Tag Archives: CC&R Enforcement

Oak Creek Knolls Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Kim. M. Grill

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222039-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-10-03
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the HOA failed to prove the homeowner violated the CC&Rs regarding leasing/occupancy rules, as the homeowner and her roommate's arrangement met the undefined term 'common household' required for a 'Single Family' occupancy.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Oak Creek Knolls Property Owners Association, Inc. Counsel Augustus H. Shaw, IV
Respondent Kim M. Grill Counsel Lawrence J. Felder

Alleged Violations

Article 2, Section 2.11 of the Restatement of Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the HOA failed to prove the homeowner violated the CC&Rs regarding leasing/occupancy rules, as the homeowner and her roommate's arrangement met the undefined term 'common household' required for a 'Single Family' occupancy.

Why this result: The HOA failed to meet the burden of proving that the homeowner's temporary roommate agreement constituted a violation of CC&R Article 2, Section 2.11.

Key Issues & Findings

Residential Use/Leasing Restrictions

Petitioner HOA alleged Respondent homeowner violated CC&R Article 2, Section 2.11 by entering into a roommate agreement while residing in the home, interpreting this as leasing less than the entire unit and arguing the parties did not constitute a 'Single Family' maintaining a 'common household.'

Orders: Petitioner’s petition denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Rental Restriction, Common Household, Single Family, Roommate, CC&R Enforcement, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • CC&Rs Article 2, Section 2.11

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 1003618.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:49:13 (125.6 KB)

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 972982.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:49:22 (47.8 KB)

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 973826.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:49:27 (50.2 KB)

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 974120.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:49:30 (50.6 KB)

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 1003618.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:46:15 (125.6 KB)

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 972982.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:46:18 (47.8 KB)

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 973826.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:46:21 (50.2 KB)

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 974120.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:46:24 (50.6 KB)

This case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer at the Office of Administrative Hearings on August 4, 2022, concerning a dispute referred by the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The Petitioner, Oak Creek Knolls Property Owners Association, Inc., sought enforcement against the Respondent, property owner Kim M. Grill.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The Petitioner alleged that Respondent Grill violated Article 2, Section 2.11 of the Restatement of Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). This section requires that residential units be used exclusively by a "Single Family" and prohibits an owner from leasing "less than the entire unit" or using the unit for transient purposes, mandating a minimum 30-day lease term.

The dispute focused on a "Temporary roommate agreement" between Respondent Grill and Ken Snyder, a semi-retired attorney, for a period exceeding 30 days, where Mr. Snyder was afforded "full access to all living spaces" of the home. Although the Association's Disclosure Statement, signed by Grill, stated an owner "may NOT occupy a home at the same time as renting out the home," this statement was determined by the ALJ not to constitute a binding agreement, but merely the Association's interpretation.

Legal Arguments and Proceedings

  1. Jurisdiction: Initially, the question of whether the Association met the statutory definition of a planned community, vesting jurisdiction in the OAH, was raised. After receiving additional briefing, the ALJ concluded that the Petitioner did meet the statutory definition, confirming jurisdiction.
  2. Petitioner’s Argument: The Association argued that Grill's co-occupancy while receiving rent constituted a violation, primarily because she was leasing less than the entire unit to a non-family member while residing there. Witnesses argued that the owner's presence simultaneously with renters "is what causes the damage or detriment," asserting that failure to comply with the letter of the law harms the community scheme.
  3. Respondent’s Argument: Respondent argued the arrangement complied because the CC&Rs define "Single Family" to include a "group of not more than three (3) persons not all so related, who maintain a common household". Since the agreement was long-term and provided Mr. Snyder full access, the key legal question was whether Grill and Snyder maintained a "common household". Respondent emphasized that there was no evidence of noise, disturbance, or actual detriment caused by Mr. Snyder.

Outcome and Final Decision

The Petitioner bore the burden of proving the CC&R violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

The ALJ noted that the term "common household" was not defined in the CC&Rs and was "open to different interpretations". The arrangement, involving Mr. Snyder paying a share of living expenses (including utilities, internet, and cable TV) and having full access to the entire property, could "reasonably be interpreted to constitute evidence of a 'common household'".

The Administrative Law Judge Decision concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Agreement with Mr. Snyder violated Article 2, Section 2.11 of the CC&Rs. Therefore, the Petitioner's petition was denied. The decision was issued on October 3, 2022.

Questions

Question

Who has the burden of proof when an HOA alleges a violation of the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

The HOA (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

In a dispute before the OAH between an owner and an association, the HOA must prove that the homeowner violated the specific provision of the CC&Rs. The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more probable than not that the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Article 2, Section 2.11 of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • dispute resolution

Question

Can an HOA enforce a rule interpretation found in a 'Disclosure Statement' that isn't explicitly in the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

No, a disclosure statement representing the HOA's interpretation is not necessarily a binding agreement.

Detailed Answer

Even if a homeowner acknowledges a disclosure statement during purchase, if that statement merely reflects the HOA's interpretation of the governing documents (e.g., claiming an owner cannot occupy the home while renting it), it does not constitute a binding contract separate from the CC&Rs themselves.

Alj Quote

Notably, Petitioners assertion on the Disclosure Statement that '[a]n owner may NOT occupy a home at the same time as renting out the home' did not constitute a binding agreement between Petitioner and Respondent, but was merely Respondent’s statement indicating its interpretation of the governing documents.

Legal Basis

Contract Law Principles

Topic Tags

  • disclosure statements
  • enforceability
  • governing documents

Question

If my CC&Rs prohibit leasing 'less than the entire unit,' can I still have a roommate?

