Article III, Section 3.07 of the Declaration of Establishment of Condominium and of Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for The Cliffs Condominium
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the responsibility for maintaining the leaking pipe and the resulting damage fell under the owner of the unit served by the pipe (Unit 263) as defined by Article III, Section 3.07 of the CC&Rs, not the HOA.
Why this result: The ALJ’s interpretation of Article III, Section 3.07 found that the owner of Unit 263 was responsible for the maintenance and repair of the specific section of pipe that leaked, and therefore, the HOA was not liable for the resulting damage or requested reimbursement.
Key Issues & Findings
HOA responsibility for reimbursement for kitchen cabinet and countertop replacement and mold remediation/restoration after a leaking pipe.
Petitioner sought reimbursement of $8541.00 from the HOA for damages caused by Cat 3 water coming from a leaking toilet pipe located between the ceiling of unit 163 and the subfloor of unit 263. Petitioner alleged the pipe was the HOA's responsibility as it was in the inner walls and not 'open and unobstructed' as defined by Petitioner. The ALJ determined the pipe maintenance was the responsibility of the owner of Unit 263, not the HOA, based on the plain reading of Article III, Section 3.07.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Article III, Section 3.07 (CC&Rs)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Responsibility, CC&Rs Interpretation, Pipe Maintenance, Water Damage Reimbursement, Owner Responsibility
Is the HOA automatically responsible for a pipe leak just because the pipe is located inside the walls between units?
Short Answer
No. Governing documents may assign responsibility to the specific unit owner served by that pipe, even if the pipe runs outside the unit's boundaries.
Detailed Answer
Even if a pipe is physically located outside a specific unit (e.g., between the unit and the main line), the CC&Rs may dictate that the owner is responsible for the utility lines serving their unit up to the point where they join the common utility lines. Location inside a wall does not automatically make it an HOA common element.
Alj Quote
Rather, unit owners are responsible for the maintenance of all sewer and drainage pipes 'between the points at which the [pipes] enter [the unit] and the points where the [pipe] joins the utility lines serving other Condominium Units.'
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Interpretation
Topic Tags
maintenance responsibility
plumbing
common elements
Question
What does 'open and unobstructed condition' mean regarding pipe maintenance in CC&Rs?
Short Answer
It generally means the pipe must be kept free of clogs, not that the pipe must be physically visible or outside of a wall.
Detailed Answer
Homeowners often misinterpret this phrase to mean that if a pipe is enclosed in a wall, it is not 'open' and therefore not their responsibility. However, the ALJ ruled that this language refers to the flow within the pipe—specifically, that the owner must ensure the pipe does not remain clogged.
Alj Quote
Rather than referencing that access to the pipe had to be open and unobstructed, i.e., not inside a wall, a plain reading of 'open and unobstructed condition' means that the pipe itself must not be allowed to remain clogged.
Legal Basis
Contract Interpretation
Topic Tags
definitions
maintenance responsibility
Question
If the HOA repairs the drywall after a leak, does that mean they admit responsibility for the plumbing repair and other damages?
Short Answer
No. The HOA may repair structural elements they are responsible for (like bearing walls) without accepting liability for the leak source or personal property damage.
Detailed Answer
The HOA can perform repairs on components defined as Common Elements (such as bearing walls) without conceding that they are liable for the pipe that caused the damage or for other resulting damages like cabinetry or mold.
Alj Quote
Respondent’s counsel indicated that the HOA repaired the drywall because Article III, Section 3.05 defines bearing walls as Common Elements.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs / Negligence
Topic Tags
repairs
liability
common elements
Question
Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the HOA violated the governing documents.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must provide evidence that outweighs the evidence offered by the HOA. Simply alleging a violation is not enough; the petitioner must prove it by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the CC&Rs. A.A.C. R2-19-119.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
procedural requirements
burden of proof
Question
What evidence is required to win a dispute regarding water damage repairs?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove the HOA violated a specific provision of the CC&Rs or acted negligently.
Detailed Answer
Even if a homeowner suffers significant damage, they cannot recover costs from the HOA unless they can establish that the HOA had a legal duty to prevent or repair the specific cause of the damage under the CC&Rs.
Alj Quote
Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent violated Article III, Section 3.07 of the CC&Rs. … IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is denied.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Violation
Topic Tags
evidence
damages
Question
Can I hold the HOA responsible for a leak originating from a neighbor's unit?
Short Answer
Generally, no, unless the HOA is responsible for that specific pipe section under the CC&Rs.
Detailed Answer
If the leak comes from a pipe serving a specific unit (even if located outside that unit), maintenance responsibility often falls on that unit owner, not the HOA. The ALJ found that maintenance of such a pipe was the responsibility of the unit owner it served.
Alj Quote
Therefore, maintenance of the leaking pipe… was the responsibility of the owner of Unit 263.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs / Liability
Topic Tags
neighbor disputes
liability
plumbing
Case
Docket No
23F-H010-REL
Case Title
Richard Busack v. The Cliffs Condominium Association
Decision Date
2022-12-16
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Is the HOA automatically responsible for a pipe leak just because the pipe is located inside the walls between units?
Short Answer
No. Governing documents may assign responsibility to the specific unit owner served by that pipe, even if the pipe runs outside the unit's boundaries.
Detailed Answer
Even if a pipe is physically located outside a specific unit (e.g., between the unit and the main line), the CC&Rs may dictate that the owner is responsible for the utility lines serving their unit up to the point where they join the common utility lines. Location inside a wall does not automatically make it an HOA common element.
Alj Quote
Rather, unit owners are responsible for the maintenance of all sewer and drainage pipes 'between the points at which the [pipes] enter [the unit] and the points where the [pipe] joins the utility lines serving other Condominium Units.'
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Interpretation
Topic Tags
maintenance responsibility
plumbing
common elements
Question
What does 'open and unobstructed condition' mean regarding pipe maintenance in CC&Rs?
Short Answer
It generally means the pipe must be kept free of clogs, not that the pipe must be physically visible or outside of a wall.
Detailed Answer
Homeowners often misinterpret this phrase to mean that if a pipe is enclosed in a wall, it is not 'open' and therefore not their responsibility. However, the ALJ ruled that this language refers to the flow within the pipe—specifically, that the owner must ensure the pipe does not remain clogged.
Alj Quote
Rather than referencing that access to the pipe had to be open and unobstructed, i.e., not inside a wall, a plain reading of 'open and unobstructed condition' means that the pipe itself must not be allowed to remain clogged.
Legal Basis
Contract Interpretation
Topic Tags
definitions
maintenance responsibility
Question
If the HOA repairs the drywall after a leak, does that mean they admit responsibility for the plumbing repair and other damages?
Short Answer
No. The HOA may repair structural elements they are responsible for (like bearing walls) without accepting liability for the leak source or personal property damage.
Detailed Answer
The HOA can perform repairs on components defined as Common Elements (such as bearing walls) without conceding that they are liable for the pipe that caused the damage or for other resulting damages like cabinetry or mold.
Alj Quote
Respondent’s counsel indicated that the HOA repaired the drywall because Article III, Section 3.05 defines bearing walls as Common Elements.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs / Negligence
Topic Tags
repairs
liability
common elements
Question
Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the HOA violated the governing documents.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must provide evidence that outweighs the evidence offered by the HOA. Simply alleging a violation is not enough; the petitioner must prove it by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the CC&Rs. A.A.C. R2-19-119.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
procedural requirements
burden of proof
Question
What evidence is required to win a dispute regarding water damage repairs?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove the HOA violated a specific provision of the CC&Rs or acted negligently.
Detailed Answer
Even if a homeowner suffers significant damage, they cannot recover costs from the HOA unless they can establish that the HOA had a legal duty to prevent or repair the specific cause of the damage under the CC&Rs.
Alj Quote
Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent violated Article III, Section 3.07 of the CC&Rs. … IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is denied.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Violation
Topic Tags
evidence
damages
Question
Can I hold the HOA responsible for a leak originating from a neighbor's unit?
Short Answer
Generally, no, unless the HOA is responsible for that specific pipe section under the CC&Rs.
Detailed Answer
If the leak comes from a pipe serving a specific unit (even if located outside that unit), maintenance responsibility often falls on that unit owner, not the HOA. The ALJ found that maintenance of such a pipe was the responsibility of the unit owner it served.
Alj Quote
Therefore, maintenance of the leaking pipe… was the responsibility of the owner of Unit 263.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs / Liability
Topic Tags
neighbor disputes
liability
plumbing
Case
Docket No
23F-H010-REL
Case Title
Richard Busack v. The Cliffs Condominium Association
Decision Date
2022-12-16
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Richard Busack(petitioner)
Theresa Jensen(witness) Witness for Petitioner
Respondent Side
Melissa Doolan(respondent attorney) The Travis Law Firm, PLC Appeared for Respondent The Cliffs Condominium Association
Mr. Petri(HOA/management representative) Mentioned by Petitioner regarding dispute over damage repair
Mr. Honen(HOA/management representative) Involved in cabinet repair communication and cancellation (also referred to as Mr. Horn)
Miss Cohen(HOA/management representative) Handled initial communications and forwarded information to the Board (also referred to as Miss Cohan)
Neutral Parties
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) OAH Also referred to as Tammy Igner
Louis Dettorre(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Miranda Alvarez(legal secretary) Transmitted decision
A. Hansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
V. Nunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
D. Jones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
L. Abril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Other Participants
Jill Bird(observer)
John(observer)
Michael(observer)
Anthony Zeller(contractor associate) Overseeing the repair plumber
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the term 'main Dwelling Unit' in CC&Rs Article 7.7 must be calculated using only the livable square footage (2,853 sq ft), excluding attached garages and porches, resulting in a maximum allowable accessory structure size of 1,141.2 sq ft. Since the proposed structure was 1,441 sq ft, the HOA's denial was upheld.
Why this result: The ALJ determined that the calculation of the relevant square footage of a main Dwelling Unit under CC&Rs 7.7 excludes any non-livable portion of a building, structure, or improvement (attached or otherwise), meaning the Petitioner's proposed structure exceeded the calculated maximum limit.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether the Association violated CC&Rs Article 7.7 by incorrectly applying the method for determining the allowable square footage of an accessory structure.
Petitioner alleged the HOA/ARC incorrectly calculated the maximum allowable square footage for his proposed 1,441 sq ft detached garage, arguing that the 'main Dwelling Unit' calculation under CC&Rs 7.7 should include the attached garage and porches. The HOA maintained that the 'main Dwelling Unit' only consists of the livable portions of the home (2,853 sq ft), resulting in a maximum allowable accessory structure of 1,141.2 square feet.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied. The ALJ concluded that the 'main Dwelling Unit' under CC&Rs 7.7 excludes non-livable portions of the building (attached garage, porch, patio).
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
CC&Rs Article 7.7
CC&Rs Article 7.6
CC&Rs Article I, Section 15
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA dispute, accessory structure, dwelling unit definition, CC&Rs interpretation, square footage calculation
22F-H2222040-REL Decision – Notice of Hearing .pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:46:52 (1792.3 KB)
22F-H2222040-REL Decision – Response to Petition – 4.22.22.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:46:56 (127.2 KB)
Briefing Doc – 22F-H2222040-REL
Briefing Document: Schmidt v. Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc.
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the key facts, arguments, and legal proceedings in the dispute between homeowner Steven Schmidt (Petitioner) and the Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc. (Respondent), case number 22F-H2222040-REL. The central conflict revolves around the interpretation of the term “Dwelling Unit” within the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the purpose of calculating the maximum allowable size of an accessory structure.
The Petitioner contended that “Dwelling Unit” encompasses the total square footage of his home, including livable space, attached garage, and covered porches, which would permit his proposed 1,441-square-foot detached garage. The Respondent argued that the CC&Rs define “Dwelling Unit” as only the livable square footage, explicitly excluding garages and porches from the calculation, making the proposed structure too large.
Following an evidentiary hearing on June 23, 2022, Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark issued a decision on July 13, 2022, denying the petition. The ruling sided with the Respondent, concluding that a holistic reading of the CC&Rs, particularly its definition section, establishes that a “Dwelling Unit” is distinct from garages and patios. The decision affirmed the Association’s methodology, rendering the Petitioner’s project non-compliant with the community’s governing documents.
Case Overview
Parties Involved
Name / Entity
Representation
Petitioner
Steven Schmidt
Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent
Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc.
Michael S. Shupe, Esq., Goldschmidt Shupe, PLLC
Case Details
Detail
Case Numbers
ADRE: HO22-22/040 OAH: 22F-H2222040-REL
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark
Hearing Location
Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona
Hearing Date
June 23, 2022
Final Decision Date
July 13, 2022
Timeline of Key Events
• May 15, 2019: Petitioner submits his initial Architectural Review Committee (ARC) application for a detached garage.
• July 25, 2019: The Association issues its first denial letter, stating, “The Committee believes that the square footage of a home does not include garage area or patio.”
• January 10, 2020: Following a request for reconsideration, the Association issues a second denial letter.
• February 7, 2020: After Petitioner attends an ARC meeting to appeal, the Association issues a third and final denial letter.
• March 21, 2022: The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) receives the Petitioner’s formal petition.
• April 22, 2022: Respondent, through counsel, files a response denying all complaint items and requesting a hearing.
• June 8, 2022: A telephonic pre-hearing conference is held to clarify issues and set deadlines.
• June 23, 2022: An evidentiary hearing is conducted before ALJ Jenna Clark.
• July 13, 2022: The ALJ issues a final decision and order denying the Petitioner’s petition.
The Central Dispute: Interpretation of “Dwelling Unit”
The core of the dispute is a question of contract interpretation regarding the CC&Rs. The parties agreed that the facts were not in dispute, only the legal meaning of key terms used to calculate the maximum size of an accessory structure.
Governing Documents and Key Clauses
The disagreement centered on the following provisions from the Association’s CC&Rs and Design Guidelines:
• CC&Rs Article VII, Section 7.7 (Accessory Structures): “Accessory structures shall include, but are not limited to, detached garages and guest homes… Accessory structures shall be limited to 5% of the lot area or forty percent (40%) of the main Dwelling Unit, whichever is less.”
