Tag Archives: CC&Rs

Michael J Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020059-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-02-12
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs § 5.1; A.R.S. § 10-3842

Outcome Summary

The Petition was dismissed after rehearing because Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs. The ALJ found that Petitioner continually refused Respondent access to his locked back yard for landscaping maintenance, and the CC&Rs requiring landscaping do not mandate pool maintenance.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation due to refusal of access to the back yard and misinterpretation of CC&R obligations regarding pool maintenance.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to maintain landscaping and acting in bad faith

Petitioner alleged Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs by failing to maintain landscaping in 2020 and acting in bad faith, asserting that pool/hardscape maintenance was included in landscaping duties, and requesting the maximum fine. Respondent countered that they consistently maintained the front yard but were denied access to the locked backyard due to Petitioner's pool liability concerns.

Orders: Petitioner's Petition was dismissed/denied as Petitioner failed to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. However, Respondent was ordered, going forward, to communicate the days and times they will be performing back yard landscaping so Petitioner can provide access.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • CC&Rs § 5.1
  • CC&Rs § 5.1(a)
  • A.R.S. § 10-3842
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-1122(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Duties, Landscaping, Pool Maintenance, CC&Rs, Access Refusal, Rehearing
Additional Citations:

  • CC&Rs § 5.1
  • CC&Rs § 5.1(a)
  • A.R.S. § 10-3842
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-1122(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020059-REL Decision – 815480.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:33:21 (124.1 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020059-REL


Briefing Document: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from two administrative hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg (Petitioner) and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute centers on the scope of landscaping maintenance obligations as defined by the association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

The Petitioner alleged the HOA failed its duties under CC&Rs § 5.1 by not maintaining his property’s unique landscaping, which he argued included replenishing rock, staining paths, and servicing his swimming pool and associated hardscape. He further claimed the HOA was acting in bad faith and failing to comply with a previous court ruling.

The Respondent countered that it had consistently performed standard landscaping on the Petitioner’s front yard since January 2020. However, it was repeatedly denied access to the backyard, a fact the Petitioner admitted, citing liability concerns due to his pool. The HOA provided evidence of multiple attempts to access the yard and testimony that its maintenance duties are uniform across the community and do not include “concierge” services or pool maintenance.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed the petition in both the initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing. The final decision rested on two key points: 1) The Petitioner failed to provide access to the area in question, preventing the HOA from performing its duties. 2) The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the term “landscaping” under the CC&Rs could be reasonably interpreted to include swimming pool maintenance. This conclusion was strongly supported by the separate licensing classifications for landscaping (R-21) and swimming pool service (R-6) issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, which establishes them as distinct services under state regulation.

Case Overview

Parties and Key Personnel

Name/Entity

Affiliation / Title

Petitioner

Michael J. Stoltenberg

Homeowner, 11777 E. Calle Gaudi, Yuma, AZ

Respondent

Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

Respondent Counsel

Nicole Payne, Esq.

Legal Representative

Respondent Witness

Diana Crites

Owner, Crites and Associates (Property Management Co.)

Respondent Witness

Rian Baas

Owner, Mowtown Landscape (HOA Landscaping Contractor)

Presiding Judge

Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

Case Details

Details

Initial Case No.

20F-H2020059-REL

Initial Hearing

August 3, 2020

Initial Decision

August 17, 2020

Rehearing Case No.

20F-H2020059-REL-RHG

Rehearing

February 2, 2021

Rehearing Decision

February 12, 2021

Core Dispute

The central conflict involved the interpretation of the HOA’s maintenance obligations under its governing documents. The Petitioner argued for an expansive definition of “landscaping” that encompassed his entire property exterior, including a swimming pool. The HOA maintained that its duties were limited to standard, uniform landscaping services and that pool maintenance was explicitly excluded. The dispute was compounded by the Petitioner’s refusal to grant the HOA’s landscaper access to his backyard.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments

Mr. Stoltenberg’s petition, filed on or about April 21, 2020, and subsequent arguments in two hearings, were based on the following claims:

• Violation of CC&Rs: The HOA violated § 5.1 of its CC&Rs by failing “to do their job in 2020 with maintaining landscaping, and are acting in bad faith.”

• Broad Interpretation of “Landscaping”: As the CC&Rs do not define “landscaping,” the Petitioner contended it should include all types of features outside of structures. His specific demands included:

◦ Maintenance of unique xeriscape with geometric patterns.

◦ Replenishment of thin or worn-out rock ground cover.

◦ Staining of walking paths.

◦ Full maintenance of his “water feature,” identified as a swimming pool. This included the pump, filter, chemicals, patio, and all related hardscape.

• Refusal to Grant Access: The Petitioner acknowledged that the gate to his backyard was “always locked.” He stated this was for liability reasons due to the pool and refused access to the HOA’s landscapers. At the rehearing, he argued the HOA failed to communicate its schedule to allow him to provide temporary access.

• Budgetary Failure: He asserted that the HOA did not properly budget for the costs associated with maintaining his unique landscaping.

• Grounds for Rehearing: After the initial denial, the Petitioner requested a rehearing on multiple grounds, including irregularity in proceedings, errors in evidence admission, and claims of “Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues” related to hearing loss.

Respondent’s Position and Evidence

The Rancho Del Oro HOA presented a defense centered on its consistent attempts to fulfill its obligations and the Petitioner’s own actions preventing them from doing so.

• Consistent Front Yard Maintenance: Both the HOA property manager and its landscaping contractor testified that the Petitioner’s front yard had been continuously maintained since landscaping services began in January 2020.

• Denial of Backyard Access: The HOA’s primary defense was that it was physically prevented from servicing the backyard. Evidence presented to support this included:

◦ Testimony from Rian Baas (Mowtown Landscape): His crews were at the property weekly. Between January and March 2020, he or his crew knocked and left notes or business cards four to five times with no response.

◦ Witness Testimony: In March 2020, a woman at the residence (presumably the Petitioner’s wife) explicitly instructed a landscaper that “she does not want anyone in the back yard because she had a pool and that is the reason for the lock on gate.”

◦ Documentary Evidence: A text message dated March 24, 2020, from Mr. Baas to property manager Diana Crites memorialized this interaction. A photograph of the locked gate was also submitted.

• Scope of Services: Ms. Crites testified that HOA landscape services are uniform throughout the community and include front yard maintenance, mowing and blowing in backyards (if access is granted), and sprinkler system upkeep. They do not provide “concierge” services such as maintaining potted plants, driveways, or pools (except for the community pool, which is serviced by a separate contractor).

• Access as a Prerequisite: Ms. Crites explained that backyard maintenance is contingent on homeowners leaving their gates unlocked, and some owners choose not to grant access due to pets or other reasons.

Judicial Findings and Rulings

Initial Decision (August 17, 2020)

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s initial petition based on a clear set of facts.

• Findings of Fact: The judge found the evidence presented by the Respondent to be credible. The Petitioner’s own admission that he refused to allow access to his backyard since January 2020 was a critical factor. The evidence established that the HOA had consistently maintained the front yard and made multiple, documented attempts to access the backyard.

• Conclusions of Law: The judge concluded that while § 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs requires the HOA to maintain yards, “nothing therein requires Respondent to maintain an individual member’s pool.” Because the Petitioner denied access, he could not establish that the Respondent had violated any CC&R.

Rehearing and Final Decision (February 12, 2021)

After the Commissioner for the Department of Real Estate granted a rehearing, the judge again reviewed the case and ultimately dismissed the petition, providing a more detailed legal analysis of the term “landscaping.”

• Burden of Proof: The judge reiterated that the Petitioner bore the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA was legally obligated to maintain his pool and hardscape. The Petitioner failed to offer any definition or legal authority to support his expansive interpretation.

• Analysis of “Landscaping”: The judge found that the common definitions of “landscaping” from various dictionary and legal sources “cannot reasonably be read to include a swimming pool and the associated mechanical equipment.”

• Arizona Registrar of Contractors (ROC) Licensing: The judge’s conclusion was decisively reinforced by the State of Arizona’s contractor licensing classifications:

◦ The R-21 Hardscaping and Irrigation Systems license (formerly Landscaping) is for installing garden walls, irrigation, and other landscape features. It specifically precludes the licensee from contracting for “swimming pools, pool deck coatings.”

◦ The R-6 Swimming Pool Service and Repair license is a separate classification required to service residential pools.

◦ The judge concluded: “The Registrar’s licensing scheme supports a conclusion that landscaping maintenance and pool maintenance are two separate and distinct services.”

• Final Order: The petition was dismissed. The judge noted that because the Petitioner denied access, the Respondent was not in violation. However, the judge provided a forward-looking recommendation: “it is reasonable, going forward, for Respondent to communicate the days and times that it will be performing the landscaping of Petitioner’s back yard so that Petitioner can provide access for that service while maintaining safety precautions.”






Study Guide – 20F-H2020059-REL


Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association. It covers the key arguments, evidence presented, and legal conclusions from two separate hearings. Use the following sections to test and deepen your understanding of the case.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing all information from the provided case documents.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this legal dispute, and what were their respective roles?

2. What was the core allegation made by the Petitioner against the Respondent in the initial petition filed on April 21, 2020?

3. According to Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs, what is the Association’s primary maintenance obligation regarding individual lots?

4. What specific and unique types of landscaping did the Petitioner claim required maintenance by the HOA?

5. What was the primary reason the Respondent’s landscaping contractor, Mowtown Landscape, was unable to perform maintenance in the Petitioner’s backyard?

6. What evidence did Diana Crites, the property manager, present to demonstrate the landscaper’s attempts to gain access to the backyard?

7. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge initially deny the Petitioner’s petition in the decision dated August 17, 2020?

8. What reasons did the Petitioner give for his request for a rehearing after the initial decision?

9. In the rehearing, how did the Administrative Law Judge legally define “landscaping” to determine the scope of the HOA’s duties?

10. What was the final order in the decision dated February 12, 2021, and what recommendation did the judge make for future interactions?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Michael J. Stoltenberg, the homeowner, who served as the Petitioner, and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, which was the Respondent. The Petitioner brought the complaint alleging the HOA was not fulfilling its duties, while the Respondent defended its actions. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) § 5.1 and Arizona Revised Statutes § 10-3842. Specifically, he claimed the HOA failed “to do their job in 2020 with maintaining landscaping, and are acting in bad faith.” He also referenced a refusal to follow a previous court ruling.

3. Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs states that the Association’s maintenance duties “shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” This clause formed the basis of the Petitioner’s argument that the HOA was responsible for all landscaping on his property.

4. The Petitioner testified that his landscaping was unique, including xeriscape with geometric patterns, “water features” (which was a pool), and walking paths that needed staining. He also contended that when the rock in his front yard wore thin, the Respondent should be responsible for replenishing it.

5. The landscaping contractor could not access the Petitioner’s backyard because the gate was always locked. The Petitioner acknowledged he kept it locked for liability reasons due to the presence of his pool, which he referred to as a “water feature.”

6. Diana Crites presented a text message from the landscaper, Rian Baas, dated March 24, 2020, detailing how a woman at the residence stated she did not want anyone in the backyard because of the pool. Ms. Crites also presented a photograph of the locked gate and read a letter from Mr. Baas explaining his crew had knocked and left business cards weekly for two months without response.

7. The judge denied the petition because the Petitioner’s own admission established that he had refused to allow the Respondent access to his backyard since January 2020. The decision noted that the HOA had made multiple attempts to access the yard and had consistently maintained the front yard landscaping.

8. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on multiple grounds, including alleged irregularity in the proceedings by the judge, newly discovered evidence, errors in the admission of evidence, and that the decision was not supported by evidence. He also asserted that there were Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues related to his hearing loss and privacy issues.

9. The judge referenced multiple online dictionaries (Oxford English Dictionary, Dictionary.com, etc.) and, most significantly, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ license classifications. She noted that landscaping (R-21 license) and swimming pool service (R-6 license) are two separate and distinct services, supporting the conclusion that pool maintenance is not included under the term “landscaping.”

10. The final order was that the Petitioner’s Petition was dismissed. However, the judge recommended that, going forward, it would be reasonable for the Respondent to communicate the days and times for landscaping so the Petitioner could provide access to his backyard while maintaining his safety precautions.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, structuring your answer as a short essay.

1. Analyze the role of “burden of proof” in this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means according to the source text and discuss how the Petitioner’s failure to meet this burden led to the dismissal of his petition in both hearings.

2. Discuss the conflict between the Petitioner’s right to secure his property (the locked gate) and the Respondent’s obligation to perform maintenance. How did the judge’s final recommendation attempt to resolve this practical conflict, even while legally siding with the Respondent?

3. Evaluate the Administrative Law Judge’s legal reasoning in the rehearing for defining “landscaping.” Why was the reference to the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ licensing scheme a particularly persuasive piece of evidence compared to dictionary definitions alone?

4. Trace the evolution of the Petitioner’s arguments from the initial hearing to the rehearing. How did his claims regarding the scope of “landscaping” and his introduction of issues like ADA accommodation and the HOA’s legitimacy reflect a shift in legal strategy?

5. Based on the evidence presented by the Respondent’s witnesses (Diana Crites and Rian Baas), assess the HOA’s efforts to fulfill its maintenance obligations. Were the HOA’s actions reasonable under the circumstances described in the proceedings?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella served as the ALJ for the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The codified laws of the state of Arizona. The Petitioner cited A.R.S. § 10-3842 (Code of Conduct for Board Members) and the proceedings operated under the authority of A.R.S. § 32-2199(B) and other related statutes.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community. The central issue of this case was the interpretation of Section 5.1(a) of the Rancho Del Oro HOA’s CC&Rs regarding maintenance duties.

Concierge Landscape Services

A term used by witness Diana Crites to describe specialized, non-uniform services the HOA does not provide. Examples given included maintaining potted plants, driveways, or walls dividing properties, in contrast to the uniform mowing and blowing provided to all homeowners.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies. This office heard the dispute after it was referred by the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal case. In this matter, the Petitioner was homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioner to win his case. It is defined as “such 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 matter, the Respondent was the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.

Xeriscape

A style of landscaping utilizing drought-tolerant plants and rock to minimize water use. The Petitioner mentioned his unique xeriscape with geometric patterns as part of the landscaping he expected the HOA to maintain.






Blog Post – 20F-H2020059-REL


Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association. It covers the key arguments, evidence presented, and legal conclusions from two separate hearings. Use the following sections to test and deepen your understanding of the case.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing all information from the provided case documents.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this legal dispute, and what were their respective roles?

2. What was the core allegation made by the Petitioner against the Respondent in the initial petition filed on April 21, 2020?

3. According to Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs, what is the Association’s primary maintenance obligation regarding individual lots?

4. What specific and unique types of landscaping did the Petitioner claim required maintenance by the HOA?

5. What was the primary reason the Respondent’s landscaping contractor, Mowtown Landscape, was unable to perform maintenance in the Petitioner’s backyard?

6. What evidence did Diana Crites, the property manager, present to demonstrate the landscaper’s attempts to gain access to the backyard?

7. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge initially deny the Petitioner’s petition in the decision dated August 17, 2020?

8. What reasons did the Petitioner give for his request for a rehearing after the initial decision?

9. In the rehearing, how did the Administrative Law Judge legally define “landscaping” to determine the scope of the HOA’s duties?

10. What was the final order in the decision dated February 12, 2021, and what recommendation did the judge make for future interactions?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Michael J. Stoltenberg, the homeowner, who served as the Petitioner, and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, which was the Respondent. The Petitioner brought the complaint alleging the HOA was not fulfilling its duties, while the Respondent defended its actions. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) § 5.1 and Arizona Revised Statutes § 10-3842. Specifically, he claimed the HOA failed “to do their job in 2020 with maintaining landscaping, and are acting in bad faith.” He also referenced a refusal to follow a previous court ruling.

3. Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs states that the Association’s maintenance duties “shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” This clause formed the basis of the Petitioner’s argument that the HOA was responsible for all landscaping on his property.

4. The Petitioner testified that his landscaping was unique, including xeriscape with geometric patterns, “water features” (which was a pool), and walking paths that needed staining. He also contended that when the rock in his front yard wore thin, the Respondent should be responsible for replenishing it.

5. The landscaping contractor could not access the Petitioner’s backyard because the gate was always locked. The Petitioner acknowledged he kept it locked for liability reasons due to the presence of his pool, which he referred to as a “water feature.”

6. Diana Crites presented a text message from the landscaper, Rian Baas, dated March 24, 2020, detailing how a woman at the residence stated she did not want anyone in the backyard because of the pool. Ms. Crites also presented a photograph of the locked gate and read a letter from Mr. Baas explaining his crew had knocked and left business cards weekly for two months without response.

7. The judge denied the petition because the Petitioner’s own admission established that he had refused to allow the Respondent access to his backyard since January 2020. The decision noted that the HOA had made multiple attempts to access the yard and had consistently maintained the front yard landscaping.

8. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on multiple grounds, including alleged irregularity in the proceedings by the judge, newly discovered evidence, errors in the admission of evidence, and that the decision was not supported by evidence. He also asserted that there were Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues related to his hearing loss and privacy issues.

9. The judge referenced multiple online dictionaries (Oxford English Dictionary, Dictionary.com, etc.) and, most significantly, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ license classifications. She noted that landscaping (R-21 license) and swimming pool service (R-6 license) are two separate and distinct services, supporting the conclusion that pool maintenance is not included under the term “landscaping.”

10. The final order was that the Petitioner’s Petition was dismissed. However, the judge recommended that, going forward, it would be reasonable for the Respondent to communicate the days and times for landscaping so the Petitioner could provide access to his backyard while maintaining his safety precautions.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, structuring your answer as a short essay.

