Tag Archives: CC&R

Jerry L. Webster v. Mountain Rose Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1817019-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-02-09
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome The Petitioner's claim that the HOA violated CC&Rs Article 10.8 (Notice of Violation) was dismissed because the Article governs only recorded notices, and the Petitioner did not prove the notices in question were recorded.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jerry L. Webster Counsel —
Respondent Mountain Rose Homeowners Association Counsel Nathan Tennyson, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 10, Section 10.8

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's claim that the HOA violated CC&Rs Article 10.8 (Notice of Violation) was dismissed because the Article governs only recorded notices, and the Petitioner did not prove the notices in question were recorded.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Mountain Rose violated its CC&Rs Article 10.8, because that provision applies only to recorded notices, and the notices issued to the Petitioner were not recorded.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&R notice requirements regarding clarity and completeness of violation notices.

The Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs Article 10.8 because the violation notices sent to him failed to include five mandatory pieces of information required by that section of the CC&Rs. The Petitioner also sought the refund of $175 in fines.

Orders: Petitioners' petition in this matter is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Notice of Violation, Recording
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1817019-REL Decision – 620124.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:08:57 (78.5 KB)

18F-H1817019-REL Decision – 620124.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:22:41 (78.5 KB)

Case Briefing: Webster v. Mountain Rose Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 18F-H1817019-REL, wherein Petitioner Jerry L. Webster’s complaint against the Mountain Rose Homeowners Association was dismissed. The central issue revolved around Mr. Webster’s claim that the HOA engaged in a pattern of harassment by issuing vague and improper violation notices that failed to comply with Article 10.8 of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

The case was decided on a critical legal interpretation of the CC&Rs. The presiding judge determined that the specific requirements of Article 10.8, which Mr. Webster cited as being violated, apply exclusively to violation notices that are formally “Recorded” with the Maricopa County Recorder’s office. The petitioner failed to provide any evidence, or even make the claim, that the notices he received had been recorded. Consequently, Mr. Webster did not meet his burden of proof to demonstrate that the HOA had violated the cited article. The dismissal of the petition was based entirely on this procedural and definitional distinction, without a ruling on the petitioner’s underlying allegations of harassment or selective enforcement.

Case Background

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Jerry L. Webster, a homeowner and member of the Mountain Rose Homeowners Association.

◦ Respondent: Mountain Rose Homeowners Association (“Mountain Rose”), located in Scottsdale, Arizona.

• Adjudicating Body:

◦ The Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona.

◦ Administrative Law Judge: Velva Moses-Thompson.

• Key Dates:

◦ 2016–2017: Mountain Rose issues a series of violation notices to Mr. Webster regarding tree trimming and debris cleanup.

◦ December 6, 2017: Mr. Webster files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

◦ February 9, 2018: A hearing is held.

◦ February 9, 2018: The Administrative Law Judge issues the decision dismissing the petition.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments

Mr. Webster’s petition centered on the claim that the HOA’s actions constituted harassment and violated specific provisions of the governing documents.

Core Claim: Violation of CC&Rs Article 10.8

Mr. Webster contended that the violation notices he received from Mountain Rose were invalid because they failed to contain information mandated by Article 10.8 (“Notice of Violation”) of the CC&Rs. Specifically, he alleged the notices omitted the following required elements:

• (ii) The legal description of the lot against which the notice is being Recorded.

• (iii) A brief description of the nature of the violation.

• (iv) A statement that the notice is being Recorded by the Association pursuant to the Declaration.

• (v) A statement of the specific steps which must be taken by the Owner or occupant to cure the violation.

Allegations of Harassment and Prejudicial Treatment

In his petition, Mr. Webster framed the HOA’s actions as a targeted and unfair campaign against him.

• Stated Intent: “The intent of this action is to stop the HOA from violating our civil rights by prejudicially harassing us with unclear and unwarranted violation notices.”

• History of Conflict: He alleged that “The HOA has harassed us for over 10 years with vague violation notices.”

• Lack of Communication: He claimed that his “Numerous requests were made for clarification…which were ignored.”