Short Answer

Potentially yes, if the roommate has full access to the entire property and shares living expenses.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that a 'roommate agreement' granting the tenant full access to all living spaces and sharing expenses (utilities, internet, etc.) did not violate a ban on leasing less than the entire unit, as the tenant was not restricted to a specific portion of the home.

Alj Quote

By its terms, the Agreement was for a period of greater than 30 days and afforded Mr. Snyder access to the entire unit.

Legal Basis

CC&R Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • rentals
  • roommates
  • leasing restrictions

Question

How does an HOA define a 'Single Family' if unrelated people live together?

Short Answer

It may depend on whether the group maintains a 'common household.'

Detailed Answer

If the CC&Rs define 'Single Family' to include a group of unrelated persons maintaining a 'common household,' acts like sharing utility costs, living expenses, and having full access to the property can serve as evidence of a common household.

Alj Quote

This arrangement, together with the fact that Mr. Snyder had full access to the entire property, could reasonably be interpreted to constitute evidence of a 'common household.'

Legal Basis

CC&R Definitions

Topic Tags

  • single family definition
  • occupancy limits
  • common household

Question

What happens if a key term like 'common household' is not defined in the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

Undefined terms are open to different reasonable interpretations.

Detailed Answer

When the governing documents fail to define a critical term, it creates ambiguity. In this case, the lack of a definition for 'common household' allowed for an interpretation that included a homeowner and a roommate sharing expenses.

Alj Quote

The term 'common household' was not defined in the CC&Rs and is open to different interpretations.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • ambiguity
  • definitions
  • legal interpretation

Question

Can I rent out a room if my CC&Rs require leases to be for a minimum of 30 days?

Short Answer

Yes, as long as the lease meets the time requirement and grants access to the whole unit (if partial leasing is banned).

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled in favor of the homeowner where the roommate agreement was for 12 months (satisfying the 30-day minimum) and granted access to the entire home, distinguishing it from short-term transient use or partial leasing.

Alj Quote

By its terms, the Agreement was for a period of greater than 30 days and afforded Mr. Snyder access to the entire unit.

Legal Basis

CC&R Compliance

Topic Tags

  • rental restrictions
  • lease terms
  • minimum stay

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222039-REL
Case Title
Oak Creek Knolls Property Owners Association, Inc. vs Kim M. Grill
Decision Date
2022-10-03
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Who has the burden of proof when an HOA alleges a violation of the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

The HOA (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

In a dispute before the OAH between an owner and an association, the HOA must prove that the homeowner violated the specific provision of the CC&Rs. The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more probable than not that the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Article 2, Section 2.11 of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • dispute resolution

Question

Can an HOA enforce a rule interpretation found in a 'Disclosure Statement' that isn't explicitly in the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

No, a disclosure statement representing the HOA's interpretation is not necessarily a binding agreement.

Detailed Answer

Even if a homeowner acknowledges a disclosure statement during purchase, if that statement merely reflects the HOA's interpretation of the governing documents (e.g., claiming an owner cannot occupy the home while renting it), it does not constitute a binding contract separate from the CC&Rs themselves.

Alj Quote

Notably, Petitioners assertion on the Disclosure Statement that '[a]n owner may NOT occupy a home at the same time as renting out the home' did not constitute a binding agreement between Petitioner and Respondent, but was merely Respondent’s statement indicating its interpretation of the governing documents.

Legal Basis

Contract Law Principles

Topic Tags

  • disclosure statements
  • enforceability
  • governing documents

Question

If my CC&Rs prohibit leasing 'less than the entire unit,' can I still have a roommate?

Short Answer

Potentially yes, if the roommate has full access to the entire property and shares living expenses.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that a 'roommate agreement' granting the tenant full access to all living spaces and sharing expenses (utilities, internet, etc.) did not violate a ban on leasing less than the entire unit, as the tenant was not restricted to a specific portion of the home.

Alj Quote

By its terms, the Agreement was for a period of greater than 30 days and afforded Mr. Snyder access to the entire unit.

Legal Basis

CC&R Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • rentals
  • roommates
  • leasing restrictions

Question

How does an HOA define a 'Single Family' if unrelated people live together?

Short Answer

It may depend on whether the group maintains a 'common household.'

Detailed Answer

If the CC&Rs define 'Single Family' to include a group of unrelated persons maintaining a 'common household,' acts like sharing utility costs, living expenses, and having full access to the property can serve as evidence of a common household.

Alj Quote

This arrangement, together with the fact that Mr. Snyder had full access to the entire property, could reasonably be interpreted to constitute evidence of a 'common household.'

Legal Basis

CC&R Definitions

Topic Tags

  • single family definition
  • occupancy limits
  • common household

Question

What happens if a key term like 'common household' is not defined in the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

Undefined terms are open to different reasonable interpretations.

Detailed Answer

When the governing documents fail to define a critical term, it creates ambiguity. In this case, the lack of a definition for 'common household' allowed for an interpretation that included a homeowner and a roommate sharing expenses.

Alj Quote

The term 'common household' was not defined in the CC&Rs and is open to different interpretations.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • ambiguity
  • definitions
  • legal interpretation

Question

Can I rent out a room if my CC&Rs require leases to be for a minimum of 30 days?

Short Answer

Yes, as long as the lease meets the time requirement and grants access to the whole unit (if partial leasing is banned).

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled in favor of the homeowner where the roommate agreement was for 12 months (satisfying the 30-day minimum) and granted access to the entire home, distinguishing it from short-term transient use or partial leasing.

Alj Quote

By its terms, the Agreement was for a period of greater than 30 days and afforded Mr. Snyder access to the entire unit.

