Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
25F-H050-REL
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2025-08-05
Administrative Law Judge
Nicole Robinson
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$2,000.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Marilyn J. Fogelsong
Counsel
—
Respondent
Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, INC.
Counsel
—
Alleged Violations
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811 Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 (A) and (F) ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A)
Outcome Summary
Petitioner's petition was DENIED because Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged violations, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to enforce the alleged violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A).
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof on all four issues. Issues 1, 2, and 3 lacked sufficient evidentiary support or statutory violation proof. Issue 4 was dismissed due to lack of OAH jurisdiction over ARS § 10-830.
Key Issues & Findings
The HOA failed to disclose conflicts-of-interest when hiring an HOA property manager to manage the HOA which is a violation of ARS 33-1811.
Petitioner alleged that the hiring of TRT (Tucson Realty & Trust Company, Management Services, LLC) as the HOA manager constituted an undisclosed conflict of interest because TRT also managed individual townhouses within the community.
Orders: N/A
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
The HOA has violated paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs by directing an HOA property manager to pursue an unsanctioned project for individual townhouses which is beyond the scope of HOA management for common areas.
The HOA manager solicited bids to paint the exteriors of all townhouses. Petitioner argued the HOA lacked authority to manage improvements for individual units, as Paragraph 19 limits HOA authority to common areas.
Orders: N/A
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs
The board has violated the open meeting laws of ARS 33-1804 (A) and (F) by holding a private board meeting without notice; failing to provide material information, minutes, financial statements, and a budget upon request; and by failing to communicate via the designated representative.
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting laws by failing to provide proper notice for meetings and failing to provide requested documentation (minutes, financial statements, etc.).
Orders: N/A
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
The board has violated ARS 10-830(A) by failing to act in good faith with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would act by failing to perform their duties.
Petitioner alleged the board failed to perform required duties in a timely or prudent manner, including failing to elect officers, manage the bank account, check the post office box, and schedule a backflow test.
Orders: N/A
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Management, Conflict of Interest, Open Meeting Law, Jurisdiction, Planned Community, CC&Rs, Director Duty, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Park Association
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811 Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 (A) and (F) ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A)
Outcome Summary
Petitioner's petition was DENIED because Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged violations, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to enforce the alleged violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A).
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof on all four issues. Issues 1, 2, and 3 lacked sufficient evidentiary support or statutory violation proof. Issue 4 was dismissed due to lack of OAH jurisdiction over ARS § 10-830.
Key Issues & Findings
The HOA failed to disclose conflicts-of-interest when hiring an HOA property manager to manage the HOA which is a violation of ARS 33-1811.
Petitioner alleged that the hiring of TRT (Tucson Realty & Trust Company, Management Services, LLC) as the HOA manager constituted an undisclosed conflict of interest because TRT also managed individual townhouses within the community.
Orders: N/A
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
The HOA has violated paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs by directing an HOA property manager to pursue an unsanctioned project for individual townhouses which is beyond the scope of HOA management for common areas.
The HOA manager solicited bids to paint the exteriors of all townhouses. Petitioner argued the HOA lacked authority to manage improvements for individual units, as Paragraph 19 limits HOA authority to common areas.
Orders: N/A
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs
The board has violated the open meeting laws of ARS 33-1804 (A) and (F) by holding a private board meeting without notice; failing to provide material information, minutes, financial statements, and a budget upon request; and by failing to communicate via the designated representative.
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting laws by failing to provide proper notice for meetings and failing to provide requested documentation (minutes, financial statements, etc.).
Orders: N/A
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
The board has violated ARS 10-830(A) by failing to act in good faith with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would act by failing to perform their duties.
Petitioner alleged the board failed to perform required duties in a timely or prudent manner, including failing to elect officers, manage the bank account, check the post office box, and schedule a backflow test.
Orders: N/A
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Management, Conflict of Interest, Open Meeting Law, Jurisdiction, Planned Community, CC&Rs, Director Duty, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Park Association
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
25F-H050-REL Decision – 1336348.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:33 (157.7 KB)
25F-H050-REL Decision – 1348020.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:37 (43.9 KB)
25F-H050-REL Decision – 1380164.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:41 (51.8 KB)
25F-H050-REL Decision – 1384549.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:45 (49.0 KB)
25F-H050-REL Decision – 1384804.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:50 (7.5 KB)
25F-H050-REL Decision – 1393862.pdf
Uploaded 2026-02-12T19:19:32 (59.6 KB)
Briefing Doc – 25F-H050-REL
Briefing Document: Fogelsong vs. Park Townhouses Homeowners Association (Docket No. 25F-H050-REL)
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the legal dispute between Marilyn J. Fogelsong (“Petitioner”) and the Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, Inc. (“Respondent”). The case was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
The Petitioner, a co-owner of a unit in the eight-unit Park Townhouses community, filed a petition on or about March 31, 2025, alleging four distinct violations by the HOA board. These allegations included failure to disclose a conflict of interest in hiring an HOA manager, violating the community’s CC&Rs by pursuing projects for individual units, violating state open meeting laws, and failing to act in good faith as fiduciaries.
An evidentiary hearing was conducted on July 16, 2025, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Nicole Robinson. The Respondent did not appear at the hearing, and the Petitioner provided sole testimony.
On August 5, 2025, the ALJ issued a decision denying the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety. The judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence for three of the four issues. The fourth issue was dismissed on the grounds that the OAH lacked the jurisdiction to enforce the specific statute cited (A.R.S. § 10-830). A subsequent request for a rehearing filed by the Petitioner was rejected by the OAH as it was submitted to the incorrect office after the OAH’s jurisdiction had ended.
Case Overview
Case Number
25F-H050-REL
Adjudicating Body
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
Administrative Law Judge
Nicole Robinson
Petitioner
Marilyn J. Fogelsong
Respondent
Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, Inc.
Subject Property
Park Townhouses, an 8-unit planned community in Tucson, AZ
Petition Filed
On or about March 31, 2025
Hearing Date
July 16, 2025
Decision Issued
August 5, 2025
Final Outcome
Petition DENIED
The Parties and Property
• Petitioner Marilyn J. Fogelsong: A partial owner of unit 2467 East 1st Street since April 2021, co-owning with her 39-year-old son who resides in the unit. Fogelsong previously served as the HOA board president for three years, with her last term ending in September 2024.
• Respondent Park Townhouses HOA: A planned community association for an eight-unit townhouse development in Tucson, Arizona. Each unit owner is responsible for their own structure and lot.
• The Property: The community consists of two buildings, each with four townhouses facing each other across a 20-foot wide common driveway.
Petitioner’s Allegations and Testimony
During the July 16, 2025 hearing, Ms. Fogelsong, representing herself, presented testimony on the four issues outlined in her petition. The HOA did not appear.
Issue #1: Conflict of Interest (A.R.S. § 33-1811)
The Petitioner alleged that the HOA failed to disclose conflicts of interest when hiring Tucson Realty & Trust Company (TRT) as the HOA property manager, rendering the contract void.
• Core Allegation: On February 17, 2025, the HOA board presented only one proposal—from TRT—and asked homeowners to approve the hire without disclosing pertinent conflicts.
• Identified Conflicts:
◦ TRT’s property management division manages two units within the community (2463 and 2467) owned by then-current board members Mark Schlang (Treasurer) and Gerald Schwarzenb[erger] (Secretary).
◦ Both the property management and HOA management divisions of TRT operate under the same broker, Deborah Garcia.
• History of Misconduct by TRT: The Petitioner testified to a history of issues with TRT that she believed constituted conflicts of interest:
◦ TRT collected parking violation fines from a tenant but failed to remit them to the HOA.
◦ TRT failed to provide tenant contact information to the HOA upon request, which is a violation of Arizona law.
◦ TRT’s attorney, BL Edmonson, sent a “cease and desist” letter to Fogelsong and then invoiced the HOA for the legal fees, which Fogelsong, as president at the time, rejected. The invoice was resubmitted to the HOA 18 months later.
Issue #2: CC&R Violation (Paragraph 19)
The Petitioner alleged the HOA violated Paragraph 19 of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by directing the HOA manager to pursue an “unsanctioned project for individual townhouses.”
• Core Allegation: The HOA manager (TRT) met with a painting company on March 31, 2025, to solicit bids for painting the exteriors of all townhouses. The Petitioner argued this action is beyond the scope of the HOA’s authority, which is limited to maintaining common areas.
• Supporting Evidence:
◦ The Petitioner cited a legal opinion she obtained from an HOA attorney, Jason Smith, which concluded that the HOA does not have the right to conduct repairs on individual units.
◦ She referenced a past incident where another homeowner, David Zinfeld, paid an assessment for awning wood repair “under protest” because the funds were being used for an individual unit, not a common area.
Issue #3: Open Meeting Law Violations (A.R.S. § 33-1804)
The Petitioner claimed the board violated Arizona’s open meeting laws through multiple actions.
• Secret Meeting: The board held a private meeting to approve TRT as the manager before the February 17, 2025, homeowners meeting where the vote occurred. No notice of this prior board meeting was given to homeowners.
• Failure to Provide Information: The Petitioner made multiple requests for documents that were ignored. She requested management proposals on February 4, 2025, and later requested minutes, financial statements, and property management agreements, none of which were provided.