• Financial Penalties: Mr. Webster stated he was recently fined three times for a total of $175, which he sought to have refunded.

• Alleged Bias: To demonstrate selective enforcement, Mr. Webster noted that a review of the neighborhood revealed “22 trees touching dwellings, including ours,” and stated, “It is very doubtful any other member received notices or fines for identical circumstances.”

• Supporting Evidence: Mr. Webster submitted an aerial photo from 2012 showing the tree in a similar condition, a 2017 photo of another home with a tree touching the dwelling, and a 2017 photo of HOA-maintained trees.

Respondent’s Position

The Mountain Rose HOA, represented by Nathan Tennyson, Esq., presented a focused defense based on the specific language of the CC&Rs.

• Central Argument: The HOA contended that the violation notices issued to Mr. Webster were not recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder.

• Legal Position: Because the notices were not recorded, the stringent requirements outlined in Article 10.8 did not apply to them.

• Additional Detail: The HOA also argued that it had previously communicated the necessary corrective action to Mr. Webster, stating that “his tree needed to be trimmed 8 feet above the ground.”

The Decisive Legal Interpretation and Ruling

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision hinged on the precise definition and application of “Recording” as established within the Mountain Rose CC&Rs.

The Definition of “Recording”

Article 1.33 of the CC&Rs provides the controlling definition:

“Recording” means placing an instrument of public record in the office of County Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, and “Recorded” means having been so placed of public record.

Application of Law to Facts

The Judge concluded that Mr. Webster’s entire case rested on a misapplication of Article 10.8.

• Limited Scope of Article 10.8: The ruling states, “Mountain Rose CC&Rs Article 10.8. applies to the recording of notices and recorded notices.”

• Burden of Proof: Under Arizona law (A.A.C. R2-19-119), the burden of proof fell to the petitioner, Mr. Webster, to demonstrate his claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

• Crucial Factual Finding: The decision explicitly states, “There was no evidence presented at hearing that the notices issued to Mr. Webster were recorded.“

• Petitioner’s Failure to Allege: The Judge further noted, “Mr. Webster did not even contend that Mountain Rose recorded the notices issued to him.”

Conclusion of Law

Based on the evidence and the plain language of the CC&Rs, the Judge found that Mr. Webster failed to make his case.

“Mr. Webster failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Mountain Rose violated its CC&Rs as described above.”

Final Order and Disposition

The petition was summarily dismissed based on the failure to prove that the relevant CC&R article was applicable to the facts presented.

Order:

“IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition in this matter is dismissed.”

The order was dated February 9, 2018, and transmitted to the parties on February 28, 2018.

Study Guide: Case No. 18F-H1817019-REL

This study guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Jerry L. Webster v. Mountain Rose Homeowners Association, heard on February 9, 2018. It includes a quiz to test comprehension, suggested essay topics for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms as defined within the source document.

Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences based on the provided source text.

1. Identify the primary parties involved in this case and describe their respective roles.

2. What was the central accusation that Petitioner Jerry L. Webster made against the Mountain Rose Homeowners Association?

3. Which specific article of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) did Mr. Webster claim the HOA violated, and what key information did he allege was missing from the notices he received?

4. Beyond the content of the violation notices, what other complaints did Mr. Webster include in his petition regarding the HOA’s conduct?

5. According to the Mountain Rose CC&Rs, what is the specific definition of “Recording”?

6. What was the key piece of evidence that was absent from the hearing, which proved critical to the final decision?

7. What was the Mountain Rose HOA’s primary defense against Mr. Webster’s allegation that it had violated Article 10.8 of the CC&Rs?

8. In this type of administrative hearing, who holds the burden of proof, and what is the standard of proof required to win the case?

9. What was the final Order issued by Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson in this matter?

10. What recourse did the parties have after the judge issued the Order on February 9, 2018?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Petitioner Jerry L. Webster, a homeowner and member of the association, and Respondent Mountain Rose Homeowners Association, a planned community in Scottsdale, Arizona. Mr. Webster filed a petition alleging violations by the HOA, making him the accuser, while the HOA was the party responding to the allegations.