• CC&Rs Article VII, Section 7.6 (Minimum Dwelling Unit Size): “Any Dwelling unit erected, permitted or maintained on any Lot shall have a minimum livable square footage, excluding garage, porches or guest house, and patios, of two thousand five hundred (2500) square feet.”
• Design Guidelines Section 3.2.2 (Building Size): “The minimum livable square footage of any Dwelling Unit on a Lot shall be 2,500 square feet. This minimum requirement shall be exclusive of garages, porches, Guest Houses, and patios.”
• CC&Rs Article I, Section 1.15 (Definition of “Dwelling Unit”): “‘Dwelling Unit’ means any building or portion of a building situated upon a Lot designed and intended for use and occupancy as a Residence by a Single Family.”
• CC&Rs Article I, Section 1.29 (Definition of “Residence”): “‘Residence’ means any subdivided Lot shown on the Plat, together with the residential Dwelling Unit, garage, patio and other Improvements thereon…”
Competing Square Footage Calculations
The two parties applied these clauses to the Petitioner’s property dimensions, resulting in conflicting maximums for the proposed 1,441 sq. ft. garage.
Calculation Metric
Petitioner’s Interpretation (Total Structure)
Respondent’s Interpretation (Livable Space Only)
Livable Square Footage
2,820 sq. ft.
2,820 sq. ft.
Covered Front Porch
289 sq. ft.
0 sq. ft. (excluded)
Covered Rear Porch
327 sq. ft.
0 sq. ft. (excluded)
Attached Garage
1,002 sq. ft.
0 sq. ft. (excluded)
Total “Dwelling Unit” Base
4,438 sq. ft.
2,820 sq. ft.
Max Accessory Structure (40%)
1,775 sq. ft.
1,128 sq. ft.
Compliance of Proposed Garage
Compliant (1,441 < 1,775)
Non-Compliant (1,441 > 1,128)
Petitioner’s Position (Steven Schmidt)
The Petitioner’s case was built on a direct, plain-language reading of the rules governing accessory structures, asserting his interpretation was that of a reasonable homeowner.
• Core Argument: The term “Dwelling Unit” in Section 7.7, which governs accessory structures, refers to the entire physical structure of the main home. He argued, “Somehow the ARC has wrongly concluded that the entire area of a dwelling unit is… only the livable square footage. This is simply not correct.”
• Supporting Points:
◦ The provision establishing a minimum of 2,500 sq. ft. (Section 7.6) explicitly excludes garages and porches, but its purpose is only to ensure a minimum standard of living space, not to define the total size of the dwelling for all other purposes.
◦ He contended that Section 7.7, the most relevant clause, “does not say 40% of the livable square footage, but rather 40% of the dwelling unit.”
◦ He pointed to other CC&R sections regarding architectural design (7.5), solar panels (7.10), and antennas (7.40) to argue that for those rules to be logical, “Dwelling Unit” must include the garage and porches, as they are part of the building’s exterior.
◦ During his closing argument, he stated, “The clear intent of the CCNR is to treat a dwelling unit as an entire structure, including the garage and porches.”
• Requested Relief: Petitioner requested an order directing the Association “to correctly apply section 7.7 of the H&Rs by including the square footage of the entire dwelling unit in the computation of the allowable size of an accessory structure.” He did not request a civil penalty.
Respondent’s Position (Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc.)
The Respondent’s position relied on principles of contract law, arguing that the CC&Rs must be interpreted as a whole, with special attention given to the explicit definitions provided within the document.
• Core Argument: The CC&Rs’ own definitions create a clear distinction between the “Dwelling Unit” (the livable portion) and other improvements like “garage” and “patio.” The ARC’s denial was a correct application of these defined terms.
• Supporting Points:
◦ Counsel Michael Shupe argued that Section 1.29, by listing “residential Dwelling Unit, garage, patio” as separate items, unambiguously proves they are not the same thing. He stated, “there is no ambiguity that dwelling unit is listed separately from garages, patios, and other improvements thereon.”
◦ He emphasized that legal principles require that “the entire contract be looked at and that the court takes steps to ensure that the contract can be read as a whole as to render no provision meaningless or contrary.”
◦ The Respondent argued this interpretation ensures community continuity and prevents situations where accessory structures could be disproportionately large compared to the actual living area of a home.
• Requested Relief: The Association requested that the court uphold the ARC’s decision.
The hearing focused entirely on the legal arguments, as the underlying facts were agreed upon in advance.
• Stipulated Evidence: The parties submitted 17 stipulated facts (one of which was later struck due to a date discrepancy) and 9 stipulated exhibits, which streamlined the hearing.
• Demonstrative Evidence: The Petitioner appeared in person and utilized two easels displaying large-format plans of his home to illustrate his square footage calculations. The ALJ noted these were demonstrative aids and not formally admitted into the evidentiary record.
• Evidentiary Rulings:
◦ The Petitioner requested that his marked-up floor plan (Petitioner’s Exhibit A) be admitted as evidence. The Respondent objected on the grounds that its labeling of a “total dwelling unit” figure constituted a legal conclusion, which is the central issue of the case. The ALJ sustained the objection.
◦ The Respondent’s Pre-Hearing Memorandum was admitted into the record without objection from the Petitioner.
Final Decision and Order (July 13, 2022)
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision provided a definitive legal interpretation of the disputed terms, finding in favor of the Respondent.
• Outcome: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is denied.”
• Legal Rationale:
◦ The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to carry his burden of proving a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
◦ The decision states: “It is clear from the record that a ‘Dwelling Unit’ can only consist of a portion of a building that is distinct from other structures and improvements like garages and patios.”
◦ It further clarifies: “Hence, the calculation of the relevant square footage of a main Dwelling Unit under CC&Rs 7.7 excludes any non-livable portion of a building, structure, or improvement (attached or otherwise).”
◦ The order affirmed the Association’s calculation, noting that the maximum allowable square footage for an accessory structure on the Petitioner’s property is capped at 1,141.2 square feet, making the proposed 1,441-square-foot garage non-compliant.
• Binding Nature: The order is binding on the parties unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the ADRE within 30 days of the order’s service.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Steven Schmidt(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Michael Shupe(HOA attorney) Goldschmidt Shupe, PLLC
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Daniel Y. Jones(Division Manager) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Abby Hansen(HOA Coordinator) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Miranda Alvarez(Legal Secretary) Office of Administrative Hearings
c. serrano(administrative staff) Transmitted documents
Douglas A. Ducey(Governor) Arizona
vnunez(administrative staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed on electronic transmission
labril(administrative staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed on electronic transmission
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
20F-H2020049-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2021-03-08
Administrative Law Judge
Jenna Clark
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$500.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Michael J Stoltenberg
Counsel
—
Respondent
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Counsel
Nicole Payne, Esq.
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs Section 14.8
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Association did not violate CC&Rs Section 14.8. The provision was determined to be inapplicable, governing the Association’s obligation to provide notice, not the methods homeowners must use to send payments.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. CC&Rs Section 14.8 was inapplicable, and Petitioner's chosen restricted delivery method for assessment payments caused delays, which were not the responsibility of the Respondent.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether the Association violated CC&Rs 14.8 concerning notice obligations.
Petitioner alleged the Association violated CC&Rs 14.8 by improperly handling or failing to receive his monthly assessment payments, which he sent via restricted delivery to a board member despite receiving instructions to mail payments to the Association's designated P.O. Box address.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied because he failed to sustain his burden of proof that the Association violated CC&Rs Section 14.8.
Briefing Document: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and conclusions from two administrative law judge decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg (Petitioner) and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner’s complaint, alleging the Association violated its governing documents and acted in bad faith regarding the handling of his monthly assessment payments, was comprehensively reviewed and ultimately denied. This denial was subsequently affirmed in a rehearing.
The core of the dispute centered on the Petitioner’s unilateral decision to send his monthly payments via restricted U.S. Postal Service delivery to a specific, unpaid volunteer board member. This action, taken despite clear instructions to mail payments to the Association’s P.O. Box, resulted in delayed receipt and returned mail, leading to the imposition of late fees and threats of foreclosure against the Petitioner.
The Administrative Law Judge’s central finding was that the Petitioner fundamentally misinterpreted Section 14.8 of the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The judge concluded this section is unambiguously applicable only to notices sent from the Association to its members, and imposes no obligations on the Association regarding mail received from members. The payment delays and resulting penalties were determined to be the direct consequence of the Petitioner’s own “volitionally took” actions, for which the Association bore no responsibility. Furthermore, the Petitioner’s claims of “bad faith” under Arizona’s nonprofit corporation statutes were dismissed as falling outside the jurisdictional authority of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings.
I. Case Overview
The legal matter concerns a petition filed by a homeowner against his condominium association, alleging violations of the community’s governing documents and state law.
Case Number
20F-H2020049-REL / 20F-H2020049-REL-RHG
Petitioner
Michael J. Stoltenberg
Respondent
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Adjudicating Body
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
Administrative Law Judge
Jenna Clark
The Petitioner’s initial complaint, filed on March 2, 2020, alleged that the Association “fail to do their job, and are acting in bad faith,” specifically citing violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 10-3842 and 10-801, and Section 14.8 of the Association’s CC&Rs. He sought an order compelling the Association’s compliance and the issuance of a civil penalty.
II. Procedural History and Timeline
The dispute progressed through an initial hearing, a decision, a granted request for rehearing, and a final binding order.
• March 2, 2020: Petitioner files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (“Department”).
• March 24, 2020: Respondent files an ANSWER, denying all complaint items.
• April 1, 2020: The Department refers the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for an evidentiary hearing.
• July 14, 2020: The initial evidentiary hearing is held.
• August 3, 2020: An AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION is issued, denying the Petitioner’s petition.
• August 28, 2020: Petitioner submits a request for a rehearing.
• September 9, 2020: The Petitioner’s request for a rehearing is granted.
• February 16, 2021: A rehearing is held before the same Administrative Law Judge.
• March 8, 2021: A final ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION is issued, again denying the Petitioner’s petition.
III. Central Dispute: Assessment Payments and CC&R Section 14.8
The conflict originated from the Petitioner’s method of submitting monthly assessment payments and his interpretation of the Association’s obligations under its CC&Rs.
The Petitioner’s Actions and Their Consequences
• Instruction: On January 4, 2016, the Petitioner was advised that the Association’s “primary address for receiving all correspondence and all assessment payments from its members” was PO Box 4333, Yuma, Arizona 85366.
• Unilateral Change in Method: Beginning in November 2019, the Petitioner began sending his monthly payments via restricted delivery through the United States Postal Service (USPS), designated for “board member Rhea Carlisle’s pickup only.”
• Petitioner’s Rationale: He took this action based on a belief that an agent of the Association’s property management company had previously thrown away one of his mailed payments.
• Petitioner’s Acknowledged Awareness: The Petitioner was aware that the Association employed a property management company to collect mail and that Ms. Carlisle was an “unpaid volunteer board member,” not an employee of that company.
• Resulting Delays and Penalties: This restricted delivery method caused significant issues.
◦ One payment was returned by USPS on January 25, 2020.
◦ Another was returned by USPS on June 8, 2020.
◦ Other payments were picked up late on various dates.
◦ For each instance where the payment was received late, the Petitioner was assessed a late fee and his residence was placed in danger of foreclosure.
The Disputed Provision: CC&Rs Section 14.8
The legal basis for the Petitioner’s claim rested on his interpretation of Section 14.8 of the Association’s Bylaws.
• Full Text of Section 14.8, Notices:
• Respondent’s Argument: The Association argued that this section was “inapplicable to the facts as presented” because it governs the Association’s obligation when sending notices to homeowners, not the other way around.
IV. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions
Across two separate decisions, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) consistently found that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof and that his interpretation of the governing documents was incorrect.
Initial Decision (August 3, 2020)
• Inapplicability of Section 14.8: The ALJ’s primary conclusion was a complete rejection of the Petitioner’s legal argument.
• Petitioner’s Culpability: The ALJ placed the responsibility for the late payments squarely on the Petitioner.
• Outcome: The petition was denied.
Rehearing Decision (March 8, 2021)
The rehearing was granted on the Petitioner’s grounds of an alleged “Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law” and that the initial decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” The ALJ found no merit in these claims.
• Reaffirmation of Core Finding: The ALJ reiterated and strengthened the conclusion regarding Section 14.8.
• Jurisdictional Ruling: The ALJ explicitly addressed the Petitioner’s “bad faith” claim by citing ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842, which concerns standards of conduct for officers of nonprofit corporations.
• Failure to Support Rehearing Claims: The ALJ noted a complete lack of new evidence to justify the rehearing.
• Final Outcome: The petition was again denied. The order was made final and binding, with any further appeal requiring judicial review in superior court.
Study Guide – 20F-H2020049-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based entirely on the provided legal documents.
1. Who are the two primary parties in case No. 20F-H2020049-REL, and what are their respective roles?
2. What was the specific allegation Michael Stoltenberg made against the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association in his petition?
3. Why did the Petitioner, beginning in November 2019, change the way he mailed his monthly assessment payments?
4. What is the specific subject of Section 14.8 of the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)?
5. What were the consequences for the Petitioner each time the Association received his monthly assessment payment late?
6. According to the Administrative Law Judge, why was Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs inapplicable to the facts of this case?
7. What was the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and what is its definition?
8. On what grounds did the Petitioner request and receive a rehearing after the initial decision was issued?
9. Why did the Administrative Law Judge dismiss the Petitioner’s argument regarding Arizona Revised Statutes § 10-3842 during the rehearing?
10. What was the final outcome of both the initial hearing on July 14, 2020, and the rehearing on February 16, 2021?
——————————————————————————–
Quiz Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Michael J Stoltenberg, the “Petitioner,” and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, the “Respondent.” The Petitioner is a condominium owner and member of the Association who filed a petition alleging violations, while the Respondent is the homeowners’ association that governs the development.
2. The Petitioner alleged that the Association was in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 10-3842 and 10-801, and section 14.8 of the Association’s CC&Rs. Specifically, he alleged that the Association “fail to do their job, and are acting in bad faith.”
3. The Petitioner changed his mailing method because he believed an agent of the Association’s property management company had thrown away one of his mailed payments. As a result, he began sending payments via restricted delivery by the USPS, for board member Rhea Carlisle’s pickup only.