1. Analyze the role of “burden of proof” in this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means according to the source text and discuss how the Petitioner’s failure to meet this burden led to the dismissal of his petition in both hearings.

2. Discuss the conflict between the Petitioner’s right to secure his property (the locked gate) and the Respondent’s obligation to perform maintenance. How did the judge’s final recommendation attempt to resolve this practical conflict, even while legally siding with the Respondent?

3. Evaluate the Administrative Law Judge’s legal reasoning in the rehearing for defining “landscaping.” Why was the reference to the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ licensing scheme a particularly persuasive piece of evidence compared to dictionary definitions alone?

4. Trace the evolution of the Petitioner’s arguments from the initial hearing to the rehearing. How did his claims regarding the scope of “landscaping” and his introduction of issues like ADA accommodation and the HOA’s legitimacy reflect a shift in legal strategy?

5. Based on the evidence presented by the Respondent’s witnesses (Diana Crites and Rian Baas), assess the HOA’s efforts to fulfill its maintenance obligations. Were the HOA’s actions reasonable under the circumstances described in the proceedings?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella served as the ALJ for the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The codified laws of the state of Arizona. The Petitioner cited A.R.S. § 10-3842 (Code of Conduct for Board Members) and the proceedings operated under the authority of A.R.S. § 32-2199(B) and other related statutes.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community. The central issue of this case was the interpretation of Section 5.1(a) of the Rancho Del Oro HOA’s CC&Rs regarding maintenance duties.

Concierge Landscape Services

A term used by witness Diana Crites to describe specialized, non-uniform services the HOA does not provide. Examples given included maintaining potted plants, driveways, or walls dividing properties, in contrast to the uniform mowing and blowing provided to all homeowners.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies. This office heard the dispute after it was referred by the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal case. In this matter, the Petitioner was homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioner to win his case. It is defined as “such 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 matter, the Respondent was the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.

Xeriscape

A style of landscaping utilizing drought-tolerant plants and rock to minimize water use. The Petitioner mentioned his unique xeriscape with geometric patterns as part of the landscaping he expected the HOA to maintain.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Michael J. Stoltenberg (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Nicole Payne (HOA attorney)
    Represented Respondent Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
  • Diana Crites (property manager)
    Crites and Associates
    Owner of Respondent’s property management company; appeared as witness
  • Rian Baas (witness)
    Mowtown Landscape
    Owner of landscaping company contracted by Respondent
  • Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
    Listed as recipient of the decision
  • Luis (employee)
    Mowtown Landscape (Implied)
    Crew member mentioned in text message regarding attempted access to petitioner's yard
  • Jill (employee)
    Mowtown Landscape (Implied)
    Printed papers for Luis regarding access to petitioner's yard

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Jennie Bennett v. Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association

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

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019002-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-02-26
Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jennie Bennett Counsel Maxwell Riddiough
Respondent Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ordered that Petitioner Jennie Bennett's Petition be dismissed because Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the cited sections of the CC&Rs.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the backflow flap was a common element maintenance responsibility under CC&Rs Sections 12(c) or 12(h)(1).

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of community documents regarding maintenance responsibility for sewage backflow flap.

Petitioner asserted the HOA violated CC&Rs Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) by refusing to pay for repairs to a malfunctioning backflow flap that caused a sewage overflow, arguing the HOA was responsible for maintenance.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Section 12(c)
  • CC&Rs Section 12(h)(1)
  • CC&Rs Section 15

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&Rs, Maintenance Responsibility, Plumbing, Sewage Overflow
Additional Citations:

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019002-REL-RHG Decision – 771959.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:27 (103.3 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2019002-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Jennie Bennett vs. Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings, arguments, and conclusions from the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case number 20F-H2019002-REL-RHG, concerning a dispute between homeowner Jennie Bennett (Petitioner) and the Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association (Respondent).

The core of the dispute was the financial responsibility for repairing a malfunctioning sewage backflow valve that caused an overflow at the petitioner’s residence. The petitioner argued that the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (CC&Rs), specifically Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1), by refusing to cover the repair costs. The petitioner’s claim was complicated by the fact that the HOA had, just two weeks prior to the incident, rescinded a “Sewer Maintenance Policy” that had previously addressed such issues. The petitioner stated she was not notified of this rescission.

The respondent contended that the backflow valve was located on the petitioner’s private property, not in a common area, making its maintenance the petitioner’s responsibility under Section 15 of the CC&Rs. The HOA asserted that the 2017 policy was rescinded precisely because legal guidance confirmed this distinction. The HOA also maintained that notice of the rescission was sent to all homeowners.

The ALJ ultimately ruled in favor of the respondent, dismissing the petitioner’s petition. The decision concluded that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof—a preponderance of the evidence—to establish that the backflow valve was a common element covered by the cited CC&R sections. The evidence, including a plat map and photos, demonstrated the valve was on the petitioner’s private property. While the timing of the policy rescission was deemed “extremely unfortunate,” the ALJ found that once rescinded, the HOA was no longer obligated to share repair costs.

I. Case Overview

• Case Name: Jennie Bennett, Petitioner, vs. Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association, Respondent.

• Case Number: 20F-H2019002-REL-RHG

• Forum: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

• Administrative Law Judge: Antara Nath Rivera

• Hearing Date: February 7, 2020

• Decision Date: February 26, 2020

• Core Allegation: The petitioner alleged that the HOA violated community documents, specifically Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) of the CC&Rs.

II. Central Dispute and Timeline of Events

The central issue was whether the HOA was responsible for the cost of repairing a malfunctioning sewage backflow flap on the petitioner’s property.

• March 2017: The HOA adopts a “Sewer Maintenance Policy” to outline processes for sewage maintenance.

• February 13, 2019: The HOA Board rescinds the Sewer Maintenance Policy.

• March 3, 2019: Petitioner Jennie Bennett experiences a sewage overflow at her residence due to a malfunctioning backflow valve.

• March – May 2019: The petitioner brings her concerns to the HOA board at multiple meetings but receives no response.

• May 22, 2019: The HOA responds to the petitioner after receiving a letter from her attorney.

• July 10, 2019: The petitioner files a Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

III. Petitioner’s Position and Arguments (Jennie Bennett)

The petitioner, a resident for 20 years, argued that the HOA was liable for the repair costs based on the following points:

• CC&R Violation: The refusal to pay for the repair constituted a violation of Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) of the CC&Rs, which pertain to the HOA’s duty to maintain sewer lines and common elements.

• Lack of Notice: The petitioner testified she was not notified of the policy rescission on February 13, 2019. The sewage overflow occurred just two weeks later, and upon reporting it, she was informed by a neighbor that the HOA had historically covered such issues.

• Procedural Failure: The HOA failed to address her concerns at the March, April, or May board meetings, only engaging after her attorney intervened.

• Community Support: The petitioner collected 97 signatures on a grassroots petition asking the HOA to cover the repair due to the short time frame between the policy rescission and the incident, and the lack of notice. The petition stated: “I am asking to be covered because of the 2 week time frame and no notice. I agree with being covered by the HOA for the flap.”

IV. Respondent’s Position and Arguments (Catalina Del Rey HOA)

The HOA, represented by community manager Vanessa Lubinsky of Cadden Community Management, presented a defense centered on the distinction between private and common property.

• Private Property Responsibility: The HOA’s primary argument was that the backflow flap was located on the petitioner’s private property and was therefore her responsibility to maintain under Section 15 of the CC&Rs, which governs utilities like plumbing within a homeowner’s lot.

• Evidence of Location: The respondent submitted a plat map and photographs as evidence. The photos illustrated that the backflow flap was located “next to Petitioner’s walk up to her front door,” well within her property lines and not on common elements.

• Plumbing vs. Sewer Issue: Ms. Lubinsky characterized the problem as a “plumbing issue, not a sewer issue,” because of its location on private property.

• Rationale for Policy Change: The 2017 Sewer Maintenance Policy was rescinded after the HOA received “additional legal guidance” confirming that backflow flaps were within homeowners’ units and thus their responsibility under Section 15.

• Notice and Procedure: Ms. Lubinsky testified that notice of the rescission was issued to homeowners via both email and postal mail (postcards). She clarified that the rescission was a board decision that did not require a homeowner vote, as it was not an amendment to the CC&Rs.

V. Relevant Sections of the CC&Rs

The dispute hinged on the interpretation of the following sections of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements.

Section

Quoted Text from the Decision

Section 12(c)

“The Association shall maintain and landscape all front and side years open to the street, and shall maintain sewer lines, sidewalks, walkways, brick trim, streets and common recreation areas. …The words “repair or maintain” shall not be construed that the Association shall repair or maintain any individual lot owner’s roof or similar structure.”

Section 12(h)(1)

“Each such lot will be subject to assessments and the owner thereof shall pay to the Associations assessments as follows: Such lots pro rata share of the actual cost to the Association of all repair, maintenance, safety and control of common elements, including but not limited to maintenance of walkways, sidewalks, streets and sewers, care of lawns and landscaping in common areas and front and side yards of residences… .”

Section 15

(Described, not quoted) This section provides that the homeowner is responsible for the maintenance of utilities such as electricity and plumbing on their private property, similar to a single-family residence.

VI. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Ruling

The ALJ’s decision was based on the petitioner’s failure to meet the required burden of proof.

• Burden of Proof: The petitioner was required to establish the HOA’s violation by a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning proof that convinces the trier of fact the contention is more probably true than not.

• Factual Determination: The judge found that the evidence, specifically the photos and plat map, demonstrated conclusively that the backflow flap was on the petitioner’s private property near her front door.

• Conclusion on CC&Rs: Because the flap was determined not to be located within a common area, the petitioner failed to establish that it fell under the purview of Sections 12(c) or 12(h)(1). Therefore, she failed to prove the HOA had a responsibility to repair it under those sections.

• Effect of Policy Rescission: The judge acknowledged, “It was extremely unfortunate that Petitioner experienced such a sewage overflow just after Respondent rescinded the Policy.” However, the ruling stated that once the policy was rescinded, the HOA “was not obligated to share the cost of repairs.”

• Final Order: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Jennie Bennett’s Petition be dismissed.” The order is binding on the parties, with any appeal required to be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days of service.






Study Guide – 20F-H2019002-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Bennett v. Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing all information directly from the case text.

1. Who were the Petitioner and the Respondent in this case, and what was the legal case number?

2. What specific sections of the community documents did Petitioner Jennie Bennett allege the Respondent had violated?

3. Describe the incident that prompted the dispute and the date on which it occurred.

4. What was the “Sewer Maintenance Policy,” when was it adopted, and when was it rescinded?

5. According to the Respondent’s manager, Vanessa Lubinsky, why was the repair Jennie Bennett’s financial responsibility?

6. What evidence did the Respondent present to prove the location of the malfunctioning backflow flap?

7. What steps did Jennie Bennett take to rally support from her neighbors after the Respondent did not address her concerns?

8. What is the legal standard for the burden of proof in this case, and which party does it fall on?

9. According to Section 12(c) of the CC&Rs, what specific areas is the Homeowners Association responsible for maintaining?

10. What was the final ruling, or “Order,” issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was Jennie Bennett, represented by attorney Maxwell Riddiough. The Respondent was the Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association, represented by attorney Nathan Tennyson. The case number was 20F-H2019002-REL-RHG.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (CC&Rs). This was noted as a single-issue petition.

3. On or about March 3, 2019, the Petitioner experienced a sewage overflow into her house. The overflow was caused by malfunctioning backflow valves.

4. The Sewer Maintenance Policy was a policy adopted in March 2017 to outline the process for sewage maintenance issues. It was rescinded by the HOA Board on February 13, 2019, shortly before the Petitioner’s incident.

5. Vanessa Lubinsky testified that the issue was the Petitioner’s responsibility because the malfunctioning backflow flap was located on her private property. Under Section 15 of the CC&Rs, homeowners are responsible for the maintenance of their own plumbing, electricity, and other utilities.

6. The Respondent presented a plat map, which specified all property lines, and photos. This evidence illustrated that the backflow flap was located inside the lines of the Petitioner’s private property, next to the walk-up to her front door, and not on common elements.

7. The Petitioner obtained 97 signatures on a “Grassroots petition.” The petition explained her situation and argued that she should be covered by the HOA for the repair due to the short time between the policy rescission and her incident, and because she had not received written notice.

8. The legal standard is “preponderance of the evidence,” which means the proof must convince the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not. The burden of proof fell on the Petitioner, Jennie Bennett, to establish that the Respondent committed the alleged violations.

9. Section 12(c) states the Association is responsible for maintaining and landscaping front and side yards open to the street. It also specifies the Association’s duty to maintain sewer lines, sidewalks, walkways, brick trim, streets, and common recreation areas.

10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that Petitioner Jennie Bennett’s Petition be dismissed. The judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent had violated the CC&Rs.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, analytical understanding of the case. Formulate a detailed essay response for each prompt, using specific evidence and arguments from the provided text to support your conclusions.

1. Analyze and contrast the core arguments presented by the Petitioner, Jennie Bennett, and the Respondent, Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association. How did each party use the CC&Rs and the Sewer Maintenance Policy to support their position?

2. Discuss the significance of the Sewer Maintenance Policy’s rescission. Evaluate the timing of the rescission relative to the Petitioner’s incident and the arguments made regarding notification to homeowners.

3. Explain the legal concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the case document. How did Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera apply this standard to the evidence presented by both parties to reach a final decision?

4. Evaluate the role of physical evidence, specifically the plat map and photographs, in the outcome of this hearing. Why was determining the precise location of the backflow flap the central issue of the case?

5. From an ethical and community governance perspective, discuss the actions of the Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association. Consider their decision to rescind the policy, the method of notification, and their initial responses (or lack thereof) to Ms. Bennett’s requests at the board meetings.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Antara Nath Rivera, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and makes legal decisions and orders.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal case to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof.

Common Elements

Areas within the HOA community that are not part of an individual homeowner’s private property and are maintained by the Association. Examples from the text include walkways, sidewalks, streets, sewers, and recreation areas.

Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (CC&Rs)

The governing legal documents that outline the rules, obligations, and restrictions for a planned community. The Petitioner alleged a violation of Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) of these documents.

Homeowners Association (HOA)

The community organization, Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association, responsible for managing and maintaining the common elements of a planned community as defined by the CC&Rs.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, the Petitioner was homeowner Jennie Bennett.

Plat Map

A map, drawn to scale, showing the divisions of a piece of land. In this case, it was used as evidence to specify all property lines, including the Petitioner’s.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required to win the case, defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is “more probably true than not.” It is described as the “greater weight of the evidence.”

Rescission

The act of canceling or revoking a policy or decision. The HOA Board rescinded its Sewer Maintenance Policy on February 13, 2019.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent was the Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association.






Blog Post – 20F-H2019002-REL-RHG


A Homeowner’s Sewage Nightmare: 5 Surprising Lessons from a Losing Battle with an HOA

Introduction: The Dreaded HOA Letter

For many homeowners, the greatest fear isn’t a storm or a failing appliance; it’s a sudden, catastrophic repair bill. This anxiety is often magnified for those living in a planned community, where another layer of complexity—the Homeowners Association (HOA)—governs every aspect of property maintenance. A dispute with the HOA can turn a straightforward repair into a frustrating and expensive legal battle.

The case of Jennie Bennett, a resident in her home for 20 years, and the Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association is a stark cautionary tale. After a sewage overflow caused by a malfunctioning backflow valve, Ms. Bennett found herself in a dispute with her HOA over who should pay for the repair, claiming the association had violated Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) of its governing documents. The resulting legal decision reveals critical, and often surprising, insights into how HOA rules are interpreted and enforced. This article breaks down the five most impactful lessons from her losing battle.

1. Location is Everything: The Critical Line Between Private and Common Property

The single most important factor in the judge’s decision was the physical location of the broken part. The entire case hinged on a simple question: was the malfunctioning backflow flap on Jennie Bennett’s private property or in an HOA-maintained common area?

The HOA argued that the plat map and photos proved the flap was located “next to Petitioner’s walk up to her front door,” placing it squarely inside her private property line. While the homeowner claimed the HOA was responsible for “sewer lines” under Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), this argument failed. The HOA’s manager, Vanessa Lubinsky, perfectly synthesized the association’s legal position when she “opined that the backflow flap was a plumbing issue, not a sewer issue, because it was located on Petitioner’s private property.”

Because the backflow flap was deemed to be on private property, it fell under Section 15 of the CC&Rs. This clause stipulated that the homeowner was responsible for the maintenance of their own plumbing, electricity, and other utilities—much like the owner of a single-family residence. The specific location of the failure, not the general nature of the system it belonged to, determined financial responsibility.

2. An HOA ‘Policy’ Can Vanish Overnight

For nearly two years, from March 2017 to February 2019, the Catalina Del Rey HOA had a “Sewer Maintenance Policy” in place. This policy, which had been in effect for nearly two years, outlined a process for handling sewage maintenance; however, once rescinded, the HOA was no longer obligated to share in repair costs. The Board of Directors rescinded this policy on February 13, 2019. The petitioner’s sewage overflow occurred on March 3, 2019—less than three weeks later.

Crucially, the HOA’s action was not arbitrary. According to case testimony, the board rescinded the policy because, “After Respondent received additional legal guidance, it was determined that the backflow flaps were located within the homeowners’ units and on private property.” This reveals a critical insight: the HOA made a calculated, legally-informed decision to shift liability back to homeowners to align with the CC&Rs.

This also highlights the significant difference between a formal, recorded CC&R and a simple board policy. As the HOA manager clarified, rescinding the policy did not require a homeowner vote because it was not an amendment to the core CC&Rs. A board can unilaterally change a policy, altering the financial obligations of every resident without a community-wide vote.