2. Mr. Webster’s central accusation was that the HOA violated Article 10.8 of its own CC&Rs. He contended that the HOA engaged in prejudicial harassment by sending him a series of vague, unclear, and unwarranted violation notices over a period of more than 10 years.

3. Mr. Webster claimed the HOA violated Article 10.8, titled “Notice of Violation.” He alleged the notices he received failed to include several required subsections, including the legal description of the lot (ii), a brief description of the violation (iii), a statement that the notice was being Recorded (iv), and a statement of the specific steps needed to cure the violation (v).

4. Mr. Webster also complained that his numerous requests for clarification were ignored and that the HOA’s intent was harassment. He claimed he was fined $175 based on invalid notices and that the HOA was engaging in selective enforcement, noting 22 other homes had trees touching dwellings without receiving similar notices or fines.

5. According to Article 1.33 of the CC&Rs, “Recording” is defined as placing an instrument of public record in the office of the County Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona. “Recorded” means that the instrument has been placed on public record in that office.

6. The key piece of evidence absent from the hearing was any proof that the violation notices sent to Mr. Webster were ever recorded with the County Recorder of Maricopa County. The judge’s decision explicitly states, “There was no evidence presented at hearing that the notices issued to Mr. Webster were recorded.”

7. The HOA’s primary defense was that the requirements of Article 10.8 only apply to recorded notices. Since the notices issued to Mr. Webster were never recorded, the HOA argued that the article’s specific formatting requirements were not applicable to their correspondence with him.

8. The burden of proof falls to the party asserting the claim, which in this case was the Petitioner, Mr. Webster. The standard of proof required is a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means the evidence must have the most convincing force and be sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue.

9. The final Order issued by the judge was that the Petitioner’s petition in the matter be dismissed. This means Mr. Webster’s case was unsuccessful.

10. After the Order was issued, the parties had the right to request a rehearing. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, this request had to be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for longer-form, analytical answers. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the petitioner’s argument as presented in the petition. What was the critical legal misinterpretation regarding Article 10.8 that ultimately led to the dismissal of his case?

2. Explain the direct relationship between Article 1.33 (“Recording”) and Article 10.8 (“Notice of Violation”). How did the specific definition in the former article completely undermine the petitioner’s entire claim, which was based on the latter?

3. Discuss the concepts of “burden of proof” and “preponderance of the evidence” as applied in this case. Citing specific findings from the decision, explain exactly how the petitioner failed to meet this standard.

4. Mr. Webster raised several secondary issues in his petition, including allegations of long-term harassment, selective enforcement (“22 trees touch dwellings”), and ignored requests for clarification. Why were these claims ultimately not addressed or validated in the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision?

5. Based on the text of Article 10.8, what is the specific function and legal purpose of a recorded Notice of Violation? Why might an HOA choose to go through the formal process of recording a notice rather than just sending an unrecorded letter to a homeowner?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary

Definition from Source Context

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings. In this case, the ALJ was Velva Moses-Thompson.

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

An Arizona Revised Statute that permits a homeowner or a planned community organization to file a petition with the Department of Real Estate for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or statutes.

Burden of Proof

The responsibility of the party asserting a claim or right to prove their case. In this matter, the burden of proof fell to the Petitioner.

An abbreviation for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Mountain Rose, which are the governing documents for the homeowners association.

Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the agency with which Mr. Webster filed his petition.

Notice of Violation (Article 10.8)

A written notice that the Association has the right to record. This article specifies that such a recorded notice must contain five key pieces of information, including the legal description of the lot and the specific steps to cure the violation. Its provisions apply specifically to notices that are formally recorded.

Petitioner

The party who filed the petition. In this case, it was Jerry L. Webster, a homeowner and member of the Mountain Rose HOA.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this hearing. It is defined as “the greater weight of the evidence…that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that…is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Recording (Article 1.33)

The act of “placing an instrument of public record in the office of County Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona.” “Recorded” means having been so placed on public record.

Respondent

The party against whom the petition was filed. In this case, it was the Mountain Rose Homeowners Association.