• Disregarded Standing: In its written response to the petition, the HOA claimed the Petitioner lacked “sufficient standing” due to her “limited ownership stake,” a position the Petitioner refutes based on her recorded deed.
Issue #4: Failure to Act in Good Faith (A.R.S. § 10-830A)
The Petitioner alleged the board failed to perform its duties with the care an “ordinarily prudent person” would exercise.
• Dereliction of Duties:
◦ The board, elected in September 2024, waited 10 weeks to meet and elect officers.
◦ The board failed to take control of the HOA bank account until March 2025, approximately six months into its one-year term.
◦ It failed to schedule a required annual backflow test for the irrigation system, resulting in the water being shut off.
◦ It failed to replace a dead tree that was on the agenda for replacement in fall 2024.
◦ It failed to check the HOA’s post office box, leading to the return of dues checks from homeowners.
◦ It did not abate new graffiti for six weeks, at which point the Petitioner did so herself after receiving permission.
Respondent’s Position
Although the HOA was not present at the hearing, its positions were articulated in a five-page written response submitted to the Department of Real Estate on May 8, 2025, and were referenced during the hearing.
• Denial of Claims: The Respondent denied all of the Petitioner’s claims.
• Challenge to Standing: The HOA’s formal position was that Ms. Fogelsong lacked sufficient standing due to her “limited ownership stake.”
• Allegation of Ulterior Motive: The Respondent accused the Petitioner of a “calculated and systematic attempt to devalue the property and agitate the owners to possibly sell their respective units to Miss Fogong [sic] and her son at a below market value.” They claimed several owners could testify to her “repeated suggestions and solicitations to sell.”
• Claim of Non-cooperation: The HOA stated that the Petitioner had “not been fully cooperative in the transition process” regarding missing documentation after her term as president ended.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision
On August 5, 2025, ALJ Nicole Robinson issued a decision denying the petition. The core finding was that the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving the violations by a preponderance of the evidence.
Findings on Each Issue
• Issue #1 (Conflict of Interest):No Violation Found. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove the hiring of TRT constituted a conflict of interest as defined by A.R.S. § 33-1811. The evidence showed that a prior management company (McElwain) also managed individual units while serving as the HOA manager, suggesting this was an established practice. The statute specifically addresses benefits to board members or their families, which was not sufficiently established by the evidence presented.
• Issue #2 (CC&R Violation):No Violation Found. The decision stated that the Petitioner failed to submit the entirety of the CC&Rs and Bylaws, providing only “snippets.” Without the complete governing documents, the tribunal could not definitively determine the scope of the HOA’s authority regarding projects on individual units. Furthermore, the evidence only showed that a bid was solicited for painting; there was no evidence that work was actually performed.
• Issue #3 (Open Meeting Law):No Violation Found. The ALJ found that the February 17, 2025, meeting was properly noticed via email. Regarding a March 5, 2025, email the Petitioner did not receive, the evidence showed her co-owner son did receive it, meaning the unit was properly notified. A December 2024 meeting was deemed emergent, for which the statute does not require prior notice.
• Issue #4 (Failure to Act in Good Faith):No Jurisdiction. The ALJ concluded that the Office of Administrative Hearings lacks jurisdiction to enforce A.R.S. § 10-830. The OAH’s authority is limited by statute to adjudicating violations of Title 33 (Planned Communities and Condominiums) and community documents, not Title 10 (Corporations and Associations).
Post-Decision Events
• On August 26, 2025, the Petitioner filed a request for a rehearing.
• On September 8, 2025, the OAH issued a Minute Entry stating that the request would not be considered because it was “inappropriately sent to the Office of Administrative Hearings.”
• The OAH’s jurisdiction over the matter had concluded with the August 5 decision. The Petitioner was advised to address any further requests to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Marilyn J. Fogelsong(petitioner) Park Townhouses HOA Represented herself; former HOA President/Treasurer
Levi Benjamin Lazarus(co-owner/son of petitioner) Park Townhouses HOA Co-owner of petitioner's unit
Jason Smith(HOA attorney) Consulted by petitioner regarding CC&R interpretation for unit repairs
Respondent Side
Gerald Schwarzenb(board member/Secretary) Park Townhouses HOA Current HOA board member; his unit managed by TRT
Mark Schlang(board member/Treasurer/architect) Park Townhouses HOA Current HOA board member; his unit managed by TRT
Deborah Garcia(broker/HOA manager) TRT Property Management Broker of TRT; homeowners voted to accept her as HOA manager
Andrew Viscara(HOA property manager) TRT Property Management TRT representative designated for Park Townhouses HOA management
Mary Lord Lr(property manager) TRT Property Management Property manager for unit 2465
B.L. Edmonson(attorney) TRT Property Management Wrote cease and desist letter to petitioner; billed HOA
Neutral Parties
Nicole Robinson(ALJ) OAH
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) ADRE
Other Participants
David Zinfeld(homeowner/former Treasurer) Park Townhouses HOA Property owner; prior treasurer during self-managed period; paid assessment under protest
Ray Floyd(former board member) Park Townhouses HOA Served on board with petitioner during self-managed period
Sasha Flores(bank account signer) Park Townhouses HOA Wife of Rick Flores; co-signer on HOA bank account
Rick Flores(homeowner/delegate) Park Townhouses HOA Delegated authority to wife Sasha Flores for bank account deeds
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811 Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 (A) and (F) ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A)
Outcome Summary
Petitioner's petition was DENIED because Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged violations, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to enforce the alleged violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A).
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof on all four issues. Issues 1, 2, and 3 lacked sufficient evidentiary support or statutory violation proof. Issue 4 was dismissed due to lack of OAH jurisdiction over ARS § 10-830.
Key Issues & Findings
The HOA failed to disclose conflicts-of-interest when hiring an HOA property manager to manage the HOA which is a violation of ARS 33-1811.
Petitioner alleged that the hiring of TRT (Tucson Realty & Trust Company, Management Services, LLC) as the HOA manager constituted an undisclosed conflict of interest because TRT also managed individual townhouses within the community.
Orders: N/A
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
The HOA has violated paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs by directing an HOA property manager to pursue an unsanctioned project for individual townhouses which is beyond the scope of HOA management for common areas.
The HOA manager solicited bids to paint the exteriors of all townhouses. Petitioner argued the HOA lacked authority to manage improvements for individual units, as Paragraph 19 limits HOA authority to common areas.
Orders: N/A
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs
The board has violated the open meeting laws of ARS 33-1804 (A) and (F) by holding a private board meeting without notice; failing to provide material information, minutes, financial statements, and a budget upon request; and by failing to communicate via the designated representative.
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting laws by failing to provide proper notice for meetings and failing to provide requested documentation (minutes, financial statements, etc.).
Orders: N/A
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
The board has violated ARS 10-830(A) by failing to act in good faith with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would act by failing to perform their duties.
Petitioner alleged the board failed to perform required duties in a timely or prudent manner, including failing to elect officers, manage the bank account, check the post office box, and schedule a backflow test.
Orders: N/A
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Management, Conflict of Interest, Open Meeting Law, Jurisdiction, Planned Community, CC&Rs, Director Duty, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Park Association
Mountain Park Association CC&Rs Art. IV, Sec. 2; Keystone CC&Rs Art. V, Sec. 5.19; Rules (35% Frontage Limit)
Outcome Summary
The Petitioner (HOA) prevailed. The Respondent (Homeowner) was found in violation of Governing Documents for installing an unapproved driveway extension that exceeded 35% of the total yard frontage area. Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner the $1,500.00 filing fee and comply with all Governing Documents henceforth. No civil penalty was levied.
Why this result: Respondent failed to obtain prior written approval for the driveway alteration and failed to prove the affirmative defense of laches.
Key Issues & Findings
Unauthorized Driveway Extension Exceeding 35% of Total Yard Frontage Area
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated CC&Rs by installing a driveway extension exceeding 35% of the total yard frontage area without prior written approval. The ALJ found by a preponderance of the evidence that the violation occurred and the Respondent failed to establish the affirmative defense of laches.
Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $1,500.00 for the filing fee and comply henceforth with the Governing Documents.
Filing fee: $1,500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Westburne Supply, Inc. v. Diversified Design and Construction, Inc., 170 Ariz. 598, 600, 826 P.2d 1224, 1226 (Ct. App. 1992)
Can a sub-association enforce the rules and CC&Rs of the master association?
Short Answer
Yes, if the master association has assigned those enforcement rights to the sub-association.
Detailed Answer
A sub-association (like a specific neighborhood HOA within a larger master planned community) generally enforces its own documents. However, this decision clarifies that a sub-association may be authorized to enforce the master association's governing documents if there is a specific assignment agreement executing that transfer of authority.
Alj Quote
The Governing Documents authorize Petitioner to enforce the Governing Documents, as further memorialized by an executed Assignment Agreement by and between Mountain Park Association and Keystone Owners Association signed on August 16, 2023.
Legal Basis
Assignment Agreement / Governing Documents
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
sub-associations
master association
enforcement authority
Question
If I extend my driveway without approval, does the HOA have to prove I didn't get permission, or do I have to prove I did?
Short Answer
The absence of written evidence granting approval can be used to establish a violation.
Detailed Answer
While the HOA bears the initial burden of proof for the violation, the lack of testimonial or written evidence showing that the homeowner received approval helps establish that the modification was unauthorized.
