition of Lee & Kim Edwards is dismissed; Respondent is deemed the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1255
  • Declaration Article I, Section 5
  • Declaration Article II, Section 5
  • Declaration Article II, Section 7
  • Declaration Article IV, Section 4
  • Declaration Article VI, Section 9

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium, assessment, cc&r, statutory interpretation, common elements, limited common elements
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1255
  • 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
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120028-REL-RHG Decision – 899379.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:25 (123.6 KB)

21F-H2120028-REL-RHG Decision – ../21F-H2120028-REL/856603.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:31 (98.1 KB)





Briefing Doc – 21F-H2120028-REL-RHG


Assessment Methodology Dispute: Edwards v. Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal dispute between homeowners Lee & Kim Edwards (Petitioners) and the Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association (Respondent) concerning a change in the methodology for calculating homeowner assessments. The core of the conflict was the Association’s decision to shift from a historical practice of assessments based on unit square footage to a uniform rate where each of the 26 units pays an equal 1/26 share of the common expenses.

The dispute was adjudicated by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in two separate hearings. In both instances, the ALJ ruled in favor of the Association, dismissing the petitions filed by the Edwards.

Key Takeaways:

• Change in Methodology: The Association’s Board, acting on legal advice received in January 2020, concluded that its 40-year practice of using a square-footage-based assessment violated the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Board subsequently implemented a 1/26 equal-share assessment method after a majority of homeowners selected this option.

• Initial Ruling on “Uniform Rate”: In the first hearing in February 2021, the Petitioners argued that the historical square footage method was a “uniform rate” and that the Association had waived its right to change the long-standing practice. The ALJ rejected this, finding that the new 1/26 rate complied with the CC&Rs’ requirement for a “uniform rate” (Article VI, Section 9) and aligned with each unit’s specified 1/26 undivided interest in the common elements (Article VI, Section 4(d)).

• Rehearing Ruling on State Statute: The Petitioners were granted a rehearing in July 2021, where they argued that the 1/26 method violated Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1255 by improperly charging all owners for “limited common elements” like patios and parking spaces. The ALJ again ruled against the Petitioners, concluding that the state statute did not apply. The ruling was based on a key provision in the statute: “Unless otherwise provided for in the declaration.” The judge found that the Association’s Declaration did provide otherwise by defining patios and parking as general common elements and explicitly mandating that costs be shared based on each unit’s 1/26 interest.

• Final Outcome: The petition was definitively dismissed after the rehearing, making the ALJ’s order binding. The Association’s adoption of the 1/26 assessment rate was upheld as compliant with its governing documents.

——————————————————————————–

Background of the Dispute

The legal conflict originated from a single-issue petition filed on November 20, 2020, by Lee and Kim Edwards, owners of unit 6937 in the Scottsdale Embassy Condominium development. The petition, filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleged that the Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association had violated its CC&Rs, specifically Article VI, Section 9, and Article IV, Section 1.

The central issue was the Association Board’s decision to change the long-standing method of calculating homeowner assessments. For over 40 years, assessments had been based on the square footage of each unit. In 2020, the Board implemented a new system where the Association’s annual budget was divided equally among the 26 units, with each owner paying a 1/26 share. The Petitioners sought to enforce the historical calculation method unless and until the CC&Rs were properly amended.

Chronology of the Assessment Change

• Historical Practice: For more than four decades, the Association calculated and charged member assessments based on the square footage of each condominium unit.

• Legal Consultation (January 2020): Two members of the Association’s Board consulted with an attorney regarding the legality of the historical assessment method.

• Attorney Recommendation (January 24, 2020): The attorney advised the Association that, to ensure compliance with the CC&Rs, it should calculate assessments based on each homeowner’s 1/26 interest in the common areas. The attorney’s letter stated:

• Homeowner Consultation: Following the legal advice, the Board informed homeowners that the prior square-footage method violated the CC&Rs. The Board sought input on three potential assessment methods: the 1/26 rate, a variable blended rate, or continuing with the square footage rate. A majority of homeowners selected the 1/26 rate. The Board noted that any method other than the 1/26 rate would require a formal amendment to the CC&Rs.