Select all sources
620124.pdf

No emoji found

Loading

18F-H1817019-REL

1 source

The provided text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings in Arizona, addressing a dispute between Petitioner Jerry L. Webster and the Respondent Mountain Rose Homeowners Association (HOA). Mr. Webster alleged that the HOA violated Article 10.8 of its CC&Rs by issuing unclear and unwarranted violation notices, specifically regarding the trimming of his tree and cleaning debris, and he sought the refund of recent fines. The HOA contended that the notices were not recorded, making the specific requirements of Article 10.8—which applies to recorded notices—inapplicable to the general violation notices Mr. Webster received. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge found that Mr. Webster failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the CC&Rs because the notices in question were never officially recorded, leading to the dismissal of the Petitioner’s petition.

1 source

Audio Overview

Video Overview

Video Overview

Mind Map Mind Map

Reports Reports

Flashcards

Flashcards

Quiz

Quiz

00:00 / 00:00

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jerry L. Webster (petitioner)
  • Pamela Webster (witness)

Respondent Side

  • Nathan Tennyson (HOA attorney)
  • Frank Puma (manager)
    Mountain Rose

Neutral Parties

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

Jeff Lion vs. Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1817009-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-01-10
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome The Petitioner's petition was dismissed because he failed to appear or provide an authorized representative at the scheduled hearing, resulting in the Respondent being deemed the prevailing party.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jeff Lion Counsel —
Respondent Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

Article 8 of the Respondent’s CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition was dismissed because he failed to appear or provide an authorized representative at the scheduled hearing, resulting in the Respondent being deemed the prevailing party.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing scheduled at his request and failed to provide an authorized representative (as appearances are considered the practice of law under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31).

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&Rs

Petitioner Jeff Lion alleged that the Respondent violated Article 8 of the CC&Rs.

Orders: Petitioner Jeff Lion’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Dismissal, Failure to Appear, Unauthorized Representation, HOA, CC&R
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1817009-REL Decision – 611264.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:08:16 (69.6 KB)

18F-H1817009-REL Decision – 611264.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:21:53 (69.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Lion v. Riggs Ranch Meadows HOA (Case No. 18F-H1817009-REL)

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Jeff Lion (Petitioner) versus Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner’s case, which alleged a violation of the Respondent’s CC&Rs, was dismissed due to the Petitioner’s failure to appear at the scheduled hearing on January 9, 2018.

The hearing had been rescheduled to this date at the Petitioner’s own request. On the day of the hearing, two witnesses for Mr. Lion appeared but were informed by the tribunal that they could not legally represent him as they were not licensed attorneys, a requirement under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31. Because no authorized representative for the Petitioner was present, no evidence could be presented to support the claim. Consequently, Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden dismissed the petition and designated the Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association as the prevailing party.

Case Background and Procedural History

The matter originated from a petition filed by Jeff Lion against the Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association.

• Initial Allegation: Mr. Lion alleged that the Respondent violated Article 8 of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

• Notice of Hearing: On October 2, 2017, the Arizona Department of Real Estate issued a Notice of Hearing, initially scheduling the matter for November 29, 2017, at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix.

• Continuance: Mr. Lion filed a Motion to Continue the hearing, which was rescheduled for 9:00 a.m. on January 9, 2018, without objection from the Respondent.

Analysis of the January 9, 2018 Hearing

The proceedings on the rescheduled hearing date were pivotal to the case’s outcome.

• Petitioner’s Failure to Appear: Mr. Jeff Lion, the Petitioner, did not appear at the hearing at its scheduled time.

• Attempted Representation by Non-Attorneys: Two witnesses named by Mr. Lion were present. They informed the tribunal that Mr. Lion would not be appearing and that they intended to represent him.

• Tribunal’s Ruling on Representation: The tribunal advised the witnesses that they were legally prohibited from representing Mr. Lion. Citing Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31, the judge clarified that appearances at the Office of Administrative Hearings constitute the practice of law and require representation by an attorney licensed in Arizona. The witnesses confirmed they did not hold such licenses.