Alj Quote
However, there was no testimonial or written evidence presented to establish that Respondent was granted approval to install a driveway that exceeded 35% of the total yard frontage area.
Legal Basis
Burden of Proof
Topic Tags
architectural approval
evidence
driveways
modifications
Question
What is the 'burden of proof' for an HOA to win a violation hearing?
Short Answer
The HOA must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
The HOA does not need to prove a violation 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (the criminal standard). They must only show that their contention is 'more probably true than not' or carries superior evidentiary weight.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated CC&R § 7.9 by a preponderance of the evidence… 'A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.'
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
legal standards
evidence
hearing procedures
Question
Can I use the defense that the HOA waited too long to enforce the rule (laches)?
Short Answer
Yes, but you bear the burden of proving that the delay was unreasonable and caused you prejudice.
Detailed Answer
Laches is an affirmative defense. It is not enough to simply show a delay; the homeowner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the delay was unreasonable and that it resulted in sufficient prejudice to deny the HOA's relief.
Alj Quote
Laches is an affirmative defense, and Respondent bears the burden of establishing the defense by a preponderance of the evidence… Respondent has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that there was unreasonable delay that has resulted in prejudice to Respondent sufficient to deny the relief Petitioner seeks…
Legal Basis
A.C.C. R2-19-119(B)(2); Flynn v. Rogers
Topic Tags
defenses
laches
enforcement delay
Question
If I lose the hearing, can the judge make me pay the HOA's filing fees?
Short Answer
Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the losing homeowner to reimburse the HOA's filing fee.
Detailed Answer
In this decision, the judge ordered the Respondent (homeowner) to pay the Petitioner's (HOA) filing fee of $1,500.00 directly to the Petitioner within 30 days.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner its filing fee of $1,500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.
Legal Basis
Administrative Order
Topic Tags
fees
costs
penalties
Question
How do judges interpret the meaning of restrictive covenants (CC&Rs)?
Short Answer
They are interpreted as a whole, looking at the underlying purpose of the document.
Detailed Answer
Legal interpretation does not isolate single phrases but looks at the document in its entirety to understand the intent of the parties and the purpose of the restrictions.
Alj Quote
Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.
Legal Basis
Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs.
Topic Tags
legal interpretation
CC&Rs
covenants
Question
Can the judge issue a civil penalty (fine) in addition to ordering me to fix the violation?
Short Answer
Yes, the judge has the authority to levy a civil penalty, though they may choose not to.
Detailed Answer
Under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 32-2199.02, the administrative law judge has the discretion to order compliance and also levy a civil penalty for each violation. In this specific case, the judge found no civil penalty was appropriate, but the authority exists.
Alj Quote
The administrative law judge may order any party to abide by the statute, condominium documents, community documents or contract provision at issue and may levy a civil penalty on the basis of each violation.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
Topic Tags
civil penalties
fines
statutory authority
Case
Docket No
24F-H031-REL
Case Title
Keystone Owners Association vs. Bernadette M. Bennett
Decision Date
2024-12-09
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can a sub-association enforce the rules and CC&Rs of the master association?
Short Answer
Yes, if the master association has assigned those enforcement rights to the sub-association.
Detailed Answer
A sub-association (like a specific neighborhood HOA within a larger master planned community) generally enforces its own documents. However, this decision clarifies that a sub-association may be authorized to enforce the master association's governing documents if there is a specific assignment agreement executing that transfer of authority.
Alj Quote
The Governing Documents authorize Petitioner to enforce the Governing Documents, as further memorialized by an executed Assignment Agreement by and between Mountain Park Association and Keystone Owners Association signed on August 16, 2023.
Legal Basis
Assignment Agreement / Governing Documents
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
sub-associations
master association
enforcement authority
Question
If I extend my driveway without approval, does the HOA have to prove I didn't get permission, or do I have to prove I did?
Short Answer
The absence of written evidence granting approval can be used to establish a violation.
Detailed Answer
While the HOA bears the initial burden of proof for the violation, the lack of testimonial or written evidence showing that the homeowner received approval helps establish that the modification was unauthorized.
Alj Quote
However, there was no testimonial or written evidence presented to establish that Respondent was granted approval to install a driveway that exceeded 35% of the total yard frontage area.
Legal Basis
Burden of Proof
Topic Tags
architectural approval
evidence
driveways
modifications
Question
What is the 'burden of proof' for an HOA to win a violation hearing?
Short Answer
The HOA must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
The HOA does not need to prove a violation 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (the criminal standard). They must only show that their contention is 'more probably true than not' or carries superior evidentiary weight.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated CC&R § 7.9 by a preponderance of the evidence… 'A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.'
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
legal standards
evidence
hearing procedures
Question
Can I use the defense that the HOA waited too long to enforce the rule (laches)?
Short Answer
Yes, but you bear the burden of proving that the delay was unreasonable and caused you prejudice.
Detailed Answer
Laches is an affirmative defense. It is not enough to simply show a delay; the homeowner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the delay was unreasonable and that it resulted in sufficient prejudice to deny the HOA's relief.
Alj Quote
Laches is an affirmative defense, and Respondent bears the burden of establishing the defense by a preponderance of the evidence… Respondent has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that there was unreasonable delay that has resulted in prejudice to Respondent sufficient to deny the relief Petitioner seeks…
Legal Basis
A.C.C. R2-19-119(B)(2); Flynn v. Rogers
Topic Tags
defenses
laches
enforcement delay
Question
If I lose the hearing, can the judge make me pay the HOA's filing fees?
Short Answer
Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the losing homeowner to reimburse the HOA's filing fee.
Detailed Answer
In this decision, the judge ordered the Respondent (homeowner) to pay the Petitioner's (HOA) filing fee of $1,500.00 directly to the Petitioner within 30 days.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner its filing fee of $1,500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.
Legal Basis
Administrative Order
Topic Tags
fees
costs
penalties
Question
How do judges interpret the meaning of restrictive covenants (CC&Rs)?
Short Answer
They are interpreted as a whole, looking at the underlying purpose of the document.
Detailed Answer
Legal interpretation does not isolate single phrases but looks at the document in its entirety to understand the intent of the parties and the purpose of the restrictions.
Alj Quote
Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.
Legal Basis
Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs.
Topic Tags
legal interpretation
CC&Rs
covenants
Question
Can the judge issue a civil penalty (fine) in addition to ordering me to fix the violation?
Short Answer
Yes, the judge has the authority to levy a civil penalty, though they may choose not to.
Detailed Answer
Under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 32-2199.02, the administrative law judge has the discretion to order compliance and also levy a civil penalty for each violation. In this specific case, the judge found no civil penalty was appropriate, but the authority exists.
Alj Quote
The administrative law judge may order any party to abide by the statute, condominium documents, community documents or contract provision at issue and may levy a civil penalty on the basis of each violation.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
Topic Tags
civil penalties
fines
statutory authority
Case
Docket No
24F-H031-REL
Case Title
Keystone Owners Association vs. Bernadette M. Bennett
Decision Date
2024-12-09
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Erica L. Mortenson(attorney) Goodman Law Group HOA attorney
Harry Whitel(board member/witness) Keystone Owners Association Secretary of the Board
Tim Seyfarth(board member/president) Keystone Owners Association Board President
Glenn Steinman(board member) Keystone Owners Association Board Vice President
Debbie Burch(board member) Keystone Owners Association Board Treasurer
Cherry Collins(board member) Keystone Owners Association Member at large; Architectural Advisory Committee member
Joe Getti(ARC member/former board member) Keystone Owners Association Architectural Advisory Committee member
Mary Hamilton(ARC member) Keystone Owners Association Architectural Advisory Committee member
Dan(attorney/staff) Goodman Law Group
Respondent Side
Bernadette M. Bennett(respondent) Lot Owner
Thomas A. Walcott(attorney) Provident Lawyers Respondent attorney
Noah Alvarado(staff) Staff/assistant for Respondent's Counsel
Christopher J. Charles(attorney/staff) Provident Lawyers
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) OAH Administrative Law Judge
Amy Haley(ALJ) OAH Administrative Law Judge (prior to VMT)
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Other Participants
Isabella(property manager) Vision Management Keystone Property Manager who was asked for documents
Annette Wthbon(property management agent) City Management Former Property Management Agent
Carla Garvin(property management agent) City Management Former Property Management Agent
Petitioner sustained its burden of proof establishing that Respondents violated CC&Rs sections 7.2, 7.3, 7.25, 7.26, 7.28, and 7.31 by operating a cat rescue business (VKNR) from their residence, which involved unauthorized commercial activity, excessive non-pet animals, and creating a nuisance. Violation of 7.29 was not established. The petition was granted.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of CC&Rs by operating an unauthorized business out of their home and housing dozens of cats in excess of a reasonable number of household pets, creating a nuisance.
Respondents operated a nonprofit cat rescue (VKNR) from their single-family residence, housing 50+ cats in a 3-car garage, which constituted an unauthorized commercial use, exceeded a reasonable number of pets, and created traffic and waste nuisances.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is granted. Respondents must henceforth abide by CC&Rs sections 7.2, 7.3, 7.25, 7.26, 7.28, and 7.31.
Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
CC&Rs section 7.2
CC&Rs section 7.3
CC&Rs section 7.25
CC&Rs section 7.26
CC&Rs section 7.28
CC&Rs section 7.31
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Home Business, Pets/Animals, Nuisance, CC&Rs, Enforcement, HOA
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
24F-H003-REL Decision – 1094853.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:39 (51.0 KB)
24F-H003-REL Decision – 1113338.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:44 (49.4 KB)
24F-H003-REL Decision – 1125372.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:48 (65.5 KB)
24F-H003-REL Decision – 1147484.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:51 (184.8 KB)
Study Guide – 24F-H003-REL
Select all sources
1094853.pdf
1113338.pdf
1113415.aac
1113416.aac
1113417.aac
1125372.pdf
1147484.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
24F-H003-REL
7 sources
In a legal dispute before the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the VVE-Casa Grande Home Owners Association alleged that residents Duane and Mary Eitel violated community CC&Rs by operating an unauthorized cat rescue from their garage. The association contended that housing dozens of animals constituted an illegal business and a nuisance that impacted the neighborhood’s residential character. While the homeowners argued their nonprofit fostering was a charitable endeavor rather than a commercial enterprise, the Administrative Law Judge ruled that the large-scale operation exceeded the “reasonable number of pets” allowed. Evidence from Pinal County inspections and neighbor testimony confirmed that the garage held over 50 cats, leading to concerns over traffic, sanitation, and debris. Ultimately, the judge found the homeowners in violation of multiple governing documents and ordered them to cease operations.
What were the main legal arguments regarding the cat rescue?
How did the court define a home-based business versus a nonprofit?
What specific HOA rules were the homeowners found to have violated?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 3:04 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 24F-H003-REL
Select all sources
1094853.pdf
1113338.pdf
1113415.aac
1113416.aac
1113417.aac
1125372.pdf
1147484.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
24F-H003-REL
7 sources
In a legal dispute before the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the VVE-Casa Grande Home Owners Association alleged that residents Duane and Mary Eitel violated community CC&Rs by operating an unauthorized cat rescue from their garage. The association contended that housing dozens of animals constituted an illegal business and a nuisance that impacted the neighborhood’s residential character. While the homeowners argued their nonprofit fostering was a charitable endeavor rather than a commercial enterprise, the Administrative Law Judge ruled that the large-scale operation exceeded the “reasonable number of pets” allowed. Evidence from Pinal County inspections and neighbor testimony confirmed that the garage held over 50 cats, leading to concerns over traffic, sanitation, and debris. Ultimately, the judge found the homeowners in violation of multiple governing documents and ordered them to cease operations.
What were the main legal arguments regarding the cat rescue?
How did the court define a home-based business versus a nonprofit?
What specific HOA rules were the homeowners found to have violated?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 3:04 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Anthony Rossetti(petitioner attorney, property manager) Rossetti Management & Realty Services Represented Petitioner and owned the newly hired management company.
Douglas Karolak(witness, homeowner) VVE-Casa Grande HOA Member Testified on behalf of Petitioner.
Nicole Elliot(property manager) Norris Management Former HOA management committee/manager who issued warning letters.
CD Mai(homeowner/neighbor) VVE-Casa Grande HOA Member Mentioned by Karolak as a vocal opponent/adjacent neighbor to the Eitels.
Respondent Side
Duane Eitel(respondent, witness) VVE-Casa Grande HOA Member Referred to as Duane S Eitel in earlier documents; DE in the decision.
Mary Eitel(respondent) VVE-Casa Grande HOA Member, CEO/Director of Valley Kitten Nursery & Rescue Inc. Referred to as Mary L Eitel in earlier documents.
Kevin Harper(respondent attorney) Harper Law, PLC
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Susan Nicolson(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Christopher Sinco(code compliance officer) Pinal County Animal Control Involved in the 2017/2018 county inspection.
Other Participants
Scott Lenderman(property manager) HOA management administrator (prior to Rossetti) Mentioned as the first HOA management administrator.
Section 2.1 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements (CC&Rs)
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove that the Association violated CC&Rs Section 2.1 by adopting the Residential Parking Policy. The Policy was deemed a valid clarification authorized by existing CC&R provisions (4.2(t) and 5.3).
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish a violation of the governing documents.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of CC&Rs Section 2.1 regarding adoption of Residential Parking Policy
Petitioner alleged that the Association's adoption of the Residential Parking Policy violated CC&Rs Section 2.1 because the policy used the unauthorized term 'Rules and Regulations' rather than 'restrictions,' thereby attempting to amend the CC&Rs without following the proper process, particularly concerning the use of government-owned property.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA, CC&Rs, Parking Policy, Rules vs Restrictions, Burden of Proof, Planned Community
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
24F-H009-REL Decision – 1101544.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:45 (47.0 KB)
24F-H009-REL Decision – 1111460.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:48 (102.6 KB)
Questions
Question
Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over disputes regarding HOA document violations?
Short Answer
Yes, owners or associations may petition the department for hearings concerning violations of community documents.
Detailed Answer
The Department is authorized by statute to receive petitions regarding disputes between owners and associations, specifically concerning violations of community documents or statutes regulating planned communities.
Alj Quote
The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities as long as the petitioner has filed a petition with the department and paid a filing fee as outlined in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq.
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
dispute resolution
Question
Can an HOA enforce restrictions on public streets or government-owned property within the community?
Short Answer
Yes, if the CC&Rs explicitly state that restrictions apply to owners concerning the use of such property.
Detailed Answer
Even if property is dedicated to the public, the CC&Rs can impose restrictions on owners and residents regarding their use of that property, which remain applicable at all times.
Alj Quote
Section 2.1 of the CC&Rs in pertinent part states, 'property within Lakewood which is not part of a Lot or Parcel and which is owned by or dedicated to the public or governmental entity shall not be subject to this Declaration although restrictions imposed in this Declaration upon the Owners and Residents concerning the use and maintenance of such property shall be applicable at all times.'
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Section 2.1
Topic Tags
parking
public streets
authority
Question
Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence; it is not the HOA's initial burden to disprove the claim.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Section 2.1 of the CC&Rs.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
procedural
burden of proof
Question
What standard of evidence is used to decide HOA disputes?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
This standard requires evidence that convinces the judge that the claim is more probably true than not.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)
Topic Tags
evidence
legal standard
Question
Can an HOA Board pass a parking policy without amending the CC&Rs?
Short Answer
Yes, if the CC&Rs grant the Board the authority to adopt rules and regulations.
Detailed Answer
If the CC&Rs allow the Board to adopt reasonable rules by majority vote, a policy passed in compliance with that section is valid, provided it clarifies rather than subverts the existing CC&Rs.
Alj Quote
It was undisputed Respondent passed the Parking Policy by majority vote in compliance with Section 5.3. … The Parking Policy did not subvert Section 4.2(t) nor did it contradict said policy, rather it further clarified prohibited on-street parking.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Section 5.3
Topic Tags
board authority
rules vs amendments
Question
Does the specific terminology 'rules' vs. 'restrictions' invalidate a policy?
Short Answer
Generally, no. Semantic differences are often considered irrelevant if the authority to regulate exists.
Detailed Answer
Arguments relying on semantic distinctions between 'rules and regulations' and 'restrictions' may fail if the Board has the clear authority to regulate the activity (e.g., parking) under the CC&Rs.
Alj Quote
Petitioner’s assertion that the semantic difference between the terms 'rules and regulations' and 'rules and restrictions' is irrelevant in determining whether Respondent had the authority under Section 2.1 of the CC&Rs to clarify Section 4.2(t).
Legal Basis
N/A
Topic Tags
legal interpretation
semantics
Question
What happens if a homeowner fails to meet the burden of proof?
Short Answer
The petition will be dismissed.
Detailed Answer
If the evidence presented is insufficient to establish that the HOA violated its documents, the Administrative Law Judge must dismiss the case.
Alj Quote
The undersigned Administrative Law Judge concludes that, because Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof that Respondent committed the alleged violation, his petition must be dismissed.
Legal Basis
N/A
Topic Tags
outcome
dismissal
Question
How long does a party have to request a rehearing after an ALJ decision?
Short Answer
30 days.
Detailed Answer
A request for rehearing must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Topic Tags
appeal
deadlines
Case
Docket No
24F-H009-REL
Case Title
Thomas P. Hommrich v The Lakewood Community Association
Decision Date
2023-11-09
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over disputes regarding HOA document violations?
Short Answer
Yes, owners or associations may petition the department for hearings concerning violations of community documents.
Detailed Answer
The Department is authorized by statute to receive petitions regarding disputes between owners and associations, specifically concerning violations of community documents or statutes regulating planned communities.
Alj Quote
The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities as long as the petitioner has filed a petition with the department and paid a filing fee as outlined in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq.
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
dispute resolution
Question
Can an HOA enforce restrictions on public streets or government-owned property within the community?
Short Answer
Yes, if the CC&Rs explicitly state that restrictions apply to owners concerning the use of such property.
Detailed Answer
Even if property is dedicated to the public, the CC&Rs can impose restrictions on owners and residents regarding their use of that property, which remain applicable at all times.
Alj Quote
Section 2.1 of the CC&Rs in pertinent part states, 'property within Lakewood which is not part of a Lot or Parcel and which is owned by or dedicated to the public or governmental entity shall not be subject to this Declaration although restrictions imposed in this Declaration upon the Owners and Residents concerning the use and maintenance of such property shall be applicable at all times.'