4. Section 14.8, titled “Notices,” pertains to any notice permitted or required by the Declaration or Bylaws. It specifically addresses the Association’s notice obligation to its members when mailing them information, outlining when such notices are deemed delivered.
5. Each time the Petitioner’s monthly assessment was received late, he was assessed a late fee by the Association. Additionally, each late payment occurrence put his residence in danger of foreclosure by the Association.
6. The Judge concluded Section 14.8 was inapplicable because its language speaks specifically to the Association’s obligation to provide notice to its members. The section has no binding authority or control over homeowners sending mail to the Association.
7. The Petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” or evidence with the most convincing force that inclines an impartial mind to one side of an issue.
8. The Petitioner’s rehearing request was granted on the grounds that there was an alleged “Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.” He also claimed that the initial findings of fact or decision were “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”
9. The argument regarding ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842, which concerns standards of conduct for officers, was dismissed because it falls outside of the Department of Real Estate’s jurisdiction. The Petitioner had been advised of the Department’s jurisdictional limitations when he first filed his petition.
10. In both the initial decision (dated August 03, 2020) and the final order after the rehearing (dated March 08, 2021), the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The Judge concluded in both instances that the Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to be answered in a detailed essay format, synthesizing information from across the provided documents. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the legal reasoning used by Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark to deny the Petitioner’s claims in both the initial hearing and the rehearing. Discuss the interpretation of CC&R Section 14.8, the concept of burden of proof, and jurisdictional limitations.
2. Trace the complete procedural history of case No. 20F-H2020049-REL from the filing of the petition to the final order. Include all key dates, actions taken by the parties and the Department, and the specific reasons for each major step, such as the granting of the rehearing.
3. Evaluate the actions taken by the Petitioner, Michael Stoltenberg, regarding his assessment payments. Explain why his unilateral decision to use restricted mail delivery, despite being aware of the Association’s procedures, ultimately caused the negative outcomes he sought to avoid.
4. Explain the contractual relationship between a homeowners’ association and a property owner as described in the legal documents. How do the CC&Rs function as an enforceable contract, and how was this concept central to the dispute?
5. Discuss the roles and authorities of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in resolving HOA disputes, as demonstrated by this case. What are their powers, and what specific limitations on their jurisdiction are identified in the text?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)
The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations in Arizona.
ARIZ. REV. STAT.
Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
Association
The Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, a condominium association whose membership is comprised of the condominium owners in the Rancho Del Oro residential real estate development in Yuma, Arizona.
Board of Directors (the Board)
The body that oversees the Homeowners Association.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to prove their contention. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proving the Respondent violated the CC&Rs.
An abbreviation for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These governing documents form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, empowering the Association to control certain aspects of property use.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency to which the Department of Real Estate refers matters for an evidentiary hearing. The OAH has the authority to hear and decide contested cases and interpret the contract (CC&Rs) between parties.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Michael J Stoltenberg, a homeowner and member of the Association.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this proceeding. It is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and is considered the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Statutory Agent
An individual listed as an official agent for an entity. For the years 2019 and 2020, Diana Crites was listed as the Association’s Statutory Agent.
Abbreviation for the United States Postal Service.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020049-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based entirely on the provided legal documents.
1. Who are the two primary parties in case No. 20F-H2020049-REL, and what are their respective roles?
2. What was the specific allegation Michael Stoltenberg made against the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association in his petition?
3. Why did the Petitioner, beginning in November 2019, change the way he mailed his monthly assessment payments?
4. What is the specific subject of Section 14.8 of the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)?
5. What were the consequences for the Petitioner each time the Association received his monthly assessment payment late?
6. According to the Administrative Law Judge, why was Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs inapplicable to the facts of this case?
7. What was the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and what is its definition?
8. On what grounds did the Petitioner request and receive a rehearing after the initial decision was issued?
9. Why did the Administrative Law Judge dismiss the Petitioner’s argument regarding Arizona Revised Statutes § 10-3842 during the rehearing?
10. What was the final outcome of both the initial hearing on July 14, 2020, and the rehearing on February 16, 2021?
——————————————————————————–
Quiz Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Michael J Stoltenberg, the “Petitioner,” and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, the “Respondent.” The Petitioner is a condominium owner and member of the Association who filed a petition alleging violations, while the Respondent is the homeowners’ association that governs the development.
2. The Petitioner alleged that the Association was in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 10-3842 and 10-801, and section 14.8 of the Association’s CC&Rs. Specifically, he alleged that the Association “fail to do their job, and are acting in bad faith.”
3. The Petitioner changed his mailing method because he believed an agent of the Association’s property management company had thrown away one of his mailed payments. As a result, he began sending payments via restricted delivery by the USPS, for board member Rhea Carlisle’s pickup only.
4. Section 14.8, titled “Notices,” pertains to any notice permitted or required by the Declaration or Bylaws. It specifically addresses the Association’s notice obligation to its members when mailing them information, outlining when such notices are deemed delivered.
5. Each time the Petitioner’s monthly assessment was received late, he was assessed a late fee by the Association. Additionally, each late payment occurrence put his residence in danger of foreclosure by the Association.
6. The Judge concluded Section 14.8 was inapplicable because its language speaks specifically to the Association’s obligation to provide notice to its members. The section has no binding authority or control over homeowners sending mail to the Association.
7. The Petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” or evidence with the most convincing force that inclines an impartial mind to one side of an issue.
8. The Petitioner’s rehearing request was granted on the grounds that there was an alleged “Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.” He also claimed that the initial findings of fact or decision were “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”
9. The argument regarding ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842, which concerns standards of conduct for officers, was dismissed because it falls outside of the Department of Real Estate’s jurisdiction. The Petitioner had been advised of the Department’s jurisdictional limitations when he first filed his petition.
10. In both the initial decision (dated August 03, 2020) and the final order after the rehearing (dated March 08, 2021), the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The Judge concluded in both instances that the Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to be answered in a detailed essay format, synthesizing information from across the provided documents. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the legal reasoning used by Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark to deny the Petitioner’s claims in both the initial hearing and the rehearing. Discuss the interpretation of CC&R Section 14.8, the concept of burden of proof, and jurisdictional limitations.
2. Trace the complete procedural history of case No. 20F-H2020049-REL from the filing of the petition to the final order. Include all key dates, actions taken by the parties and the Department, and the specific reasons for each major step, such as the granting of the rehearing.
3. Evaluate the actions taken by the Petitioner, Michael Stoltenberg, regarding his assessment payments. Explain why his unilateral decision to use restricted mail delivery, despite being aware of the Association’s procedures, ultimately caused the negative outcomes he sought to avoid.
4. Explain the contractual relationship between a homeowners’ association and a property owner as described in the legal documents. How do the CC&Rs function as an enforceable contract, and how was this concept central to the dispute?
5. Discuss the roles and authorities of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in resolving HOA disputes, as demonstrated by this case. What are their powers, and what specific limitations on their jurisdiction are identified in the text?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)
The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations in Arizona.
ARIZ. REV. STAT.
Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
Association
The Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, a condominium association whose membership is comprised of the condominium owners in the Rancho Del Oro residential real estate development in Yuma, Arizona.
Board of Directors (the Board)
The body that oversees the Homeowners Association.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to prove their contention. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proving the Respondent violated the CC&Rs.
An abbreviation for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These governing documents form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, empowering the Association to control certain aspects of property use.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency to which the Department of Real Estate refers matters for an evidentiary hearing. The OAH has the authority to hear and decide contested cases and interpret the contract (CC&Rs) between parties.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Michael J Stoltenberg, a homeowner and member of the Association.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this proceeding. It is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and is considered the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Statutory Agent
An individual listed as an official agent for an entity. For the years 2019 and 2020, Diana Crites was listed as the Association’s Statutory Agent.
Abbreviation for the United States Postal Service.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michael J Stoltenberg(petitioner) Rancho Del Oro condominium owner Appeared on his own behalf,
Respondent Side
Nicole Payne(HOA attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Appeared on behalf of Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association,,
Rhea Carlisle(board member) Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association Unpaid volunteer board member; Petitioner directed mail specifically to her,,,
Diana Crites(statutory agent) Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association Statutory Agent for 2019 and 2020,
Lydia Peirce(HOA attorney staff/contact) Linsmeier Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Listed as contact for Respondent in 2020 decision transmission
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(ADRE commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner receiving the OAH order,
Dan Gardner(HOA coordinator) Arizona Department of Real Estate HOA Coordinator contact for the Commissioner
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Association did not violate CC&Rs Section 14.8. The provision was determined to be inapplicable, governing the Association’s obligation to provide notice, not the methods homeowners must use to send payments.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. CC&Rs Section 14.8 was inapplicable, and Petitioner's chosen restricted delivery method for assessment payments caused delays, which were not the responsibility of the Respondent.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether the Association violated CC&Rs 14.8 concerning notice obligations.
Petitioner alleged the Association violated CC&Rs 14.8 by improperly handling or failing to receive his monthly assessment payments, which he sent via restricted delivery to a board member despite receiving instructions to mail payments to the Association's designated P.O. Box address.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied because he failed to sustain his burden of proof that the Association violated CC&Rs Section 14.8.
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Association did not violate CC&Rs Section 14.8. The provision was determined to be inapplicable, governing the Association’s obligation to provide notice, not the methods homeowners must use to send payments.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. CC&Rs Section 14.8 was inapplicable, and Petitioner's chosen restricted delivery method for assessment payments caused delays, which were not the responsibility of the Respondent.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether the Association violated CC&Rs 14.8 concerning notice obligations.
Petitioner alleged the Association violated CC&Rs 14.8 by improperly handling or failing to receive his monthly assessment payments, which he sent via restricted delivery to a board member despite receiving instructions to mail payments to the Association's designated P.O. Box address.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied because he failed to sustain his burden of proof that the Association violated CC&Rs Section 14.8.
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
20F-H2020049-REL Decision – 811290.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:01 (131.7 KB)
Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020049-REL
Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro HOA: Case Analysis and Legal Findings
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative legal case Michael J Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Case No. 20F-H2020049-REL). The central dispute arose when Mr. Stoltenberg, a homeowner, was assessed late fees on his monthly dues after unilaterally altering his payment method. He began sending payments via restricted U.S. Postal Service delivery to a specific volunteer board member, which resulted in significant processing delays and non-deliveries.
The petitioner alleged the Association was acting in “bad faith” and violating Section 14.8 of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conclusively found that Section 14.8, which governs notices sent from the Association to its members, was entirely inapplicable to payments sent by a member to the Association. The ALJ determined that the petitioner’s own “volitionally took” actions were the direct cause of the payment delays and subsequent late fees.
The petitioner’s initial petition was denied. A subsequent request for rehearing was granted, but the rehearing affirmed the original decision. The ALJ reiterated that the cited CC&R section was inapplicable, noted a lack of jurisdiction over other statutes the petitioner raised, and concluded that the petitioner had failed to meet his burden of proof in either proceeding.
Case Background and Procedural History
Parties and Governing Documents
• Petitioner: Michael J. Stoltenberg, a condominium owner within the Rancho Del Oro development and a member of the homeowners’ association.
• Respondent: Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (“the Association”), a condominium association in Yuma, Arizona, governed by its CC&Rs and overseen by a Board of Directors.
• Governing Authority: The CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner. The specific provision at the center of the dispute is Section 14.8 of the Bylaws, titled “Notices.” This section has remained unamended since the original CC&Rs were recorded on August 30, 1985.
Initial Petition and Jurisdictional Scope
On March 2, 2020, Mr. Stoltenberg filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the Association “fail to do their job, and are acting in bad faith.” The petition cited violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) §§ 10-3842 and 10-801, as well as Section 14.8 of the Association’s CC&Rs. Mr. Stoltenberg sought an order compelling the Association to comply with these regulations and the issuance of a civil penalty.
Upon filing, the Department advised the petitioner that the HOA Dispute Process lacks jurisdiction over disputes arising from Title 10 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Consequently, the case was narrowed to a single issue, and the petitioner was assessed a $500 filing fee. The sole issue for the hearing was formally defined as: “Whether the Association violated CC&Rs 14.8.”
Chronology of Legal Proceedings
Outcome
March 2, 2020
Petition filed by Michael Stoltenberg.
The case is initiated.
July 14, 2020
Initial evidentiary hearing is held.
Both parties present arguments.
August 3, 2020
Amended ALJ Decision is issued.
The petitioner’s petition is denied.
August 28, 2020
Petitioner submits a rehearing request.
Grounds cited: errors of law and an arbitrary decision.
September 9, 2020
Rehearing request is granted.
A new hearing is scheduled.
February 16, 2021
Rehearing is held.
The same issue is re-examined.
March 8, 2021
Final ALJ Decision is issued.
The petitioner’s petition is denied again; the order is binding.
Factual Analysis of the Dispute
Payment Instructions and Petitioner’s Actions
On January 4, 2016, the petitioner was advised that the Association’s “primary address for receiving all correspondence and all assessment payments from its members” was PO Box 4333, Yuma, Arizona 85366. The correspondence explicitly stated, “Please send your payments to the above address.”
Despite these clear instructions, beginning in November 2019, the petitioner began sending his monthly assessment payments to this P.O. Box via restricted delivery through the United States Postal Service (USPS), designated for pickup by board member Rhea Carlisle only.
The petitioner’s stated rationale for this change was a belief that an agent of the Association’s property management company (PMC) had previously thrown away one of his mailed payments. However, the petitioner was aware of several key facts:
• The Association employed a PMC to pick up its mail.
• Ms. Carlisle was an unpaid volunteer board member, not an employee of the PMC.
• Diana Crites was the Association’s listed Statutory Agent for 2019 and 2020.
Consequences of Restricted Delivery
The petitioner’s unilateral decision to restrict delivery caused significant disruption to the receipt of his payments. This led to his assessments being recorded as untimely, which in turn resulted in the Association assessing late fees against his account. Additionally, each late payment occurrence placed his residence “in danger of foreclosure by the Association.”
A timeline of payment delivery issues presented as evidence includes:
Payment Period
USPS Action
December 2019
Picked up.
January 25, 2020
Returned to petitioner by USPS.
January 30, 2020
Picked up.
February 26, 2020
Picked up.