• Consequences of Non-Appearance: As there was no authorized representative present for the Petitioner, no evidence was taken. The judge noted that the hearing had been continued to that specific date at Mr. Lion’s request and proceeded to vacate the matter based on his failure to appear.

Legal Findings and Conclusions of Law

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was grounded in established legal principles and procedural rules.

• Jurisdiction: The Arizona Department of Real Estate was confirmed to have authority over the matter pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11.

• Burden of Proof: The decision reiterated that the party asserting a claim—in this case, Mr. Lion—carries the burden of proof. The standard required was a “preponderance of the evidence,” which is defined as evidence with “the most convincing force” sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

• Core Rationale for Dismissal: The central conclusion of law was that Mr. Lion failed to meet his burden of proof. By not appearing at the hearing he had requested, and by not securing authorized legal representation, he “failed to present any evidence in support of his petition.”

Final Order and Implications

The decision, issued on January 10, 2018, formally concluded the administrative hearing process with a definitive outcome.

• Dismissal of Petition: The Administrative Law Judge ordered that “Petitioner Jeff Lion’s petition is dismissed.”

• Prevailing Party: The Respondent, Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association, was officially deemed the prevailing party in the matter.

• Post-Decision Options: The order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted. A request for rehearing must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order, as stipulated by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04 and § 41-1092.09.

Key Parties and Representatives

Name/Entity

Contact/Representation Information

Petitioner

Jeff Lion

PO Box 1350, Selma, CA 93662

Respondent

Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association

Represented by Nathan Tennyson, Esq.

Respondent’s Counsel

Nathan Tennyson, Esq.

BROWN/OLCOTT, PLLC, 373 S. Main Ave., Tucson, AZ 85701

Administrative Law Judge

Thomas Shedden

Office of Administrative Hearings

Overseeing Body

Arizona Department of Real Estate

Commissioner: Judy Lowe

Study Guide for Administrative Law Judge Decision: Lion v. Riggs Ranch Meadows HOA

This study guide provides a review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Jeff Lion v. Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association, Case No. 18F-H1817009-REL. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms found within the document.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, based entirely on the provided legal decision.

1. Who were the petitioner and respondent in this matter, and what was the petitioner’s central allegation?

2. Why was the administrative hearing held on January 9, 2018, instead of the originally scheduled date?

3. Describe the events that occurred at the scheduled hearing time on January 9, 2018.

4. What specific rule was cited by the tribunal to prevent the petitioner’s witnesses from representing him?

5. What is the standard of proof for this matter, and which party had the burden of proof?

6. According to the decision, what was the direct consequence of the petitioner’s failure to have an authorized representative present at the hearing?

7. How does the legal document define the term “preponderance of the evidence”?

8. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge?

9. Who was identified as the “prevailing party” and why?

10. What option was available to the parties if they disagreed with the judge’s order?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The petitioner was Jeff Lion, and the respondent was the Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association. Mr. Lion alleged that the respondent had violated Article 8 of its CC&Rs.

2. The hearing was originally set for November 29, 2017. It was rescheduled to January 9, 2018, because the petitioner, Mr. Lion, filed a Motion to Continue, to which the respondent did not object.

3. On January 9, 2018, the petitioner, Jeff Lion, did not appear for the hearing. Two witnesses appeared on his behalf and stated their intention to represent him, but they were not permitted to do so.

4. The tribunal cited Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31, which governs the practice of law. Since the witnesses were not licensed attorneys in Arizona, they were not legally permitted to represent Mr. Lion at the hearing.

5. The standard of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence.” The party asserting the claim, in this case, the petitioner Jeff Lion, had the burden of proof.

6. Because no authorized representative was present for Mr. Lion, no evidence was taken in support of his petition. This failure to present evidence was a key factor in the case’s dismissal.

7. The document defines “preponderance of the evidence” by quoting Black’s Law Dictionary as: “The greater weight of the evidence…that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

8. The final order was that Petitioner Jeff Lion’s petition is dismissed. The decision was issued on January 10, 2018.

9. The Respondent, Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association, was deemed the prevailing party. This was because Mr. Lion failed to present any evidence in support of his petition, leading to its dismissal.