3. The High Cost of “Extremely Unfortunate” Timing

The timing of the sewage backup, occurring just after the policy change, was a devastating coincidence for the homeowner. The administrative law judge acknowledged this directly in the final decision, stating:

It was extremely unfortunate that Petitioner experienced such a sewage overflow just after Respondent rescinded the Policy.

Compounding the issue was a dispute over communication. The petitioner claimed she “was not notified of the rescission.” In her efforts to be covered, she even gathered 97 signatures on a “Grassroots petition” from her neighbors. The petitioner claimed she received no substantive response from the board regarding her repair claim until her attorney sent a formal letter on May 22, 2019. The HOA countered this, stating that notice of the policy change had been sent to homeowners via both email and postcards.

This takeaway is impactful because it demonstrates how quickly a homeowner’s rights and financial obligations can change. A simple board decision, potentially missed in a stack of mail or an overlooked email, can result in thousands of dollars in unexpected costs.

4. The Burden of Proof Is on the Homeowner, Not the HOA

In any legal dispute, one side has the “burden of proof”—the responsibility to convince the judge that their claim is true. In this HOA case, that burden fell entirely on the petitioner, Jennie Bennett.

The legal standard required her to prove her case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as evidence that is sufficient to persuade a judge that a claim is more likely true than not. The legal decision provides a clear definition:

“[t]he greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the homeowner did not meet this standard. The final order states, “Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) of the CC&Rs.” This underscores a critical point: when a homeowner challenges an HOA, it is their responsibility to build the winning case with convincing evidence.

Conclusion: Know Your Documents, Know Your Property Lines

The overarching lesson from Jennie Bennett’s experience is that in an HOA, the fine print matters immensely. The precise wording of the governing documents and, as this case proves, the exact location of property lines are paramount. A board policy you rely on today could be gone tomorrow, and a repair you assume is a community responsibility could be deemed yours based on a measurement of inches.

This case serves as a powerful reminder for all homeowners to be proactive. Read your CC&Rs, pay attention to all communications from your board, and understand the difference between binding covenants and changeable policies. It all comes down to one final, critical question: Do you know exactly where your maintenance responsibilities end and your HOA’s begin?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jennie Bennett (petitioner)
    Testified at hearing
  • Maxwell Riddiough (petitioner attorney)

Respondent Side

  • Nathan Tennyson (respondent attorney)
    Brown|Olcott, PLLC
  • Vanessa Lubinsky (property manager)
    Cadden Community Management
    Testified on behalf of Respondent
  • Daniel (staff)
    Cadden
    Informed Petitioner about policy rescission

Neutral Parties

  • Antara Nath Rivera (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • JC Niles (witness)
    Mentioned in Petitioner's Grassroots petition

Jennie Bennett v. Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019002-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-02-26
Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jennie Bennett Counsel Maxwell Riddiough
Respondent Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ordered the Petition dismissed because the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the cited CC&R sections, as the malfunctioning backflow flap was located on the Petitioner's private property and was her responsibility.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the backflow flap was a common element maintenance responsibility under CC&Rs Sections 12(c) or 12(h)(1).

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of community documents regarding maintenance responsibility for sewage backflow flap.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs by refusing to pay for repairs related to a malfunctioning backflow flap that caused a sewage overflow, arguing the item was a common element maintenance responsibility.

Orders: Petitioner Jennie Bennett’s Petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Section 12(c)
  • CC&Rs Section 12(h)(1)
  • CC&Rs Section 15

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&Rs, Maintenance Responsibility, Plumbing, Sewage Overflow, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

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

Decision Documents

20F-H2019002-REL Decision – 771959.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-17T18:17:54 (103.3 KB)

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jennie Bennett (petitioner)
    Testified at the hearing
  • Maxwell Riddiough (petitioner attorney)

Respondent Side

  • Nathan Tennyson (respondent attorney)
    Brown|Olcott, PLLC
  • Vanessa Lubinsky (property manager)
    Cadden Community Management
    Manager for Respondent who testified at the hearing,
  • Daniel (staff)
    Cadden
    Informed Petitioner the sewer policy had been rescinded

Neutral Parties

  • Antara Nath Rivera (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of electronic transmission of decision

Other Participants

  • JC Niles (witness)
    Mentioned in Grassroots petition regarding HOA coverage

Jennie Bennett v. Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association

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

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019002-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-02-26
Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jennie Bennett Counsel Maxwell Riddiough
Respondent Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ordered the Petition dismissed because the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the cited CC&R sections, as the malfunctioning backflow flap was located on the Petitioner's private property and was her responsibility.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the backflow flap was a common element maintenance responsibility under CC&Rs Sections 12(c) or 12(h)(1).

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of community documents regarding maintenance responsibility for sewage backflow flap.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs by refusing to pay for repairs related to a malfunctioning backflow flap that caused a sewage overflow, arguing the item was a common element maintenance responsibility.

Orders: Petitioner Jennie Bennett’s Petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Section 12(c)
  • CC&Rs Section 12(h)(1)
  • CC&Rs Section 15

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&Rs, Maintenance Responsibility, Plumbing, Sewage Overflow, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019002-REL-RHG Decision – 771959.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:30:01 (103.3 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2019002-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Jennie Bennett vs. Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings, arguments, and conclusions from the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case number 20F-H2019002-REL-RHG, concerning a dispute between homeowner Jennie Bennett (Petitioner) and the Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association (Respondent).

The core of the dispute was the financial responsibility for repairing a malfunctioning sewage backflow valve that caused an overflow at the petitioner’s residence. The petitioner argued that the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (CC&Rs), specifically Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1), by refusing to cover the repair costs. The petitioner’s claim was complicated by the fact that the HOA had, just two weeks prior to the incident, rescinded a “Sewer Maintenance Policy” that had previously addressed such issues. The petitioner stated she was not notified of this rescission.

The respondent contended that the backflow valve was located on the petitioner’s private property, not in a common area, making its maintenance the petitioner’s responsibility under Section 15 of the CC&Rs. The HOA asserted that the 2017 policy was rescinded precisely because legal guidance confirmed this distinction. The HOA also maintained that notice of the rescission was sent to all homeowners.

The ALJ ultimately ruled in favor of the respondent, dismissing the petitioner’s petition. The decision concluded that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof—a preponderance of the evidence—to establish that the backflow valve was a common element covered by the cited CC&R sections. The evidence, including a plat map and photos, demonstrated the valve was on the petitioner’s private property. While the timing of the policy rescission was deemed “extremely unfortunate,” the ALJ found that once rescinded, the HOA was no longer obligated to share repair costs.

I. Case Overview

• Case Name: Jennie Bennett, Petitioner, vs. Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association, Respondent.

• Case Number: 20F-H2019002-REL-RHG

• Forum: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

• Administrative Law Judge: Antara Nath Rivera

• Hearing Date: February 7, 2020

• Decision Date: February 26, 2020

• Core Allegation: The petitioner alleged that the HOA violated community documents, specifically Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) of the CC&Rs.

II. Central Dispute and Timeline of Events

The central issue was whether the HOA was responsible for the cost of repairing a malfunctioning sewage backflow flap on the petitioner’s property.

• March 2017: The HOA adopts a “Sewer Maintenance Policy” to outline processes for sewage maintenance.

• February 13, 2019: The HOA Board rescinds the Sewer Maintenance Policy.

• March 3, 2019: Petitioner Jennie Bennett experiences a sewage overflow at her residence due to a malfunctioning backflow valve.

• March – May 2019: The petitioner brings her concerns to the HOA board at multiple meetings but receives no response.

• May 22, 2019: The HOA responds to the petitioner after receiving a letter from her attorney.

• July 10, 2019: The petitioner files a Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

III. Petitioner’s Position and Arguments (Jennie Bennett)

The petitioner, a resident for 20 years, argued that the HOA was liable for the repair costs based on the following points:

• CC&R Violation: The refusal to pay for the repair constituted a violation of Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) of the CC&Rs, which pertain to the HOA’s duty to maintain sewer lines and common elements.

• Lack of Notice: The petitioner testified she was not notified of the policy rescission on February 13, 2019. The sewage overflow occurred just two weeks later, and upon reporting it, she was informed by a neighbor that the HOA had historically covered such issues.

• Procedural Failure: The HOA failed to address her concerns at the March, April, or May board meetings, only engaging after her attorney intervened.

• Community Support: The petitioner collected 97 signatures on a grassroots petition asking the HOA to cover the repair due to the short time frame between the policy rescission and the incident, and the lack of notice. The petition stated: “I am asking to be covered because of the 2 week time frame and no notice. I agree with being covered by the HOA for the flap.”

IV. Respondent’s Position and Arguments (Catalina Del Rey HOA)

The HOA, represented by community manager Vanessa Lubinsky of Cadden Community Management, presented a defense centered on the distinction between private and common property.

• Private Property Responsibility: The HOA’s primary argument was that the backflow flap was located on the petitioner’s private property and was therefore her responsibility to maintain under Section 15 of the CC&Rs, which governs utilities like plumbing within a homeowner’s lot.

• Evidence of Location: The respondent submitted a plat map and photographs as evidence. The photos illustrated that the backflow flap was located “next to Petitioner’s walk up to her front door,” well within her property lines and not on common elements.

• Plumbing vs. Sewer Issue: Ms. Lubinsky characterized the problem as a “plumbing issue, not a sewer issue,” because of its location on private property.

• Rationale for Policy Change: The 2017 Sewer Maintenance Policy was rescinded after the HOA received “additional legal guidance” confirming that backflow flaps were within homeowners’ units and thus their responsibility under Section 15.

• Notice and Procedure: Ms. Lubinsky testified that notice of the rescission was issued to homeowners via both email and postal mail (postcards). She clarified that the rescission was a board decision that did not require a homeowner vote, as it was not an amendment to the CC&Rs.

V. Relevant Sections of the CC&Rs

The dispute hinged on the interpretation of the following sections of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements.

Section

Quoted Text from the Decision

Section 12(c)

“The Association shall maintain and landscape all front and side years open to the street, and shall maintain sewer lines, sidewalks, walkways, brick trim, streets and common recreation areas. …The words “repair or maintain” shall not be construed that the Association shall repair or maintain any individual lot owner’s roof or similar structure.”

Section 12(h)(1)

“Each such lot will be subject to assessments and the owner thereof shall pay to the Associations assessments as follows: Such lots pro rata share of the actual cost to the Association of all repair, maintenance, safety and control of common elements, including but not limited to maintenance of walkways, sidewalks, streets and sewers, care of lawns and landscaping in common areas and front and side yards of residences… .”

Section 15

(Described, not quoted) This section provides that the homeowner is responsible for the maintenance of utilities such as electricity and plumbing on their private property, similar to a single-family residence.

VI. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Ruling

The ALJ’s decision was based on the petitioner’s failure to meet the required burden of proof.

• Burden of Proof: The petitioner was required to establish the HOA’s violation by a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning proof that convinces the trier of fact the contention is more probably true than not.

• Factual Determination: The judge found that the evidence, specifically the photos and plat map, demonstrated conclusively that the backflow flap was on the petitioner’s private property near her front door.

• Conclusion on CC&Rs: Because the flap was determined not to be located within a common area, the petitioner failed to establish that it fell under the purview of Sections 12(c) or 12(h)(1). Therefore, she failed to prove the HOA had a responsibility to repair it under those sections.

• Effect of Policy Rescission: The judge acknowledged, “It was extremely unfortunate that Petitioner experienced such a sewage overflow just after Respondent rescinded the Policy.” However, the ruling stated that once the policy was rescinded, the HOA “was not obligated to share the cost of repairs.”

• Final Order: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Jennie Bennett’s Petition be dismissed.” The order is binding on the parties, with any appeal required to be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days of service.






Study Guide – 20F-H2019002-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Bennett v. Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing all information directly from the case text.

1. Who were the Petitioner and the Respondent in this case, and what was the legal case number?

2. What specific sections of the community documents did Petitioner Jennie Bennett allege the Respondent had violated?

3. Describe the incident that prompted the dispute and the date on which it occurred.

4. What was the “Sewer Maintenance Policy,” when was it adopted, and when was it rescinded?

5. According to the Respondent’s manager, Vanessa Lubinsky, why was the repair Jennie Bennett’s financial responsibility?

6. What evidence did the Respondent present to prove the location of the malfunctioning backflow flap?

7. What steps did Jennie Bennett take to rally support from her neighbors after the Respondent did not address her concerns?

8. What is the legal standard for the burden of proof in this case, and which party does it fall on?

9. According to Section 12(c) of the CC&Rs, what specific areas is the Homeowners Association responsible for maintaining?

10. What was the final ruling, or “Order,” issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was Jennie Bennett, represented by attorney Maxwell Riddiough. The Respondent was the Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association, represented by attorney Nathan Tennyson. The case number was 20F-H2019002-REL-RHG.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (CC&Rs). This was noted as a single-issue petition.

3. On or about March 3, 2019, the Petitioner experienced a sewage overflow into her house. The overflow was caused by malfunctioning backflow valves.

4. The Sewer Maintenance Policy was a policy adopted in March 2017 to outline the process for sewage maintenance issues. It was rescinded by the HOA Board on February 13, 2019, shortly before the Petitioner’s incident.

5. Vanessa Lubinsky testified that the issue was the Petitioner’s responsibility because the malfunctioning backflow flap was located on her private property. Under Section 15 of the CC&Rs, homeowners are responsible for the maintenance of their own plumbing, electricity, and other utilities.

6. The Respondent presented a plat map, which specified all property lines, and photos. This evidence illustrated that the backflow flap was located inside the lines of the Petitioner’s private property, next to the walk-up to her front door, and not on common elements.

7. The Petitioner obtained 97 signatures on a “Grassroots petition.” The petition explained her situation and argued that she should be covered by the HOA for the repair due to the short time between the policy rescission and her incident, and because she had not received written notice.

8. The legal standard is “preponderance of the evidence,” which means the proof must convince the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not. The burden of proof fell on the Petitioner, Jennie Bennett, to establish that the Respondent committed the alleged violations.

9. Section 12(c) states the Association is responsible for maintaining and landscaping front and side yards open to the street. It also specifies the Association’s duty to maintain sewer lines, sidewalks, walkways, brick trim, streets, and common recreation areas.

10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that Petitioner Jennie Bennett’s Petition be dismissed. The judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent had violated the CC&Rs.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, analytical understanding of the case. Formulate a detailed essay response for each prompt, using specific evidence and arguments from the provided text to support your conclusions.

1. Analyze and contrast the core arguments presented by the Petitioner, Jennie Bennett, and the Respondent, Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association. How did each party use the CC&Rs and the Sewer Maintenance Policy to support their position?

2. Discuss the significance of the Sewer Maintenance Policy’s rescission. Evaluate the timing of the rescission relative to the Petitioner’s incident and the arguments made regarding notification to homeowners.

3. Explain the legal concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the case document. How did Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera apply this standard to the evidence presented by both parties to reach a final decision?

4. Evaluate the role of physical evidence, specifically the plat map and photographs, in the outcome of this hearing. Why was determining the precise location of the backflow flap the central issue of the case?

5. From an ethical and community governance perspective, discuss the actions of the Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association. Consider their decision to rescind the policy, the method of notification, and their initial responses (or lack thereof) to Ms. Bennett’s requests at the board meetings.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Antara Nath Rivera, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and makes legal decisions and orders.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal case to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof.

Common Elements

Areas within the HOA community that are not part of an individual homeowner’s private property and are maintained by the Association. Examples from the text include walkways, sidewalks, streets, sewers, and recreation areas.

Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (CC&Rs)

The governing legal documents that outline the rules, obligations, and restrictions for a planned community. The Petitioner alleged a violation of Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) of these documents.

Homeowners Association (HOA)

The community organization, Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association, responsible for managing and maintaining the common elements of a planned community as defined by the CC&Rs.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, the Petitioner was homeowner Jennie Bennett.

Plat Map

A map, drawn to scale, showing the divisions of a piece of land. In this case, it was used as evidence to specify all property lines, including the Petitioner’s.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required to win the case, defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is “more probably true than not.” It is described as the “greater weight of the evidence.”

Rescission

The act of canceling or revoking a policy or decision. The HOA Board rescinded its Sewer Maintenance Policy on February 13, 2019.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent was the Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association.






Blog Post – 20F-H2019002-REL-RHG


A Homeowner’s Sewage Nightmare: 5 Surprising Lessons from a Losing Battle with an HOA

Introduction: The Dreaded HOA Letter

For many homeowners, the greatest fear isn’t a storm or a failing appliance; it’s a sudden, catastrophic repair bill. This anxiety is often magnified for those living in a planned community, where another layer of complexity—the Homeowners Association (HOA)—governs every aspect of property maintenance. A dispute with the HOA can turn a straightforward repair into a frustrating and expensive legal battle.

The case of Jennie Bennett, a resident in her home for 20 years, and the Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association is a stark cautionary tale. After a sewage overflow caused by a malfunctioning backflow valve, Ms. Bennett found herself in a dispute with her HOA over who should pay for the repair, claiming the association had violated Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) of its governing documents. The resulting legal decision reveals critical, and often surprising, insights into how HOA rules are interpreted and enforced. This article breaks down the five most impactful lessons from her losing battle.

1. Location is Everything: The Critical Line Between Private and Common Property

The single most important factor in the judge’s decision was the physical location of the broken part. The entire case hinged on a simple question: was the malfunctioning backflow flap on Jennie Bennett’s private property or in an HOA-maintained common area?

The HOA argued that the plat map and photos proved the flap was located “next to Petitioner’s walk up to her front door,” placing it squarely inside her private property line. While the homeowner claimed the HOA was responsible for “sewer lines” under Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), this argument failed. The HOA’s manager, Vanessa Lubinsky, perfectly synthesized the association’s legal position when she “opined that the backflow flap was a plumbing issue, not a sewer issue, because it was located on Petitioner’s private property.”