April 17, 2020
Picked up.
June 8, 2020
Returned to petitioner by USPS.
Legal Rulings and Core Arguments
Central Legal Text: CC&Rs Section 14.8 (“Notices”)
The entire case hinged on the interpretation of Section 14.8 of the Association’s Bylaws. The text reads:
“Any notice permitted or required by this Declaration or the Bylaws may be delivered either personally or by mail. If delivery is by mail, it shall be deemed to have been delivered seventy-two (72) hours after a copy of the same has been deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each person at the current address given by such person to the secretary of the Board or addressed to the Unit of such person if no address has been given to the secretary.”
ALJ’s Interpretation: In both the initial decision and the rehearing decision, the ALJ found the language of Section 14.8 to be clear, “neither vague nor ambiguous,” and definitively inapplicable to the case. The ruling stated that the “language of Section 14.8 speaks specifically to the Association’s notice obligation to its members when mailing them information. Section 14.8 has no binding authority or control over homeowners sending mail to the Association.”
Arguments Presented
• He had always technically mailed his monthly payments on time to the correct P.O. Box.
• He filed the petition out of concern over incurring late fees and the potential loss of his home.
• During the rehearing, he argued that the initial decision failed to properly interpret Section 14.8 and should have also applied ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842 (concerning standards of conduct for nonprofit officers).
• Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs was entirely inapplicable to the facts presented, as it governs the Association’s outbound notice obligations, not a member’s inbound payments.
• The Department and the Office of Administrative Hearings lack jurisdiction under Title 10 of the ARIZ. REV. STAT.
• The petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof required to show a violation.
Final Conclusions and Order
The Administrative Law Judge’s decisions in both the initial hearing and the rehearing were definitive. The core conclusions of law were as follows:
1. Burden of Proof: The petitioner bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the CC&Rs and failed to meet this burden.
2. Inapplicability of CC&Rs Section 14.8: The provision cited by the petitioner was found to be wholly irrelevant to the matter of a homeowner mailing payments to the Association.
3. Assignment of Responsibility: The ALJ concluded that the petitioner’s own choices were the cause of the issue. The decision states, “By restricting the delivery of his monthly assessment payments, Petitioner inadvertently caused delay in their ability to be picked up by the Association.” There was “no credible evidence in the record to suggest that the action(s) Petitioner volitionally took are Respondent’s responsibility.”
4. Rehearing Findings: In the final decision, the ALJ noted that the petitioner “did not introduce any evidence tending to suggest that there was an ‘error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law…'” or that the prior decision was arbitrary or capricious.
Final Order: Based on the foregoing, the ALJ ordered that the petitioner’s petition be denied. The order issued on March 8, 2021, was binding on the parties, with any further appeal requiring judicial review in superior court within 35 days.
Study Guide – 20F-H2020049-REL
Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case Michael J Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, Case No. 20F-H2020049-REL, including the initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing. It is designed to test and deepen understanding of the facts, legal arguments, procedures, and outcomes presented in the official decisions.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Please answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing information exclusively from the provided legal documents.
1. Who were the primary parties in this legal dispute, and what was their relationship to one another?
2. What was the specific allegation Michael Stoltenberg made against the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association in his petition?
3. What specific action did the Petitioner take regarding his monthly assessment payments starting in November 2019?
4. According to the Association, why was Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs not applicable to the Petitioner’s complaint?
5. What were the negative consequences the Petitioner faced as a result of his payments being received late by the Association?
6. What was the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and did the judge find he had met it?
7. What were the two grounds upon which the Petitioner requested a rehearing after the initial decision?
8. Why was the Petitioner’s citation of Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 10-3842 dismissed during the proceedings?
9. What was the final ruling in the Administrative Law Judge Decision issued on March 08, 2021, following the rehearing?
10. After the final order was issued, what was the Petitioner’s sole remaining avenue for appeal?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Michael J Stoltenberg, the Petitioner, and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, the Respondent. Mr. Stoltenberg was a condominium owner and a member of the Association, which governed the residential development where he lived.
2. In his petition filed on March 2, 2020, Stoltenberg alleged the Association violated Section 14.8 of its CC&Rs and Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 10-3842 and 10-801. He specifically claimed the Association “fail to do their job, and are acting in bad faith.”
3. Beginning in November 2019, the Petitioner began sending his monthly assessment payments to the Association’s P.O. Box via restricted delivery from the United States Postal Service. He specified that the mail was for board member Rhea Carlisle’s pickup only, despite knowing she was a volunteer and not an employee of the property management company that handled mail.
4. The Association argued that Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs was inapplicable because it governs the Association’s notice obligations to its members. The judge agreed, stating the section has no binding authority over how homeowners send mail to the Association.
5. Each time the Petitioner’s monthly assessment was received late, he was assessed a late fee by the Association. Additionally, each late payment occurrence placed his residence in danger of foreclosure.
6. The Petitioner bore the burden of proving his case by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means showing the contention is more probably true than not. The judge concluded in both decisions that the Petitioner failed to sustain this burden of proof.
7. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on the grounds that there was an alleged “Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding” and because “[t]he findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”
8. The citation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842, which concerns standards of conduct for officers of nonprofit corporations, was dismissed because it falls outside the jurisdiction of the Arizona Department of Real Estate’s HOA Dispute Process. The Petitioner was advised of these jurisdictional limitations when he filed his petition.
9. The final ruling issued on March 8, 2021, denied the Petitioner’s petition once again. The judge affirmed the original findings, concluding there was no violation of Section 14.8 and that the Petitioner had not introduced any evidence to support his grounds for a rehearing.
10. After the final order resulting from the rehearing, the Petitioner’s only remaining recourse was to seek judicial review by filing an appeal with the superior court. This appeal had to be filed within thirty-five days from the date the order was served upon the parties.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis. Formulate a comprehensive essay response for each prompt, using specific evidence and details from the source documents to support your arguments.
1. Analyze the legal reasoning of Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark in her interpretation of Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs. Explain why this section was deemed inapplicable to the Petitioner’s situation and how this interpretation was central to the case’s outcome in both the hearing and rehearing.
2. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied in this case. Explain who held the burden, what the “preponderance of the evidence” standard required, and why the Petitioner ultimately failed to meet this standard in the judgment of the court.
3. Trace the complete procedural history of this case, starting from the initial petition. Detail the key dates, filings (petition, answer, rehearing request), hearings, and decisions, explaining the significance of each step in the administrative legal process from March 2020 to March 2021.
4. Examine the actions of the Petitioner, Michael Stoltenberg, beginning in November 2019. Evaluate his rationale for unilaterally changing his payment method, the specific steps he took, and how his choices directly led to the late fees and risk of foreclosure he sought to avoid.
5. Explain the roles and jurisdictional limitations of the Arizona Department of Real Estate (the Department) and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in this dispute. Why were certain statutes cited by the Petitioner, such as those under Title 10 of the ARIZ. REV. STAT., dismissed by the court as being outside its purview?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge, in this case Jenna Clark, who presides over administrative hearings, reviews evidence, and issues decisions for state agencies.
Answer
The formal written response filed by the Respondent (the Association) on March 24, 2020, denying all items in the Petitioner’s complaint.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)
The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings regarding disputes within homeowners’ associations in Arizona.
Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.)
The collection of laws enacted by the Arizona state legislature. Specific statutes were cited by the Petitioner and referenced by the court.
Association
The Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, a condominium association responsible for governing the real estate development and enforcing its CC&Rs.
Board of Directors (the Board)
The governing body that oversees the Homeowners Association.
Burden of Proof
The legal obligation of a party in a trial (in this case, the Petitioner) to produce evidence that proves the claims they have made against the other party.
An acronym for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner.
Conclusions of Law
The section of the judge’s decision that applies legal principles and statutes to the established facts of the case to reach a final judgment.
Findings of Fact
The section of the judge’s decision that details the factual background, procedural history, and evidence presented during the hearing.
Hearing
A formal proceeding before an administrative law judge where parties present evidence and arguments. In this case, hearings were held on July 14, 2020, and February 16, 2021.
Jurisdiction
The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The Department’s jurisdiction was limited and did not extend to disputes arising from Title 10 of the Arizona Revised Statutes.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency that provides administrative law judges to conduct hearings for other state agencies, ensuring impartiality.
The final, binding command issued by the judge at the conclusion of the decision. In this case, the order was to deny the Petitioner’s petition.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Michael J Stoltenberg.
Petition
The formal legal document filed by the Petitioner on March 2, 2020, to initiate the hearing process with the Department.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in this civil administrative case. It is defined as evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.
Rehearing
A second hearing granted to a party to re-examine the issues of a case, typically requested on grounds of legal error or an unjust decision. The Petitioner’s request for a rehearing was granted.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Restricted Delivery
A service offered by the United States Postal Service (USPS) that ensures mail is delivered only to a specific addressee or their authorized agent.
Statutory Agent
An individual or entity designated to receive legal notices and service of process on behalf of a corporation or association. For the Association, this was Diana Crites.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020049-REL
Select all sources
811290.pdf
861466.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
20F-H2020049-REL-RHG
2 sources
These documents contain the Administrative Law Judge Decisions stemming from a dispute between a homeowner, Michael J. Stoltenberg, and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association regarding the timely delivery of monthly assessment payments. The initial decision in August 2020 denied the homeowner’s petition, finding that the Association did not violate Section 14.8 of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), as that provision governs the Association’s notice obligation to members, not homeowners’ mail to the Association. Following a granted request for rehearing due to alleged errors of law, the subsequent March 2021 decision affirmed the original ruling, concluding that the homeowner’s self-imposed restriction on mail delivery caused the delays and that the relevant CC&R section was inapplicable to the petitioner’s complaint. Both decisions noted that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) lacked jurisdiction over one of the statutes cited by the petitioner.
What were the legal and procedural reasons for granting the rehearing request?
How did the interpretation of CC&R Section 14.8 resolve the core dispute?
What was the Petitioner’s basis for claiming a violation against the Association?
Based on 2 sources
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michael J Stoltenberg(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Nicole Payne(HOA attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Appeared telephonically for Respondent
Rhea Carlisle(board member) Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association Unpaid volunteer board member
Diana Crites(statutory agent) Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association Statutory Agent for 2019 and 2020
Lydia Peirce Linsmeier(attorney contact) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Recipient of electronic transmission for Respondent in initial decision
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) ADRE Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate
The Administrative Law Judge issued a Final Order denying the Petitioner's claim on rehearing. The ALJ found that the Association did not violate CC&Rs Article III section 1 when its Board painted pickleball lines on one of the two existing tennis courts, as the action was within the Board's authority to manage Common Areas and did not infringe on members' nonexclusive perpetual easement rights.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, and the undisputed material facts supported the finding that the Association's actions were authorized by the governing documents (CC&Rs Articles II and VI) and did not deny or impede member access or use of the Common Areas.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association violated community documents CC&Rs Article III, sec. 1.
Petitioner alleged that the Board's decision to paint pickleball lines on one of two tennis courts constituted an infringement or impediment of enjoyment rights for tennis players, thereby violating CC&Rs Article III section 1.
Orders: The ALJ denied the petition (on rehearing), concluding that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof. The Association was authorized to manage and maintain Common Areas, and members' nonexclusive perpetual easement rights were not violated.
Filing fee: $0.00, 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. § 33-1243
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Governance, CC&Rs Interpretation, Common Area Use, Easement Rights, Recreational Facilities, Pickleball
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. § 33-1243
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092.05(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1061(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
Decision Documents
20F-H2019026-REL Decision – 770924.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-17T18:18:18 (153.6 KB)
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Werner A Reis(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Edward O’Brien(attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Counsel for Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association
Mark Sall(attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Counsel for Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association; Mark Sahl is used in some electronic transmissions
Charles Mitchell(board member/witness) Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association Current Director of the Board; testified as a witness in the original hearing
Arland Averell(board member/witness) Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association Served on the Board for twenty years; testified as a witness in the original hearing
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(commissioner) ADRE Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate
DGardner(department contact) ADRE Electronic contact for ADRE transmissions
c. serrano(staff/clerk) OAH Staff noted on document transmission
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
20F-H2019026-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2020-07-14
Administrative Law Judge
Jenna Clark
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$0.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Werner A Reis
Counsel
—
Respondent
Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association
Counsel
Edward O’Brien, Esq.
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs Article III, section 1
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge issued a Final Order denying the Petitioner's claim on rehearing. The ALJ found that the Association did not violate CC&Rs Article III section 1 when its Board painted pickleball lines on one of the two existing tennis courts, as the action was within the Board's authority to manage Common Areas and did not infringe on members' nonexclusive perpetual easement rights.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, and the undisputed material facts supported the finding that the Association's actions were authorized by the governing documents (CC&Rs Articles II and VI) and did not deny or impede member access or use of the Common Areas.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association violated community documents CC&Rs Article III, sec. 1.
Petitioner alleged that the Board's decision to paint pickleball lines on one of two tennis courts constituted an infringement or impediment of enjoyment rights for tennis players, thereby violating CC&Rs Article III section 1.
Orders: The ALJ denied the petition (on rehearing), concluding that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof. The Association was authorized to manage and maintain Common Areas, and members' nonexclusive perpetual easement rights were not violated.
Filing fee: $0.00, 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. § 33-1243
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Governance, CC&Rs Interpretation, Common Area Use, Easement Rights, Recreational Facilities, Pickleball
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. § 33-1243
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Briefing Document: Reis v. Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the legal dispute between homeowner Werner A. Reis (Petitioner) and the Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association (Respondent) concerning the modification of a common area tennis court. The core of the dispute, adjudicated under case numbers 20F-H2019026-REL and 20F-H2019026-REL-RHG, was the Association’s decision in June 2019 to paint pickleball lines on one of its two community tennis courts. The Petitioner alleged this action violated Article III, section 1 of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), infringing upon his nonexclusive perpetual easement of use and enjoyment. The Association contended that its Board of Directors acted within its authority, as granted by the CC&Rs, to manage, maintain, and improve common areas for the benefit of all members.
Following an evidentiary hearing and a subsequent rehearing, Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark ruled decisively in favor of the Association. The Judge found that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Key findings established that the Board was fully authorized to make the modification without a member vote, that tennis play was not restricted, and that the Petitioner’s easement rights were not violated. The Petitioner’s arguments, based on a potential future conflict rather than an actual experienced impediment, were deemed “unfounded” and “without merit.” The final order, issued on July 14, 2020, denied the petition, affirming the Association’s right to manage the recreational facilities in this manner.