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Section 2.1
Topic Tags
parking
public streets
authority
Question
Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence; it is not the HOA's initial burden to disprove the claim.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Section 2.1 of the CC&Rs.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
procedural
burden of proof
Question
What standard of evidence is used to decide HOA disputes?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
This standard requires evidence that convinces the judge that the claim is more probably true than not.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)
Topic Tags
evidence
legal standard
Question
Can an HOA Board pass a parking policy without amending the CC&Rs?
Short Answer
Yes, if the CC&Rs grant the Board the authority to adopt rules and regulations.
Detailed Answer
If the CC&Rs allow the Board to adopt reasonable rules by majority vote, a policy passed in compliance with that section is valid, provided it clarifies rather than subverts the existing CC&Rs.
Alj Quote
It was undisputed Respondent passed the Parking Policy by majority vote in compliance with Section 5.3. … The Parking Policy did not subvert Section 4.2(t) nor did it contradict said policy, rather it further clarified prohibited on-street parking.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Section 5.3
Topic Tags
board authority
rules vs amendments
Question
Does the specific terminology 'rules' vs. 'restrictions' invalidate a policy?
Short Answer
Generally, no. Semantic differences are often considered irrelevant if the authority to regulate exists.
Detailed Answer
Arguments relying on semantic distinctions between 'rules and regulations' and 'restrictions' may fail if the Board has the clear authority to regulate the activity (e.g., parking) under the CC&Rs.
Alj Quote
Petitioner’s assertion that the semantic difference between the terms 'rules and regulations' and 'rules and restrictions' is irrelevant in determining whether Respondent had the authority under Section 2.1 of the CC&Rs to clarify Section 4.2(t).
Legal Basis
N/A
Topic Tags
legal interpretation
semantics
Question
What happens if a homeowner fails to meet the burden of proof?
Short Answer
The petition will be dismissed.
Detailed Answer
If the evidence presented is insufficient to establish that the HOA violated its documents, the Administrative Law Judge must dismiss the case.
Alj Quote
The undersigned Administrative Law Judge concludes that, because Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof that Respondent committed the alleged violation, his petition must be dismissed.
Legal Basis
N/A
Topic Tags
outcome
dismissal
Question
How long does a party have to request a rehearing after an ALJ decision?
Short Answer
30 days.
Detailed Answer
A request for rehearing must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Topic Tags
appeal
deadlines
Case
Docket No
24F-H009-REL
Case Title
Thomas P. Hommrich v The Lakewood Community Association
Decision Date
2023-11-09
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Thomas P. Hommrich(petitioner) Property owner, appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Quinten Cupps(HOA attorney) VIal Fotheringham, LLP Represented The Lakewood Community Association
Sandra Smith(community manager) Lakewood Community Association Witness who testified on behalf of Respondent
Neutral Parties
Brian Del Vecchio(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Administrative Law Judge for the hearing and final decision
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Administrative Law Judge who issued the October 12, 2023 Order
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Moses Thompson(Judge) Judge cited in precedent case (Brian Seatic v Lake Resort Condominium)
Other Participants
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmission/contact
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmission/contact
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmission/contact
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmission/contact
Brian Seatic(party) Party in precedent case (Brian Seatic v Lake Resort Condominium) cited during the hearing
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof that the Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association engaged in selective enforcement regarding the shed constructed without prior approval, which violated the CC&Rs and design guidelines.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence of selective enforcement. She admitted her shed was built without prior approval, was taller than the fence line, and was visible from the street, all of which violated the CC&Rs. The evidence presented by the Respondent showed consistent enforcement actions regarding similar violations.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged selective, arbitrary, and capricious enforcement of CC&Rs regarding shed construction and prior approval.
Petitioner alleged that the HOA selectively enforced its shed policy against her, claiming that her denial for a shed built without prior approval and exceeding the fence height should be excused because other, similar non-compliant sheds existed in the community and were not consistently cited.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was dismissed. Petitioner's request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent was denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
CC&Rs Article 2 §§ 3.2, 3.3, and 3.11
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H055-REL Decision – 1062778.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:44 (44.1 KB)
23F-H055-REL Decision – 1086088.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:46 (110.9 KB)
Questions
Question
If I claim my HOA is engaging in 'selective enforcement', do I have to prove it, or do they have to prove they aren't?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proving selective enforcement by a preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the burden falls on the homeowner to provide sufficient evidence that the HOA violated its own CC&Rs or acted arbitrarily. Merely alleging selective enforcement without sufficient proof is not enough to win the case.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&Rs… Petitioner alleged but failed to provide sufficient evidence of Respondent’s supposed selective enforcement.
Legal Basis
Burden of Proof
Topic Tags
selective enforcement
burden of proof
legal procedure
Question
Can my HOA punish me for building a structure (like a shed) without prior approval, even if I apply for approval after building it?
Short Answer
Yes. Building without prior written approval violates standard CC&Rs, and a subsequent application denial is valid if the structure violates guidelines.
Detailed Answer
Most CC&Rs explicitly state that no construction or modification can occur without prior written approval. Admitting to building a structure without this approval constitutes a violation in itself. If the structure also violates design guidelines (e.g., height or visibility), the HOA can enforce the rules against it.
Alj Quote
Petitioner admitted she built her shed without prior approval from the Design Review Committee… all of which are violations of the CC&Rs.
Legal Basis
CC&R Violation
Topic Tags
architectural approval
unauthorized construction
violations
Question
If my HOA relaxed enforcement during a specific period (like the COVID-19 pandemic), does that mean they can never enforce those rules again?
Short Answer
No. A temporary reduction in enforcement during a crisis does not prevent the HOA from resuming enforcement later.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ decision accepted testimony that while enforcement might have been reduced during a specific event like the COVID-19 pandemic, the HOA is entitled to resume enforcement of rules (such as design guidelines) once normal operations return.
Alj Quote
Respondent’s witness testified during COVID enforcement was reduced, however, following the reopening of the economy post-COVID, enforcement was resumed.
Legal Basis
Enforcement Discretion
Topic Tags
waiver
enforcement history
COVID-19
Question
Can the HOA deny my shed if it is visible from the street or taller than the fence line?
Short Answer
Yes, if the CC&Rs or Design Guidelines prohibit structures that are taller than the fence or visible from the street.
Detailed Answer
Violating specific physical constraints listed in the community documents, such as height restrictions relative to a fence line or visibility from public streets, are valid grounds for the HOA to find a violation and deny approval.
Alj Quote
Here, Petitioner admitted… her shed is taller than the current fence line, and the shed can be seen from the street; all of which are violations of the CC&Rs.
Legal Basis
Design Guidelines
Topic Tags
architectural standards
sheds
visibility
Question
What is the 'standard of proof' used in these HOA hearings?
Short Answer
The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing something is more probably true than not.
Detailed Answer
To win an administrative hearing against an HOA, a homeowner does not need to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They must simply show that their claim is 'more probably true than not'—essentially carrying greater evidentiary weight than the opposing side.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Evidentiary Standard
Topic Tags
legal definitions
evidence
hearings
Question
Where can I file a legal dispute against my HOA without going to civil court?
Short Answer
Arizona homeowners can petition the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) for a hearing.
Detailed Answer
The ADRE has jurisdiction over disputes between owners and planned community associations regarding violations of community documents or statutes. The case is then typically heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Alj Quote
The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities as long as the petitioner has filed a petition with the department…
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
ADRE
dispute resolution
Case
Docket No
23F-H055-REL
Case Title
Rosalie Lynne Emmons vs Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2023-08-22
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
If I claim my HOA is engaging in 'selective enforcement', do I have to prove it, or do they have to prove they aren't?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proving selective enforcement by a preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the burden falls on the homeowner to provide sufficient evidence that the HOA violated its own CC&Rs or acted arbitrarily. Merely alleging selective enforcement without sufficient proof is not enough to win the case.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&Rs… Petitioner alleged but failed to provide sufficient evidence of Respondent’s supposed selective enforcement.
Legal Basis
Burden of Proof
Topic Tags
selective enforcement
burden of proof
legal procedure
Question
Can my HOA punish me for building a structure (like a shed) without prior approval, even if I apply for approval after building it?
Short Answer
Yes. Building without prior written approval violates standard CC&Rs, and a subsequent application denial is valid if the structure violates guidelines.
Detailed Answer
Most CC&Rs explicitly state that no construction or modification can occur without prior written approval. Admitting to building a structure without this approval constitutes a violation in itself. If the structure also violates design guidelines (e.g., height or visibility), the HOA can enforce the rules against it.
Alj Quote
Petitioner admitted she built her shed without prior approval from the Design Review Committee… all of which are violations of the CC&Rs.
Legal Basis
CC&R Violation
Topic Tags
architectural approval
unauthorized construction
violations
Question
If my HOA relaxed enforcement during a specific period (like the COVID-19 pandemic), does that mean they can never enforce those rules again?
Short Answer
No. A temporary reduction in enforcement during a crisis does not prevent the HOA from resuming enforcement later.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ decision accepted testimony that while enforcement might have been reduced during a specific event like the COVID-19 pandemic, the HOA is entitled to resume enforcement of rules (such as design guidelines) once normal operations return.
Alj Quote
Respondent’s witness testified during COVID enforcement was reduced, however, following the reopening of the economy post-COVID, enforcement was resumed.