Legal Basis

CC&R Compliance

Topic Tags

  • rental restrictions
  • lease terms
  • minimum stay

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222039-REL
Case Title
Oak Creek Knolls Property Owners Association, Inc. vs Kim M. Grill
Decision Date
2022-10-03
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Augustus H. Shaw, IV (HOA Attorney)
    SHAW & LINES LLC
    Represented Petitioner Oak Creek Knolls Property Owners Association, Inc.
  • Lisa Frost (Board Member/Witness)
    Oak Creek Knolls POA
    Association Secretary and testifying witness
  • Brenda Keller (Board Member/Witness)
    Oak Creek Knolls POA
    Alternate Director/Chair of the Architectural Committee and testifying witness
  • Dana Shel (Board Member)
    Oak Creek Knolls POA
    Association Board President
  • Denise Dotto (Neighbor/Complainant)
    Adjacent property owner whose concerns were noted by Petitioner's witnesses

Respondent Side

  • Kim M. Grill (Respondent)
    Property owner and Association member
  • Lawrence J. Felder (Respondent Attorney)
    Doncaster Law, PLLC
    Represented Respondent Kim M. Grill

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Louis Dettorre (ADRE Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Transmittal recipient
  • vnunez (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Transmittal recipient
  • djones (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Transmittal recipient
  • labril (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Transmittal recipient
  • Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
    Transmitting administrative staff
  • c. serrano (Administrative Staff)
    Transmitting administrative staff

Other Participants

  • Ken Snyder (Housemate/Non-party)
    Individual renting under the temporary roommate agreement with Respondent
  • David Goldman (Housemate/Non-party)
    Another individual residing at Respondent's property
  • Bruce Eert (Neighbor)
  • Chris Green (Neighbor)

Darryl Jacobson-Barnes & Robert Barnes v. Circle G Ranches 4

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120022-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-08-24
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition filed by Darryl L. Jacobson-Barnes and Robert Barnes, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent HOA violated any of the cited Arizona Revised Statutes or that the alleged CC&R violation was outside the scope of Article III, § 3.10. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Darryl Jacobson-Barnes & Robert Barnes Counsel Anthony L. Perez, Esq.
Respondent Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association Counsel Clint G. Goodman, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1803(D) and (E)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(a)(5)
A.R.S. § 33-1811
Article III, § 3.10 (CC&Rs)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition filed by Darryl L. Jacobson-Barnes and Robert Barnes, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent HOA violated any of the cited Arizona Revised Statutes or that the alleged CC&R violation was outside the scope of Article III, § 3.10. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated A.R.S. §§ 33-1803(D) and (E), 33-1804(5), or 33-1811, or that the alleged unapproved flood light violation was outside the scope of the cited CC&R provision (Article III, § 3.10).

Key Issues & Findings

The Association violated A.R.S.§ 33-1803(D) and (E) by failing to properly respond to the Barnes response to the notice of alleged violation and proceeding with enforcement actions.

Petitioner failed to establish the HOA violated these statutes because the HOA's May 27, 2020 notice contained all required information under A.R.S. § 1803(D)(1)-(4), rendering A.R.S. § 33-1803(E) inapplicable.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(E)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

The association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(a)(5) in rendering its decision on the Barnes contest of the notice.

Petitioner failed to establish violation of meeting procedures, as the appeal was discussed in an open session, and the subsequent closed session was justified to allow the HOA to seek legal counsel pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1).

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(a)(5)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)

The alleged violation and resulting penalty imposed are void and unenforceable under A.R.S. § 33-1811.

Petitioner failed to prove violation. A.R.S. § 33-1811 applies only to contracts, decisions, or actions for compensation, and no evidence was presented that the Petitioner's appeal involved such compensation.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811

The alleged violation is outside the scope of the cited CC&R Article III, § 3.10.

Petitioner failed to prove the violation (installation of an unapproved flood light) was outside the scope of Article III, § 3.10, which requires prior approval for 'other structure[s]'.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Article III, § 3.10 (CC&Rs)
  • Article IV, 4.6 (CC&Rs)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Architectural Control Committee, CC&R Enforcement, Floodlight, Meeting Procedure, Statutory Compliance
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(E)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(a)(5)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • Article III, § 3.10 (CC&Rs)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120022-REL Decision – 895732.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:31:28 (39.8 KB)

21F-H2120022-REL Decision – 895827.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:31:31 (5.6 KB)

21F-H2120022-REL Decision – 906326.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:31:34 (99.4 KB)

21F-H2120022-REL Decision – 895732.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:00 (39.8 KB)

21F-H2120022-REL Decision – 895827.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:03 (5.6 KB)

21F-H2120022-REL Decision – 906326.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:06 (99.4 KB)

This summary addresses the legal case heard in the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) concerning Darryl Jacobson-Barnes & Robert Barnes (Petitioner) and Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association (Respondent/HOA). The case number was 21F-H2120022-REL, and the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was Velva Moses-Thompson. Hearings were held on January 26, 2021, March 3, 2021, and July 14, 2021, with the record held open until August 4, 2021.

Key Facts and Dispute Background

The dispute originated when a member of the HOA Board of Directors filed a complaint alleging that Petitioner had installed an unapproved floodlight at the back of their home. On May 27, 2020, the HOA issued a violation notice alleging a violation of Article III, Section 3.10 of the HOA CC&Rs, which requires prior approval of design, location, and materials for structures constructed on the property.

Petitioner requested a hearing regarding the notice. After the parties failed to resolve the issue of "excessive light trespass" following an initial July 9, 2020 open appeal session, the Board held another appeal hearing on July 24, 2020. The Board voted on the appeal in a closed, executive session in order to obtain legal advice. The Board notified the Petitioner that their appeal was denied around August 18, 2020. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department) outlining four alleged violations by the HOA.