• Implementation (September 26, 2020): The Board officially notified homeowners that it would begin charging assessments based on the 1/26 rate and that an amendment to the CC&Rs was not necessary to implement this change.

Initial Hearing and Decision (February 2021)

An evidentiary hearing was held on February 9, 2021, before Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners (Edwards)

1. The historical square footage rate qualified as a “uniform rate” and was compliant with the CC&Rs.
2. By using the square footage rate for over 40 years, the Association had waived its right to enforce a different method like the 1/26 rate.

Respondent (Association)

1. The plain language of the CC&Rs requires that each homeowner pay an assessment based on the 1/26 rate.
2. It is not legally possible to waive a mandatory CC&R requirement through past practice.

On February 19, 2021, the ALJ issued a decision dismissing the petition. The judge’s conclusions of law were based on a direct interpretation of the CC&Rs:

• Uniform Rate Compliance: The ALJ determined that the “preponderance of the evidence” showed that the Association’s 1/26 rate was a uniform rate that complied with Article VI, Section 9 of the CC&Rs.

• Burden of Proof: The Petitioners failed to meet their burden to prove that the Association had violated its governing documents.

• Outcome: The Association was deemed the prevailing party, and the petition was dismissed.

Rehearing and Final Decision (July 2021)

The Petitioners filed a request for a rehearing on March 30, 2021, which was granted. The rehearing was held on July 8, 2021. The Respondent did not appear at this hearing, as its counsel had withdrawn from representation without formally notifying the tribunal.

In the rehearing, the Petitioners introduced a new argument, alleging that the 1/26 assessment method violated Arizona state law, specifically A.R.S. § 33-1255.

• The core of this argument was that the 1/26 rate improperly included charges for “limited common elements,” such as patios and assigned parking spaces.

• The Petitioners contended that this forced all homeowners to pay for the maintenance of elements that were assigned to and benefited fewer than all units, in direct violation of the statute.

On July 28, 2021, the ALJ issued a final decision, once again dismissing the petition. The ruling hinged on the precise wording of both the state statute and the Association’s Declaration.

• Applicability of A.R.S. § 33-1255: The judge found that the statute did not apply to this matter. The relevant section of the law, A.R.S. § 33-1255(C), begins with the critical phrase: “Unless otherwise provided for in the declaration…”

• Supremacy of the Declaration: The ALJ concluded that the Association’s Declaration did provide otherwise. The CC&Rs explicitly:

◦ Define “Common Elements” broadly to include patios and parking areas (Article I, Section 3).

◦ Establish that each unit has an “undivided interest in the general common areas” of 1/26 (Article I, Section 5).

◦ Mandate that each unit’s share of costs for repair and maintenance of common areas is the “same as its undivided interest in the common elements” (Article IV, Section 4(d)).

• Final Outcome: Because the Declaration’s specific provisions overrode the general terms of the state statute, the Association was found to be in compliance. The petition was dismissed, and the order was deemed binding on the parties.

Key Legal Principles and Definitions

Concept

Definition / Application in Case

Burden of Proof

The Petitioners were required to establish their claim by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

Preponderance of the Evidence

Defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” The ALJ found the Petitioners failed to meet this standard in both hearings.

Restrictive Covenants

Arizona law requires that unambiguous restrictive covenants be enforced to give effect to the parties’ intent and be interpreted as a whole. The ALJ’s decisions were based on a direct interpretation of the CC&Rs’ language.

Common Elements (per CC&Rs)

A broad definition including multifamily structures, land, roofs, ceilings, foundations, storage spaces, patios, parking areas, recreational facilities, lawns, pipes, and conduits.

Unit (per CC&Rs)

A freehold estate consisting of the interior space of an apartment. The definition explicitly states that common elements are not part of the unit.

Undivided Interest (per CC&Rs)

Article I, Section 5 clearly establishes that “The undivided interest in the general common areas… which shall be conveyed with each respective units shall be 1/26.” This provision was central to the final ruling.






Study Guide – 21F-H2120028-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Edwards v. Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case between Lee & Kim Edwards and the Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association, based on the provided legal decisions. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a detailed glossary of key terms.

Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. What was the central conflict between the Petitioners (Lee & Kim Edwards) and the Respondent (Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association)?

2. For over 40 years, how did the Association historically calculate assessments for homeowners?

3. What specific event in January 2020 prompted the Association’s Board to change the assessment method?

4. In the first hearing on February 9, 2021, what were the two main arguments presented by Mr. Edwards?

5. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion regarding the “uniform rate” requirement from CC&Rs Article VI, Section 9 in the initial decision?

6. Upon what new legal grounds did the Petitioners base their March 30, 2021, request for a re-hearing?

7. According to the CC&Rs, what is the defined undivided interest in the general common areas for each unit?

8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately conclude that Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1255 did not apply in this case?

9. What legal standard of proof did the Petitioners need to meet to successfully prove their case?

10. What was the final, binding outcome of the re-hearing held on July 8, 2021?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The central conflict concerned the method for calculating homeowner assessments. The Petitioners argued for the historical method based on unit square footage, while the Respondent implemented a new method where each of the 26 units paid an equal share (1/26 rate) of the Association’s costs.

2. For over 40 years, the Association historically calculated assessments based on the square footage of each condominium unit. This practice was changed by the Board in 2020.

3. In January 2020, two Board members met with an attorney who advised that to comply with the CC&Rs, the Association should charge assessments based on each homeowner’s 1/26 interest in the common areas, not on square footage.

4. Mr. Edwards argued that the historical square footage rate was a “uniform rate” that complied with the CC&Rs. He also contended that by using this method for 40 years, the Association had waived its right to enforce a different assessment method like the 1/26 rate.

5. The Judge concluded that the Respondent’s assessment method, based on a uniform rate of 1/26 of the Association’s costs for each unit, did comply with Article VI, Section 9. Therefore, the Petitioners failed to prove the Association had violated the CC&Rs.

6. The Petitioners based their request for a re-hearing on the new allegation that the Respondent had violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1255. They argued the 1/26 rate improperly required members to pay for limited common elements, such as patios and parking spaces, not assigned to them.

7. According to Article I, Section 5 of the Declaration (CC&Rs), the undivided interest in the general common areas established and conveyed with each respective unit is 1/26.

8. The Judge concluded that A.R.S. § 33-1255 did not apply because the statute itself contains an exception: “Unless otherwise provided for in the declaration.” In this case, the Association’s Declaration explicitly required that each member be charged an assessment equivalent to their 1/26 interest in the total costs, which included patios and parking areas.

9. The Petitioners bore the burden of proof to establish their claims by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard requires proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.

10. Following the re-hearing, the Administrative Law Judge again ordered that the petition of Lee & Kim Edwards be dismissed. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party, and the order was declared binding on the parties.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses. Answers are not provided.

1. Trace the evolution of the Petitioners’ legal strategy from the initial petition filed on November 20, 2020, to the arguments made during the re-hearing on July 8, 2021. How did their core arguments change, and what new evidence or legal statutes were introduced?

2. Analyze the concept of a “uniform rate” as required by Article VI, Section 9 of the CC&Rs. Discuss how both the Petitioners and the Respondent interpreted this phrase to support their respective assessment methods (square footage vs. 1/26 rate).

3. Explain in detail the role of A.R.S. § 33-1255 in the re-hearing. Why did the Petitioners believe it supported their case, and what specific language in both the statute and the Association’s Declaration led the Administrative Law Judge to rule that it did not apply?

4. Evaluate the actions taken by the Association’s Board of Directors in 2020. Consider their consultation with an attorney, their communication with homeowners, and their final decision to implement the 1/26 rate. Discuss whether these actions were consistent with the powers and obligations outlined in the CC&Rs.

5. Discuss the legal argument of “waiver” raised by Mr. Edwards in the first hearing. Explain what he meant by this and why the Association’s 40-year history of using a square-footage-based assessment was central to this claim. Why did this argument ultimately fail?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

1/26 Rate

The assessment method where the Association’s annual budget is divided 26 ways, with each unit responsible for paying an equal portion. This is based on each unit’s 1/26 undivided interest in the common areas as specified in the CC&Rs.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The independent judicial officer who presides over administrative hearings, hears evidence, and issues a decision. In this case, the ALJ was Velva Moses-Thompson.