Because the backflow flap was deemed to be on private property, it fell under Section 15 of the CC&Rs. This clause stipulated that the homeowner was responsible for the maintenance of their own plumbing, electricity, and other utilities—much like the owner of a single-family residence. The specific location of the failure, not the general nature of the system it belonged to, determined financial responsibility.

2. An HOA ‘Policy’ Can Vanish Overnight

For nearly two years, from March 2017 to February 2019, the Catalina Del Rey HOA had a “Sewer Maintenance Policy” in place. This policy, which had been in effect for nearly two years, outlined a process for handling sewage maintenance; however, once rescinded, the HOA was no longer obligated to share in repair costs. The Board of Directors rescinded this policy on February 13, 2019. The petitioner’s sewage overflow occurred on March 3, 2019—less than three weeks later.

Crucially, the HOA’s action was not arbitrary. According to case testimony, the board rescinded the policy because, “After Respondent received additional legal guidance, it was determined that the backflow flaps were located within the homeowners’ units and on private property.” This reveals a critical insight: the HOA made a calculated, legally-informed decision to shift liability back to homeowners to align with the CC&Rs.

This also highlights the significant difference between a formal, recorded CC&R and a simple board policy. As the HOA manager clarified, rescinding the policy did not require a homeowner vote because it was not an amendment to the core CC&Rs. A board can unilaterally change a policy, altering the financial obligations of every resident without a community-wide vote.

3. The High Cost of “Extremely Unfortunate” Timing

The timing of the sewage backup, occurring just after the policy change, was a devastating coincidence for the homeowner. The administrative law judge acknowledged this directly in the final decision, stating:

It was extremely unfortunate that Petitioner experienced such a sewage overflow just after Respondent rescinded the Policy.

Compounding the issue was a dispute over communication. The petitioner claimed she “was not notified of the rescission.” In her efforts to be covered, she even gathered 97 signatures on a “Grassroots petition” from her neighbors. The petitioner claimed she received no substantive response from the board regarding her repair claim until her attorney sent a formal letter on May 22, 2019. The HOA countered this, stating that notice of the policy change had been sent to homeowners via both email and postcards.

This takeaway is impactful because it demonstrates how quickly a homeowner’s rights and financial obligations can change. A simple board decision, potentially missed in a stack of mail or an overlooked email, can result in thousands of dollars in unexpected costs.

4. The Burden of Proof Is on the Homeowner, Not the HOA

In any legal dispute, one side has the “burden of proof”—the responsibility to convince the judge that their claim is true. In this HOA case, that burden fell entirely on the petitioner, Jennie Bennett.

The legal standard required her to prove her case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as evidence that is sufficient to persuade a judge that a claim is more likely true than not. The legal decision provides a clear definition:

“[t]he greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the homeowner did not meet this standard. The final order states, “Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) of the CC&Rs.” This underscores a critical point: when a homeowner challenges an HOA, it is their responsibility to build the winning case with convincing evidence.

Conclusion: Know Your Documents, Know Your Property Lines

The overarching lesson from Jennie Bennett’s experience is that in an HOA, the fine print matters immensely. The precise wording of the governing documents and, as this case proves, the exact location of property lines are paramount. A board policy you rely on today could be gone tomorrow, and a repair you assume is a community responsibility could be deemed yours based on a measurement of inches.

This case serves as a powerful reminder for all homeowners to be proactive. Read your CC&Rs, pay attention to all communications from your board, and understand the difference between binding covenants and changeable policies. It all comes down to one final, critical question: Do you know exactly where your maintenance responsibilities end and your HOA’s begin?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jennie Bennett (petitioner)
    Testified at hearing
  • Maxwell Riddiough (petitioner attorney)

Respondent Side

  • Nathan Tennyson (respondent attorney)
    Brown|Olcott, PLLC
  • Vanessa Lubinsky (property manager)
    Cadden Community Management
    Testified on behalf of Respondent
  • Daniel (staff)
    Cadden
    Informed Petitioner about policy rescission

Neutral Parties

  • Antara Nath Rivera (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • JC Niles (witness)
    Mentioned in Petitioner's Grassroots petition

Thomas J Van Dan Elzen v. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association

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

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-01-30
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen Counsel —
Respondent Carter Ranch Homeowners Association Counsel Augustus H. Shaw IV, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1808

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's case, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1808 or improperly adopted its Flag Display Rule.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1808 and failed to prove that the HOA's Flag Display Rule was inconsistent with or improperly adopted under the CC&Rs.

Key Issues & Findings

Flags and Sings

Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen filed a petition arguing that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1808 after being notified he violated Association Rules by displaying a “Trump 2020” flag. He argued the HOA's Flag Display Rule was invalid because the CC&Rs only defined SIGNS (DCC&R 3.14) and had no reference to Flags whatsoever, thus the rule was inconsistent with the CC&Rs.

Orders: Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen’s petition is dismissed. Respondent is deemed to be the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1182 (6th ed. 1990)
  • 4 United States Code sections 4 through 10
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Flag Display, Political Sign, CC&Rs, Rules & Regulations
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • 4 United States Code sections 4 through 10

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919071-REL-RHG Decision – 767071.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:29:48 (69.0 KB)

19F-H1919071-REL-RHG Decision – ../19F-H1919071-REL/741807.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:29:51 (78.9 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG


Administrative Hearing Brief: Van Dan Elzen v. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and conclusions from two administrative law judge decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen and the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA). The core conflict arose from Mr. Van Dan Elzen’s display of a “Trump 2020” flag, which the HOA deemed a violation of its “Flag Display Rule.” Mr. Van Dan Elzen petitioned the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the HOA’s rule was invalid and violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1808.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately dismissed the petition, both in the initial hearing and upon a subsequent rehearing. The central findings were that the petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof to demonstrate that the HOA’s rule was inconsistent with its governing documents (CC&Rs) or that the HOA had violated the state statute. The HOA’s authority to create rules restricting the use of lots, granted by its CC&Rs, was upheld. The final decision affirmed the HOA as the prevailing party, concluding a legal challenge that centered on the distinction between statutorily protected flags and political displays.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Background and Chronology

The dispute was adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings, with Velva Moses-Thompson serving as the Administrative Law Judge. The case involved a petition filed by a homeowner against his HOA regarding flag display regulations.

Parties Involved:

• Petitioner: Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen (appeared on his own behalf)

• Respondent: Carter Ranch Homeowners Association (represented by Augustus H. Shaw IV, Esq.)

Key Events:

Date (2019-2020)

May 21, 2019

Carter Ranch HOA notifies Mr. Van Dan Elzen that his “Trump 2020” flag violates association rules.

June 14, 2019

Mr. Van Dan Elzen files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1808.

July 16, 2019

The Department of Real Estate issues a Notice of Hearing.

Sept. 9, 2019

The initial administrative hearing is held.

Sept. 30, 2019

The ALJ issues a decision dismissing the petitioner’s case.

Nov. 18, 2019

The Department of Real Estate issues an order for a rehearing.

Jan. 10, 2020

A rehearing is held.

Jan. 30, 2020

The ALJ issues a final decision on the rehearing, again dismissing the petition.

II. The Core Dispute and Competing Arguments

The central issue was the legality of the Carter Ranch HOA’s rule prohibiting Mr. Van Dan Elzen’s “Trump 2020” flag and the scope of the HOA’s authority to regulate such displays.

A. The Petitioner’s Position (Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen)

Mr. Van Dan Elzen’s challenge was based on the premise that the HOA’s “Flag Display Rule” was invalid because it was not explicitly supported by the language of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

• Primary Argument: He asserted that because the CC&Rs do not specifically contain the word “flag,” any rule created by the HOA Board regulating flags is inconsistent with the CC&Rs and therefore unenforceable.

• Petition Allegation: In his formal petition, Mr. Van Dan Elzen stated the violation was “based on 33-1808 Flags and Sings [sic].” He further argued that the HOA’s rule referenced section 3.14 of the CC&Rs, which he claimed “ONLY defines SIGNS and has no reference to Flags whatsoever.”

B. The Respondent’s Position (Carter Ranch HOA)

The Carter Ranch HOA maintained that its “Flag Display Rule” was a valid exercise of the authority granted to its Board by the community’s governing documents.

• Basis of Authority: The HOA contended that it was authorized to adopt the rule under Article V, Section 5.3 of its CC&Rs.

• Defense of the Rule: The HOA argued that the Flag Display Rule was not inconsistent with the CC&Rs and was properly adopted.

• Argument for Dismissal: Carter Ranch asserted that the petition should be dismissed because the petitioner had not successfully alleged a violation of any statute or provision within the governing documents.

III. Governing Documents and Legal Framework

The case was decided based on an interpretation of both state law and the HOA’s internal governing documents.

A. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association Rules

• The “Flag Display Rule”: The association’s rules and regulations explicitly prohibit the flying of any flag other than the following:

◦ The American Flag

◦ Official or replica flags of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard

◦ A POW/MIA flag

◦ The Arizona State flag

◦ An Arizona Indian Nations flag

◦ The Gadsden Flag

• CC&Rs, Article V, Section 5.3: This section grants the HOA Board broad rule-making authority. The text states, in relevant part:

B. Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-1808

This state statute places specific limitations on an HOA’s ability to prohibit certain flags and political signs.

• Section A – Protected Flags: The statute mandates that an HOA “shall not prohibit the outdoor display” of the exact list of flags enumerated in the Carter Ranch “Flag Display Rule” (American, military, POW/MIA, state, etc.). A “Trump 2020” flag is not included in this list of protected flags.

• Section C – Political Signs: The statute addresses political signs separately from flags.

◦ Definition: A “political sign” is defined as “a sign that attempts to influence the outcome of an election.”

◦ Regulation: An HOA may prohibit political signs “earlier than seventy-one days before the day of an election and later than three days after an election day.”

◦ Size/Number: An HOA may regulate the size and number of signs, provided the rules are no more restrictive than local ordinances. If no local ordinance exists, an HOA cannot limit the number of signs but can cap the maximum aggregate dimensions at nine square feet.

IV. Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions and Final Order

Across both the initial hearing and the rehearing, the ALJ’s conclusions of law consistently favored the respondent HOA. The petitioner failed to meet the required legal standard to prove his case.

A. Burden of Proof

The ALJ established that the petitioner, Mr. Van Dan Elzen, bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the HOA had violated A.R.S. § 33-1808. A preponderance of the evidence means showing the fact sought to be proved is “more probable than not.”

B. Key Conclusions of Law

• Validity of the “Flag Display Rule”: The ALJ concluded that the petitioner “had not established that the Association improperly adopted the Flag Display Rule under its CC&Rs.” In the rehearing, this was stated as the petitioner having “not established that the Flag Display Rule was inconsistent with the CC&Rs.”

• No Statutory Violation: A critical conclusion in both decisions was that the petitioner “has not alleged that Carter Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.”

• Final Judgment: Based on these conclusions, the ALJ determined that Mr. Van Dan Elzen’s petition should be dismissed and that the Carter Ranch HOA should be deemed the prevailing party.

C. Final Order

• Initial Decision (September 30, 2019): “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen’s petition is dismissed.”

• Rehearing Decision (January 30, 2020): The order to dismiss was reaffirmed. The final notice specified that this order was binding on the parties and that any appeal must be filed for judicial review with the superior court within thirty-five days.






Study Guide – 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Van Dan Elzen v. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case involving Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen and the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association, based on the legal decisions from September 2019 and January 2020. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the provided case documents.

1. Who were the Petitioner and the Respondent in this case, and what was the official case number?

2. What specific action by the Petitioner prompted the initial notice of violation from the homeowners association?

3. What was the Petitioner’s primary legal argument against the validity of the Association’s “Flag Display Rule”?

4. According to the Carter Ranch CC&Rs, what authority does the Board have to create rules and regulations?

5. What is the “preponderance of the evidence,” and which party had the burden of meeting this standard?

6. List at least five of the flags that are explicitly permitted for display under the Carter Ranch “Flag Display Rule.”

7. Summarize the key provisions of Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1808(C) regarding “political signs.”

8. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion regarding the Petitioner’s claim that the Association improperly adopted the Flag Display Rule?

9. What was the final outcome of the petition after both the initial hearing on September 9, 2019, and the rehearing on January 10, 2020?

10. Who was the Administrative Law Judge that presided over both hearings?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen, and the Respondent was the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association. The case number was 19F-H1919071-REL, with the rehearing designated as 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG.

2. The case was prompted by Mr. Van Dan Elzen displaying a “Trump 2020” flag on a flagpole in his front yard. On or about May 21, 2019, Carter Ranch notified him that this action violated the Association’s rules.

3. The Petitioner argued that the Flag Display Rule was invalid because the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) do not specifically mention the word “flag.” He asserted that the Association’s rules and regulations can only be based on topics explicitly mentioned in the CC&Rs.

4. Article V, Section 5.3 of the CC&Rs grants the Board the authority to adopt, amend, and repeal rules pertaining to the management of common areas, minimum maintenance standards for lots, the health, safety, or welfare of residents, and restrictions on the use of lots.

5. “Preponderance of the evidence” is evidence that is more convincing and shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not. The Petitioner, Mr. Van Dan Elzen, bore the burden of proving his case by this standard.

6. The Carter Ranch Flag Display Rule permits the display of the American Flag, an official replica of a U.S. military flag (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard), a POW/MIA flag, an Arizona Indian nations flag, the Arizona State flag, and the Gadsden Flag.

7. A.R.S. § 33-1808(C) states that an association cannot prohibit the display of political signs on a member’s property, but it can prohibit them earlier than 71 days before an election and later than 3 days after an election. An association may also regulate the size and number of signs to be no more restrictive than local ordinances, or to a maximum aggregate of nine square feet if no such ordinances exist.

8. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner had not established that the Association improperly adopted the Flag Display Rule under its CC&Rs. The judge found that the rule was not inconsistent with the CC&Rs.

9. In both instances, the Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be dismissed. The Respondent, Carter Ranch Homeowners Association, was deemed the prevailing party in the matter.

10. The Administrative Law Judge for both the initial hearing and the rehearing was Velva Moses-Thompson.

——————————————————————————–

Suggested Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, analytical understanding of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response for each.

1. Analyze the Petitioner’s legal strategy. Why did his argument that the CC&Rs do not explicitly mention the word “flag” ultimately fail to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard?

2. Explain the relationship between the Carter Ranch CC&Rs, the Association’s Rules and Regulations, and Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1808. How do these documents interact to govern what a resident can display on their property?

3. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” in this case. How did the “preponderance of the evidence” standard apply to Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen’s petition, and why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude he did not meet it?

4. Could the “Trump 2020” flag have been considered a “political sign” under the definition provided in A.R.S. § 33-1808(C)? Based on the text, evaluate the potential arguments for and against this classification and how the statute’s time restrictions on display might have been relevant.

5. Examine the authority granted to the Carter Ranch HOA Board by Article V, Section 5.3 of its CC&Rs. How did the HOA use this section to justify its Flag Display Rule, and how did the Administrative Law Judge evaluate this justification?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, the ALJ was Velva Moses-Thompson.

A.R.S. § 33-1808

The Arizona Revised Statute that, notwithstanding community documents, protects the right of homeowners to display certain flags (American, military, POW/MIA, state, etc.) and regulates how an association may restrict political signs.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to provide evidence to prove their claim. In this case, the Petitioner had the burden of proof.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The governing legal documents that set up the guidelines for a planned community or homeowners association. In this case, Article V, Section 5.3 of the CC&Rs gave the Board authority to create rules.

Flag Display Rule

The specific Carter Ranch Association rule prohibiting any flag other than the American Flag, specific military flags, POW/MIA flag, Arizona Indian National flag, Arizona State flag, and the Gadsden Flag.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, the petitioner was Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen.

Political Sign

As defined in A.R.S. § 33-1808(C), “a sign that attempts to influence the outcome of an election, including supporting or opposing the recall of a public officer or supporting or opposing the circulation of a petition for a ballot measure, question or proposition or the recall of a public officer.”

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this proceeding. Defined in the decision as “[e]vidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case. In this matter, a rehearing was held on January 10, 2020, after the initial decision was made on September 30, 2019.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the respondent was the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association.






Blog Post – 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Van Dan Elzen v. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case involving Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen and the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association, based on the legal decisions from September 2019 and January 2020. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the provided case documents.

1. Who were the Petitioner and the Respondent in this case, and what was the official case number?

2. What specific action by the Petitioner prompted the initial notice of violation from the homeowners association?

3. What was the Petitioner’s primary legal argument against the validity of the Association’s “Flag Display Rule”?

4. According to the Carter Ranch CC&Rs, what authority does the Board have to create rules and regulations?

5. What is the “preponderance of the evidence,” and which party had the burden of meeting this standard?

6. List at least five of the flags that are explicitly permitted for display under the Carter Ranch “Flag Display Rule.”

7. Summarize the key provisions of Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1808(C) regarding “political signs.”

8. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion regarding the Petitioner’s claim that the Association improperly adopted the Flag Display Rule?

9. What was the final outcome of the petition after both the initial hearing on September 9, 2019, and the rehearing on January 10, 2020?

10. Who was the Administrative Law Judge that presided over both hearings?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen, and the Respondent was the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association. The case number was 19F-H1919071-REL, with the rehearing designated as 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG.

2. The case was prompted by Mr. Van Dan Elzen displaying a “Trump 2020” flag on a flagpole in his front yard. On or about May 21, 2019, Carter Ranch notified him that this action violated the Association’s rules.