——————————————————————————–
I. Case Overview
This matter involves a formal complaint by a homeowner against his townhouse association, brought before the Arizona Department of Real Estate and adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
Whether the Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association violated community documents (CC&Rs Article III, section 1) by adding pickleball lines to one of two community tennis courts.
——————————————————————————–
II. Procedural History
The dispute progressed through a formal administrative hearing process, including a petition, a hearing, a decision, a request for rehearing, and a final order.
• November 18, 2019: Werner Reis files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• December 4, 2019: The Association files its ANSWER, denying all complaint items.
• January 31, 2020: An evidentiary hearing is held before ALJ Jenna Clark.
• February 20, 2020: The ALJ issues a decision denying the Petitioner’s petition, finding he failed to sustain his burden of proof.
• March 26, 2020: The Petitioner submits a REQUEST FOR REHEARING to the Department.
• April 22, 2020: The Department grants the Petitioner’s request for a rehearing.
• May 20, 2020: During a prehearing conference, both parties stipulate that no factual dispute exists and agree to adopt the prior hearing record and submit written closing arguments in lieu of a new hearing.
• June 24, 2020: Deadline for written closing arguments. The Association submits a 17-page argument; the OAH receives no closing argument from the Petitioner.
• July 14, 2020: The ALJ issues a final decision, again denying the petition and ordering that the initial decision from February be the final order in the matter.
——————————————————————————–
III. Analysis of the Dispute
The central conflict was the interpretation of the Association’s CC&Rs regarding the Board’s authority to modify common areas versus a member’s right to their use and enjoyment.
Petitioner’s Position (Werner A. Reis)
The Petitioner’s case was built on the premise that adding pickleball as a competing use for a tennis court fundamentally diminished the rights of tennis-playing members.
• Core Allegation: The Association violated Article III, section 1 of the CC&Rs, which grants every member a “nonexclusive perpetual easement of use and enjoyment in and to the Common Areas.”
• Argument on Infringement: The Petitioner argued the Association created a situation where “Members have the right to play tennis unless pickleball is in play,” which he claimed “constitutes an infringement of tennis players’ right of use and enjoyment.”
• Impediment of Enjoyment: He contended that reducing the number of exclusively available tennis courts from two to one amounts to “an impediment of enjoyment rights.”
• Creation of Competition: He accused the Association of “creating a new class of people” (pickleball players) who could access the courts, creating new competition for members on a first-come, first-served basis.
• Hypothetical Conflict: The “crux” of his complaint was the possible future conflict between his desire to play two singles matches simultaneously and up to sixteen “outsiders playing a raucous game of pickleball on the other designated tennis court.”
• Requested Remedy: The Petitioner requested an order requiring the Association to designate the courts for tennis playing only.
Respondent’s Position (Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association)
The Association defended its decision as a reasonable exercise of the Board’s authority to manage community property for the benefit of all residents.
• Board Authority: The Board asserted that its decision was permitted by Article II, section 1 of the CC&Rs, which grants it the authority to “manage, maintain, repair, replace and improve the Common Areas” without requiring a member vote. Article VI further requires the Board to maintain and manage recreational facilities.
• Benefit to Community: The decision was made to offer pickleball as an additional recreational feature to satisfy growing interest from owners, renters, and guests, and was also considered as a potential means to generate revenue.
• No Restriction of Use: The Association maintained that tennis play was not restricted. Both courts remained available seven days a week on a first-come, first-served basis, with no changes to the reservation system. One court remained available exclusively for tennis at all times.
• Nature of Modification: The modification involved painting lines and using portable nets, which must be detached after play. The permanent tennis nets on both courts remained in place.
——————————————————————————–
IV. Summary of Evidence and Testimony
Testimony from the Association’s representatives and the Petitioner established the key undisputed facts of the case.
Testimony for the Association (Charles Mitchell & Arland Averell)
• Board Authority Confirmed: Charles Mitchell, the Board Director, testified that CC&Rs Articles II and VI, along with the Association’s Articles of Incorporation, authorize the Board to manage and improve common areas, including painting lines on the tennis courts.
• Historical Context: Arland Averell, a 20-year Board member, explained that a taped pickleball court had existed in 2015 but was damaged. The Board decided in April 2019 to reestablish it with painted lines in response to requests from several families.
• Practical Use: Pickleball is generally played only by a few families, typically on Saturday mornings. When pickleball is being played on the modified court, the other tennis court is always available.
• No Denial of Access: Director Mitchell confirmed that the Petitioner had never been denied access to the tennis courts at any time.
Testimony of the Petitioner (Werner A. Reis)
• Recent Homeowner: The Petitioner described himself as a “snowbird” who had purchased his townhouse in November 2019, shortly before filing his complaint.
• Conflict is Hypothetical: He admitted that he “has not played tennis in ‘years'” and, as a result, “has not yet found himself facing any such actual conflict.”
• No Direct Observation: The Petitioner testified that he had not personally observed contemporaneous tennis and pickleball games being played. His concerns about safety and inconvenience were speculative.
——————————————————————————–
V. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Final Order
The Administrative Law Judge’s decisions consistently found the Petitioner’s arguments to be legally and factually unsupported.
Conclusions of Law
• Undisputed Facts: The Judge concluded that the material facts were not in dispute. The Association’s governing documents clearly authorize the Board to maintain, manage, and improve the Common Areas, including the recreational facilities.
• No Violation of Easement Rights: The ruling stated, “What the evidence of record reflects is that Petitioner’s easement rights have not been violated by the Association because the Board painted blue pickleball lines on one of two tennis courts.”
• Petitioner’s Arguments Dismissed: The Judge found the Petitioner’s arguments to be “unfounded” and “without merit.” Specifically, the claim that the availability of only one dedicated court was an “impediment of enjoyment rights” was rejected.
• Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: In both the initial decision and the final order, the Judge concluded that the “Petitioner has failed to sustain his burden of proof” by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated Article III, section 1 of the CC&Rs.
• Failure to Prosecute Rehearing: The final decision noted that the Petitioner “did not provide OAH with a closing argument in support of his request for rehearing.”
Final Disposition
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is denied.
The decision issued on July 14, 2020, affirmed the initial February 24, 2020, decision and was designated as the FINAL ORDER in the matter, binding on both parties.
Study Guide – 20F-H2019026-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Reis vs. Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing exclusively from the information provided in the case documents.
1. What was the specific allegation made by the Petitioner, Werner A. Reis, in his petition filed on November 18, 2019?
2. On what grounds did the Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association’s Board of Directors justify its decision to add pickleball lines to a tennis court?
3. According to the testimony of Arland Averell, what prompted the Board to reestablish a pickleball court in April 2019, and what was a prior experience with a pickleball court?
4. Describe the central, or “crux,” of the Petitioner’s complaint as summarized in the hearing evidence.
5. What key admissions did the Petitioner make during his testimony regarding his own tennis activity and his personal experience with the alleged conflict?
6. According to Director Charles Mitchell’s testimony, what is the physical setup of the nets on the courts, and how does this differ between tennis and pickleball?
7. What was the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and how is that standard defined in the legal documents?
8. What was the outcome of the initial evidentiary hearing held on January 31, 2020, and on what basis did the Administrative Law Judge reach this conclusion?
9. Describe the procedural change that occurred for the rehearing after the parties’ prehearing conference on May 20, 2020.
10. What action, or lack thereof, by the Petitioner on June 24, 2020, contributed to the final ruling in the rehearing?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner alleged that the Association violated Article III, section 1 of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The specific violation claimed was the modification of one of the two existing tennis courts for use as a pickleball court.
2. The Association’s Board of Directors justified the decision as an improvement to the Common Areas for the benefit of the Association, which it was permitted to do under Article II, section 1 of the CC&Rs. The decision was made to offer pickleball as an additional recreational feature to satisfy growing interest from owners, renters, and guests.
3. Arland Averell testified that in April 2019, the Board decided to reestablish the pickleball court with painted lines after several families requested it, and the Board also saw it as a way to generate additional revenue. A previous pickleball court established in 2015 had lines made of tape which were damaged approximately four months after being applied.
4. The crux of the Petitioner’s complaint was the possible future conflict between his personal desire to play two singles tennis matches on both courts simultaneously and the potential for up to sixteen “outsiders” to be playing a “raucous game of pickleball” on the modified court.
5. The Petitioner admitted that he had not played tennis in “years” and, as a result, had never actually faced the conflict he was complaining about. He also stated he had never been denied access to the courts and had not observed contemporaneous games of tennis and pickleball being played.
6. Director Mitchell testified that both tennis courts have fixed tennis nets. The pickleball court, however, has portable nets which must be attached for use and then detached at the end of play.
7. The Petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not, representing the greater weight of evidence.
8. Following the January 31, 2020, hearing, the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The judge concluded that the Petitioner had failed to sustain his burden of proof and that the evidence showed his easement rights had not been violated, as one tennis court always remained available.
9. During the prehearing conference, the parties stipulated that no factual dispute existed. They agreed to vacate the scheduled rehearing, adopt the evidentiary record from the first hearing without presenting new evidence, and submit written closing arguments instead.
10. On the deadline of June 24, 2020, the Office of Administrative Hearings received a 17-page closing argument from the Respondent (the Association). The Petitioner, Werner A. Reis, failed to submit a closing argument, which was noted in the final decision denying his petition again.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses. Formulate your answers by synthesizing information from across the case documents. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the conflict between the rights granted to members under CC&Rs Article III, section 1 (“easement of use and enjoyment”) and the powers granted to the Board under CC&Rs Article II, section 1 (“manage, maintain, repair, replace and improve the Common Areas”). How did the Administrative Law Judge resolve this apparent tension in the final decision?
2. Discuss the concept of the “burden of proof” as it applied in this case. Explain why Werner Reis’s testimony and arguments ultimately failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
3. Trace the procedural history of this case from the initial petition on November 18, 2019, to the final order on July 14, 2020. Identify the key events and decisions at each stage, including the initial hearing, the request for rehearing, and the final disposition.
4. Evaluate the strength of the Petitioner’s case. Focus specifically on the evidence he presented versus the evidence presented by the Association’s witnesses, Charles Mitchell and Arland Averell.
5. The Petitioner argued that the availability of only one tennis court when pickleball is in play constituted an “impediment of enjoyment rights.” Explain the Association’s counter-arguments and why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found the Petitioner’s argument to be “unfounded” and “without merit.”
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The presiding official (Jenna Clark) at the Office of Administrative Hearings who reviews evidence, makes Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues orders and decisions.
ARIZ. REV. STAT.
Abbreviation for the Arizona Revised Statutes, the laws enacted by the Arizona state legislature that regulate planned communities and govern the administrative hearing process.
Association
The Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association, a non-profit Arizona corporation serving as the property owner’s association for the development. In this case, it is the Respondent.
Board of Directors (Board)
The governing body of the Association, empowered by the CC&Rs and Articles of Incorporation to manage, maintain, and improve the Common Areas.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a trial (in this case, the Petitioner) to produce the degree of evidence required to prove their case. The standard required here was “preponderance of the evidence.”
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The governing documents that form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, controlling property use within the development. The Restated Declaration was recorded on June 8, 2015.
Common Areas
Property within the development, such as the tennis courts, for the mutual benefit of all owners. The Association’s Board is granted authority to manage and improve these areas.
Department
The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide on petitions for hearings regarding disputes in planned communities.
Easement of use and enjoyment
A non-exclusive, perpetual right granted to every member of the Association to use and enjoy the Common Areas, as established in CC&Rs Article III, section 1.
OAH (Office of Administrative Hearings)
An independent state agency to which the Department refers cases for evidentiary hearings.
Petitioner
The party who filed the petition initiating the legal action. In this case, Werner A. Reis, a townhouse owner and member of the Association.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof in this case, defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and representing the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom the petition is filed. In this case, the Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association.
Snowbird
A colloquial term used by the Petitioner to describe himself as an out-of-state retiree who resides in Arizona during the winter months.
Blog Post – 20F-H2019026-REL-RHG
5 Surprising Lessons from a Bizarre HOA Lawsuit Over a Pickleball Court
Introduction: The Battle for the Tennis Court
Disputes with a homeowner association (HOA) are a common feature of suburban life, often revolving around landscaping, paint colors, or parking. But when you combine the rigid world of HOA rules with the explosive popularity of pickleball, you get a conflict that is uniquely modern. In a real-life legal case from Sedona, Arizona, one homeowner took his HOA to court over the decision to add pickleball lines to one of the community’s two tennis courts.
What might seem like a minor neighborhood squabble became a formal legal challenge, complete with hearings, testimony, and an official judicial decision. The court documents from this case offer a surprisingly revealing look into community rules, personal grievances, and the peculiar nature of legal battles. More importantly, they reveal several counter-intuitive lessons for anyone living in a planned community.
——————————————————————————–
1. You Can Sue Over a Problem That Doesn’t Exist (But You Probably Won’t Win)
The core of the legal challenge was filed by Werner Reis, a new homeowner in the Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association. His complaint was over the modification of one of two community tennis courts to accommodate pickleball. The “crux” of his complaint was a concern over a possible future conflict: a hypothetical scenario where he might want to play two singles tennis matches while a large group of “outsiders” played a “raucous game of pickleball.”
This seems like a specific, if forward-thinking, concern. But the timeline and testimony revealed a truly bizarre situation. According to court records, Reis purchased his townhouse in November 2019 and filed his lawsuit on or about November 18, 2019—meaning he initiated a formal legal action within days or weeks of becoming a member of the community. Even more stunning was this fact from his own testimony:
Petitioner has not played tennis in “years.” As such, Petitioner has not yet found himself facing any such actual conflict.
The entire legal challenge—filed almost immediately upon moving in—was based on a hypothetical grievance for a sport the petitioner hadn’t even played in years. Unsurprisingly, the Administrative Law Judge found his argument “unfounded.” The lesson is clear: a legal claim based on “what if” is unlikely to succeed without any actual harm.