A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)

The Arizona Revised Statute that permits a condominium unit owner to file a petition with the Department of Real Estate for a hearing regarding alleged violations of the Condominium Act.

A.R.S. § 33-1255

The Arizona Revised Statute concerning common expenses. It states that unless the declaration provides otherwise, expenses for a limited common element shall be assessed against the units to which it is assigned, and expenses benefitting fewer than all units shall be assessed exclusively against the units benefitted.

Arizona Department of Real Estate

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearings from members of condominium associations in Arizona.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a legal proceeding to establish its claims by a required standard of evidence. In this case, the Petitioners bore the burden of proof.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The governing legal documents that set up the guidelines for a planned community or condominium. Also referred to as the “Declaration” in the provided documents.

Common Area / Common Elements

As defined in Article I, Section 3 of the CC&Rs, this includes the multifamily structure (except for the units), land, air space, bearing walls, roofs, storage spaces, patios, recreational facilities, lawns, pipes, and other premises designed for common use.

Declaration

Another term for the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

Lee & Kim Edwards

The Petitioners in the case and owners of unit 6937 in the Scottsdale Embassy Condominium development.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency to which the Department of Real Estate refers petitions for evidentiary hearings.

Petitioners

The party that initiates a legal action or petition. In this case, Lee & Kim Edwards.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required to be met by the Petitioners. It is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is “more probably true than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association.

Restricted Common Area

As defined in Article I, Section 3(b) of the CC&Rs, this refers to a separately designed and exclusive parking area for each unit as assigned by the Board of Directors.

Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association

The Respondent in the case; the condominium unit owners’ association for the development.

Square Footage Rate

The historical method of calculating assessments for over 40 years, where each unit’s assessment was based on its square footage.

Uniform Rate

A requirement from Article VI, Section 9 of the CC&Rs that states both regular and special assessments must be fixed at a uniform rate for all units. The interpretation of this term was central to the dispute.

As defined in Article I, Section 4 of the CC&Rs, a separately designated freehold estate consisting of the space bounded by the interior surfaces of the perimeter walls, floors, ceilings, windows, and floors of each apartment. It does not include common elements.

Waiver

A legal argument made by the Petitioners that because the Association had charged assessments based on square footage for 40 years, it had relinquished or “waived” its right to enforce a different method.






Blog Post – 21F-H2120028-REL-RHG


4 Shocking Lessons from an HOA Lawsuit That Could Upend How You See Your Fees

Introduction: The 40-Year Mistake

If you live in a condominium or a community governed by a Homeowners Association (HOA), you likely operate under a simple assumption: the way things have always been done is the correct and legal way. Monthly fees, maintenance schedules, and community rules that have been in place for decades feel permanent and unassailable. But what if they aren’t?

This was the central question in the case of Lee & Kim Edwards versus the Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association. For over 40 years, the Association calculated homeowner fees based on the square footage of each unit—a practice that seemed fair and logical, and one that was never questioned by residents.

Then came the twist. In January 2020, after consulting with an attorney, the HOA board announced a shocking revelation: their 40-year-old assessment method was a direct violation of the community’s own governing documents. The board presented the legal findings to the community and sought their input on how to proceed. After being given the choice between the old method, a blended rate, or a new flat-rate fee that complied with the rules, most homeowners voted for the compliant flat-rate system for every single unit, regardless of its size.

Homeowners sued to keep the old method, sparking a legal battle that went all the way to an administrative court. The resulting decisions offer surprising and crucial lessons for every homeowner paying HOA dues. Here are the four most impactful takeaways from the case that could change how you view your own community’s rules.

1. “Past Practice” Means Nothing if It Violates the Rules

The primary argument made by the petitioners, Mr. and Mrs. Edwards, was that the Association had “waived its right” to change the assessment method. After all, by using the square-footage calculation for four decades, hadn’t they established an unbreakable precedent? It seemed like a common-sense argument rooted in history and consistency.