3. The Petitioner argued that the Flag Display Rule was invalid because the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) do not specifically mention the word “flag.” He asserted that the Association’s rules and regulations can only be based on topics explicitly mentioned in the CC&Rs.

4. Article V, Section 5.3 of the CC&Rs grants the Board the authority to adopt, amend, and repeal rules pertaining to the management of common areas, minimum maintenance standards for lots, the health, safety, or welfare of residents, and restrictions on the use of lots.

5. “Preponderance of the evidence” is evidence that is more convincing and shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not. The Petitioner, Mr. Van Dan Elzen, bore the burden of proving his case by this standard.

6. The Carter Ranch Flag Display Rule permits the display of the American Flag, an official replica of a U.S. military flag (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard), a POW/MIA flag, an Arizona Indian nations flag, the Arizona State flag, and the Gadsden Flag.

7. A.R.S. § 33-1808(C) states that an association cannot prohibit the display of political signs on a member’s property, but it can prohibit them earlier than 71 days before an election and later than 3 days after an election. An association may also regulate the size and number of signs to be no more restrictive than local ordinances, or to a maximum aggregate of nine square feet if no such ordinances exist.

8. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner had not established that the Association improperly adopted the Flag Display Rule under its CC&Rs. The judge found that the rule was not inconsistent with the CC&Rs.

9. In both instances, the Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be dismissed. The Respondent, Carter Ranch Homeowners Association, was deemed the prevailing party in the matter.

10. The Administrative Law Judge for both the initial hearing and the rehearing was Velva Moses-Thompson.

——————————————————————————–

Suggested Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, analytical understanding of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response for each.

1. Analyze the Petitioner’s legal strategy. Why did his argument that the CC&Rs do not explicitly mention the word “flag” ultimately fail to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard?

2. Explain the relationship between the Carter Ranch CC&Rs, the Association’s Rules and Regulations, and Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1808. How do these documents interact to govern what a resident can display on their property?

3. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” in this case. How did the “preponderance of the evidence” standard apply to Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen’s petition, and why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude he did not meet it?

4. Could the “Trump 2020” flag have been considered a “political sign” under the definition provided in A.R.S. § 33-1808(C)? Based on the text, evaluate the potential arguments for and against this classification and how the statute’s time restrictions on display might have been relevant.

5. Examine the authority granted to the Carter Ranch HOA Board by Article V, Section 5.3 of its CC&Rs. How did the HOA use this section to justify its Flag Display Rule, and how did the Administrative Law Judge evaluate this justification?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, the ALJ was Velva Moses-Thompson.

A.R.S. § 33-1808

The Arizona Revised Statute that, notwithstanding community documents, protects the right of homeowners to display certain flags (American, military, POW/MIA, state, etc.) and regulates how an association may restrict political signs.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to provide evidence to prove their claim. In this case, the Petitioner had the burden of proof.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The governing legal documents that set up the guidelines for a planned community or homeowners association. In this case, Article V, Section 5.3 of the CC&Rs gave the Board authority to create rules.

Flag Display Rule

The specific Carter Ranch Association rule prohibiting any flag other than the American Flag, specific military flags, POW/MIA flag, Arizona Indian National flag, Arizona State flag, and the Gadsden Flag.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, the petitioner was Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen.

Political Sign

As defined in A.R.S. § 33-1808(C), “a sign that attempts to influence the outcome of an election, including supporting or opposing the recall of a public officer or supporting or opposing the circulation of a petition for a ballot measure, question or proposition or the recall of a public officer.”

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this proceeding. Defined in the decision as “[e]vidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case. In this matter, a rehearing was held on January 10, 2020, after the initial decision was made on September 30, 2019.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the respondent was the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Augustus H. Shaw IV (HOA attorney)
    Shaw & Lines LLC
  • Dustin Snow (property manager)
    SNOW PROPERTY SERVICES

Neutral Parties

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

Joyce H Monsanto vs. Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association

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

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919053-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-11-18
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Joyce H Monsanto Counsel —
Respondent Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association Counsel Mark K. Sahl, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1808; CC&R § 7.9

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the Petitioner's request, finding she had not established that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1808 or CC&R § 7,. The HOA's Architectural Guidelines, which limit the display to one flagpole per lot but allow two flags (US and military) to be flown from it, were deemed reasonable rules under A.R.S. § 33-1808(B),. The Board was found to have rendered a decision and memorialized it in writing within the timeframe required by CC&R § 7.9,.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof to show the HOA's rule limiting flagpoles was unreasonable under A.R.S. § 33-1808(B) or that the HOA violated the procedural requirements of CC&R § 7.9 during the appeal process,,.

Key Issues & Findings

Refusal to allow two flagpoles to display US and Marine Corps flags and alleged violation of CC&R appeal procedure.

Petitioner filed a petition alleging the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1803 and CC&R § 7.9 by refusing to allow her to install two flagpoles for the U.S. flag and the U.S. Marine Corps flag, contrary to Architectural Guidelines limiting installations to one flagpole per lot,,,. Petitioner also argued the Board failed to properly handle her appeal as required by CC&R § 7.9,. The ALJ found that the single flagpole limit was a reasonable rule under A.R.S. § 33-1808(B) since both flags could be flown from one pole, and Petitioner failed to establish a violation of CC&R § 7.9,,,.

Orders: Petitioners’ petition is denied. The Board can properly find Petitioner in violation of the Architectural Guidelines and order her to remove one of her two flagpoles,.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808
  • CC&R § 7.9
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Flag display, Architectural Guidelines, CC&Rs, Statutory compliance, Planned Communities Act
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808
  • CC&R § 7.9
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • CC&R § 7

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919053-REL-RHG Decision – 749213.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:13 (163.6 KB)

19F-H1919053-REL-RHG Decision – 753595.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:13 (163.3 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1919053-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Monsanto v. Four Seasons at the Manor HOA

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and legal reasoning from the Amended Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Joyce H. Monsanto versus the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association (HOA). The central conflict revolves around the HOA’s denial of Ms. Monsanto’s request to install two separate flagpoles on her home to display the United States flag and the United States Marine Corps flag. The petitioner alleged this denial violated Arizona state law and the HOA’s own governing documents.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately denied the petitioner’s claim, ruling in favor of the HOA. The decision established two critical points: first, that the HOA’s rule limiting homeowners to a single flagpole is a “reasonable” regulation on the “placement and manner of display” explicitly permitted under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1808(B), and does not constitute a prohibition of flag display. Second, the HOA was found to have complied with its own appeal process as outlined in its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The ALJ concluded that an oral denial at a board meeting, later documented in publicly posted meeting minutes, satisfied the CC&R’s requirement to “render its written decision” within a 45-day timeframe. The ruling affirms an HOA’s authority to enforce uniform aesthetic standards, provided they are reasonable and applied according to the association’s governing documents.

Case Background and Procedural History

The case was brought before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) following a petition filed by homeowner Joyce H. Monsanto (“Petitioner”) against her HOA, Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association (“Respondent”).

• Initial Petition: On March 6, 2019, the Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the HOA violated state law (A.R.S. § 33-1803) and its CC&Rs (§ 7.9) by refusing to approve her request for two flagpoles.

• First Hearing: An evidentiary hearing was held on May 30, 2019, after which the ALJ found that the Petitioner had not proven any violation by the HOA.

• Rehearing: The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted the Petitioner’s request for a rehearing on August 22, 2019. This rehearing took place on October 21, 2019.

• Amended Decision: On November 18, 2019, ALJ Diane Mihalsky issued an Amended Administrative Law Judge Decision, again denying the Petitioner’s petition and affirming the previous findings. The amendment was issued to correct a typographical error and clarify the parties’ appeal rights.

The Core Dispute: A Request for Two Flagpoles

The petitioner, whose husband and two sons have long careers in the U.S. Marines and Coast Guard, sought to display both the U.S. flag and the U.S. Marine Corps flag on her home.

• The Application: On August 31, 2018, she submitted a Design Review Application to install two 6-foot-long flagpoles on the exterior wall of her house, flanking her front door.

• The Rationale: The Petitioner stated her desire for two separate poles was for aesthetic reasons, believing the display would look better. She also expressed concern that a single, larger flagpole installed in her front yard would obstruct the view from her front window.

• The Denial: On September 22, 2018, the HOA’s Architectural Committee issued a written Notice of Disapproval, citing the Architectural Guidelines which permit only one flagpole per lot.

• The Appeal: On October 1, 2018, the Petitioner submitted a written appeal to the HOA Board, arguing the denial was unreasonable, that the guidelines were not uniformly enforced, and that the board could grant a waiver under CC&R § 7.6.

Governing Rules and Statutes

The case decision rested on the interpretation of Arizona state law and the HOA’s specific governing documents.

Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1808

This statute governs the right of homeowners to display certain flags.

• Protection of Display: Subsection A states that an association “shall not prohibit the outdoor… display” of the American flag or a military flag, among others.

• Right to Regulate: Subsection B grants associations the authority to “adopt reasonable rules and regulations regarding the placement and manner of display.” It explicitly allows rules that “regulate the location and size of flagpoles,” “limit the member to displaying no more than two flags at once,” and limit flagpole height, while not prohibiting their installation.

HOA Architectural Guidelines

The community’s rules regarding flagpoles evolved but consistently maintained a key restriction.

• Original Guideline (May 24, 2016): “Poles must not exceed 12’ in height, and only one flagpole is permitted per Lot.”

• Amended Guideline (November 8, 2018): The board increased the maximum pole height to 20′ and added rules for nighttime illumination and inclement weather, but explicitly “did not change the limit of one flagpole per lot.”

HOA CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The procedural requirements for architectural review and appeals were central to the Petitioner’s claim.

• Section 7.8 (Board Approval): Pertaining to initial applications, this section requires the Board to provide the owner with a “written response within sixty (60) days,” otherwise the request is deemed approved.

• Section 7.9 (Appeal): Pertaining to appeals, this section requires the Board to consult with the Architectural Committee and “render its written decision” within 45 days. A failure by the Board to render a decision in this period “shall be deemed approval.” This section does not contain the same explicit language as § 7.8 requiring the response be provided to the owner.

Analysis of the Appeal Process and Conflicting Testimonies

A significant portion of the dispute centered on the events of the November 8, 2018, HOA Board meeting, where the Petitioner’s appeal was to be considered. The accounts of what transpired at this meeting were contradictory.

Petitioner’s Testimony (Joyce H. Monsanto)

Respondent’s Testimony (Anthony Nunziato, Board President)

Consultation

The board did not consult the Architectural Committee.

The board consulted with the Architectural Committee before the meeting.

Decision

The board did not consider or make any decision on her appeal.

The board considered the appeal and made a decision.

Notification

She was never told her appeal was denied at the meeting.

He was certain the board verbally informed the Petitioner that her appeal was denied at the meeting.

On December 4, 2018, draft minutes from the November 8 meeting were posted on the HOA’s website. The Petitioner acknowledged seeing them. These minutes included the following entry:

“[Petitioner’s] last request was for a waiver that would allow her to have two flagpoles on her property (one to fly the American flag and the other to fly the Marine flag). The Board rejected this request since our CC&Rs allow for the flying of both flags on a single flagpole.”

The Petitioner argued that these publicly posted draft minutes, which were not sent directly to her, did not constitute a valid written denial of her appeal under the CC&Rs.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s decision methodically rejected each of the Petitioner’s claims, relying on witness credibility, statutory interpretation, and contract construction principles.

Credibility Assessment

The ALJ made a clear determination on the conflicting testimonies regarding the November 8 meeting.

• Mr. Nunziato’s testimony that the board made a decision and informed the Petitioner was found to be “credible and supported by the minutes of the meeting.”

• The Petitioner’s testimony that the board made no decision on her appeal was deemed “incredible.”

Ruling on A.R.S. § 33-1808 (State Flag Law)

The ALJ concluded that the HOA’s one-flagpole rule did not violate state law.

• The rule was found to be a “reasonable rule or regulation under A.R.S. § 33-1808(B).”

• Because the Architectural Guidelines allow for flying two flags from a single flagpole up to 20′ long, the HOA was not prohibiting the display of flags, merely regulating the manner.

• The ALJ characterized the core issue as the “Petitioner’s petition is about her choice not to install a single flagpole for her own aesthetic reasons, not Respondent’s unreasonableness or lack of patriotism.”

Ruling on CC&R § 7.9 (Appeal Process)

The ALJ found that the HOA had followed the procedure required by its own CC&Rs.

• Consultation: Based on Mr. Nunziato’s credible testimony, the board fulfilled its duty to consult with the Architectural Committee.

• “Render a Decision”: The board “rendered a decision on her appeal at the November 8, 2018 board meeting” when it orally reached a decision.

• “Written Decision”: The board created a “writing memorializing its decision” by documenting it in the meeting minutes. Because the Petitioner saw these minutes on December 4, 2018, this action occurred within the 45-day window following her October 1, 2018 appeal.

• No Delivery Requirement: The ALJ applied the “negative implication cannon of contract construction.” By comparing CC&R § 7.9 (appeals) with § 7.8 (initial applications), the judge noted that § 7.9 lacks the explicit requirement to provide the written decision to the owner. Therefore, posting the minutes was sufficient, and the Petitioner’s request was not “deemed approved.”

Final Order

Based on these findings, the ALJ issued a final, binding order.

IT IS ORDERED that the Petitioners’ petition is denied because she has not established that the Respondent’s Board should not have denied her application to install two flagpoles on her property.

The decision concludes with a notice informing the parties that the order is binding and that any appeal must be filed with the superior court within 35 days from the date of service.






Study Guide – 19F-H1919053-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Monsanto v. Four Seasons at the Manor HOA

This study guide provides a detailed review of the legal case Joyce H. Monsanto v. Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association, Case No. 19F-H1919053-REL-RHG, as detailed in the Amended Administrative Law Judge Decision dated November 18, 2019. The guide includes a short-answer quiz, a corresponding answer key, suggested essay questions, and a comprehensive glossary of terms to facilitate a thorough understanding of the case’s facts, arguments, and legal conclusions.

Short-Answer Quiz

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

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

2. What specific action did the Petitioner request from the Respondent that initiated this dispute?

3. On what grounds did the Respondent’s Architectural Committee initially deny the Petitioner’s request on September 22, 2018?

4. Identify the key Arizona statute cited in the case and explain its two main provisions regarding flag displays.

5. What was the Petitioner’s primary argument regarding the Respondent’s handling of her appeal under CC&R § 7.9?

6. According to the testimony of Board President Tony Nunziato, how did the Board address the Petitioner’s appeal at the November 8, 2018 meeting?

7. What documentary evidence did the Respondent use to support the claim that a decision on the appeal was made and written down within the required timeframe?

8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) find the Respondent’s one-flagpole rule to be legally permissible?

9. What is the legal standard of proof required for the Petitioner in this case, and did she meet it according to the ALJ?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case and its practical consequence for the Petitioner?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner is Joyce H. Monsanto, a homeowner. The Respondent is the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association (HOA). Ms. Monsanto is a member of the Respondent HOA because she owns a house within its development in Sun City, Arizona.

2. The Petitioner submitted a Design Review Application to install two 6-foot-long flagpoles on the exterior wall of her house. She intended to fly the United States flag from one pole and the United States Marine Corps flag from the other.

3. The Architectural Committee denied the request because the community’s Architectural Guidelines only permitted one flagpole per lot. The written Notice of Disapproval explicitly stated this rule as the reason for the denial.

4. The key statute is A.R.S. § 33-1808. Its first provision, § 33-1808(A), prohibits an HOA from banning the display of the American flag and various military flags. The second provision, § 33-1808(B), allows an HOA to adopt reasonable rules regulating the placement, size, and number of flagpoles, explicitly permitting a limit of one flagpole per property.

5. The Petitioner argued that the Board violated CC&R § 7.9 because it failed to provide her with a formal written decision denying her appeal within the 45-day period. She contended that because she never received a dedicated letter, the request should have been “deemed approved” as stipulated in the CC&R for failure to render a timely decision.

6. Tony Nunziato testified that the Board did consult with the Architectural Committee regarding the appeal before the meeting. He stated with certainty that at the November 8, 2018 meeting, the Board considered the appeal and verbally informed Ms. Monsanto that her request for a waiver was denied.

7. The Respondent presented the draft minutes from the November 8, 2018 Board meeting, which were posted on the HOA’s website on December 4, 2018. These minutes explicitly stated that the Board rejected the Petitioner’s request for a waiver to have two flagpoles, fulfilling the requirement to have a written record of the decision within 45 days of her October 1 appeal.

8. The ALJ found the rule permissible because A.R.S. § 33-1808(B) explicitly grants HOAs the authority to “adopt reasonable rules and regulations” which may “regulate the location and size of flagpoles” and “shall not prohibit the installation of a flagpole.” Since the HOA’s guidelines allowed for one flagpole up to 20 feet long, capable of flying two flags, the judge concluded the rule was reasonable under the statute.

9. The required standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning the Petitioner had to convince the judge that her contention was more probably true than not. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner did not meet this burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated any statute or its own CC&Rs.

10. The final order denied the Petitioner’s petition. The practical consequence is that the HOA’s denial of her application for two flagpoles was upheld, and the Board could therefore properly find her in violation of the Architectural Guidelines and order her to remove one of her two flagpoles.

——————————————————————————–

Suggested Essay Questions

1. Analyze the conflict between A.R.S. § 33-1808(A), which protects a homeowner’s right to display military flags, and § 33-1808(B), which grants HOAs regulatory power. How did the Administrative Law Judge balance these two provisions to reach a conclusion in this case?

2. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied to the Petitioner. Detail the specific claims made by Joyce Monsanto and explain why, according to the legal decision, she failed to establish them by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

3. Examine the procedural dispute surrounding CC&R § 7.9. Contrast the Petitioner’s interpretation of a “written decision” with the interpretation ultimately adopted by the Administrative Law Judge, referencing the role of the verbal notification and the meeting minutes.

4. Evaluate the role of testimony and credibility in this administrative hearing. Compare and contrast the testimony provided by Petitioner Joyce Monsanto and Respondent’s Board President Tony Nunziato regarding the events of the November 8, 2018 board meeting, and explain why the judge found Mr. Nunziato’s account more credible.

5. Based on the facts presented, construct an argument that the HOA’s actions, while legally permissible according to the judge, were inconsistent with the patriotic values of its community, which includes many retired military members. Conversely, construct an argument defending the Board’s decision as a necessary and fair application of rules essential for maintaining community standards.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition in Context

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact, and issues legal decisions. In this case, Diane Mihalsky served as the ALJ for the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.R.S. § 33-1808

An Arizona Revised Statute that governs the display of flags in planned communities. It forbids HOAs from prohibiting certain flags (like the U.S. and military flags) but permits them to establish reasonable rules regarding the number, size, and location of flagpoles.

Architectural Committee

A committee established by the HOA’s CC&Rs responsible for reviewing and approving or disapproving homeowners’ applications for external modifications to their property, such as installing flagpoles.

Architectural Guidelines

The specific rules adopted by the HOA that set forth requirements for property modifications. In this case, the guidelines limited each lot to one flagpole, with a maximum height of 20 feet.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. The Petitioner, Joyce Monsanto, bore the burden of proof to show the HOA had violated the law or its own rules.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The governing legal documents that create the rules for a planned community. The Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated CC&R § 7.9, which outlines the appeal process for disapproved architectural applications.

Declarant

The original developer of a planned community who establishes the initial CC&Rs. In this case, K. Hovnanian was the Declarant for Four Seasons at the Manor.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

The governing organization in a planned community responsible for enforcing the CC&Rs and managing common areas. The Respondent, Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association, is an HOA.

Negative Implication

A principle of legal interpretation which holds that the explicit inclusion of one thing implies the intentional exclusion of another. The ALJ used this to argue that because CC&R § 7.9 (appeals) does not specify that a written decision must be sent to the owner, unlike CC&R § 7.8 (initial applications), that requirement should not be read into the appeal rule.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent Arizona state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, providing an impartial forum to resolve disputes.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Joyce H. Monsanto is the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required in this civil case. It is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact (the judge) that a contention is “more probably true than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association is the Respondent.

Restrictive Covenant

A legally enforceable rule within the CC&Rs that limits what a homeowner can do with their property. The rule limiting homes to one flagpole is an example of a restrictive covenant.

Waiver

The act of intentionally relinquishing a known right or claim. The Petitioner argued that the HOA board could, and should, have waived the one-flagpole rule for her under CC&R § 7.6.






Blog Post – 19F-H1919053-REL-RHG


HOA vs. Military Family: 4 Lessons from a Legal Battle Over a Flagpole

For Joyce Monsanto, a member of a dedicated military family, displaying her patriotism was a matter of pride. Her husband served 25 years in the Marines, and her two sons have spent decades in the Marines and the Coast Guard. Naturally, she wanted to fly both the flag of the United States and the flag of the U.S. Marine Corps at her Arizona home. But when she submitted her plan to her Homeowners Association (HOA), she was met with a firm “no.”

The conflict wasn’t about the flags themselves. The Four Seasons at the Manor HOA had no issue with her displaying both. The dispute centered on how she wanted to display them. It was a disagreement over her vision for a symmetrical, two-pole display versus the HOA’s “one flagpole per lot” rule. This architectural dispute escalated from a simple request into a formal administrative hearing.

Ms. Monsanto’s fight reveals several surprising truths about the power of HOA rules and the specific language written into state law. Her case ultimately failed on two fronts—a substantive challenge to the rule itself, and a procedural challenge to how the HOA handled her appeal. Here’s what every homeowner can learn from each.

1. Your Right to Fly the Flag Has Limits—And They’re Written into Law.

Many homeowners believe the right to fly the American flag is unconditional. However, the legal reality is more nuanced. While Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1808) prevents an HOA from outright prohibiting the display of U.S. or military flags, it explicitly allows the association to create “reasonable rules and regulations” for their placement and manner of display.

The statute is specific about what these rules can cover. An HOA can legally regulate the size and location of flagpoles and can limit a homeowner to displaying no more than two flags at once. In this case, the HOA’s architectural guidelines permitted two flags, but only on a single flagpole. The Administrative Law Judge found this “one flagpole per lot” rule was a “reasonable” regulation and therefore perfectly legal. To underscore that the HOA’s stance was not about a lack of patriotism, the judge noted testimony that the HOA president himself “placed 140 small flags on his property” for Memorial Day. The issue was about the uniform enforcement of an architectural rule, not the patriotic display itself.

2. Your Personal Taste Is No Match for the Community Rulebook.

During the hearing, Ms. Monsanto acknowledged that she could fly both of her flags from a single pole as the HOA rules allowed. Her reason for wanting two poles was a matter of personal preference. She testified that she “wanted to install two flagpoles for aesthetic reasons” and also felt that a single pole placed in the middle of her lot would block the view from her front window.

The judge was unmoved by this line of reasoning. In the final decision, the response was direct and unambiguous:

Petitioner’s petition is about her choice not to install a single flagpole for her own aesthetic reasons, not Respondent’s unreasonableness or lack of patriotism.

This is a foundational principle of community association law: homeowners trade a degree of personal autonomy for the perceived benefits of uniform standards and predictable property values. The judge’s decision simply reaffirms that bargain. In the world of planned communities, the established rulebook will almost always outweigh an individual’s personal taste.

3. In HOA Law, the Appeal Isn’t a Re-do—It’s a Different Process.

One of Ms. Monsanto’s key arguments was procedural. She believed her appeal should have been automatically approved because the HOA failed to provide a written decision within the 45-day deadline stipulated in its own rules (CC&R § 7.9). This is where the judge identified a subtle but crucial legal distinction buried in the HOA’s governing documents.

The HOA’s CC&Rs had two different sections for architectural requests:

• CC&R § 7.8 (Initial Requests): This section explicitly required the Board to “inform the submitting party of the final decision” with a “written response.”

• CC&R § 7.9 (Appeals): This section, however, only required the Board to “render its written decision” within 45 days.

That small difference in wording—”written response” versus “written decision”—was the linchpin of her procedural case. The judge ruled that for an appeal, the HOA was not required to send a personal letter or direct notice to Ms. Monsanto. It only had to create a written record of its decision within the timeframe.

4. A Post on an HOA Website Can Count as an Official “Written Decision.”

The final surprise came down to what constitutes a “written decision” and how the deadline was met. Ms. Monsanto was waiting for a formal letter informing her that her appeal had been denied. She never received one. Her appeal was filed on October 1, 2018, starting a 45-day clock.

The judge found the HOA satisfied its obligation in a two-step process:

1. The Decision: The Board verbally denied her appeal during its public meeting on November 8, 2018. This action, which occurred 38 days after her appeal, fulfilled the requirement to “render its decision” within the 45-day period.

2. The Writing: That decision was then recorded in the draft meeting minutes, which were posted on the Board’s website on December 4, 2018. Ms. Monsanto acknowledged seeing the posted minutes.

The judge ruled that these online minutes satisfied the separate legal requirement for a “writing memorializing its decision.” Even though they weren’t sent directly to her, the publicly posted minutes served as the official record of the timely denial of her appeal, closing the final door on her argument for automatic approval.

Conclusion: Before You Plant Your Flag, Read the Fine Print

Joyce Monsanto’s case is a cautionary tale on two levels. First, it shows that even cherished rights like displaying the flag are subject to reasonable, neutrally-applied community rules. Second, and more critically, it demonstrates that procedural arguments live and die by the most precise definitions in the governing documents. A single word can be the difference between winning an appeal and being ordered to take your flagpole down.

This case came down to the difference between a “written response” and a “written decision”—do you know what the fine print says about your rights in your community?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Joyce H Monsanto (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Mark K. Sahl (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Anthony Nunziato (board member)
    Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association
    President of the Board of Directors; also referred to as 'Tony'
  • Annette McCraw (property manager)
    Community Manager/Trestle Management (implied)
    Sent Notice of Disapproval on behalf of Respondent
  • Marc Vasquez (HOA representative)
    Addressed Petitioner's claim regarding violation letters at the Board meeting

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Joyce H Monsanto vs. Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919053-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-11-18
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Joyce H Monsanto Counsel —
Respondent Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association Counsel Mark K. Sahl, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1808; CC&R § 7.9

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the HOA's architectural guideline limiting homeowners to one flagpole per lot, while permitting the display of both the U.S. flag and a military flag (Marine Corps flag) on that single pole, constitutes a reasonable rule under A.R.S. § 33-1808(B). The ALJ also found the Board complied with the 45-day requirement for a written appeal decision under CC&R § 7.9 by memorializing the denial in the draft meeting minutes posted by December 4, 2018,,.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof on both statutory and CC&R violations,.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA's denial of application to install two flagpoles for US and military flags, and alleged failure to follow CC&R appeal process.

Petitioner challenged the HOA's denial of her request to install two flagpoles, arguing the restriction violated A.R.S. § 33-1808 (flag statute) and that the Board failed to provide a written decision on her appeal within 45 days as required by CC&R § 7.9, which she argued meant the request was deemed approved. The ALJ found the single flagpole restriction reasonable under A.R.S. § 33-1808(B) since both flags could be flown from one pole, and determined the Board satisfied the CC&R § 7.9 requirement by posting the decision in the meeting minutes within 45 days,.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied, as she failed to establish that the Respondent's Board should not have denied her application under A.R.S. § 33-1808 or CC&R § 7. The Board can properly find Petitioner in violation of Architectural Guidelines and order her to remove one of her two flagpoles.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808
  • CC&R § 7.9
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Flag display, Architectural Guidelines, CC&Rs, Statutory compliance, Planned Communities Act, Rehearing
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808
  • CC&R § 7.9
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • CC&R § 7

Decision Documents

19F-H1919053-REL Decision – 749213.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-17T18:17:40 (163.6 KB)

19F-H1919053-REL Decision – 753595.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-17T18:17:40 (163.3 KB)

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Joyce H Monsanto (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf at the hearing and rehearing

Respondent Side

  • Mark K. Sahl (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
    Represented the Respondent
  • Anthony Nunziato (board president)
    Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association Board of Directors
    President of Respondent’s Board of Directors; testified at the hearing and rehearing; also referred to as 'Tony'
  • Annette McCraw (property manager)
    Community Manager (Implied Trestle Management)
    Sent notice regarding windsocks and the written Notice of Disapproval
  • Marc Vasquez (HOA representative)
    Addressed Petitioner's claim regarding violation letters compliance during the November 8, 2018 board meeting

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge who issued the decision
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Received electronic transmission of the decision

Joyce H Monsanto vs. Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association

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

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919053-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-11-18
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Joyce H Monsanto Counsel —
Respondent Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association Counsel Mark K. Sahl, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1808; CC&R § 7.9

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the HOA's architectural guideline limiting homeowners to one flagpole per lot, while permitting the display of both the U.S. flag and a military flag (Marine Corps flag) on that single pole, constitutes a reasonable rule under A.R.S. § 33-1808(B). The ALJ also found the Board complied with the 45-day requirement for a written appeal decision under CC&R § 7.9 by memorializing the denial in the draft meeting minutes posted by December 4, 2018,,.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof on both statutory and CC&R violations,.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA's denial of application to install two flagpoles for US and military flags, and alleged failure to follow CC&R appeal process.

Petitioner challenged the HOA's denial of her request to install two flagpoles, arguing the restriction violated A.R.S. § 33-1808 (flag statute) and that the Board failed to provide a written decision on her appeal within 45 days as required by CC&R § 7.9, which she argued meant the request was deemed approved. The ALJ found the single flagpole restriction reasonable under A.R.S. § 33-1808(B) since both flags could be flown from one pole, and determined the Board satisfied the CC&R § 7.9 requirement by posting the decision in the meeting minutes within 45 days,.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied, as she failed to establish that the Respondent's Board should not have denied her application under A.R.S. § 33-1808 or CC&R § 7. The Board can properly find Petitioner in violation of Architectural Guidelines and order her to remove one of her two flagpoles.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808
  • CC&R § 7.9
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Flag display, Architectural Guidelines, CC&Rs, Statutory compliance, Planned Communities Act, Rehearing
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808
  • CC&R § 7.9
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • CC&R § 7

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919053-REL-RHG Decision – 749213.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:29:16 (163.6 KB)

19F-H1919053-REL-RHG Decision – 753595.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:29:19 (163.3 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1919053-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Monsanto v. Four Seasons at the Manor HOA

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and legal reasoning from the Amended Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Joyce H. Monsanto versus the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association (HOA). The central conflict revolves around the HOA’s denial of Ms. Monsanto’s request to install two separate flagpoles on her home to display the United States flag and the United States Marine Corps flag. The petitioner alleged this denial violated Arizona state law and the HOA’s own governing documents.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately denied the petitioner’s claim, ruling in favor of the HOA. The decision established two critical points: first, that the HOA’s rule limiting homeowners to a single flagpole is a “reasonable” regulation on the “placement and manner of display” explicitly permitted under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1808(B), and does not constitute a prohibition of flag display. Second, the HOA was found to have complied with its own appeal process as outlined in its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The ALJ concluded that an oral denial at a board meeting, later documented in publicly posted meeting minutes, satisfied the CC&R’s requirement to “render its written decision” within a 45-day timeframe. The ruling affirms an HOA’s authority to enforce uniform aesthetic standards, provided they are reasonable and applied according to the association’s governing documents.

Case Background and Procedural History

The case was brought before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) following a petition filed by homeowner Joyce H. Monsanto (“Petitioner”) against her HOA, Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association (“Respondent”).

• Initial Petition: On March 6, 2019, the Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the HOA violated state law (A.R.S. § 33-1803) and its CC&Rs (§ 7.9) by refusing to approve her request for two flagpoles.

• First Hearing: An evidentiary hearing was held on May 30, 2019, after which the ALJ found that the Petitioner had not proven any violation by the HOA.

• Rehearing: The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted the Petitioner’s request for a rehearing on August 22, 2019. This rehearing took place on October 21, 2019.

• Amended Decision: On November 18, 2019, ALJ Diane Mihalsky issued an Amended Administrative Law Judge Decision, again denying the Petitioner’s petition and affirming the previous findings. The amendment was issued to correct a typographical error and clarify the parties’ appeal rights.

The Core Dispute: A Request for Two Flagpoles

The petitioner, whose husband and two sons have long careers in the U.S. Marines and Coast Guard, sought to display both the U.S. flag and the U.S. Marine Corps flag on her home.

• The Application: On August 31, 2018, she submitted a Design Review Application to install two 6-foot-long flagpoles on the exterior wall of her house, flanking her front door.

• The Rationale: The Petitioner stated her desire for two separate poles was for aesthetic reasons, believing the display would look better. She also expressed concern that a single, larger flagpole installed in her front yard would obstruct the view from her front window.

• The Denial: On September 22, 2018, the HOA’s Architectural Committee issued a written Notice of Disapproval, citing the Architectural Guidelines which permit only one flagpole per lot.

• The Appeal: On October 1, 2018, the Petitioner submitted a written appeal to the HOA Board, arguing the denial was unreasonable, that the guidelines were not uniformly enforced, and that the board could grant a waiver under CC&R § 7.6.

Governing Rules and Statutes

The case decision rested on the interpretation of Arizona state law and the HOA’s specific governing documents.

Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1808

This statute governs the right of homeowners to display certain flags.

• Protection of Display: Subsection A states that an association “shall not prohibit the outdoor… display” of the American flag or a military flag, among others.

• Right to Regulate: Subsection B grants associations the authority to “adopt reasonable rules and regulations regarding the placement and manner of display.” It explicitly allows rules that “regulate the location and size of flagpoles,” “limit the member to displaying no more than two flags at once,” and limit flagpole height, while not prohibiting their installation.

HOA Architectural Guidelines

The community’s rules regarding flagpoles evolved but consistently maintained a key restriction.

• Original Guideline (May 24, 2016): “Poles must not exceed 12’ in height, and only one flagpole is permitted per Lot.”

• Amended Guideline (November 8, 2018): The board increased the maximum pole height to 20′ and added rules for nighttime illumination and inclement weather, but explicitly “did not change the limit of one flagpole per lot.”

HOA CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The procedural requirements for architectural review and appeals were central to the Petitioner’s claim.

• Section 7.8 (Board Approval): Pertaining to initial applications, this section requires the Board to provide the owner with a “written response within sixty (60) days,” otherwise the request is deemed approved.

• Section 7.9 (Appeal): Pertaining to appeals, this section requires the Board to consult with the Architectural Committee and “render its written decision” within 45 days. A failure by the Board to render a decision in this period “shall be deemed approval.” This section does not contain the same explicit language as § 7.8 requiring the response be provided to the owner.

Analysis of the Appeal Process and Conflicting Testimonies

A significant portion of the dispute centered on the events of the November 8, 2018, HOA Board meeting, where the Petitioner’s appeal was to be considered. The accounts of what transpired at this meeting were contradictory.

Petitioner’s Testimony (Joyce H. Monsanto)

Respondent’s Testimony (Anthony Nunziato, Board President)

Consultation

The board did not consult the Architectural Committee.

The board consulted with the Architectural Committee before the meeting.

Decision

The board did not consider or make any decision on her appeal.

The board considered the appeal and made a decision.