10. The parties could request a rehearing pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04. The request had to be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.

——————————————————————————–

Suggested Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses to explore the procedural and legal principles of the case more deeply.

1. Analyze the significance of Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31 in the outcome of this case. How does the principle that appearances at administrative hearings constitute the “practice of law” affect how individuals can pursue claims?

2. Discuss the interrelated concepts of “burden of proof” and “standard of proof” as they apply to this case. Explain why Jeff Lion’s failure to appear made it legally impossible for him to meet the standard of a “preponderance of the evidence.”

3. Evaluate the procedural fairness of the Administrative Law Judge’s decision to dismiss the petition. Consider the timeline of events, including the petitioner’s own request to reschedule the hearing, in your analysis.

4. Based on the “Conclusions of Law” section, construct an argument explaining the logical steps Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden took to arrive at the final order of dismissal.

5. Examine the roles of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings as outlined in the document. How do these two entities interact in resolving a dispute initiated by a homeowner against a Homeowners Association?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official (Thomas Shedden in this case) who presides over hearings at an administrative agency to resolve disputes.

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE

The Arizona Administrative Code, a compilation of rules and regulations of Arizona state agencies. Section R2-19-119 is cited as establishing the standard of proof.

ARIZ. REV. STAT.

The Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the laws passed by the Arizona state legislature. Title 32, Chapter 20, Article 11 is cited as giving the Department of Real Estate authority.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the petitioner (Mr. Lion) had the burden of proof.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are rules governing a planned community or homeowners association. Mr. Lion alleged a violation of Article 8 of the Respondent’s CC&Rs.

Motion to Continue

A formal request made by a party to an administrative tribunal or court to postpone a scheduled hearing to a later date.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

The state agency where the hearing took place, which conducts hearings for other state agencies.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or brings a legal action against another party. In this case, Jeff Lion.

Practice of Law

The act of representing others in legal proceedings. The decision states that appearances at the OAH are considered the practice of law and are restricted to licensed attorneys under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in this case. It is met when the evidence presented is more convincing and has greater weight than the evidence offered in opposition, inclining a fair mind to one side of the issue.

Prevailing Party

The party who wins a legal case or dispute. The Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association was deemed the prevailing party.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case to re-examine the issues and the decision. The parties had 30 days to file a request for a rehearing.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association.

Tribunal

A body established to settle certain types of dispute. In this context, it refers to the Administrative Law Judge presiding over the hearing.

How One Homeowner Lost His Case Against His HOA Before It Even Began

Introduction: The David vs. Goliath Story You Haven’t Heard

Disputes with a Homeowners Association (HOA) are a common source of frustration. It often feels like a David vs. Goliath battle, pitting an individual against a structured organization with rules and resources. When faced with what they believe is an unfair application of those rules, some homeowners decide to fight back.

This was the situation for Jeff Lion, who filed a petition against his HOA, Riggs Ranch Meadows, alleging a violation of Article 8 of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). But this story didn’t end with a dramatic debate over property rights. Instead, it was over before it started, derailed by a simple but fatal procedural misstep. This case offers three critical lessons for anyone considering a formal dispute, revealing how understanding the basic rules of the game is far more important than just believing you have a good argument.

——————————————————————————–

1. The Most Important Step is Showing Up

The central, decisive event of the case was a stunning failure in participation: the petitioner, Jeff Lion, did not appear at the hearing on January 9, 2018. The ultimate procedural irony? This was the exact hearing date that he himself had requested.

The contrast on that day could not have been starker. While Mr. Lion was a no-show for the fight he started, the HOA—the “Goliath” in this story—arrived fully prepared, represented by its attorney, Nathan Tennyson, Esq. The judge’s decision was swift and absolute. Because Mr. Lion did not appear, no evidence was taken, and his petition was dismissed entirely.