The court, however, completely rejected this line of reasoning. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was not based on historical practice but on the clear, written rules found in the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Association argued that it’s “not possible to waive the CC&R requirement,” and the court agreed.

The Lesson: This case powerfully demonstrates that tradition or “how things have always been done” cannot override the explicit language of an HOA’s governing documents. The CC&Rs are a contract. The lesson is clear: if your HOA’s practice contradicts its documents, the practice is invalid. The board has a fiduciary duty to follow the written rules, not a 40-year-old mistake.

2. Your CC&Rs Are a Binding Contract—Read Them

Throughout the legal proceedings, the Administrative Law Judge consistently referred back to the specific text of the CC&Rs to make a final decision. The entire case ultimately hinged on the interpretation of a few key sentences written decades ago.

The most critical passage, which decided the outcome, was from Article VI, Section 4(d) of the community’s governing documents:

“Each unit’s share shall be the same as its undivided interest in the common elements of the total amount determined under the subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) above.” —Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association CC&Rs, Article VI, Section 4(d)

This single sentence was the linchpin. It explicitly linked each unit’s assessment share to its “undivided interest in the common elements.” Another section of the document, Article I, Section 5, had already established that interest as an equal 1/26 for all 26 units.

The Lesson: This is a classic example of legal cross-referencing in a contract. Section 4(d) provided the instruction (base fees on “undivided interest”), while Article I, Section 5 provided the specific value (1/26). With both parts present and unambiguous, the court had no choice but to enforce them exactly as written, leaving no room for interpretations based on fairness or history. The contract was the contract.

3. A “Uniform Rate” Might Not Mean What You Think

One of the central points of contention was the term “uniform rate.” Article VI, Section 9 of the CC&Rs required that all assessments “must be fixed at a uniform rate for all units.”

The homeowners argued that the square footage rate was, in fact, a “uniform rate”—a consistent price per square foot applied to every unit. It’s an interpretation many of us might find reasonable.

However, the HOA Board and the court had a different interpretation. The judge found that the flat 1/26 rate was the correct interpretation of a “uniform rate” because it was uniformly applied to every unit’s established 1/26 interest in the common areas. In the court’s view, the “rate” being applied uniformly was the 1/26 fraction of the total budget. The fact that this resulted in different dollar amounts for square-footage fees was irrelevant; the legal share was what had to be uniform.

The Lesson: Common-sense terms like “uniform” can have very specific legal meanings within the context of your governing documents. The true definition is found not in a dictionary, but in how the term is defined and applied by the rest of the document’s provisions.

4. Your HOA’s Rules Can Sometimes Override State Law

In a final attempt to overturn the decision, the petitioners filed for a re-hearing. This time, they cited a specific Arizona state law, A.R.S. 33-1255. This statute says that expenses for “limited common elements”—things like assigned patios or parking spaces that only benefit specific units—should be assessed only against those units that benefit from them. The homeowners argued that the new 1/26 flat fee unfairly forced them to pay for their neighbors’ patios and parking spots, a direct violation of state law.

Surprisingly, this argument also failed. The reason is found in the crucial introductory clause of the state law itself: “Unless otherwise provided for in the declaration…”

Because the Scottsdale Embassy’s Declaration did provide otherwise—by explicitly rolling all general and restricted common area costs into the total budget before calculating each unit’s 1/26 share—the community’s own rules legally superseded the default state statute. The judge concluded that the state law “does not apply to this matter because the Declaration requires” a different method.

The Lesson: This is perhaps the most counter-intuitive lesson of all. This demonstrates a key principle of contract law and planned community governance: state statutes often provide a “default” rule for situations a community’s documents don’t address. However, they also grant communities the power to create their own specific rules, which, if legally permissible, will take precedence. Homeowners cannot assume that a state law automatically protects them if their community’s own governing documents have a more specific rule in place.

Conclusion: Are You Sure You Know What You Agreed To?

The central message from the Scottsdale Embassy case is undeniable: in an HOA, the written word is law. The CC&Rs and other governing documents are a binding contract that dictates the rules, regardless of 40 years of history, common-sense assumptions, or even some default state laws. What you believe is fair or standard practice is irrelevant if the document you agreed to upon purchase says otherwise.