Legal Basis
Enforcement Discretion
Topic Tags
waiver
enforcement history
COVID-19
Question
Can the HOA deny my shed if it is visible from the street or taller than the fence line?
Short Answer
Yes, if the CC&Rs or Design Guidelines prohibit structures that are taller than the fence or visible from the street.
Detailed Answer
Violating specific physical constraints listed in the community documents, such as height restrictions relative to a fence line or visibility from public streets, are valid grounds for the HOA to find a violation and deny approval.
Alj Quote
Here, Petitioner admitted… her shed is taller than the current fence line, and the shed can be seen from the street; all of which are violations of the CC&Rs.
Legal Basis
Design Guidelines
Topic Tags
architectural standards
sheds
visibility
Question
What is the 'standard of proof' used in these HOA hearings?
Short Answer
The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing something is more probably true than not.
Detailed Answer
To win an administrative hearing against an HOA, a homeowner does not need to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They must simply show that their claim is 'more probably true than not'—essentially carrying greater evidentiary weight than the opposing side.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Evidentiary Standard
Topic Tags
legal definitions
evidence
hearings
Question
Where can I file a legal dispute against my HOA without going to civil court?
Short Answer
Arizona homeowners can petition the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) for a hearing.
Detailed Answer
The ADRE has jurisdiction over disputes between owners and planned community associations regarding violations of community documents or statutes. The case is then typically heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Alj Quote
The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities as long as the petitioner has filed a petition with the department…
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
ADRE
dispute resolution
Case
Docket No
23F-H055-REL
Case Title
Rosalie Lynne Emmons vs Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2023-08-22
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Rosalie Lynne Emmons(petitioner) Rovey Farm Estates property owner; appeared on her own behalf
Respondent Side
Michael S. McLeran(HOA attorney) Childers Hanlon & Hudson, PLC Appeared on behalf of Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association
Matt Johnson(community manager/witness) Envision Community Management Community Manager for Rovey Farm Estate; Appeared as a witness for the Association
Mark Schmidt(HOA staff) Envision Community Management Completed exhibit list (Exhibit 7) used by Respondent
Carrie Schmidt(compliance officer) Envision Community Management Compliance inspector responsible for citing violations
Neutral Parties
Brian Del Vecchio(ALJ) OAH Administrative Law Judge
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) ADRE Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner
Other Participants
AHansen(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of decision transmission
vnunez(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of decision transmission
djones(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of decision transmission
labril(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of decision transmission
Jose Garcia(homeowner/applicant) Rovey Farm Estates Homeowner whose shed application was denied
The petition was dismissed with prejudice because Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof that the HOA violated the community documents. The ALJ found that forcing enforcement of a discretionary restriction after decades of inaction would be unreasonable and that the matter was essentially a neighbor-to-neighbor dispute.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a community document violation by a preponderance of the evidence; enforcement would be an unreasonable exercise of discretion due to long-standing inaction; and there was no legal avenue for the HOA to compel removal of the private property (trees).
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to enforce Prohibited Plant List (Oleanders and Palm Trees exceeding 10 feet)
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated Appendix B, Section 5 of the CC&Rs by failing to enforce the Prohibited Plant List and require her rear neighbors to remove oleander and palm trees that exceeded height guidelines and caused nuisance and damage.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition is dismissed with prejudice.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: homeowner dispute, prohibited plants, HOA discretion, failure to enforce, neighbor dispute, CC&Rs, oleander, palm trees
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H046-REL Decision – 1049756.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:49 (41.2 KB)
23F-H046-REL Decision – 1049882.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:52 (47.2 KB)
23F-H046-REL Decision – 1055238.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:55 (50.0 KB)
23F-H046-REL Decision – 1057283.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:58 (50.3 KB)
23F-H046-REL Decision – 1058121.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:01 (52.9 KB)
23F-H046-REL Decision – 1059849.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:04 (52.5 KB)
23F-H046-REL Decision – 1072130.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:08 (49.8 KB)
23F-H046-REL Decision – 1082955.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:11 (155.5 KB)
Questions
Question
Can I force my HOA to remove a neighbor's plants that violate the community's design guidelines?
Short Answer
Generally, no. The HOA often lacks the legal authority to enter private property to remove landscaping, even if it violates guidelines.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found that there was no legal way for the HOA to remove trees or shrubs from a neighbor's private backyard, nor compel them to be removed, particularly when the HOA does not own or maintain that specific property.
Alj Quote
Regardless, there is no legal avenue by which Respondent could legally remove Neighbors’ backyard Oleanders and/or Palm Trees, or have them removed.
Legal Basis
Property Rights / HOA Authority
Topic Tags
enforcement
landscaping
private property
Question
Does the HOA have to enforce a rule if they haven't enforced it for many years?
Short Answer
No. Sudden enforcement after long periods of inaction may be considered unreasonable.
Detailed Answer
If an HOA has ignored a specific restriction (like a height limit on plants) for decades, enforcing it suddenly against a single homeowner can be seen as an unreasonable exercise of authority and a violation of due process.
Alj Quote
Enforcement, in the face of decades of intentional inaction, would be an unreasonable exercise of authority and a likely deprivation of Neighbors’ due process rights.
Legal Basis
Due Process / Laches / Waiver
Topic Tags
selective enforcement
waiver
due process
Question
Will the Arizona Department of Real Estate resolve a dispute between me and my neighbor?
Short Answer
No. The Department does not have jurisdiction over disputes solely between homeowners.
Detailed Answer
The administrative hearing process is for disputes between a homeowner and the association. It does not cover disputes between two owners where the association is not a party.
Alj Quote
The department does not have jurisdiction to hear [a]ny dispute among or between owners to which the association is not a party.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
neighbor disputes
ADRE
Question
Is the HOA required to mediate disputes between neighbors?
Short Answer
Typically, no. Governing documents usually do not require the HOA to pick sides or resolve neighbor conflicts.
Detailed Answer
Unless the CC&Rs or guidelines specifically state otherwise, the HOA is not obligated to resolve disputes between neighbors or take one side.
Alj Quote
Moreover, neither the CC&Rs nor the Design Guidelines require Respondent to mediate or resolve a dispute between neighbors by taking one side or the other.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs / Design Guidelines
Topic Tags
mediation
neighbor disputes
HOA obligations
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
The petitioner (homeowner) must show that it is more likely than not that the HOA violated the governing documents.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated one or more provisions of the Association’s Design Guidelines.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
procedure
Question
If my neighbor's trees are causing a nuisance (like debris in my pool), does the HOA have to act?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. Subjective hardship does not automatically mandate HOA enforcement if the rules are discretionary.
Detailed Answer
Even if a neighbor's landscaping causes inconvenience or subjective hardship to another homeowner, the HOA is not required to enforce discretionary guidelines, especially if they have historically not done so.
Alj Quote
It is clear that plant debris from Neighbors’ backyard is causing Petitioner subjective hardship(s) and inconveniences, which amount to a perceived nuisance… [however] Respondent is not required to enforce a flora/height restriction in this instance.
Legal Basis
Discretionary Enforcement
Topic Tags
nuisance
maintenance
discretion
Case
Docket No
23F-H046-REL
Case Title
Brenda Norman vs. Rancho Del Lago Community Association
Decision Date
2023-08-11
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can I force my HOA to remove a neighbor's plants that violate the community's design guidelines?
Short Answer
Generally, no. The HOA often lacks the legal authority to enter private property to remove landscaping, even if it violates guidelines.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found that there was no legal way for the HOA to remove trees or shrubs from a neighbor's private backyard, nor compel them to be removed, particularly when the HOA does not own or maintain that specific property.
Alj Quote
Regardless, there is no legal avenue by which Respondent could legally remove Neighbors’ backyard Oleanders and/or Palm Trees, or have them removed.
Legal Basis
Property Rights / HOA Authority
Topic Tags
enforcement
landscaping
private property
Question
Does the HOA have to enforce a rule if they haven't enforced it for many years?
Short Answer
No. Sudden enforcement after long periods of inaction may be considered unreasonable.
Detailed Answer
If an HOA has ignored a specific restriction (like a height limit on plants) for decades, enforcing it suddenly against a single homeowner can be seen as an unreasonable exercise of authority and a violation of due process.
Alj Quote
Enforcement, in the face of decades of intentional inaction, would be an unreasonable exercise of authority and a likely deprivation of Neighbors’ due process rights.
Legal Basis
Due Process / Laches / Waiver
Topic Tags
selective enforcement
waiver
due process
Question
Will the Arizona Department of Real Estate resolve a dispute between me and my neighbor?
Short Answer
No. The Department does not have jurisdiction over disputes solely between homeowners.
Detailed Answer
The administrative hearing process is for disputes between a homeowner and the association. It does not cover disputes between two owners where the association is not a party.
Alj Quote
The department does not have jurisdiction to hear [a]ny dispute among or between owners to which the association is not a party.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
neighbor disputes
ADRE
Question
Is the HOA required to mediate disputes between neighbors?
Short Answer
Typically, no. Governing documents usually do not require the HOA to pick sides or resolve neighbor conflicts.
Detailed Answer
Unless the CC&Rs or guidelines specifically state otherwise, the HOA is not obligated to resolve disputes between neighbors or take one side.