Notification

She was never told her appeal was denied at the meeting.

He was certain the board verbally informed the Petitioner that her appeal was denied at the meeting.

On December 4, 2018, draft minutes from the November 8 meeting were posted on the HOA’s website. The Petitioner acknowledged seeing them. These minutes included the following entry:

“[Petitioner’s] last request was for a waiver that would allow her to have two flagpoles on her property (one to fly the American flag and the other to fly the Marine flag). The Board rejected this request since our CC&Rs allow for the flying of both flags on a single flagpole.”

The Petitioner argued that these publicly posted draft minutes, which were not sent directly to her, did not constitute a valid written denial of her appeal under the CC&Rs.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s decision methodically rejected each of the Petitioner’s claims, relying on witness credibility, statutory interpretation, and contract construction principles.

Credibility Assessment

The ALJ made a clear determination on the conflicting testimonies regarding the November 8 meeting.

• Mr. Nunziato’s testimony that the board made a decision and informed the Petitioner was found to be “credible and supported by the minutes of the meeting.”

• The Petitioner’s testimony that the board made no decision on her appeal was deemed “incredible.”

Ruling on A.R.S. § 33-1808 (State Flag Law)

The ALJ concluded that the HOA’s one-flagpole rule did not violate state law.

• The rule was found to be a “reasonable rule or regulation under A.R.S. § 33-1808(B).”

• Because the Architectural Guidelines allow for flying two flags from a single flagpole up to 20′ long, the HOA was not prohibiting the display of flags, merely regulating the manner.

• The ALJ characterized the core issue as the “Petitioner’s petition is about her choice not to install a single flagpole for her own aesthetic reasons, not Respondent’s unreasonableness or lack of patriotism.”

Ruling on CC&R § 7.9 (Appeal Process)

The ALJ found that the HOA had followed the procedure required by its own CC&Rs.

• Consultation: Based on Mr. Nunziato’s credible testimony, the board fulfilled its duty to consult with the Architectural Committee.

• “Render a Decision”: The board “rendered a decision on her appeal at the November 8, 2018 board meeting” when it orally reached a decision.

• “Written Decision”: The board created a “writing memorializing its decision” by documenting it in the meeting minutes. Because the Petitioner saw these minutes on December 4, 2018, this action occurred within the 45-day window following her October 1, 2018 appeal.

• No Delivery Requirement: The ALJ applied the “negative implication cannon of contract construction.” By comparing CC&R § 7.9 (appeals) with § 7.8 (initial applications), the judge noted that § 7.9 lacks the explicit requirement to provide the written decision to the owner. Therefore, posting the minutes was sufficient, and the Petitioner’s request was not “deemed approved.”

Final Order

Based on these findings, the ALJ issued a final, binding order.

IT IS ORDERED that the Petitioners’ petition is denied because she has not established that the Respondent’s Board should not have denied her application to install two flagpoles on her property.

The decision concludes with a notice informing the parties that the order is binding and that any appeal must be filed with the superior court within 35 days from the date of service.






Study Guide – 19F-H1919053-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Monsanto v. Four Seasons at the Manor HOA

This study guide provides a detailed review of the legal case Joyce H. Monsanto v. Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association, Case No. 19F-H1919053-REL-RHG, as detailed in the Amended Administrative Law Judge Decision dated November 18, 2019. The guide includes a short-answer quiz, a corresponding answer key, suggested essay questions, and a comprehensive glossary of terms to facilitate a thorough understanding of the case’s facts, arguments, and legal conclusions.

Short-Answer Quiz

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

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

2. What specific action did the Petitioner request from the Respondent that initiated this dispute?

3. On what grounds did the Respondent’s Architectural Committee initially deny the Petitioner’s request on September 22, 2018?

4. Identify the key Arizona statute cited in the case and explain its two main provisions regarding flag displays.

5. What was the Petitioner’s primary argument regarding the Respondent’s handling of her appeal under CC&R § 7.9?

6. According to the testimony of Board President Tony Nunziato, how did the Board address the Petitioner’s appeal at the November 8, 2018 meeting?

7. What documentary evidence did the Respondent use to support the claim that a decision on the appeal was made and written down within the required timeframe?

8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) find the Respondent’s one-flagpole rule to be legally permissible?

9. What is the legal standard of proof required for the Petitioner in this case, and did she meet it according to the ALJ?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case and its practical consequence for the Petitioner?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner is Joyce H. Monsanto, a homeowner. The Respondent is the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association (HOA). Ms. Monsanto is a member of the Respondent HOA because she owns a house within its development in Sun City, Arizona.

2. The Petitioner submitted a Design Review Application to install two 6-foot-long flagpoles on the exterior wall of her house. She intended to fly the United States flag from one pole and the United States Marine Corps flag from the other.

3. The Architectural Committee denied the request because the community’s Architectural Guidelines only permitted one flagpole per lot. The written Notice of Disapproval explicitly stated this rule as the reason for the denial.

4. The key statute is A.R.S. § 33-1808. Its first provision, § 33-1808(A), prohibits an HOA from banning the display of the American flag and various military flags. The second provision, § 33-1808(B), allows an HOA to adopt reasonable rules regulating the placement, size, and number of flagpoles, explicitly permitting a limit of one flagpole per property.

5. The Petitioner argued that the Board violated CC&R § 7.9 because it failed to provide her with a formal written decision denying her appeal within the 45-day period. She contended that because she never received a dedicated letter, the request should have been “deemed approved” as stipulated in the CC&R for failure to render a timely decision.

6. Tony Nunziato testified that the Board did consult with the Architectural Committee regarding the appeal before the meeting. He stated with certainty that at the November 8, 2018 meeting, the Board considered the appeal and verbally informed Ms. Monsanto that her request for a waiver was denied.

7. The Respondent presented the draft minutes from the November 8, 2018 Board meeting, which were posted on the HOA’s website on December 4, 2018. These minutes explicitly stated that the Board rejected the Petitioner’s request for a waiver to have two flagpoles, fulfilling the requirement to have a written record of the decision within 45 days of her October 1 appeal.

8. The ALJ found the rule permissible because A.R.S. § 33-1808(B) explicitly grants HOAs the authority to “adopt reasonable rules and regulations” which may “regulate the location and size of flagpoles” and “shall not prohibit the installation of a flagpole.” Since the HOA’s guidelines allowed for one flagpole up to 20 feet long, capable of flying two flags, the judge concluded the rule was reasonable under the statute.

9. The required standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning the Petitioner had to convince the judge that her contention was more probably true than not. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner did not meet this burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated any statute or its own CC&Rs.

10. The final order denied the Petitioner’s petition. The practical consequence is that the HOA’s denial of her application for two flagpoles was upheld, and the Board could therefore properly find her in violation of the Architectural Guidelines and order her to remove one of her two flagpoles.

——————————————————————————–

Suggested Essay Questions

1. Analyze the conflict between A.R.S. § 33-1808(A), which protects a homeowner’s right to display military flags, and § 33-1808(B), which grants HOAs regulatory power. How did the Administrative Law Judge balance these two provisions to reach a conclusion in this case?

2. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied to the Petitioner. Detail the specific claims made by Joyce Monsanto and explain why, according to the legal decision, she failed to establish them by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

3. Examine the procedural dispute surrounding CC&R § 7.9. Contrast the Petitioner’s interpretation of a “written decision” with the interpretation ultimately adopted by the Administrative Law Judge, referencing the role of the verbal notification and the meeting minutes.

4. Evaluate the role of testimony and credibility in this administrative hearing. Compare and contrast the testimony provided by Petitioner Joyce Monsanto and Respondent’s Board President Tony Nunziato regarding the events of the November 8, 2018 board meeting, and explain why the judge found Mr. Nunziato’s account more credible.

5. Based on the facts presented, construct an argument that the HOA’s actions, while legally permissible according to the judge, were inconsistent with the patriotic values of its community, which includes many retired military members. Conversely, construct an argument defending the Board’s decision as a necessary and fair application of rules essential for maintaining community standards.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition in Context

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact, and issues legal decisions. In this case, Diane Mihalsky served as the ALJ for the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.R.S. § 33-1808

An Arizona Revised Statute that governs the display of flags in planned communities. It forbids HOAs from prohibiting certain flags (like the U.S. and military flags) but permits them to establish reasonable rules regarding the number, size, and location of flagpoles.

Architectural Committee

A committee established by the HOA’s CC&Rs responsible for reviewing and approving or disapproving homeowners’ applications for external modifications to their property, such as installing flagpoles.

Architectural Guidelines

The specific rules adopted by the HOA that set forth requirements for property modifications. In this case, the guidelines limited each lot to one flagpole, with a maximum height of 20 feet.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. The Petitioner, Joyce Monsanto, bore the burden of proof to show the HOA had violated the law or its own rules.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The governing legal documents that create the rules for a planned community. The Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated CC&R § 7.9, which outlines the appeal process for disapproved architectural applications.

Declarant

The original developer of a planned community who establishes the initial CC&Rs. In this case, K. Hovnanian was the Declarant for Four Seasons at the Manor.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

The governing organization in a planned community responsible for enforcing the CC&Rs and managing common areas. The Respondent, Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association, is an HOA.

Negative Implication

A principle of legal interpretation which holds that the explicit inclusion of one thing implies the intentional exclusion of another. The ALJ used this to argue that because CC&R § 7.9 (appeals) does not specify that a written decision must be sent to the owner, unlike CC&R § 7.8 (initial applications), that requirement should not be read into the appeal rule.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent Arizona state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, providing an impartial forum to resolve disputes.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Joyce H. Monsanto is the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required in this civil case. It is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact (the judge) that a contention is “more probably true than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association is the Respondent.

Restrictive Covenant

A legally enforceable rule within the CC&Rs that limits what a homeowner can do with their property. The rule limiting homes to one flagpole is an example of a restrictive covenant.

Waiver

The act of intentionally relinquishing a known right or claim. The Petitioner argued that the HOA board could, and should, have waived the one-flagpole rule for her under CC&R § 7.6.






Blog Post – 19F-H1919053-REL-RHG


HOA vs. Military Family: 4 Lessons from a Legal Battle Over a Flagpole

For Joyce Monsanto, a member of a dedicated military family, displaying her patriotism was a matter of pride. Her husband served 25 years in the Marines, and her two sons have spent decades in the Marines and the Coast Guard. Naturally, she wanted to fly both the flag of the United States and the flag of the U.S. Marine Corps at her Arizona home. But when she submitted her plan to her Homeowners Association (HOA), she was met with a firm “no.”

The conflict wasn’t about the flags themselves. The Four Seasons at the Manor HOA had no issue with her displaying both. The dispute centered on how she wanted to display them. It was a disagreement over her vision for a symmetrical, two-pole display versus the HOA’s “one flagpole per lot” rule. This architectural dispute escalated from a simple request into a formal administrative hearing.

Ms. Monsanto’s fight reveals several surprising truths about the power of HOA rules and the specific language written into state law. Her case ultimately failed on two fronts—a substantive challenge to the rule itself, and a procedural challenge to how the HOA handled her appeal. Here’s what every homeowner can learn from each.

1. Your Right to Fly the Flag Has Limits—And They’re Written into Law.

Many homeowners believe the right to fly the American flag is unconditional. However, the legal reality is more nuanced. While Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1808) prevents an HOA from outright prohibiting the display of U.S. or military flags, it explicitly allows the association to create “reasonable rules and regulations” for their placement and manner of display.

The statute is specific about what these rules can cover. An HOA can legally regulate the size and location of flagpoles and can limit a homeowner to displaying no more than two flags at once. In this case, the HOA’s architectural guidelines permitted two flags, but only on a single flagpole. The Administrative Law Judge found this “one flagpole per lot” rule was a “reasonable” regulation and therefore perfectly legal. To underscore that the HOA’s stance was not about a lack of patriotism, the judge noted testimony that the HOA president himself “placed 140 small flags on his property” for Memorial Day. The issue was about the uniform enforcement of an architectural rule, not the patriotic display itself.

2. Your Personal Taste Is No Match for the Community Rulebook.

During the hearing, Ms. Monsanto acknowledged that she could fly both of her flags from a single pole as the HOA rules allowed. Her reason for wanting two poles was a matter of personal preference. She testified that she “wanted to install two flagpoles for aesthetic reasons” and also felt that a single pole placed in the middle of her lot would block the view from her front window.

The judge was unmoved by this line of reasoning. In the final decision, the response was direct and unambiguous:

Petitioner’s petition is about her choice not to install a single flagpole for her own aesthetic reasons, not Respondent’s unreasonableness or lack of patriotism.

This is a foundational principle of community association law: homeowners trade a degree of personal autonomy for the perceived benefits of uniform standards and predictable property values. The judge’s decision simply reaffirms that bargain. In the world of planned communities, the established rulebook will almost always outweigh an individual’s personal taste.

3. In HOA Law, the Appeal Isn’t a Re-do—It’s a Different Process.

One of Ms. Monsanto’s key arguments was procedural. She believed her appeal should have been automatically approved because the HOA failed to provide a written decision within the 45-day deadline stipulated in its own rules (CC&R § 7.9). This is where the judge identified a subtle but crucial legal distinction buried in the HOA’s governing documents.

The HOA’s CC&Rs had two different sections for architectural requests:

• CC&R § 7.8 (Initial Requests): This section explicitly required the Board to “inform the submitting party of the final decision” with a “written response.”

• CC&R § 7.9 (Appeals): This section, however, only required the Board to “render its written decision” within 45 days.

That small difference in wording—”written response” versus “written decision”—was the linchpin of her procedural case. The judge ruled that for an appeal, the HOA was not required to send a personal letter or direct notice to Ms. Monsanto. It only had to create a written record of its decision within the timeframe.

4. A Post on an HOA Website Can Count as an Official “Written Decision.”

The final surprise came down to what constitutes a “written decision” and how the deadline was met. Ms. Monsanto was waiting for a formal letter informing her that her appeal had been denied. She never received one. Her appeal was filed on October 1, 2018, starting a 45-day clock.

The judge found the HOA satisfied its obligation in a two-step process:

1. The Decision: The Board verbally denied her appeal during its public meeting on November 8, 2018. This action, which occurred 38 days after her appeal, fulfilled the requirement to “render its decision” within the 45-day period.

2. The Writing: That decision was then recorded in the draft meeting minutes, which were posted on the Board’s website on December 4, 2018. Ms. Monsanto acknowledged seeing the posted minutes.

The judge ruled that these online minutes satisfied the separate legal requirement for a “writing memorializing its decision.” Even though they weren’t sent directly to her, the publicly posted minutes served as the official record of the timely denial of her appeal, closing the final door on her argument for automatic approval.

Conclusion: Before You Plant Your Flag, Read the Fine Print

Joyce Monsanto’s case is a cautionary tale on two levels. First, it shows that even cherished rights like displaying the flag are subject to reasonable, neutrally-applied community rules. Second, and more critically, it demonstrates that procedural arguments live and die by the most precise definitions in the governing documents. A single word can be the difference between winning an appeal and being ordered to take your flagpole down.

This case came down to the difference between a “written response” and a “written decision”—do you know what the fine print says about your rights in your community?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Joyce H Monsanto (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Mark K. Sahl (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Anthony Nunziato (board member)
    Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association
    President of the Board of Directors; also referred to as 'Tony'
  • Annette McCraw (property manager)
    Community Manager/Trestle Management (implied)
    Sent Notice of Disapproval on behalf of Respondent
  • Marc Vasquez (HOA representative)
    Addressed Petitioner's claim regarding violation letters at the Board meeting

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Thomas J Van Dan Elzen v. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-01-30
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen Counsel —
Respondent Carter Ranch Homeowners Association Counsel Augustus H. Shaw IV, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1808

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's case, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1808 or improperly adopted its Flag Display Rule.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1808 and failed to prove that the HOA's Flag Display Rule was inconsistent with or improperly adopted under the CC&Rs.

Key Issues & Findings

Flags and Sings

Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen filed a petition arguing that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1808 after being notified he violated Association Rules by displaying a “Trump 2020” flag. He argued the HOA's Flag Display Rule was invalid because the CC&Rs only defined SIGNS (DCC&R 3.14) and had no reference to Flags whatsoever, thus the rule was inconsistent with the CC&Rs.

Orders: Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen’s petition is dismissed. Respondent is deemed to be the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1182 (6th ed. 1990)
  • 4 United States Code sections 4 through 10
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Flag Display, Political Sign, CC&Rs, Rules & Regulations
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • 4 United States Code sections 4 through 10

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919071-REL Decision – 741807.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-09T10:05:18 (78.9 KB)

19F-H1919071-REL Decision – 767071.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:23 (69.0 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1919071-REL


Administrative Hearing Briefing: Van Dan Elzen v. Carter Ranch HOA

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in the case of Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen versus the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA), case number 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG. The dispute centered on the HOA’s prohibition of a “Trump 2020” flag displayed by Mr. Van Dan Elzen at his property. The petitioner alleged this prohibition violated Arizona state law.

The ALJ ultimately dismissed the petition, ruling in favor of the Carter Ranch HOA. The decision was based on the petitioner’s failure to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA’s “Flag Display Rule” was inconsistent with its foundational Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or that the rule was improperly adopted. Crucially, the ALJ found that the petitioner had not sufficiently alleged a direct violation of the relevant state statute, A.R.S. § 33-1808. The ruling effectively upholds the HOA’s authority, granted by its CC&Rs, to regulate the display of flags not explicitly protected by Arizona law.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview

• Case Name: Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen, Petitioner, vs. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association, Respondent.

• Case Number: 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG

• Adjudicating Body: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson

• Hearing Date: January 10, 2020

• Decision Date: January 30, 2020

• Subject of Dispute: The validity of an HOA rule prohibiting the display of a “Trump 2020” political flag, which the petitioner claimed violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.