Main Legal Issues

The OAH hearing focused on four issues set for determination:

  1. Whether the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(D) and (E) by failing to respond properly to the notice contest and proceeding with enforcement.
  2. Whether the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(a)(5) by rendering its decision on the contest in a closed session.
  3. Whether the alleged violation and resulting penalty were void and unenforceable under A.R.S. § 33-1811.
  4. Whether the alleged violation (the unapproved floodlight) was outside the scope of the cited CC&R Article III, § 3.10.

Key Legal Findings and Decision

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(D) and (E): The ALJ found no violation. The evidence showed the HOA's May 27, 2020 notice of violation provided all the requisite information (including the CC&R provision, observation date, observer name, and contest process) required under A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)(1)-(4). Since the notice was compliant, the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1803(E) were not triggered and did not apply.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(a)(5): The ALJ found no violation. While the Board voted in a closed session, credible testimony demonstrated that the session was closed to allow the HOA to seek legal counsel concerning the decision, which is permissible pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1).
  • A.R.S. § 33-1811: The ALJ found no violation. This statute pertains to the validity of actions for compensation (contracts, decisions, etc.) taken by the Board, and no evidence was presented that Petitioner’s appeal involved such an action.
  • Scope of CC&R Article III, § 3.10: The ALJ determined the allegation regarding the unapproved floodlight fell within the scope of CC&R Article III, § 3.10. This article governs the construction of structures, including "other structure[s]," requiring prior approval from the Architectural Control Committee.

Outcome

The ALJ concluded that the petition filed by Darryl L. Jacobson-Barnes and Robert Barnes should be dismissed.

IT IS ORDERED that the petition is dismissed, and the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association is deemed the prevailing party in this matter. The decision was signed on August 24, 2021.

Questions

Question

What specific information must be included in a violation notice for it to be legally sufficient?

Short Answer

The notice must include the provision violated, the date of observation, the name of the observer, and the process to contest it.

Detailed Answer

An HOA violation notice is considered sufficient if it includes four key pieces of information: the specific community document provision alleged to be violated, the date the violation was observed, the first and last name of the person who observed it, and the process the member must follow to contest the notice. If these are present, the HOA has met its obligation.

Alj Quote

The weight of the evidence shows that the HOA notified Petitioner of the provision of the community documents that had allegedly been violated, the date the violation was observed, the first and last name of the person who observed the violation, and the process the member must follow to contest the notice through the May 27, 2020 notice.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)

Topic Tags

  • violation notices
  • due process
  • HOA procedures

Question

Does the HOA have to send a second 'explanation' letter after I receive a violation notice?

Short Answer

No, not if the original notice already contained all the legally required details.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law, the requirement for an HOA to provide a written explanation (often detailed in A.R.S. § 33-1803(E)) is only triggered if the initial violation notice was missing required information. If the initial notice fully satisfied the statutory requirements (provision, date, observer, contest process), the HOA is not required to send further explanation letters before proceeding.

Alj Quote

If a homeowner’s association satisfies the requirements in A.R.S. § 1803(D) (1)-(4) in its notice of violation, A.R.S. § 33-1803 (E) is not triggered and does not apply.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803(E)

Topic Tags

  • violation notices
  • legal requirements

Question

Can the HOA Board go into a closed session to decide on my appeal?

Short Answer

Yes, if the closed session is used to seek legal counsel regarding the decision.

Detailed Answer

While appeals generally involve open discussion, the Board is permitted to adjourn to an executive (closed) session to deliberate if they need to obtain legal advice concerning the decision. This does not violate the open meeting requirement of A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Alj Quote

The preponderance of the evidence does not show that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(5) because Petitioner’s appeal was discussed in an open session. Moreover, the HOA presented credible testimony that the session was closed to allow the HOA to seek legal counsel concerning its decision in Petitioner’s appeal

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)

Topic Tags

  • board meetings
  • open meeting law
  • executive session

Question

Do I need architectural approval to install a floodlight?

Short Answer

Yes, floodlights can be considered 'structures' or changes requiring approval under CC&Rs.

Detailed Answer

Even if not a building, items like floodlights attached to a home can fall under the scope of CC&R restrictions regarding 'structures' or unapproved changes. The ALJ found that an allegation of an unapproved floodlight falls within the scope of architectural control provisions.

Alj Quote

Respondent alleged that an unapproved flood light was installed at the back of Petitioner’s home. Such allegation falls within the scope of CC&R Article III, § 3.10.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article III, § 3.10

Topic Tags

  • architectural control
  • home improvements
  • lighting

Question

Can I use A.R.S. § 33-1811 to void a penalty if I disagree with the violation?

Short Answer

Generally no, unless the decision involved a conflict of interest or compensation for a board member.

Detailed Answer

A.R.S. § 33-1811 specifically addresses the validity of contracts or decisions involving compensation/conflicts of interest. It is not a catch-all statute to void standard violation penalties where no such compensation or conflict exists.

Alj Quote

A.R.S. § 33-1811 applies to the validity of any contract, decision, or action for compensation taken by or on behalf of the Board. There was no evidence presented at hearing that the Petitioner’s appeal involved a contract, decision or other action for compensation.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • conflicts of interest
  • penalties
  • statutory interpretation

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove the HOA violated the law by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

In these administrative proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner (the homeowner) to provide evidence that carries greater weight or is more convincing than the evidence offered by the HOA.