This outcome is rooted in a core legal principle known as the “burden of proof.” Simply put, the person making a claim is responsible for presenting evidence to support it. As the one who filed the petition, it was Mr. Lion’s job to prove his case. By failing to appear, he presented zero evidence and could not possibly meet this fundamental burden. The merits of his specific complaint about Article 8 were never even heard, all because of a self-inflicted failure to participate in the process he initiated on the day he chose.

——————————————————————————–

2. Not Just Anyone Can Speak for You in Court

In a surprising turn, while Mr. Lion was absent, his two named witnesses did appear at the hearing. They informed the judge that the petitioner would not be attending and that they intended to represent him in his absence.

The Administrative Law Judge immediately shut down their attempt. The reason highlights a crucial rule that trips up many non-lawyers: the witnesses were not licensed attorneys, and the law strictly forbids such representation. Appearances at these administrative hearings are legally considered “the practice of law.”

The court’s decision was based on an unambiguous rule, which it cited in its legal conclusions:

Appearances at the Office of Administrative Hearings are considered to be the practice of law. See Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31.

This is a counter-intuitive lesson for many. You might assume a trusted friend, family member, or knowledgeable witness could speak on your behalf. This case demonstrates that the legal system has rigid rules about who is authorized to provide representation. Good intentions and a willingness to help are not enough to grant someone the legal authority to act as your advocate in a formal hearing.

——————————————————————————–

3. “Winning” is About Tipping the Scale of Evidence

In administrative hearings, the standard for winning is called “a preponderance of the evidence.” This doesn’t mean proving your case beyond all doubt. Think of it like a scale. “Preponderance of the evidence” simply means you have to provide enough evidence to make the scale tip, even just slightly, in your favor.

The formal definition clarifies this concept of relative weight:

The greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

Applying this standard to Mr. Lion’s case makes the outcome painfully clear. Since he failed to appear and no evidence was taken on his behalf, the “weight” of his evidence was zero. It was therefore impossible for him to tip the scale, no matter how strong his case might have been in theory. Because he presented nothing, Riggs Ranch Meadows was deemed the “prevailing party” by default. This demonstrates how the legal system is a structured process focused on evidence presented according to rules, not just on feelings or the theoretical rightness of a claim.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: The Rules of the Game Matter

The case of Jeff Lion provides a masterclass in legal procedure. The three key lessons are simple but absolute: you must show up to your own hearing, especially one you scheduled; only licensed attorneys can legally represent you; and you must present evidence to meet your burden of proof.

This case wasn’t ultimately about CC&Rs or neighborhood rules; it was about procedure. It serves as a stark reminder that before entering any formal dispute, the first question to ask isn’t “Am I right?” but “Do I understand the rules?”

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jeff Lion (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Nathan Tennyson (respondent attorney)
    BROWN/OLCOTT, PLLC

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Felicia Del Sol (ADRE transmission signatory)
  • LDettorre (ADRE recipient)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE recipient)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • djones (ADRE recipient)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • DGardner (ADRE recipient)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • ncano (ADRE recipient)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

John Shields vs. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch

Posted on by

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

CC&R § 6.2(A)

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717034-REL Decision – 619560.pdf

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

17F-H1717034-REL Decision – 592935.pdf

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

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

Executive Summary

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

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

I. Case Overview

Case Name

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

Case Number

17F-H1717034-REL-RHG

Jurisdiction

Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

Date of Decision

February 26, 2018

Core Dispute

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

Final Outcome

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

II. Petitioner’s Claim and Arguments

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

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

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

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

III. Respondent’s Position and Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

IV. Chronology of Key Events

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This section governs alterations to shared fences and walls.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VII. Final Order

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

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

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

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

Study Guide: Shields v. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch

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

Short-Answer Quiz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition in Context

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

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

Architectural Control Committee (“the Committee”)

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

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01

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

Burden of Proof

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

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

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

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

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

Party Wall

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

Petitioner

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

Preponderance of the Evidence

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

Rehearing

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

Respondent

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Building First and Asking Permission Later Creates Confusion

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

The timeline further illustrates the breakdown in process:

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

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

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

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

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

4. The Burden of Proof Rests Entirely on You

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Know Your Rules, Not Just Your Rights

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

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John Shields (petitioner)

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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