This case was decided by a few sentences written decades ago. When was the last time you read your community’s governing documents from cover to cover?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Lee Edwards (petitioner, witness)
  • Kim Edwards (petitioner)
  • Teresa H. Foster (petitioner attorney)
    Ellis & Baker, P.C.
    Also referred to as Terri Foster and Terry Foster

Respondent Side

  • Lauren Vie (respondent attorney)
    Appeared for initial hearing; withdrew prior to rehearing
  • Caleb Koch (board member, witness)
    Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association
    Board President
  • Mary Edinburgh (board member, witness)
    Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association
  • Beth Mulcahy (respondent attorney)
    Mulcahy Law Firm, PC
    Withdrew prior to rehearing

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Miranda Alvarez (unknown)
    Listed in transmission records for Petitioner's counsel

Charles P Mandela vs. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

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

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article X; A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of request for patio shade structure

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

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

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

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

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

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

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





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG


Briefing on Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

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

The Core Dispute

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

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

Arguments Presented

• Petitioner (Charles P. Mandela):

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

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

• Respondent (Blue Ridge Estates HOA):

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

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

Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testimony and Arguments

• Petitioner (Charles P. Mandela):

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

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

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

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

• Respondent (Blue Ridge Estates HOA):

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

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

Judge’s Final Findings and Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline of Key Events

August 28, 2019

Charles Mandela submits his request to build a patio shade.

October 25, 2019

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

January 13, 2020

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

January 13, 2021

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

January 29, 2021

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

February 5, 2021

Mandela files a request for a rehearing.

March 15, 2021

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

April 16, 2021

The rehearing is conducted.

April 27, 2021

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

Central CC&R Provision: Article X, Section 10.3

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

Key text from Section 10.3:

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

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






Study Guide – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG


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

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

——————————————————————————–

Quiz: Key Facts and Arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions for Further Study

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

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

Architectural Committee

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

Arizona Department of Real Estate

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

Burden of Proof

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

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

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

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

Motion to Dismiss

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

Office of Administrative Hearings

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

Petitioner

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

Preponderance of the Evidence

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

Rehearing

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

Respondent

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

Tribunal

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






Blog Post – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG


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

Introduction: The Perils of a Simple Home Improvement Project

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

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

——————————————————————————–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

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

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

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


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Charles P Mandela (petitioner)

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Charles P Mandela vs. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article X; CC&R Section 10.3

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Decision Documents

20F-H2020042-REL Decision – 850032.pdf

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Charles P Mandela vs. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

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

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article X; CC&R Section 10.3

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

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

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

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

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





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG


Briefing on Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

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

The Core Dispute

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

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

Arguments Presented

• Petitioner (Charles P. Mandela):

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

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

• Respondent (Blue Ridge Estates HOA):

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

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

Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testimony and Arguments

• Petitioner (Charles P. Mandela):

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

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

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

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

• Respondent (Blue Ridge Estates HOA):

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

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

Judge’s Final Findings and Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline of Key Events

August 28, 2019

Charles Mandela submits his request to build a patio shade.

October 25, 2019

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

January 13, 2020

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

January 13, 2021

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

January 29, 2021

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

February 5, 2021

Mandela files a request for a rehearing.

March 15, 2021

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

April 16, 2021

The rehearing is conducted.

April 27, 2021

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

Central CC&R Provision: Article X, Section 10.3

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

Key text from Section 10.3:

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

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






Study Guide – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG


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

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

——————————————————————————–

Quiz: Key Facts and Arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions for Further Study

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

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

Architectural Committee

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

Arizona Department of Real Estate

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

Burden of Proof

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

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

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

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

Motion to Dismiss

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

Office of Administrative Hearings

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

Petitioner

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

Preponderance of the Evidence

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

Rehearing

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

Respondent

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

Tribunal

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






Blog Post – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG


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

Introduction: The Perils of a Simple Home Improvement Project

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

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

——————————————————————————–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

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

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

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


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Charles P Mandela (petitioner)

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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