Alj Quote

At this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • hearings
  • burden of proof

Case

Docket No
21F-H2120022-REL
Case Title
Darryl Jacobson-Barnes & Robert Barnes vs. Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2021-08-24
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

What specific information must be included in a violation notice for it to be legally sufficient?

Short Answer

The notice must include the provision violated, the date of observation, the name of the observer, and the process to contest it.

Detailed Answer

An HOA violation notice is considered sufficient if it includes four key pieces of information: the specific community document provision alleged to be violated, the date the violation was observed, the first and last name of the person who observed it, and the process the member must follow to contest the notice. If these are present, the HOA has met its obligation.

Alj Quote

The weight of the evidence shows that the HOA notified Petitioner of the provision of the community documents that had allegedly been violated, the date the violation was observed, the first and last name of the person who observed the violation, and the process the member must follow to contest the notice through the May 27, 2020 notice.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)

Topic Tags

  • violation notices
  • due process
  • HOA procedures

Question

Does the HOA have to send a second 'explanation' letter after I receive a violation notice?

Short Answer

No, not if the original notice already contained all the legally required details.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law, the requirement for an HOA to provide a written explanation (often detailed in A.R.S. § 33-1803(E)) is only triggered if the initial violation notice was missing required information. If the initial notice fully satisfied the statutory requirements (provision, date, observer, contest process), the HOA is not required to send further explanation letters before proceeding.

Alj Quote

If a homeowner’s association satisfies the requirements in A.R.S. § 1803(D) (1)-(4) in its notice of violation, A.R.S. § 33-1803 (E) is not triggered and does not apply.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803(E)

Topic Tags

  • violation notices
  • legal requirements

Question

Can the HOA Board go into a closed session to decide on my appeal?

Short Answer

Yes, if the closed session is used to seek legal counsel regarding the decision.

Detailed Answer

While appeals generally involve open discussion, the Board is permitted to adjourn to an executive (closed) session to deliberate if they need to obtain legal advice concerning the decision. This does not violate the open meeting requirement of A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Alj Quote

The preponderance of the evidence does not show that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(5) because Petitioner’s appeal was discussed in an open session. Moreover, the HOA presented credible testimony that the session was closed to allow the HOA to seek legal counsel concerning its decision in Petitioner’s appeal

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)

Topic Tags

  • board meetings
  • open meeting law
  • executive session

Question

Do I need architectural approval to install a floodlight?

Short Answer

Yes, floodlights can be considered 'structures' or changes requiring approval under CC&Rs.

Detailed Answer

Even if not a building, items like floodlights attached to a home can fall under the scope of CC&R restrictions regarding 'structures' or unapproved changes. The ALJ found that an allegation of an unapproved floodlight falls within the scope of architectural control provisions.

Alj Quote

Respondent alleged that an unapproved flood light was installed at the back of Petitioner’s home. Such allegation falls within the scope of CC&R Article III, § 3.10.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article III, § 3.10

Topic Tags

  • architectural control
  • home improvements
  • lighting

Question

Can I use A.R.S. § 33-1811 to void a penalty if I disagree with the violation?

Short Answer

Generally no, unless the decision involved a conflict of interest or compensation for a board member.

Detailed Answer

A.R.S. § 33-1811 specifically addresses the validity of contracts or decisions involving compensation/conflicts of interest. It is not a catch-all statute to void standard violation penalties where no such compensation or conflict exists.

Alj Quote

A.R.S. § 33-1811 applies to the validity of any contract, decision, or action for compensation taken by or on behalf of the Board. There was no evidence presented at hearing that the Petitioner’s appeal involved a contract, decision or other action for compensation.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • conflicts of interest
  • penalties
  • statutory interpretation

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove the HOA violated the law by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

In these administrative proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner (the homeowner) to provide evidence that carries greater weight or is more convincing than the evidence offered by the HOA.

Alj Quote

At this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • hearings
  • burden of proof

Case

Docket No
21F-H2120022-REL
Case Title
Darryl Jacobson-Barnes & Robert Barnes vs. Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2021-08-24
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Darryl Jacobson-Barnes (petitioner)
    Also referred to as Darryl Lynn Barnes–Jacobson and Darryl Barnes
  • Robert Barnes (petitioner)
    Also referred to as Robert A Barnes and Bob Barnes
  • Anthony L. Perez (petitioner attorney)
    Boyes Legal, PC

Respondent Side

  • Clint G. Goodman (respondent attorney)
    Goodman Holmgren Law Group
  • Michelle Mooney (board member)
    Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association Board of Directors
    Filed complaint against Petitioner
  • Jennifer Amundson (property manager)
    VISION Community Management
    Also referred to as Jen Amundson; inspected violation
  • Amanda Stewart (board member)
    Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association Board of Directors
    Board President

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE contact)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • c. serrano (administrative staff)
    Transmitted July 14, 2021 Order
  • Miranda Alvarez (administrative staff)
    Transmitted August 24, 2021 Order

Michael Stoltenberg vs Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918038-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-04-03
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the HOA acted in accordance with its governing documents (CC&Rs § 4.1) by imposing uniform assessments. The CC&Rs did not provide an exception for reduced assessments based on an owner's choice of landscaping (rock yard) or refusal of HOA maintenance services.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michael Stoltenberg Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association Counsel Nicole D. Payne

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs §§ 1.8, 1.9, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, and 14.2

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the HOA acted in accordance with its governing documents (CC&Rs § 4.1) by imposing uniform assessments. The CC&Rs did not provide an exception for reduced assessments based on an owner's choice of landscaping (rock yard) or refusal of HOA maintenance services.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs, as CC&R § 4.1 requires uniform assessment and no provision requires or allows Respondent to assess Petitioner less due to his rock yard and refusal of maintenance.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA Assessment Uniformity Requirement