2. Your HOA’s Governing Documents Are a Legally Binding Contract
Many homeowners view their HOA’s rules as guidelines, but legally, they are a binding contract called Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). When you buy a property, you agree to their terms.
In its defense, the HOA pointed directly to its governing documents. Article VI requires the Board to manage all recreational facilities, and Article II, section 1, gives it the explicit authority to “manage, maintain, repair, replace and improve the Common Areas” for the “general welfare and benefit of the Owners”—all without a member vote. This clause was the legal bedrock of the Board’s defense; in the eyes of the law, painting lines to accommodate a popular new sport is not a degradation of an amenity, but an improvement of it, squarely within the Board’s mandate.
The tennis courts are legally defined as “Common Areas.” This gave the Board the unambiguous right to paint new lines on them. This is an impactful takeaway for all homeowners: while you may feel a sense of personal ownership over shared amenities, the Board has broad, legally-defined powers to manage them for the entire community.
3. A Board’s Duty Is to Adapt to the Community’s Evolving Interests
The HOA Board’s decision wasn’t a whim; it was a response to a persistent community interest with a history. Testimony from a 20-year Board member, Arland Averell, revealed that in April 2019, the Board decided to reestablish a pickleball court “after several families requested they do so.” As a secondary benefit, the Board also saw it as a way to “generate additional revenue.”
But this wasn’t the community’s first foray into the sport. Court records show that back in 2015, the association had a pickleball court with taped lines, but it was damaged after only four months. This context is crucial. The 2019 decision to paint permanent lines was not just a reaction to new requests but an institutional lesson learned. It shows the Board was responding to a long-term, evolving interest and choosing a more durable solution, fulfilling its duty to adapt common resources to meet new demands.
4. An “Infringement” Requires an Actual Impediment
The petitioner’s legal argument was very specific. He claimed that adding pickleball “constitutes an infringement of tennis players’ right of use and enjoyment” and that having only one guaranteed tennis court is an “impediment of enjoyment rights.” He summarized his grievance with the line:
“Members have the right to play tennis unless pickleball is in play.”
However, the facts presented in court systematically dismantled this argument. The evidence showed:
• One of the two courts remained exclusively for tennis at all times.
• Both courts were still available for tennis on a first-come, first-served basis.
• The pickleball nets were portable and had to be detached at the end of play, leaving the court ready for tennis.
• Most critically, the petitioner himself testified that he had “never been denied access to the tennis courts at issue at any time.”
The judge determined that no violation occurred because the petitioner’s rights were never actually impeded. This reveals the critical legal distinction between an inconvenience and an infringement. The petitioner’s entire case rested on a hypothetical future inconvenience, but the law requires an actual, demonstrable impediment to rights. Since his own testimony confirmed one had never occurred, his claim was impossible to prove.
5. If You Demand a Rehearing, You Should Probably Show Up with an Argument
In a final, bizarre twist, the story doesn’t end with the initial ruling in February 2020. The petitioner filed a “REQUEST FOR REHEARING,” which the court granted, giving him a second chance to make his case.
To streamline the process, both parties agreed to skip a new evidentiary hearing and instead submit written “Closing Arguments” to the judge. The HOA’s legal team submitted a detailed, 17-page argument. What happened next was documented in the final court order:
OAH did not receive a closing argument from Petitioner.
The petitioner, who had initiated the entire legal process and successfully demanded a second chance, was given the final word. He had the opportunity to submit a closing argument that could have vindicated his entire complaint. Instead, he offered only silence. By ghosting his own rehearing, he left the judge with no choice but to conclude that he had once again “failed to sustain his burden of proof” and make the original ruling against him final.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: The Court of Community Opinion
This case is a fascinating lesson in the difference between a personal annoyance and an actual legal violation. It demonstrates that in the world of HOAs, feelings and hypothetical concerns carry little weight compared to the cold, hard text of the governing documents. Those documents give boards significant power, but also charge them with the difficult task of balancing the desires of all residents, not just the grievance of one.
As pickleball courts continue to replace shuffleboard courts and community gardens pop up in unused green spaces, this story leaves us with a critical question: As our communities change, how do we balance protecting the familiar traditions we love with making space for the new ones our neighbors are asking for?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Werner A Reis(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Edward O’Brien(attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Counsel for Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association
Mark Sall(attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Counsel for Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association (Also cited as Mark Sahl)
Charles Mitchell(board member, witness) Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association Current Director of the Association's Board
Arland Averell(board member, witness) Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association Served on the Board for the past twenty years
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH
Judy Lowe(commissioner) ADRE Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate
DGardner(department contact) ADRE Electronic contact for ADRE
c. serrano(staff) OAH Administrative staff/Clerk noted on document transmission
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
20F-H2019026-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2020-07-14
Administrative Law Judge
Jenna Clark
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$0.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Werner A Reis
Counsel
—
Respondent
Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association
Counsel
Edward O’Brien, Esq.
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs Article III, section 1
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's claim (on rehearing) finding that the Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association did not violate CC&Rs Article III section 1 when its Board painted pickleball lines on one of the two existing tennis courts, as the Board acted within its authority to maintain and manage Common Areas, and members' nonexclusive perpetual easement rights were not infringed.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated Article III section 1 of the CC&Rs. The undisputed facts showed the Association had authority to paint the lines, access was maintained for all members, and one tennis court was always available for tennis use.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association violated community documents CC&Rs Article III, sec. 1.
Petitioner alleged the Association violated CC&Rs Article III section 1 by painting pickleball lines on one tennis court, arguing this constituted an infringement or impediment of enjoyment rights for tennis players by restricting use of the Common Area easement.
Orders: The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Association violated CC&Rs Article III section 1, and the petition was denied. The Association's governing documents authorized the Board to maintain and manage Common Areas, and Petitioner's easement rights were not violated.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Governance, Common Area Use, Easement Rights, CC&Rs Interpretation, Recreational Facilities, Pickleball
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. § 33-1243
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Briefing Document: Reis v. Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the legal dispute between homeowner Werner A. Reis (Petitioner) and the Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association (Respondent) concerning the modification of a common area tennis court. The core of the dispute, adjudicated under case numbers 20F-H2019026-REL and 20F-H2019026-REL-RHG, was the Association’s decision in June 2019 to paint pickleball lines on one of its two community tennis courts. The Petitioner alleged this action violated Article III, section 1 of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), infringing upon his nonexclusive perpetual easement of use and enjoyment. The Association contended that its Board of Directors acted within its authority, as granted by the CC&Rs, to manage, maintain, and improve common areas for the benefit of all members.
Following an evidentiary hearing and a subsequent rehearing, Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark ruled decisively in favor of the Association. The Judge found that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Key findings established that the Board was fully authorized to make the modification without a member vote, that tennis play was not restricted, and that the Petitioner’s easement rights were not violated. The Petitioner’s arguments, based on a potential future conflict rather than an actual experienced impediment, were deemed “unfounded” and “without merit.” The final order, issued on July 14, 2020, denied the petition, affirming the Association’s right to manage the recreational facilities in this manner.
——————————————————————————–
I. Case Overview
This matter involves a formal complaint by a homeowner against his townhouse association, brought before the Arizona Department of Real Estate and adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
Whether the Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association violated community documents (CC&Rs Article III, section 1) by adding pickleball lines to one of two community tennis courts.
——————————————————————————–
II. Procedural History
The dispute progressed through a formal administrative hearing process, including a petition, a hearing, a decision, a request for rehearing, and a final order.
• November 18, 2019: Werner Reis files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• December 4, 2019: The Association files its ANSWER, denying all complaint items.
• January 31, 2020: An evidentiary hearing is held before ALJ Jenna Clark.
• February 20, 2020: The ALJ issues a decision denying the Petitioner’s petition, finding he failed to sustain his burden of proof.
• March 26, 2020: The Petitioner submits a REQUEST FOR REHEARING to the Department.
• April 22, 2020: The Department grants the Petitioner’s request for a rehearing.
• May 20, 2020: During a prehearing conference, both parties stipulate that no factual dispute exists and agree to adopt the prior hearing record and submit written closing arguments in lieu of a new hearing.
• June 24, 2020: Deadline for written closing arguments. The Association submits a 17-page argument; the OAH receives no closing argument from the Petitioner.
• July 14, 2020: The ALJ issues a final decision, again denying the petition and ordering that the initial decision from February be the final order in the matter.
——————————————————————————–
III. Analysis of the Dispute
The central conflict was the interpretation of the Association’s CC&Rs regarding the Board’s authority to modify common areas versus a member’s right to their use and enjoyment.
Petitioner’s Position (Werner A. Reis)
The Petitioner’s case was built on the premise that adding pickleball as a competing use for a tennis court fundamentally diminished the rights of tennis-playing members.
• Core Allegation: The Association violated Article III, section 1 of the CC&Rs, which grants every member a “nonexclusive perpetual easement of use and enjoyment in and to the Common Areas.”
• Argument on Infringement: The Petitioner argued the Association created a situation where “Members have the right to play tennis unless pickleball is in play,” which he claimed “constitutes an infringement of tennis players’ right of use and enjoyment.”
• Impediment of Enjoyment: He contended that reducing the number of exclusively available tennis courts from two to one amounts to “an impediment of enjoyment rights.”
• Creation of Competition: He accused the Association of “creating a new class of people” (pickleball players) who could access the courts, creating new competition for members on a first-come, first-served basis.
• Hypothetical Conflict: The “crux” of his complaint was the possible future conflict between his desire to play two singles matches simultaneously and up to sixteen “outsiders playing a raucous game of pickleball on the other designated tennis court.”
• Requested Remedy: The Petitioner requested an order requiring the Association to designate the courts for tennis playing only.
Respondent’s Position (Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association)
The Association defended its decision as a reasonable exercise of the Board’s authority to manage community property for the benefit of all residents.
• Board Authority: The Board asserted that its decision was permitted by Article II, section 1 of the CC&Rs, which grants it the authority to “manage, maintain, repair, replace and improve the Common Areas” without requiring a member vote. Article VI further requires the Board to maintain and manage recreational facilities.
• Benefit to Community: The decision was made to offer pickleball as an additional recreational feature to satisfy growing interest from owners, renters, and guests, and was also considered as a potential means to generate revenue.
• No Restriction of Use: The Association maintained that tennis play was not restricted. Both courts remained available seven days a week on a first-come, first-served basis, with no changes to the reservation system. One court remained available exclusively for tennis at all times.
• Nature of Modification: The modification involved painting lines and using portable nets, which must be detached after play. The permanent tennis nets on both courts remained in place.
——————————————————————————–
IV. Summary of Evidence and Testimony
Testimony from the Association’s representatives and the Petitioner established the key undisputed facts of the case.
Testimony for the Association (Charles Mitchell & Arland Averell)
• Board Authority Confirmed: Charles Mitchell, the Board Director, testified that CC&Rs Articles II and VI, along with the Association’s Articles of Incorporation, authorize the Board to manage and improve common areas, including painting lines on the tennis courts.
• Historical Context: Arland Averell, a 20-year Board member, explained that a taped pickleball court had existed in 2015 but was damaged. The Board decided in April 2019 to reestablish it with painted lines in response to requests from several families.
• Practical Use: Pickleball is generally played only by a few families, typically on Saturday mornings. When pickleball is being played on the modified court, the other tennis court is always available.
• No Denial of Access: Director Mitchell confirmed that the Petitioner had never been denied access to the tennis courts at any time.
Testimony of the Petitioner (Werner A. Reis)
• Recent Homeowner: The Petitioner described himself as a “snowbird” who had purchased his townhouse in November 2019, shortly before filing his complaint.
• Conflict is Hypothetical: He admitted that he “has not played tennis in ‘years'” and, as a result, “has not yet found himself facing any such actual conflict.”
• No Direct Observation: The Petitioner testified that he had not personally observed contemporaneous tennis and pickleball games being played. His concerns about safety and inconvenience were speculative.
——————————————————————————–
V. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Final Order
The Administrative Law Judge’s decisions consistently found the Petitioner’s arguments to be legally and factually unsupported.
Conclusions of Law
• Undisputed Facts: The Judge concluded that the material facts were not in dispute. The Association’s governing documents clearly authorize the Board to maintain, manage, and improve the Common Areas, including the recreational facilities.
• No Violation of Easement Rights: The ruling stated, “What the evidence of record reflects is that Petitioner’s easement rights have not been violated by the Association because the Board painted blue pickleball lines on one of two tennis courts.”
• Petitioner’s Arguments Dismissed: The Judge found the Petitioner’s arguments to be “unfounded” and “without merit.” Specifically, the claim that the availability of only one dedicated court was an “impediment of enjoyment rights” was rejected.
• Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: In both the initial decision and the final order, the Judge concluded that the “Petitioner has failed to sustain his burden of proof” by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated Article III, section 1 of the CC&Rs.
• Failure to Prosecute Rehearing: The final decision noted that the Petitioner “did not provide OAH with a closing argument in support of his request for rehearing.”
Final Disposition
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is denied.
The decision issued on July 14, 2020, affirmed the initial February 24, 2020, decision and was designated as the FINAL ORDER in the matter, binding on both parties.
Study Guide – 20F-H2019026-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Reis vs. Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing exclusively from the information provided in the case documents.
1. What was the specific allegation made by the Petitioner, Werner A. Reis, in his petition filed on November 18, 2019?
2. On what grounds did the Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association’s Board of Directors justify its decision to add pickleball lines to a tennis court?
3. According to the testimony of Arland Averell, what prompted the Board to reestablish a pickleball court in April 2019, and what was a prior experience with a pickleball court?
4. Describe the central, or “crux,” of the Petitioner’s complaint as summarized in the hearing evidence.
5. What key admissions did the Petitioner make during his testimony regarding his own tennis activity and his personal experience with the alleged conflict?
6. According to Director Charles Mitchell’s testimony, what is the physical setup of the nets on the courts, and how does this differ between tennis and pickleball?
7. What was the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and how is that standard defined in the legal documents?
8. What was the outcome of the initial evidentiary hearing held on January 31, 2020, and on what basis did the Administrative Law Judge reach this conclusion?
9. Describe the procedural change that occurred for the rehearing after the parties’ prehearing conference on May 20, 2020.