Alj Quote
Moreover, neither the CC&Rs nor the Design Guidelines require Respondent to mediate or resolve a dispute between neighbors by taking one side or the other.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs / Design Guidelines
Topic Tags
mediation
neighbor disputes
HOA obligations
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
The petitioner (homeowner) must show that it is more likely than not that the HOA violated the governing documents.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated one or more provisions of the Association’s Design Guidelines.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
procedure
Question
If my neighbor's trees are causing a nuisance (like debris in my pool), does the HOA have to act?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. Subjective hardship does not automatically mandate HOA enforcement if the rules are discretionary.
Detailed Answer
Even if a neighbor's landscaping causes inconvenience or subjective hardship to another homeowner, the HOA is not required to enforce discretionary guidelines, especially if they have historically not done so.
Alj Quote
It is clear that plant debris from Neighbors’ backyard is causing Petitioner subjective hardship(s) and inconveniences, which amount to a perceived nuisance… [however] Respondent is not required to enforce a flora/height restriction in this instance.
Legal Basis
Discretionary Enforcement
Topic Tags
nuisance
maintenance
discretion
Case
Docket No
23F-H046-REL
Case Title
Brenda Norman vs. Rancho Del Lago Community Association
Decision Date
2023-08-11
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Brenda Norman(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf
Zvena Norman(potential witness) On standby as a potential witness for Petitioner
David Norman(associated party) Petitioner's husband; co-petitioner in prior litigation referenced during the hearing
Respondent Side
Michael S. McLeran(HOA attorney) Childers Hanlon 7 Hudson, PLC Counsel for Rancho Del Lago Community Association
Spencer Broad(witness, property manager) HA managed solutions Community Manager for Rancho Del Lago Community Association; also spelled Brod
Phil Brown(HOA attorney) Attorney referenced by Petitioner regarding a 2018 letter
Eric(compliance manager) HOA management solutions Compliance Manager since 2009; full last name withheld from the record
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Administrative Law Judge presiding over the matter
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Judge Mahalski(ALJ (prior case)) Office of Administrative Hearings Administrative Law Judge in 2019 litigation referenced during the hearing
Other Participants
Cindy White(neighbor) Owner of the plants subject to the dispute
Ray White(neighbor) Owner of the plants subject to the dispute
Nathan Tennyson(former HOA attorney) Former in-house counsel referenced by Petitioner
Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition on jurisdictional grounds.
Why this result: The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because the petition challenged the Association’s power to act (A.R.S. § 10-3304), which requires injunctive relief in a court of law, and did not concern a violation of community documents or statute (A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)).
Key Issues & Findings
Authority to enforce parking rule on residential public streets
Petitioner sought an order prohibiting the Respondent from restricting parking access on public residential streets, alleging the Association breached the CC&Rs by misapplying Article IV, Section 4.2(t).
Orders: The petition was dismissed because OAH lacked jurisdiction as the case challenged the Association's power to act under A.R.S. § 10-3304, rather than alleging a violation of community documents or statute under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A).
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
A.R.S. § 10-3304
A.R.S. § 10-3304(B)(2)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Parking Restrictions, Jurisdiction, Motion to Dismiss, CC&Rs
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
A.R.S. § 10-3304
A.R.S. § 10-3304(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H048-REL Decision – 1057905.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:20 (71.7 KB)
23F-H048-REL Decision – 1059621.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:22 (44.2 KB)
Questions
Question
Can I use the administrative hearing process to challenge my HOA's legal authority or power to enforce a specific rule?
Short Answer
No. Challenges to an Association's corporate power to act must be brought in a court of law, not the administrative tribunal.
Detailed Answer
The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear challenges regarding the Association's 'power to act' (such as whether they have the authority to restrict parking). Under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 10-3304, these specific legal challenges regarding corporate authority must be addressed in a court of law.
Alj Quote
Petitioner may not challenge the Association’s power to act in this tribunal under A.R.S. § 10-3304. Petitioner may seek injunctive relief regarding the Association’s power to act in a court of law.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 10-3304
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
corporate power
HOA authority
Question
If I disagree with a decision, can I file a motion to amend my petition after the order has been issued?
Short Answer
No. Once a decision is rendered, the Office of Administrative Hearings cannot consider motions to amend.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ clarified that once a decision is finalized, the OAH loses the ability to take further action on the matter, meaning a Motion to Amend filed after the decision cannot be considered.
Alj Quote
The Motion to Amend the Petition cannot not be considered by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) as this tribunal’s decision has already been rendered and, because of that, OAH can take no further action on the matter.
Legal Basis
Procedural Rule
Topic Tags
procedure
appeals
amendments
Question
Where must I file a request for a rehearing if I lose my case?
Short Answer
You must file the request with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate (ADRE), not the hearing office.
Detailed Answer
While the hearing takes place at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), a request for a rehearing must be directed to the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the order.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Topic Tags
rehearing
procedure
ADRE
Question
Can the administrative tribunal issue an injunction preventing the HOA from enforcing parking restrictions on public streets?
Short Answer
Likely no, if the claim is based on the HOA lacking the 'power to act'.
Detailed Answer
The petitioner sought an order prohibiting the HOA from restricting parking on public streets. The ALJ dismissed this because the claim was fundamentally about the Association's authority (power to act), which falls outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.
Alj Quote
Petitioner asks this Court to issue an order that prohibits the Respondent from restricting parking access on public residential streets… Petitioner may seek injunctive relief regarding the Association’s power to act in a court of law.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 10-3304
Topic Tags
parking
injunctions
jurisdiction
Question
Does a petition challenging an HOA rule have to allege a specific violation of the community documents or statutes?
Short Answer
Yes. If the petition does not concern a violation of documents or statutes, it may be dismissed.
Detailed Answer
The HOA successfully argued that the petition should be dismissed because it did not allege that the HOA violated community documents or statutes, but rather challenged the HOA's authority to make rules.
Alj Quote
Therefore, the petition does not concern a violation of community documents or of any statute… IT IS ORDERED that the petition is dismissed.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
Topic Tags
petition requirements
dismissal
violations
Case
Docket No
23F-H048-REL
Case Title
Thomas P. Hommrich vs. The Lakewood Community Association
Decision Date
2023-05-19
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can I use the administrative hearing process to challenge my HOA's legal authority or power to enforce a specific rule?
Short Answer
No. Challenges to an Association's corporate power to act must be brought in a court of law, not the administrative tribunal.
Detailed Answer
The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear challenges regarding the Association's 'power to act' (such as whether they have the authority to restrict parking). Under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 10-3304, these specific legal challenges regarding corporate authority must be addressed in a court of law.
Alj Quote
Petitioner may not challenge the Association’s power to act in this tribunal under A.R.S. § 10-3304. Petitioner may seek injunctive relief regarding the Association’s power to act in a court of law.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 10-3304
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
corporate power
HOA authority
Question
If I disagree with a decision, can I file a motion to amend my petition after the order has been issued?
Short Answer
No. Once a decision is rendered, the Office of Administrative Hearings cannot consider motions to amend.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ clarified that once a decision is finalized, the OAH loses the ability to take further action on the matter, meaning a Motion to Amend filed after the decision cannot be considered.
Alj Quote
The Motion to Amend the Petition cannot not be considered by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) as this tribunal’s decision has already been rendered and, because of that, OAH can take no further action on the matter.
Legal Basis
Procedural Rule
Topic Tags
procedure
appeals
amendments
Question
Where must I file a request for a rehearing if I lose my case?
Short Answer
You must file the request with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate (ADRE), not the hearing office.
Detailed Answer
While the hearing takes place at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), a request for a rehearing must be directed to the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the order.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Topic Tags
rehearing
procedure
ADRE
Question
Can the administrative tribunal issue an injunction preventing the HOA from enforcing parking restrictions on public streets?
Short Answer
Likely no, if the claim is based on the HOA lacking the 'power to act'.
Detailed Answer
The petitioner sought an order prohibiting the HOA from restricting parking on public streets. The ALJ dismissed this because the claim was fundamentally about the Association's authority (power to act), which falls outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.
Alj Quote
Petitioner asks this Court to issue an order that prohibits the Respondent from restricting parking access on public residential streets… Petitioner may seek injunctive relief regarding the Association’s power to act in a court of law.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 10-3304
Topic Tags
parking
injunctions
jurisdiction
Question
Does a petition challenging an HOA rule have to allege a specific violation of the community documents or statutes?
Short Answer
Yes. If the petition does not concern a violation of documents or statutes, it may be dismissed.
Detailed Answer
The HOA successfully argued that the petition should be dismissed because it did not allege that the HOA violated community documents or statutes, but rather challenged the HOA's authority to make rules.
Alj Quote
Therefore, the petition does not concern a violation of community documents or of any statute… IT IS ORDERED that the petition is dismissed.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
Topic Tags
petition requirements
dismissal
violations
Case
Docket No
23F-H048-REL
Case Title
Thomas P. Hommrich vs. The Lakewood Community Association
The ALJ affirmed the Petitioner's position that the HOA's denial of artificial turf violated CC&Rs Section 8.8. The ALJ found that because maintenance was shared and the HOA's CC&Rs cannot contradict the superior McCormick Ranch rules (which allow artificial turf), the denial was improper and the HOA failed to meet the exemption requirements under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B).