Petitioner, who had rock landscaping and refused HOA maintenance, alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs by assessing him uniform dues, arguing he should pay less since HOA expenditures on lawn maintenance were substantial and primarily benefited neighbors with grass yards.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs § 4.1
  • CC&Rs § 5.1(a)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Assessment, Uniform Dues, CC&R Enforcement, Landscaping Maintenance
Additional Citations:

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918038-REL Decision – 698869.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:18:30 (141.7 KB)

19F-H1918038-REL Decision – 698869.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:28:18 (141.7 KB)

Briefing Document: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1918038-REL, concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael Stoltenberg and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA). The core conflict centered on Mr. Stoltenberg’s claim that he should pay lower HOA assessments because his property has rock landscaping, while his neighbors have grass yards requiring more costly maintenance by the HOA.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately denied the petition. The decision rested on an unambiguous interpretation of the HOA’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Judge found that the CC&Rs explicitly obligate the HOA to maintain landscaping on all individual lots and, crucially, require assessments to be uniform for all members to cover these “common expenses.” The petitioner’s argument for a reduced assessment was unsupported by any provision in the governing documents. Furthermore, evidence showed that Mr. Stoltenberg had actively refused the HOA access to his property to install a community irrigation system and to perform the very landscaping maintenance that is a central component of the assessments.

Case Overview

• Case Number: 19F-H1918038-REL

• Parties Involved:

◦ Petitioner: Michael Stoltenberg, a homeowner at 11777 E. Calle Gaudi, Rancho Del Oro.

◦ Respondent: Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA).

• Hearing Date: March 19, 2019

• Presiding Judge: Diane Mihalsky, Administrative Law Judge

• Core Allegation: On December 29, 2018, the Petitioner filed a petition alleging the HOA violated multiple sections of its CC&Rs (§§ 1.8, 1.9, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, and 14.2) by levying the same assessment fees on his property as on neighboring properties with grass lawns.

Petitioner’s Position and Evidence (Michael Stoltenberg)

The Petitioner’s case was built on the argument of fairness, contending that his assessment should be lower because his property does not utilize the HOA’s most expensive landscaping services.

• Primary Argument: It is inequitable for the HOA to charge him the same amount as neighbors with grass yards, given that his front yard is rock and does not receive the same level of maintenance.

• Financial Evidence: The Petitioner testified that in 2016, the HOA spent $54,000 on lawn maintenance and landscaping, which constituted 39% of its total budget.

• Refusal of Services: The Petitioner acknowledged that he refused to allow the HOA access to his property for two key purposes:

1. To install irrigation pipes connecting his lot to a new community well.

2. To perform any landscape maintenance on his front yard.

• Justification for Refusal: The Petitioner accused the HOA of previously killing his trees during maintenance activities and stated that he now undertakes all maintenance of his own yard.

Respondent’s Position and Evidence (Rancho Del Oro HOA)

The HOA’s defense was grounded in its adherence to the plain language of its governing documents, arguing that its actions were not only permissible but mandated by the CC&Rs.

• Primary Argument: The HOA is legally bound by its CC&Rs to levy uniform assessments on all members and is simultaneously obligated to maintain the landscaping on every individual lot.

• Key Testimony (Diana Crites, Property Manager):

◦ CC&R § 5.1(a) explicitly requires the HOA to maintain the yards of its members.

◦ CC&R § 4.1 requires all owners to be assessed uniformly, without regard to the type of landscaping they have chosen or whether they permit the HOA to perform its maintenance duties.

◦ The Petitioner’s property is one of eight constructed by a different developer, who did not originally install grass or an irrigation system.

◦ The HOA has since drilled a community well to address water costs and has offered to remove rock and install grass for these properties, an offer the Petitioner could accept.

• Supporting Evidence (Letter from Dawn Simpson, former bookkeeper):

◦ A 2013 HOA project was initiated to install a community well for landscaping and to connect all homes, including the Petitioner’s.

◦ The letter details an incident where the Petitioner “became very heated with [the] contractor” and “declared that no one was to enter his yard for any purpose.”

◦ This action directly halted all construction to connect his property to the irrigation system and ceased all landscaping services provided by the HOA.

Analysis of Governing Documents (CC&Rs)

The judge’s decision centered on the clear, unambiguous language of specific articles within the CC&Rs. The petitioner failed to identify any language that would permit or require a non-uniform assessment.

CC&R Section

Key Language

Implication & Ruling

Article IV, Section 4.1

Assessments “shall be used for the… common benefit… of the Owners” and “shall constitute common expenses for which the apartment owners shall be severally liable in proportion to their respective common interests.”

This establishes the principle of uniform, shared liability for common expenses, regardless of an individual owner’s specific use of a particular service.

Article V, Section 5.1(a)

“The Association shall maintain… landscaping… It shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.”

This article imposes a direct obligation on the HOA to maintain all members’ landscaping, not merely an optional service.

Legal Conclusions and Final Order

• Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner, Mr. Stoltenberg, held the burden to prove by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the HOA had violated its CC&Rs.

• Interpretation of Covenants: In Arizona, unambiguous restrictive covenants are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties. The judge found the CC&Rs to be unambiguous, requiring a holistic interpretation. The documents clearly mandate that the HOA must maintain all yards and must assess all members equally to fund that maintenance.

• Final Ruling: The Petitioner did not meet his burden of proof. He failed to point to any provision within the CC&Rs that “allows, much less requires, Respondent to assess Petitioner less because he has a rock yard and will not allow Respondent to maintain his yard.”

• Order: The petition was denied. The HOA’s practice of charging uniform assessments was upheld as compliant with its governing documents.

Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

This guide is designed to review the key facts, legal arguments, and conclusions presented in the Administrative Law Judge Decision for case number 19F-H1918038-REL, Michael Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.

Short-Answer Quiz Questions

Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based on the information provided in the case document.

1. Who are the primary parties involved in this case, and what are their respective roles?

2. What was the central allegation in the petition filed by Michael Stoltenberg with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?

3. According to the Petitioner’s testimony, what was the financial basis for his claim of unfair assessment?

4. Describe the history of the water and irrigation system issue at the Petitioner’s property prior to 2013, as detailed in Dawn Simpson’s letter.

5. What action did the Petitioner take during the 2013 well construction project, and what were the consequences of this action?

6. According to Article V, Section 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs, what specific maintenance obligation does the homeowners’ association have regarding individual lots?

7. How did Diana Crites, the HOA’s property manager, justify the uniform assessment for all homeowners based on the CC&Rs?

8. What reason did Ms. Crites provide for why eight units, including the Petitioner’s, were originally landscaped with rock instead of grass?

9. What is the legal standard of proof required in this hearing, and on which party does the burden of proof rest?

10. What was the final order of the Administrative Law Judge, and what was the core legal reasoning for this decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Michael Stoltenberg, the “Petitioner,” and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, the “Respondent.” Mr. Stoltenberg is a homeowner and member of the HOA who filed a complaint against the association. The Respondent is the governing HOA for the Rancho Del Oro community in Yuma, Arizona.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated multiple sections of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). His central claim was that it was unfair for the HOA to charge him the same assessment fees as his neighbors because his property has rock landscaping, while his neighbors have grass yards that require more maintenance.

3. The financial basis for his claim was the HOA’s budget. The Petitioner testified that in 2016, the Respondent spent $54,000 on lawn maintenance and landscaping, which accounted for 39% of the total budget.

4. Prior to 2013, the Petitioner made several complaints that his home was not connected to the community water system. The HOA Board’s position was that the Petitioner knew his home was not connected to the system when he purchased it.

5. During the 2013 construction to install a well and connect all homes to an irrigation system, the Petitioner became “very heated” with the contractor. He declared that no one was to enter his yard for any purpose, which halted all construction in his backyard and all landscaping provided by the HOA for his front yard.

6. Section 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs states that the Association’s maintenance duties “shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” This obligates the HOA to maintain landscaping even on privately owned lots.

7. Diana Crites testified that CC&R Section 4.1 requires all owners to be assessed uniformly. She stated this uniformity applies regardless of the type of landscaping an owner has chosen or whether they permit the HOA onto their property to perform maintenance.

8. Ms. Crites testified that the eight units were built by a different developer after the original construction and were not equipped with an irrigation system or grass. She believed rock was used in the front yards of these lots due to the high cost of water, an issue later resolved by the installation of a community well.

9. The legal standard is “a preponderance of the evidence,” which means the evidence must be convincing enough to make the contention more probably true than not. The burden of proof to establish a CC&R violation rests on the Petitioner, Mr. Stoltenberg.

10. The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The reasoning was that the Petitioner failed to bear his burden of proof because he could not point to any provision in the CC&Rs that allows or requires the HOA to assess him less than his neighbors based on his landscaping choice or his refusal to allow maintenance.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for longer-form analysis. Formulate a detailed response for each, citing specific evidence and CC&R provisions from the case document.

1. Analyze the central conflict between the Petitioner’s concept of fairness and the Respondent’s interpretation of the CC&Rs. Use specific clauses from the CC&Rs (e.g., Articles IV and V) to support the analysis of each party’s position.

2. Discuss the significance of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in this case. How did the evidence presented by both the Petitioner (e.g., budget figures) and the Respondent (e.g., witness testimony and CC&Rs) contribute to the judge’s final decision regarding this standard?

3. Trace the history of the water and irrigation issue at the Petitioner’s property, from his initial complaints to his refusal to allow construction access. How did these past events impact the central issue of the 2019 hearing?

4. Explain the legal principle that “restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole.” How did the Administrative Law Judge apply this principle by referencing both Section 4.1 (Assessments) and Section 5.1(a) (Maintenance) of the CC&Rs to reach her conclusion?

5. Evaluate the actions of the Petitioner, Mr. Stoltenberg. Based on the evidence presented, did his own actions—specifically, denying the HOA access to his property—undermine his legal argument for a reduced assessment? Explain your reasoning using facts from the hearing evidence.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary

Definition from Source Context

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official (Diane Mihalsky) who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, and makes decisions in matters referred by state departments like the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Assessments

Charges levied by the homeowners’ association on its members. According to CC&R § 4.1, they are used for promoting the recreation, health, safety, and welfare of owners, including property maintenance, and are to be proportioned to each owner’s respective common interests.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal case to establish their claim. In this matter, the Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs.

Common Area

Defined in CC&R § 1.8 as “those portions of the Project to which title is held by the Association for the common use and enjoyment of the Owners and excepting the individual units.”

Common Expenses

Defined in CC&R § 1.9 as the “actual and estimated expenses of operating the association,” including any reasonable reserves and all sums designated as Common Expense by project documents.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The governing documents for a planned community that outline the rules, obligations, and rights of the homeowners and the homeowners’ association.

Easements

A right of use over the property of another. CC&R § 2.1 grants every owner a “non-exclusive easement and equitable right of use and enjoyment in, to, and throughout the Common Area.”

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

The governing body for a planned community (Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association) whose members are the property owners within that community. It is responsible for managing common areas and enforcing the CC&Rs.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Michael Stoltenberg, a homeowner in Rancho Del Oro.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required to win the case. The source defines it as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and as evidence with “the most convincing force” that is “sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.