10. What action, or lack thereof, by the Petitioner on June 24, 2020, contributed to the final ruling in the rehearing?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner alleged that the Association violated Article III, section 1 of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The specific violation claimed was the modification of one of the two existing tennis courts for use as a pickleball court.
2. The Association’s Board of Directors justified the decision as an improvement to the Common Areas for the benefit of the Association, which it was permitted to do under Article II, section 1 of the CC&Rs. The decision was made to offer pickleball as an additional recreational feature to satisfy growing interest from owners, renters, and guests.
3. Arland Averell testified that in April 2019, the Board decided to reestablish the pickleball court with painted lines after several families requested it, and the Board also saw it as a way to generate additional revenue. A previous pickleball court established in 2015 had lines made of tape which were damaged approximately four months after being applied.
4. The crux of the Petitioner’s complaint was the possible future conflict between his personal desire to play two singles tennis matches on both courts simultaneously and the potential for up to sixteen “outsiders” to be playing a “raucous game of pickleball” on the modified court.
5. The Petitioner admitted that he had not played tennis in “years” and, as a result, had never actually faced the conflict he was complaining about. He also stated he had never been denied access to the courts and had not observed contemporaneous games of tennis and pickleball being played.
6. Director Mitchell testified that both tennis courts have fixed tennis nets. The pickleball court, however, has portable nets which must be attached for use and then detached at the end of play.
7. The Petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not, representing the greater weight of evidence.
8. Following the January 31, 2020, hearing, the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The judge concluded that the Petitioner had failed to sustain his burden of proof and that the evidence showed his easement rights had not been violated, as one tennis court always remained available.
9. During the prehearing conference, the parties stipulated that no factual dispute existed. They agreed to vacate the scheduled rehearing, adopt the evidentiary record from the first hearing without presenting new evidence, and submit written closing arguments instead.
10. On the deadline of June 24, 2020, the Office of Administrative Hearings received a 17-page closing argument from the Respondent (the Association). The Petitioner, Werner A. Reis, failed to submit a closing argument, which was noted in the final decision denying his petition again.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses. Formulate your answers by synthesizing information from across the case documents. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the conflict between the rights granted to members under CC&Rs Article III, section 1 (“easement of use and enjoyment”) and the powers granted to the Board under CC&Rs Article II, section 1 (“manage, maintain, repair, replace and improve the Common Areas”). How did the Administrative Law Judge resolve this apparent tension in the final decision?
2. Discuss the concept of the “burden of proof” as it applied in this case. Explain why Werner Reis’s testimony and arguments ultimately failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
3. Trace the procedural history of this case from the initial petition on November 18, 2019, to the final order on July 14, 2020. Identify the key events and decisions at each stage, including the initial hearing, the request for rehearing, and the final disposition.
4. Evaluate the strength of the Petitioner’s case. Focus specifically on the evidence he presented versus the evidence presented by the Association’s witnesses, Charles Mitchell and Arland Averell.
5. The Petitioner argued that the availability of only one tennis court when pickleball is in play constituted an “impediment of enjoyment rights.” Explain the Association’s counter-arguments and why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found the Petitioner’s argument to be “unfounded” and “without merit.”
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The presiding official (Jenna Clark) at the Office of Administrative Hearings who reviews evidence, makes Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues orders and decisions.
ARIZ. REV. STAT.
Abbreviation for the Arizona Revised Statutes, the laws enacted by the Arizona state legislature that regulate planned communities and govern the administrative hearing process.
Association
The Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association, a non-profit Arizona corporation serving as the property owner’s association for the development. In this case, it is the Respondent.
Board of Directors (Board)
The governing body of the Association, empowered by the CC&Rs and Articles of Incorporation to manage, maintain, and improve the Common Areas.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a trial (in this case, the Petitioner) to produce the degree of evidence required to prove their case. The standard required here was “preponderance of the evidence.”
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The governing documents that form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, controlling property use within the development. The Restated Declaration was recorded on June 8, 2015.
Common Areas
Property within the development, such as the tennis courts, for the mutual benefit of all owners. The Association’s Board is granted authority to manage and improve these areas.
Department
The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide on petitions for hearings regarding disputes in planned communities.
Easement of use and enjoyment
A non-exclusive, perpetual right granted to every member of the Association to use and enjoy the Common Areas, as established in CC&Rs Article III, section 1.
OAH (Office of Administrative Hearings)
An independent state agency to which the Department refers cases for evidentiary hearings.
Petitioner
The party who filed the petition initiating the legal action. In this case, Werner A. Reis, a townhouse owner and member of the Association.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof in this case, defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and representing the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom the petition is filed. In this case, the Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association.
Snowbird
A colloquial term used by the Petitioner to describe himself as an out-of-state retiree who resides in Arizona during the winter months.
Blog Post – 20F-H2019026-REL-RHG
5 Surprising Lessons from a Bizarre HOA Lawsuit Over a Pickleball Court
Introduction: The Battle for the Tennis Court
Disputes with a homeowner association (HOA) are a common feature of suburban life, often revolving around landscaping, paint colors, or parking. But when you combine the rigid world of HOA rules with the explosive popularity of pickleball, you get a conflict that is uniquely modern. In a real-life legal case from Sedona, Arizona, one homeowner took his HOA to court over the decision to add pickleball lines to one of the community’s two tennis courts.
What might seem like a minor neighborhood squabble became a formal legal challenge, complete with hearings, testimony, and an official judicial decision. The court documents from this case offer a surprisingly revealing look into community rules, personal grievances, and the peculiar nature of legal battles. More importantly, they reveal several counter-intuitive lessons for anyone living in a planned community.
——————————————————————————–
1. You Can Sue Over a Problem That Doesn’t Exist (But You Probably Won’t Win)
The core of the legal challenge was filed by Werner Reis, a new homeowner in the Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association. His complaint was over the modification of one of two community tennis courts to accommodate pickleball. The “crux” of his complaint was a concern over a possible future conflict: a hypothetical scenario where he might want to play two singles tennis matches while a large group of “outsiders” played a “raucous game of pickleball.”
This seems like a specific, if forward-thinking, concern. But the timeline and testimony revealed a truly bizarre situation. According to court records, Reis purchased his townhouse in November 2019 and filed his lawsuit on or about November 18, 2019—meaning he initiated a formal legal action within days or weeks of becoming a member of the community. Even more stunning was this fact from his own testimony:
Petitioner has not played tennis in “years.” As such, Petitioner has not yet found himself facing any such actual conflict.
The entire legal challenge—filed almost immediately upon moving in—was based on a hypothetical grievance for a sport the petitioner hadn’t even played in years. Unsurprisingly, the Administrative Law Judge found his argument “unfounded.” The lesson is clear: a legal claim based on “what if” is unlikely to succeed without any actual harm.
2. Your HOA’s Governing Documents Are a Legally Binding Contract
Many homeowners view their HOA’s rules as guidelines, but legally, they are a binding contract called Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). When you buy a property, you agree to their terms.
In its defense, the HOA pointed directly to its governing documents. Article VI requires the Board to manage all recreational facilities, and Article II, section 1, gives it the explicit authority to “manage, maintain, repair, replace and improve the Common Areas” for the “general welfare and benefit of the Owners”—all without a member vote. This clause was the legal bedrock of the Board’s defense; in the eyes of the law, painting lines to accommodate a popular new sport is not a degradation of an amenity, but an improvement of it, squarely within the Board’s mandate.
The tennis courts are legally defined as “Common Areas.” This gave the Board the unambiguous right to paint new lines on them. This is an impactful takeaway for all homeowners: while you may feel a sense of personal ownership over shared amenities, the Board has broad, legally-defined powers to manage them for the entire community.
3. A Board’s Duty Is to Adapt to the Community’s Evolving Interests
The HOA Board’s decision wasn’t a whim; it was a response to a persistent community interest with a history. Testimony from a 20-year Board member, Arland Averell, revealed that in April 2019, the Board decided to reestablish a pickleball court “after several families requested they do so.” As a secondary benefit, the Board also saw it as a way to “generate additional revenue.”
But this wasn’t the community’s first foray into the sport. Court records show that back in 2015, the association had a pickleball court with taped lines, but it was damaged after only four months. This context is crucial. The 2019 decision to paint permanent lines was not just a reaction to new requests but an institutional lesson learned. It shows the Board was responding to a long-term, evolving interest and choosing a more durable solution, fulfilling its duty to adapt common resources to meet new demands.
4. An “Infringement” Requires an Actual Impediment
The petitioner’s legal argument was very specific. He claimed that adding pickleball “constitutes an infringement of tennis players’ right of use and enjoyment” and that having only one guaranteed tennis court is an “impediment of enjoyment rights.” He summarized his grievance with the line:
“Members have the right to play tennis unless pickleball is in play.”
However, the facts presented in court systematically dismantled this argument. The evidence showed:
• One of the two courts remained exclusively for tennis at all times.
• Both courts were still available for tennis on a first-come, first-served basis.
• The pickleball nets were portable and had to be detached at the end of play, leaving the court ready for tennis.
• Most critically, the petitioner himself testified that he had “never been denied access to the tennis courts at issue at any time.”
The judge determined that no violation occurred because the petitioner’s rights were never actually impeded. This reveals the critical legal distinction between an inconvenience and an infringement. The petitioner’s entire case rested on a hypothetical future inconvenience, but the law requires an actual, demonstrable impediment to rights. Since his own testimony confirmed one had never occurred, his claim was impossible to prove.
5. If You Demand a Rehearing, You Should Probably Show Up with an Argument
In a final, bizarre twist, the story doesn’t end with the initial ruling in February 2020. The petitioner filed a “REQUEST FOR REHEARING,” which the court granted, giving him a second chance to make his case.
To streamline the process, both parties agreed to skip a new evidentiary hearing and instead submit written “Closing Arguments” to the judge. The HOA’s legal team submitted a detailed, 17-page argument. What happened next was documented in the final court order:
OAH did not receive a closing argument from Petitioner.
The petitioner, who had initiated the entire legal process and successfully demanded a second chance, was given the final word. He had the opportunity to submit a closing argument that could have vindicated his entire complaint. Instead, he offered only silence. By ghosting his own rehearing, he left the judge with no choice but to conclude that he had once again “failed to sustain his burden of proof” and make the original ruling against him final.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: The Court of Community Opinion
This case is a fascinating lesson in the difference between a personal annoyance and an actual legal violation. It demonstrates that in the world of HOAs, feelings and hypothetical concerns carry little weight compared to the cold, hard text of the governing documents. Those documents give boards significant power, but also charge them with the difficult task of balancing the desires of all residents, not just the grievance of one.
As pickleball courts continue to replace shuffleboard courts and community gardens pop up in unused green spaces, this story leaves us with a critical question: As our communities change, how do we balance protecting the familiar traditions we love with making space for the new ones our neighbors are asking for?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Werner A Reis(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Edward O’Brien(attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Counsel for Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association
Mark Sall(attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Counsel for Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association (Also cited as Mark Sahl)
Charles Mitchell(board member, witness) Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association Current Director of the Association's Board
Arland Averell(board member, witness) Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association Served on the Board for the past twenty years
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH
Judy Lowe(commissioner) ADRE Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate
DGardner(department contact) ADRE Electronic contact for ADRE
c. serrano(staff) OAH Administrative staff/Clerk noted on document transmission
The Commissioner adopted the ALJ's recommendation to dismiss the petition, finding that the HOA was not required by the governing documents (CC&Rs) or state law (Arizona Condominium Act) to insure against damages to the interior finished surfaces of the petitioners' individual condominium unit.
Why this result: The CC&Rs put Petitioners on notice that Respondent was not required to provide insurance coverage for damages to their individual unit, and Petitioners did not establish that Respondent was responsible for the damages.
Key Issues & Findings
HOA responsibility to insure unit interior damages caused by sewer backup
Petitioners claimed Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs (specifically Sections 11.7.3 and 11.7.6) by not providing insurance coverage for $6,697.70 in damages to the interior of their individual unit caused by a sewer backup. The HOA contended the CC&Rs and Arizona Condominium Act place this responsibility on the unit owner.
Orders: The petition was dismissed, and no action was required of the Respondent.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1212(1)
A.R.S. § 33-1247(A)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Condominiums, Insurance Coverage, CC&Rs Interpretation, Unit Boundaries, Maintenance Responsibility
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1212(1)
A.R.S. § 33-1247(A)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
CC&Rs Article 11, Section 11.7.3
CC&Rs Article 11, Section 11.7.6
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
17F-H1716008-REL Decision – 528194.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:56:55 (58.8 KB)
17F-H1716008-REL Decision – 528432.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:56:56 (63.1 KB)
17F-H1716008-REL Decision – 535933.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:56:56 (131.6 KB)
17F-H1716008-REL Decision – 539997.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:56:57 (1010.1 KB)
Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716008-REL
Briefing: Gravelle v. Village Parc Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This briefing synthesizes the key findings and legal determinations from an administrative case between homeowners Jerry and Patricia Gravelle and the Village Parc Homeowners Association of Havasu (HOA). The dispute centered on liability for damages within the Gravelles’ condominium unit caused by a sewer backup.
The petition, filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, was ultimately dismissed. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded, and the Department Commissioner affirmed, that the HOA’s governing documents—the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)—unambiguously place the responsibility for insuring the interior of an individual unit on the unit owner, not the HOA.
The ruling established that the HOA’s master insurance policy, provided by Travelers, was only obligated to cover what the CC&Rs required. Arguments based on the HOA’s past payments for minor damages in other units, an erroneous initial statement by an insurance adjuster on a prior claim, and the HOA Board’s own mistaken interpretation of its duties were all found to be insufficient to override the plain written language of the governing documents. The final decision reinforces the principle that unit owners are responsible for understanding their CC&Rs and securing adequate personal insurance for their property.
I. Case Overview and Final Disposition
• Case Identification: No. 17F-H1716008-REL
• Parties:
◦ Petitioners: Jerry and Patricia Gravelle, owners of Unit 14 in the Village Parc development.
◦ Respondent: Village Parc Homeowners Assoc. of Havasu (“the Association”).
• Adjudicating Body: The case was heard in the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Diane Mihalsky. The final order was issued by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• Key Dates:
◦ Hearing Date: November 10, 2016
◦ ALJ Decision: December 22, 2016
◦ Final Order: January 3, 2017
• Final Disposition: The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, accepted the ALJ’s recommendation and ordered that the petition be dismissed. This constituted a final administrative action, effective immediately. Parties were advised of their right to file for rehearing or appeal for judicial review.