Key Issues & Findings
Architectural disapproval of landscaping plans to install artificial turf
Petitioner alleged Respondent's disapproval of his landscaping plans to install artificial turf violated the CC&Rs and was unreasonable under Arizona law. The ALJ concluded the disapproval violated CC&Rs Section 8.8 because the maintenance responsibility was shared, not exclusive to the HOA, and the HOA's CC&Rs must not contradict McCormick Ranch's Rules, which permit artificial turf.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition is affirmed. Respondent must reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee. Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of CC&Rs Section 8.8 going forward.
Can my HOA prohibit artificial turf if the CC&Rs don't specifically ban it?
Short Answer
Likely not. If the CC&Rs are silent regarding artificial turf and do not explicitly prohibit it, the HOA may not be able to enforce a ban, especially if a master association permits it.
Detailed Answer
The Administrative Law Judge ruled that because the HOA's CC&Rs were silent regarding artificial turf and did not explicitly prohibit it, they could not ban it. This was further reinforced because the master association's rules, which the sub-association could not contradict, explicitly permitted artificial turf.
Alj Quote
Although Respondent’s CC&Rs are silent as to artificial turf, they do not prohibit artificial turf and they shall not contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Construction; A.R.S. § 33-1819
Topic Tags
artificial turf
CC&Rs interpretation
architectural requests
Question
Can a sub-association ban artificial turf if the master association allows it?
Short Answer
No, generally a sub-association cannot contradict the master association's rules if its own governing documents prohibit such contradictions.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the sub-association's CC&Rs incorporated the master association's rules and stated they could not contradict them. Since the master association allowed artificial turf, the sub-association could not prohibit it.
Alj Quote
McCormick Ranch allows artificial turf, and Respondent cannot contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations according to Respondent’s CC&Rs Section 9.4.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Section 9.4; Governing Documents Hierarchy
Topic Tags
master association
sub-association
conflicting rules
Question
Does the HOA mowing my front lawn give them the exclusive right to ban artificial turf under state law?
Short Answer
Not necessarily, if the maintenance is shared. If the homeowner is responsible for irrigation and replacing plants, the HOA does not have exclusive maintenance rights to prohibit turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B).
Detailed Answer
The HOA argued that because they mowed the lawn, they could prohibit artificial turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B). However, the judge found that because the homeowner paid for water and was responsible for keeping plants healthy (shared maintenance), the HOA could not use the maintenance statute to completely ban turf.
Alj Quote
In this case, it is undisputed that Petitioner pays for and can control the irrigation of his property. It is also undisputed that the maintenance of the front yards of the homes within Respondent is shared between the individual homeowners and Respondent.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1819(B); CC&Rs Section 8.8
Topic Tags
maintenance responsibility
artificial turf
state statute
Question
Can an HOA deny an architectural request claiming it disrupts the 'harmony' of the neighborhood?
Short Answer
They can claim it, but a judge may overrule them if the evidence shows the improvement (like artificial turf) wouldn't actually violate the goal of harmony.
Detailed Answer
The HOA denied the request based on the 'overall goal of harmony,' arguing that artificial turf would look different from the natural grass in the neighborhood. The judge reviewed the evidence and concluded that installing artificial turf would not actually be contrary to the goal of harmony.
Alj Quote
The Administrative Law Judge further concludes based on the evidence presented at hearing, that the installation of artificial turf would not be contrary to the “overall goal of harmony of external design” as asserted by Respondent.
Legal Basis
Subjective Standards; Harmony Provisions
Topic Tags
architectural control
harmony
aesthetics
Question
Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner challenges an HOA decision?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The decision explicitly states that in these administrative hearings, the Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proving that the HOA violated its governing documents.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal procedure
Question
If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
Upon ruling in favor of the homeowner, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee the homeowner paid to bring the case.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.
Legal Basis
Administrative Remedy
Topic Tags
fees
reimbursement
penalties
Question
Can the HOA deny my plans for being 'conceptual' if I provided specific details?
Short Answer
No. If the plans include specific information like plant types, numbers, and dimensions, the HOA cannot validly deny them as merely 'conceptual'.
Detailed Answer
The HOA denied the application claiming plans were 'conceptual.' The judge noted the plans contained specific types and numbers of plants, dimensions, and detailed renderings, and ultimately ruled the disapproval was a violation.
Alj Quote
Those plans contain the types and number of plants proposed, and the dimensions and shape of the area of artificial turf, and detailed renderings.
Legal Basis
Reasonableness of Approval Process
Topic Tags
architectural plans
application denial
reasonableness
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222063-REL
Case Title
Smoot Carl-Mitchell v. Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-04-13
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can my HOA prohibit artificial turf if the CC&Rs don't specifically ban it?
Short Answer
Likely not. If the CC&Rs are silent regarding artificial turf and do not explicitly prohibit it, the HOA may not be able to enforce a ban, especially if a master association permits it.
Detailed Answer
The Administrative Law Judge ruled that because the HOA's CC&Rs were silent regarding artificial turf and did not explicitly prohibit it, they could not ban it. This was further reinforced because the master association's rules, which the sub-association could not contradict, explicitly permitted artificial turf.
Alj Quote
Although Respondent’s CC&Rs are silent as to artificial turf, they do not prohibit artificial turf and they shall not contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Construction; A.R.S. § 33-1819
Topic Tags
artificial turf
CC&Rs interpretation
architectural requests
Question
Can a sub-association ban artificial turf if the master association allows it?
Short Answer
No, generally a sub-association cannot contradict the master association's rules if its own governing documents prohibit such contradictions.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the sub-association's CC&Rs incorporated the master association's rules and stated they could not contradict them. Since the master association allowed artificial turf, the sub-association could not prohibit it.
Alj Quote
McCormick Ranch allows artificial turf, and Respondent cannot contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations according to Respondent’s CC&Rs Section 9.4.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Section 9.4; Governing Documents Hierarchy
Topic Tags
master association
sub-association
conflicting rules
Question
Does the HOA mowing my front lawn give them the exclusive right to ban artificial turf under state law?
Short Answer
Not necessarily, if the maintenance is shared. If the homeowner is responsible for irrigation and replacing plants, the HOA does not have exclusive maintenance rights to prohibit turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B).
Detailed Answer
The HOA argued that because they mowed the lawn, they could prohibit artificial turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B). However, the judge found that because the homeowner paid for water and was responsible for keeping plants healthy (shared maintenance), the HOA could not use the maintenance statute to completely ban turf.
Alj Quote
In this case, it is undisputed that Petitioner pays for and can control the irrigation of his property. It is also undisputed that the maintenance of the front yards of the homes within Respondent is shared between the individual homeowners and Respondent.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1819(B); CC&Rs Section 8.8
Topic Tags
maintenance responsibility
artificial turf
state statute
Question
Can an HOA deny an architectural request claiming it disrupts the 'harmony' of the neighborhood?
Short Answer
They can claim it, but a judge may overrule them if the evidence shows the improvement (like artificial turf) wouldn't actually violate the goal of harmony.
Detailed Answer
The HOA denied the request based on the 'overall goal of harmony,' arguing that artificial turf would look different from the natural grass in the neighborhood. The judge reviewed the evidence and concluded that installing artificial turf would not actually be contrary to the goal of harmony.
Alj Quote
The Administrative Law Judge further concludes based on the evidence presented at hearing, that the installation of artificial turf would not be contrary to the “overall goal of harmony of external design” as asserted by Respondent.
Legal Basis
Subjective Standards; Harmony Provisions
Topic Tags
architectural control
harmony
aesthetics
Question
Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner challenges an HOA decision?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The decision explicitly states that in these administrative hearings, the Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proving that the HOA violated its governing documents.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal procedure
Question
If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
Upon ruling in favor of the homeowner, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee the homeowner paid to bring the case.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.
Legal Basis
Administrative Remedy
Topic Tags
fees
reimbursement
penalties
Question
Can the HOA deny my plans for being 'conceptual' if I provided specific details?
Short Answer
No. If the plans include specific information like plant types, numbers, and dimensions, the HOA cannot validly deny them as merely 'conceptual'.
Detailed Answer
The HOA denied the application claiming plans were 'conceptual.' The judge noted the plans contained specific types and numbers of plants, dimensions, and detailed renderings, and ultimately ruled the disapproval was a violation.
Alj Quote
Those plans contain the types and number of plants proposed, and the dimensions and shape of the area of artificial turf, and detailed renderings.
Legal Basis
Reasonableness of Approval Process
Topic Tags
architectural plans
application denial
reasonableness
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222063-REL
Case Title
Smoot Carl-Mitchell v. Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-04-13
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Carl-Mitchell Smoot(petitioner) Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc. (Member) Former HOA President/Treasurer
Stewart F. Gross(petitioner attorney) Law Offices of Stewart F. Gross, PLLC
Respondent Side
Michael S. McLeran(HOA attorney) Childers Hanlon & Hudson, PLC
Denise Mueller(board member/witness) Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc. HOA Vice President; ALC Member
Dawn Feigert(property manager/witness) Trestle Management Group Senior Manager at HOA management company
Timothy Fischer(board member/witness) Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc. HOA Treasurer; ALC Member
Kirk Nelson(board member/witness) Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc. HOA President; ALC Member
Jan Greenfield(board member) Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc. Former ARC Chair
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) OAH Presided over hearings and issued final decision
Louis Dettorre(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed in transmission records prior to final decision
Susan Nicolson(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed in final decision transmission
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) OAH Presided over initial continuances