Restrictive Covenant

A provision in a deed or community document that limits the use of the property. The source notes that in Arizona, an unambiguous restrictive covenant is enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties and must be construed as a whole.

He Sued His HOA Over an ‘Unfair’ Fee—The Reason He Lost Is a Warning for Every Homeowner

Introduction: The HOA Fee Frustration

For many homeowners, the monthly or annual bill from the Homeowners Association (HOA) can be a source of constant frustration. It’s easy to look at the line items—landscaping, pool maintenance, common area repairs—and wonder if you’re truly getting your money’s worth, especially when you feel you aren’t using a particular service.

This was exactly the position of Michael Stoltenberg, a homeowner in Arizona who believed he had an open-and-shut case to lower his HOA fees. His argument seemed logical, fair, and simple. But the ultimate ruling in his case, Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, reveals some surprising and crucial truths about how HOA rules actually work and serves as a powerful lesson for every person living in a planned community.

Takeaway 1: You Pay for the Service, Even If You Actively Refuse It

Michael Stoltenberg’s argument was straightforward: his front yard was landscaped with rocks, while his neighbors had grass. He pointed out that in 2016, lawn maintenance accounted for a significant 39% of the HOA’s total budget. He argued it was fundamentally unfair for him to pay the same assessment as his neighbors when he wasn’t consuming this costly service.

His sense of unfairness was rooted in the history of the development. His home was one of eight built by a different developer than the rest of the community. Likely due to high water costs at the time, these eight lots were constructed without irrigation systems or grass. From the very beginning, his property was different. This context makes the crucial twist in the case all the more telling. In 2013, the HOA undertook a community-wide project to drill a new well and install an irrigation system, an effort designed to rectify the inconsistency and bring these outlier properties up to the community standard. When the construction reached Stoltenberg’s property, he refused the workers access.

Testimony from the HOA’s former bookkeeper laid this fact bare:

At this time, [Petitioner] declared that no one was to enter his yard for any purpose. This was also to include his front yard. This halted all construction that was currently in place in his back yard, and all landscaping being provided by the HOA for the front yard.

Legally, this transformed the situation. Stoltenberg’s complaint was no longer about a service he didn’t need, but about a service he actively rejected. This case establishes a critical principle: HOA assessments are tied to your property ownership and membership in the community, not your individual consumption of services. By refusing the service, Mr. Stoltenberg did not absolve himself of the cost associated with its availability to the community.

Takeaway 2: “Common Benefit” Isn’t the Same as “Your Personal Benefit”

The legal foundation for the HOA’s position rested in the language of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Specifically, Section 4.1 states that assessments are to be used for the “common benefit, and enjoyment of the Owners.”

In an HOA context, “common benefit” is a broad concept. It means that well-maintained landscaping throughout the entire neighborhood enhances curb appeal, creates a cohesive community aesthetic, and supports the property values of all residents. This includes Mr. Stoltenberg, whose home value is supported by the beautiful, uniform appearance of the neighborhood, regardless of whether his specific yard has grass. It’s the same reason a homeowner without children still pays for the upkeep of a community playground; the amenity benefits the community as a whole.

Further testimony reinforced this point. The HOA’s property manager stated that the association was still willing to remove the rock and install grass on his property, just as they had already done for two other homeowners in a similar situation. The benefit was available to him; he simply continued to refuse it.

Takeaway 3: The Rules Are a Package Deal, Not an A La Carte Menu

Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge’s role was not to rule on a general sense of fairness but to enforce the community’s governing documents as written. When examined together, two key clauses in the CC&Rs created a contractual vise, leaving the judge with no other legal option. The two clauses created a perfect, inescapable loop.

• Section 5.1(a): This clause states the HOA has an obligation that “shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” The HOA wasn’t just permitted to do the work; it was contractually required to.

• Section 4.1: This clause, which also defines assessments as being for the “common benefit,” requires that they “shall constitute common expenses for which the apartment owners shall be severally liable in proportion to their respective common interests.”

The documents legally obligated the HOA to maintain all yards and to charge every owner the same proportional amount for doing so. The CC&Rs provided no mechanism for a homeowner to opt-out of a service and receive a corresponding discount. The judge’s final ruling was decisive, emphasizing the absolute nature of this contractual obligation:

Because Petitioner has not pointed to any CC&R that allows, much less requires, Respondent to assess Petitioner less because he has a rock yard and will not allow Respondent to maintain his yard, Petitioner has not borne his burden in this matter.

Conclusion: The Contract You Live In

The case of Michael Stoltenberg is a powerful reminder that an HOA’s CC&Rs are not just a set of neighborhood rules; they are restrictive covenants that run with the land. When you buy the property, you are irrevocably buying into the contract that governs it. These documents are designed to prioritize the uniform application of standards for the collective good, and they supersede an individual’s personal preferences or interpretation of what seems “fair.”

This case forces every potential buyer to ask a critical question: Are you simply purchasing a dwelling, or are you prepared to become a party to the binding legal contract that governs the entire community?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Michael Stoltenberg (Petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Respondent Entity)
    Entity, not human
  • Nicole D. Payne (HOA Attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
    Represented Respondent
  • Diana Crites (Property Manager/Witness)
    Property manager for Respondent; testified
  • Dawn Simpson (Former Bookkeeper/Witness)
    Former bookkeeper for Respondent; provided a letter/testimony regarding history
  • Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier (HOA Attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
    Received transmission of the Order

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Received transmission of the Order
  • Felicia Del Sol (Administrative Staff)
    Transmitted the decision