II. The Core Dispute: Insurance for Sewer Backup Damage
On or about October 23, 2015, the Petitioners’ condominium (Unit 14), along with two other units, suffered damage from a sewer backup. The central conflict arose from determining which party was financially responsible for the repairs inside the Petitioners’ unit.
• Petitioners’ Claim: The Gravelles filed a petition on August 31, 2016, alleging the Association violated Articles 11.7.3 and 11.7.6 of the CC&Rs by failing to provide insurance coverage for the full extent of the damages. Their personal insurance policy did not cover sewer backups. They requested the Association pay $6,697.70 to reimburse them for the loss that the Association’s insurer, Travelers, declined to cover.
• Insurance Claim Outcome:
◦ The Association submitted a claim for the sewer backup damages to its insurer, Travelers.
◦ Travelers determined that its policy covered damages to the common elements associated with the unit and issued a check to the Petitioners for $338.64.
◦ Travelers concluded there was no coverage under the policy for damage to the interior of the Petitioners’ unit. This denial was based on the CC&Rs, which establish that the unit owner is responsible for the finished surfaces and personal property within their unit.
III. Analysis of Governing Documents and Legal Framework
The ALJ’s decision was grounded in a strict interpretation of the Association’s CC&Rs, its insurance contract, and the Arizona Condominium Act.
Document / Statute
Key Provisions and Implications
Village Parc CC&Rs
Unit Definition (Sec. 2.2.1): A unit is defined as the space “bounded by and contained within the interior finished surfaces of the perimeter walls, floors and ceilings.”
Insurance Responsibility (Sec. 11.7.3): The Association’s master policy is explicitly “not be required to insure the personal property within any individual Unit, which insurance shall be the responsibility and risk of the Unit Owners.”
Liability Limitation (Sec. 11.7.5): The Association is not liable to any owner “if any risk or hazard is not covered by insurance or the amount is inadequate.” It places the burden on each owner to ascertain the Association’s coverage and procure their own additional insurance.
Travelers Insurance Policy
Conditional Coverage Endorsement: The policy covers certain property (fixtures, alterations, appliances) contained within a unit, but only “if your Condominium Association Agreement requires you to insure it.” Since the CC&Rs do not require the Association to insure unit interiors, this coverage was not triggered.
Primary Insurance: The policy states it is “intended to be primary, and not to contribute with such other insurance” a unit-owner may have.
Arizona Condominium Act
Unit Definition (A.R.S. § 33-1212(1)): Reinforces the CC&Rs by defining finished surfaces—”lath, furring, wallboard… tiles, wallpaper, paint, finished flooring”—as part of the unit. All other portions of walls, floors, or ceilings are common elements.
Maintenance Responsibility (A.R.S. § 33-1247(A)): The law specifies that “the association is responsible for maintenance, repair and replacement of the common elements and each unit owner is responsible for maintenance, repair and replacement of the unit.”
IV. Petitioners’ Arguments and the ALJ’s Rejection
The Petitioners presented evidence of past practices by both the Association and Travelers, arguing these created an expectation of coverage. The ALJ systematically rejected these arguments.
• Argument 1: The Association’s Past Payments for Unit Repairs
◦ Petitioners’ Evidence: The Association had authorized payments for repairs inside other units on prior occasions:
▪ June 2011: $153.74, $75.00, and $296.11 for damage to Units 3 and 5 from a broken shower drain.
▪ January 2012: $449.45 to repair kitchen cabinets in Unit 6 damaged by a broken roof vent.
◦ ALJ’s Conclusion: The fact that the Association’s Board made “actual payments of small amounts for damages to individually owned units” does not legally amend the plain language of the CC&Rs. Notably, the Association did not submit these prior incidents to its insurer.
• Argument 2: Travelers’ Prior Actions
◦ Petitioners’ Evidence: In a 2014 claim, a Travelers adjuster initially determined that the policy did provide coverage for damage done to a unit, not just limited common elements.
◦ ALJ’s Conclusion: Travelers later stated the adjuster had erred and confirmed no claim for unit damage was ultimately paid. The ALJ found that the “adjuster’s initial error in the 2014 claim does not estop Travelers from denying the claim for damages to Petitioners’ unit” in 2015.
• Argument 3: The Association Board’s Own Interpretation
◦ Petitioners’ Evidence: At a November 2015 board meeting, where Mr. Gravelle served as secretary/treasurer, the Board itself determined that the CC&Rs did require the Association to provide insurance coverage for all damages to Unit 14.
◦ ALJ’s Conclusion: The Board’s “erroneous opinion” does not have the legal power to amend the CC&Rs or the binding terms of the Travelers insurance policy.
V. Core Legal Principles and Final Decision
The dismissal of the petition was based on several foundational legal principles.
• Primacy of Written Documents: The decision gave superior weight to the “plain language” of the CC&Rs and the insurance contract over inconsistent past practices or mistaken interpretations.
• Burden of Proof: As the filing party, the Petitioners had the burden to prove by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association violated the CC&Rs. The ALJ determined they failed to meet this standard.
• Clear Delineation of Responsibility: Both the CC&Rs and Arizona state law create a clear separation of financial and maintenance responsibilities: the Association is responsible for common elements, while individual owners are responsible for their units.
• Presumption of Knowledge: The decision cited the legal principle that “Everyone is presumed to know the law.” The CC&Rs put the Petitioners on constructive notice that they were responsible for insuring their individual unit against risks like a sewer backup. Their failure to procure such coverage was their own responsibility.
The Commissioner adopted the ALJ's recommendation to dismiss the petition, finding that the HOA was not required by the governing documents (CC&Rs) or state law (Arizona Condominium Act) to insure against damages to the interior finished surfaces of the petitioners' individual condominium unit.
Why this result: The CC&Rs put Petitioners on notice that Respondent was not required to provide insurance coverage for damages to their individual unit, and Petitioners did not establish that Respondent was responsible for the damages.
Key Issues & Findings
HOA responsibility to insure unit interior damages caused by sewer backup
Petitioners claimed Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs (specifically Sections 11.7.3 and 11.7.6) by not providing insurance coverage for $6,697.70 in damages to the interior of their individual unit caused by a sewer backup. The HOA contended the CC&Rs and Arizona Condominium Act place this responsibility on the unit owner.
Orders: The petition was dismissed, and no action was required of the Respondent.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1212(1)
A.R.S. § 33-1247(A)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Condominiums, Insurance Coverage, CC&Rs Interpretation, Unit Boundaries, Maintenance Responsibility
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1212(1)
A.R.S. § 33-1247(A)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
CC&Rs Article 11, Section 11.7.3
CC&Rs Article 11, Section 11.7.6
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
17F-H1716008-REL Decision – 528194.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:01:04 (58.8 KB)
17F-H1716008-REL Decision – 528432.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:01:04 (63.1 KB)
17F-H1716008-REL Decision – 535933.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:01:05 (131.6 KB)
17F-H1716008-REL Decision – 539997.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:01:07 (1010.1 KB)
Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716008-REL
Briefing: Gravelle v. Village Parc Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This briefing synthesizes the key findings and legal determinations from an administrative case between homeowners Jerry and Patricia Gravelle and the Village Parc Homeowners Association of Havasu (HOA). The dispute centered on liability for damages within the Gravelles’ condominium unit caused by a sewer backup.
The petition, filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, was ultimately dismissed. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded, and the Department Commissioner affirmed, that the HOA’s governing documents—the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)—unambiguously place the responsibility for insuring the interior of an individual unit on the unit owner, not the HOA.
The ruling established that the HOA’s master insurance policy, provided by Travelers, was only obligated to cover what the CC&Rs required. Arguments based on the HOA’s past payments for minor damages in other units, an erroneous initial statement by an insurance adjuster on a prior claim, and the HOA Board’s own mistaken interpretation of its duties were all found to be insufficient to override the plain written language of the governing documents. The final decision reinforces the principle that unit owners are responsible for understanding their CC&Rs and securing adequate personal insurance for their property.
I. Case Overview and Final Disposition
• Case Identification: No. 17F-H1716008-REL
• Parties:
◦ Petitioners: Jerry and Patricia Gravelle, owners of Unit 14 in the Village Parc development.
◦ Respondent: Village Parc Homeowners Assoc. of Havasu (“the Association”).
• Adjudicating Body: The case was heard in the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Diane Mihalsky. The final order was issued by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• Key Dates:
◦ Hearing Date: November 10, 2016
◦ ALJ Decision: December 22, 2016
◦ Final Order: January 3, 2017
• Final Disposition: The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, accepted the ALJ’s recommendation and ordered that the petition be dismissed. This constituted a final administrative action, effective immediately. Parties were advised of their right to file for rehearing or appeal for judicial review.
II. The Core Dispute: Insurance for Sewer Backup Damage
On or about October 23, 2015, the Petitioners’ condominium (Unit 14), along with two other units, suffered damage from a sewer backup. The central conflict arose from determining which party was financially responsible for the repairs inside the Petitioners’ unit.
• Petitioners’ Claim: The Gravelles filed a petition on August 31, 2016, alleging the Association violated Articles 11.7.3 and 11.7.6 of the CC&Rs by failing to provide insurance coverage for the full extent of the damages. Their personal insurance policy did not cover sewer backups. They requested the Association pay $6,697.70 to reimburse them for the loss that the Association’s insurer, Travelers, declined to cover.
• Insurance Claim Outcome:
◦ The Association submitted a claim for the sewer backup damages to its insurer, Travelers.
◦ Travelers determined that its policy covered damages to the common elements associated with the unit and issued a check to the Petitioners for $338.64.
◦ Travelers concluded there was no coverage under the policy for damage to the interior of the Petitioners’ unit. This denial was based on the CC&Rs, which establish that the unit owner is responsible for the finished surfaces and personal property within their unit.
III. Analysis of Governing Documents and Legal Framework
The ALJ’s decision was grounded in a strict interpretation of the Association’s CC&Rs, its insurance contract, and the Arizona Condominium Act.
Document / Statute
Key Provisions and Implications
Village Parc CC&Rs
Unit Definition (Sec. 2.2.1): A unit is defined as the space “bounded by and contained within the interior finished surfaces of the perimeter walls, floors and ceilings.”
Insurance Responsibility (Sec. 11.7.3): The Association’s master policy is explicitly “not be required to insure the personal property within any individual Unit, which insurance shall be the responsibility and risk of the Unit Owners.”
Liability Limitation (Sec. 11.7.5): The Association is not liable to any owner “if any risk or hazard is not covered by insurance or the amount is inadequate.” It places the burden on each owner to ascertain the Association’s coverage and procure their own additional insurance.
Travelers Insurance Policy
Conditional Coverage Endorsement: The policy covers certain property (fixtures, alterations, appliances) contained within a unit, but only “if your Condominium Association Agreement requires you to insure it.” Since the CC&Rs do not require the Association to insure unit interiors, this coverage was not triggered.
Primary Insurance: The policy states it is “intended to be primary, and not to contribute with such other insurance” a unit-owner may have.
Arizona Condominium Act
Unit Definition (A.R.S. § 33-1212(1)): Reinforces the CC&Rs by defining finished surfaces—”lath, furring, wallboard… tiles, wallpaper, paint, finished flooring”—as part of the unit. All other portions of walls, floors, or ceilings are common elements.
Maintenance Responsibility (A.R.S. § 33-1247(A)): The law specifies that “the association is responsible for maintenance, repair and replacement of the common elements and each unit owner is responsible for maintenance, repair and replacement of the unit.”
IV. Petitioners’ Arguments and the ALJ’s Rejection
The Petitioners presented evidence of past practices by both the Association and Travelers, arguing these created an expectation of coverage. The ALJ systematically rejected these arguments.
• Argument 1: The Association’s Past Payments for Unit Repairs
◦ Petitioners’ Evidence: The Association had authorized payments for repairs inside other units on prior occasions:
▪ June 2011: $153.74, $75.00, and $296.11 for damage to Units 3 and 5 from a broken shower drain.
▪ January 2012: $449.45 to repair kitchen cabinets in Unit 6 damaged by a broken roof vent.
◦ ALJ’s Conclusion: The fact that the Association’s Board made “actual payments of small amounts for damages to individually owned units” does not legally amend the plain language of the CC&Rs. Notably, the Association did not submit these prior incidents to its insurer.
• Argument 2: Travelers’ Prior Actions
◦ Petitioners’ Evidence: In a 2014 claim, a Travelers adjuster initially determined that the policy did provide coverage for damage done to a unit, not just limited common elements.
◦ ALJ’s Conclusion: Travelers later stated the adjuster had erred and confirmed no claim for unit damage was ultimately paid. The ALJ found that the “adjuster’s initial error in the 2014 claim does not estop Travelers from denying the claim for damages to Petitioners’ unit” in 2015.
• Argument 3: The Association Board’s Own Interpretation
◦ Petitioners’ Evidence: At a November 2015 board meeting, where Mr. Gravelle served as secretary/treasurer, the Board itself determined that the CC&Rs did require the Association to provide insurance coverage for all damages to Unit 14.
◦ ALJ’s Conclusion: The Board’s “erroneous opinion” does not have the legal power to amend the CC&Rs or the binding terms of the Travelers insurance policy.
V. Core Legal Principles and Final Decision
The dismissal of the petition was based on several foundational legal principles.
• Primacy of Written Documents: The decision gave superior weight to the “plain language” of the CC&Rs and the insurance contract over inconsistent past practices or mistaken interpretations.
• Burden of Proof: As the filing party, the Petitioners had the burden to prove by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association violated the CC&Rs. The ALJ determined they failed to meet this standard.
• Clear Delineation of Responsibility: Both the CC&Rs and Arizona state law create a clear separation of financial and maintenance responsibilities: the Association is responsible for common elements, while individual owners are responsible for their units.
• Presumption of Knowledge: The decision cited the legal principle that “Everyone is presumed to know the law.” The CC&Rs put the Petitioners on constructive notice that they were responsible for insuring their individual unit against risks like a sewer backup. Their failure to procure such coverage was their own responsibility.