II. Chronology of Key Events

• May 21, 2019: Carter Ranch HOA notifies petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen that his “Trump 2020” flag violates Association Rules.

• June 14, 2019: Mr. Van Dan Elzen files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.

• November 18, 2019: The Department of Real Estate issues an order setting the matter for a rehearing.

• January 10, 2020: The rehearing is held before an Administrative Law Judge.

III. Petitioner’s Position (Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen)

Mr. Van Dan Elzen’s case was predicated on the argument that the HOA’s rules regarding flags were inconsistent with its own governing documents, specifically the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

• Core Allegation: The HOA’s enforcement action violated A.R.S. § 33-1808, which governs flags and signs.

• Primary Argument: Mr. Van Dan Elzen contended that the HOA’s “Flag Display Rule” was invalid because the CC&Rs do not explicitly mention the word “flag.” He argued that the relevant section of the governing documents, DCC&R 3.14, only defines “SIGNS.”

• Direct Quotation from Petition: The petition stated the following, highlighting the perceived discrepancy:

IV. Respondent’s Position (Carter Ranch HOA)

The Carter Ranch HOA maintained that its “Flag Display Rule” was valid, properly enacted, and did not violate state law or its own governing documents.

• The “Flag Display Rule”: The HOA’s rules explicitly prohibit flying any flag other than those on an approved list, which includes:

◦ The American Flag

◦ Official flags of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard

◦ A POW/MIA flag

◦ An Arizona Indian National flag

◦ The Arizona State flag

◦ The Gadsden Flag

• Authority to Regulate: The HOA asserted its authority to create this rule stemmed from Article V, Section 5.3 of its CC&Rs. This section grants the Board the power to adopt, amend, and repeal rules pertaining to “the health, safety or welfare of the owners… or restrictions on the use of Lots.” It also specifies that such rules are “enforceable in the same manner” as the CC&Rs themselves.

• Defense Arguments: The HOA contended that the petition should be dismissed because:

1. The Flag Display Rule was not inconsistent with the CC&Rs.

2. The rule was properly adopted under the authority granted in the CC&Rs.

3. The petitioner failed to allege that the HOA had actually violated a specific statute or provision of its governing documents.

V. Analysis of Governing Law: A.R.S. § 33-1808

This Arizona Revised Statute was central to the dispute. It places specific limitations on an HOA’s ability to regulate the display of certain flags and political signs.

Provision

Description of Regulation

Subsection A: Protected Flags

An HOA cannot prohibit the outdoor display of: The American flag (if displayed consistent with federal code), official U.S. military flags, the POW/MIA flag, the Arizona state flag, an Arizona Indian nations flag, or the Gadsden flag.

Subsection C: Political Signs

An HOA cannot prohibit the display of political signs on a member’s property, but may regulate them. Permissible regulations include:
• Time: Prohibiting display earlier than 71 days before an election and later than 3 days after an election.
• Size & Number: Regulations must be no more restrictive than applicable city/county ordinances. If no such ordinance exists, the HOA cannot limit the number of signs, but can cap the maximum aggregate dimensions at nine square feet.

• Definition of “Political Sign”: The statute defines a political sign as “a sign that attempts to influence the outcome of an election.”

VI. Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order

The ALJ concluded that the petitioner failed to meet the required burden of proof, which is to prove a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

1. Rule Consistency: The ALJ concluded that the “Petitioner has not established that the Flag Display Rule was inconsistent with the CC&Rs.”

2. Rule Adoption: The ALJ found that the “Petitioner has not established that the Association improperly adopted the Flag Display Rule under its CC&Rs.”

3. Failure to Allege Violation: The judge noted that the “Petitioner has not alleged that Carter Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.” This indicates a failure in the petition’s framing to connect the HOA’s actions to a specific statutory prohibition.

4. Final Determination: Based on these conclusions, the judge determined that “Mr. Van Dan Elzen’s petition should be dismissed and the Respondent be deemed to be the prevailing party in this matter.”

• Dismissal: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen’s petition is dismissed.”

• Binding Nature: The order is binding on the parties as it resulted from a rehearing.

• Appeal Rights: Any appeal must be filed with the superior court within 35 days from the date the order was served.






Study Guide – 19F-H1919071-REL


Study Guide: Van Dan Elzen v. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen versus the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association (No. 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG). The guide includes a short-answer quiz with an answer key, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a comprehensive glossary of key terms found within the legal decision.

——————————————————————————–

Quiz: Test Your Understanding

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

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

2. What specific action taken by Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen initiated the dispute with the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association?

3. What was Mr. Van Dan Elzen’s central argument for why the HOA’s Flag Display Rule was invalid?

4. On what authority did the Carter Ranch HOA claim it had the right to create and enforce its Flag Display Rule?

5. According to the HOA’s “Flag Display Rule,” which specific flags are homeowners permitted to fly?

6. What is the legal standard of proof the petitioner was required to meet in this hearing, and how is it defined in the decision?

7. What protection does Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1808(C) provide for “political signs”?

8. What were the two key failures of the petitioner’s case, as identified in the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions of law?

9. What was the final ruling, or “Order,” issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

10. What are the next steps for a party wishing to challenge the Administrative Law Judge’s order?

——————————————————————————–

Quiz Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen, who brought the complaint, and the Respondent, Carter Ranch Homeowners Association, which was defending its actions. Mr. Van Dan Elzen represented himself, while the HOA was represented by its attorney, Augustus H. Shaw IV, Esq.

2. The dispute began on or about May 21, 2019, when the Carter Ranch HOA notified Mr. Van Dan Elzen that he had violated its rules by displaying a “Trump 2020” flag in his front yard. This notice of violation prompted Mr. Van Dan Elzen to file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

3. Mr. Van Dan Elzen’s central argument was that the Flag Display Rule was inconsistent with the community’s Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). He contended that because CC&R section 3.14 only defines “SIGNS” and makes no reference to “Flags,” the HOA had no basis in the CC&Rs to regulate his flag.

4. The Carter Ranch HOA asserted its authority based on Article V, Section 5.3 of its CC&Rs. This section grants the HOA Board the power to adopt, amend, and repeal rules and regulations pertaining to the health, safety, or welfare of the owners and restrictions on the use of Lots.

5. The HOA’s Flag Display Rule prohibits flying any flag other than the American Flag, an official replica of a U.S. military flag (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard), a POW/MIA flag, an Arizona Indian National flag, the Arizona State flag, and the Gadsden Flag.

6. The petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” The decision defines this as “Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”

7. A.R.S. § 33-1808(C) prevents an HOA from prohibiting the display of political signs on a member’s property, although it allows for regulation. An HOA cannot prohibit political signs earlier than 71 days before an election or later than three days after, and its rules on size and number can be no more restrictive than applicable city or county ordinances.

8. The Judge concluded that the petitioner failed to establish that the Flag Display Rule was improperly adopted or inconsistent with the CC&Rs. Furthermore, the Judge concluded that the petitioner had not actually alleged that Carter Ranch violated the specific statute he cited, A.R.S. § 33-1808.

9. The final Order was that Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen’s petition is dismissed. The Judge also deemed the Respondent, Carter Ranch HOA, to be the prevailing party in the matter.

10. A party wishing to appeal the order must seek judicial review by filing an appeal with the superior court. This appeal must be filed within thirty-five days from the date the order was served upon the parties, as prescribed by state statutes.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions for Deeper Analysis

The following questions are designed to encourage a more in-depth analysis of the case. No answers are provided.

1. Analyze the petitioner’s argument that the Flag Display Rule was invalid because the word “flag” does not appear in the CC&Rs. Why was this argument ultimately unconvincing to the Administrative Law Judge?

2. Explain the legal distinction between a “flag” and a “political sign” as presented in A.R.S. § 33-1808. How might the petitioner’s case have differed if he had argued his “Trump 2020” flag was a “political sign” instead of a flag?

3. Discuss the authority granted to the Carter Ranch HOA Board by Article V, Section 5.3 of its CC&Rs. How did the HOA use this section to justify its Flag Display Rule, and why was this justification accepted by the court?

4. Evaluate the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the petitioner “has not alleged that Carter Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.” How can this be true when the petitioner’s initial filing explicitly cited this statute?

5. Based on the provided text of A.R.S. § 33-1808, under what specific circumstances could a homeowner in Carter Ranch successfully challenge the HOA’s rules on outdoor displays?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Velva Moses-Thompson served as the ALJ in the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The codified collection of laws for the state of Arizona. The case centered on an alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1808.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions)

The governing legal documents that set up the guidelines for a planned community or subdivision. The Carter Ranch CC&Rs grant the HOA Board the authority to adopt rules and regulations.

Department

Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions from members of homeowners’ associations.

Flag Display Rule

The specific rule created by the Carter Ranch HOA that prohibits flying any flag other than the American, military, POW/MIA, Arizona Indian National, Arizona State, and Gadsden flags.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. The Carter Ranch Homeowners Association is the Respondent in this case.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or brings a legal action against another party. In this case, the petitioner is Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen.

Political Sign

Defined by A.R.S. § 33-1808(C) as “a sign that attempts to influence the outcome of an election.” HOAs are restricted in their ability to prohibit the display of such signs.

Preponderance of the evidence

The burden of proof required in this proceeding. It is defined as “Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it,” meaning the fact is more probable than not.

Prevailing Party

The party who wins the legal case. The Administrative Law Judge deemed the Respondent (Carter Ranch HOA) to be the prevailing party.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case to reconsider the issues. This case was decided as a result of a rehearing held on January 10, 2020.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed; the party who must respond to the complaint. In this case, the respondent is the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association.






Blog Post – 19F-H1919071-REL


He Fought the HOA Over a Political Flag—And Lost. Here Are 3 Surprising Reasons Why.

Introduction: The Pride and the Problem

Imagine this: You want to display a flag on your own property to support a political candidate. It feels like a fundamental right, an expression of free speech on your home turf. But then, a letter arrives from your Homeowners Association (HOA) citing you for a violation. This exact scenario happened to Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen, who displayed a “Trump 2020” flag and promptly received a violation notice from the Carter Ranch HOA in Arizona.

Believing the HOA was overstepping its authority, Mr. Van Dan Elzen took them to court. He lost. The outcome might seem counter-intuitive, but the court’s decision reveals crucial lessons for any homeowner living under an HOA. Here are the three surprising legal reasons why the HOA won.

1. The Power of the Fine Print: Why a “Loophole” Wasn’t Enough

Mr. Van Dan Elzen built his case on a clever textual argument. He alleged that the HOA’s rule against his flag was invalid because the section of the master community documents—the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)—he believed it was based on only regulated “SIGNS” and made no mention of “FLAGS.” He argued that since the document didn’t explicitly prohibit flags, the rule against his was unenforceable.

This seemingly logical “loophole” argument failed. The HOA countered by pointing to a different, much broader clause in their CC&Rs. Article V, Section 5.3, gave the HOA board expansive power to create new rules.

The Board may, from time to time, adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations pertaining to: … (iii) the health, safety or welfare of the owners, Lessees and Residence, or (iv) restrictions on the use of Lots…

This general power to create rules for the “welfare of the owners” was enough to give the HOA the legal authority to regulate flags, even if the word “flag” wasn’t in the specific section the homeowner cited. The broad power to govern trumped the narrow, semantic argument.

2. A Flag Is Not a Sign (At Least, Not According to the Law)

While the homeowner’s flag was political in nature, it did not receive the legal protections granted to “political signs” under Arizona law. This distinction proved fatal to his case.

The relevant statute, A.R.S. § 33-1808, is highly specific about which flags an HOA is forbidden from prohibiting. The protected list includes: the American flag, official military branch flags, the POW/MIA flag, the Arizona state flag, Arizona Indian nations flags, and the Gadsden flag. Critically, the Carter Ranch HOA’s own Flag Display Rule mirrored this state-approved list exactly, demonstrating they had aligned their regulations with the law. A political campaign flag, like “Trump 2020,” is not on this protected list.

The same law does protect political signs, but it defines them very precisely:

“political sign” means a sign that attempts to influence the outcome of an election, including supporting or opposing the recall of a public officer or supporting or opposing the circulation of a petition for a ballot measure, question or proposition or the recall of a public officer.

The key takeaway is that the law treats a political flag differently from a political sign. Because the “Trump 2020” item was a flag and not on the state’s protected flag list, the HOA was well within its rights to restrict its display based on its own community rules.

3. A Critical Misstep: Arguing the Wrong Point

The most decisive reason for the loss was not a procedural error, but a substantive legal failure. Mr. Van Dan Elzen filed his petition with the state on the grounds that the HOA had violated a specific state law, A.R.S. § 33-1808, which governs flags and political signs.

However, his entire case was built on arguing that the HOA’s internal rules were inconsistent with its own CC&Rs—the “sign” versus “flag” argument. This was the wrong legal target. To win, he had to prove that the HOA had violated the state statute. But the statute explicitly allows an HOA to regulate any flag not on the protected list. By regulating his “Trump 2020” flag, the HOA was doing exactly what the state law permitted. His argument about internal documents, even if correct, did not add up to a violation of the state law he sued under.

The Administrative Law Judge recognized this fundamental flaw, concluding that the homeowner hadn’t actually made a case for a statutory violation at all.

Moreover, Petitioner has not alleged that Carter Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.

This is a crucial lesson: it’s not enough to feel wronged. Your argument must directly prove that the specific law you cite in your complaint has actually been broken. The homeowner’s claim was dismissed because his central argument was irrelevant to the law he needed to prove was violated.

Conclusion: Know Your Rights, and Your Rules

The case of the “Trump 2020” flag is a powerful illustration for homeowners everywhere. It highlights three critical realities of living in an HOA: the broad rule-making power granted by community documents can override perceived loopholes; state laws make very specific and narrow distinctions between protected items like signs and flags; and a sound legal strategy is paramount.

This case is a stark reminder that in an HOA, your property rights are defined not by what you feel is right, but by what is written down. Before you make a stand, are you certain you’re fighting the right battle on the right legal ground?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen (petitioner)
    Appeared and testified on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Augustus H. Shaw IV (attorney)
    Shaw & Lines LLC
    Appeared for Carter Ranch Homeowners Association

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

  • Dustin Snow (property manager)
    SNOW PROPERTY SERVICES
    Recipient of order transmission

Thomas J Van Dan Elzen v. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-01-30
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen Counsel —
Respondent Carter Ranch Homeowners Association Counsel Augustus H. Shaw IV, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1808

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's case, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1808 or improperly adopted its Flag Display Rule.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1808 and failed to prove that the HOA's Flag Display Rule was inconsistent with or improperly adopted under the CC&Rs.

Key Issues & Findings

Flags and Sings

Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen filed a petition arguing that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1808 after being notified he violated Association Rules by displaying a “Trump 2020” flag. He argued the HOA's Flag Display Rule was invalid because the CC&Rs only defined SIGNS (DCC&R 3.14) and had no reference to Flags whatsoever, thus the rule was inconsistent with the CC&Rs.

Orders: Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen’s petition is dismissed. Respondent is deemed to be the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1182 (6th ed. 1990)
  • 4 United States Code sections 4 through 10
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Flag Display, Political Sign, CC&Rs, Rules & Regulations
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • 4 United States Code sections 4 through 10

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919071-REL Decision – 767071.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:09:41 (69.0 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1919071-REL


Administrative Hearing Briefing: Van Dan Elzen v. Carter Ranch HOA

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in the case of Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen versus the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA), case number 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG. The dispute centered on the HOA’s prohibition of a “Trump 2020” flag displayed by Mr. Van Dan Elzen at his property. The petitioner alleged this prohibition violated Arizona state law.

The ALJ ultimately dismissed the petition, ruling in favor of the Carter Ranch HOA. The decision was based on the petitioner’s failure to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA’s “Flag Display Rule” was inconsistent with its foundational Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or that the rule was improperly adopted. Crucially, the ALJ found that the petitioner had not sufficiently alleged a direct violation of the relevant state statute, A.R.S. § 33-1808. The ruling effectively upholds the HOA’s authority, granted by its CC&Rs, to regulate the display of flags not explicitly protected by Arizona law.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview

• Case Name: Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen, Petitioner, vs. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association, Respondent.

• Case Number: 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG

• Adjudicating Body: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson

• Hearing Date: January 10, 2020

• Decision Date: January 30, 2020

• Subject of Dispute: The validity of an HOA rule prohibiting the display of a “Trump 2020” political flag, which the petitioner claimed violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.

II. Chronology of Key Events

• May 21, 2019: Carter Ranch HOA notifies petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen that his “Trump 2020” flag violates Association Rules.

• June 14, 2019: Mr. Van Dan Elzen files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.

• November 18, 2019: The Department of Real Estate issues an order setting the matter for a rehearing.

• January 10, 2020: The rehearing is held before an Administrative Law Judge.

III. Petitioner’s Position (Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen)

Mr. Van Dan Elzen’s case was predicated on the argument that the HOA’s rules regarding flags were inconsistent with its own governing documents, specifically the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

• Core Allegation: The HOA’s enforcement action violated A.R.S. § 33-1808, which governs flags and signs.

• Primary Argument: Mr. Van Dan Elzen contended that the HOA’s “Flag Display Rule” was invalid because the CC&Rs do not explicitly mention the word “flag.” He argued that the relevant section of the governing documents, DCC&R 3.14, only defines “SIGNS.”

• Direct Quotation from Petition: The petition stated the following, highlighting the perceived discrepancy:

IV. Respondent’s Position (Carter Ranch HOA)

The Carter Ranch HOA maintained that its “Flag Display Rule” was valid, properly enacted, and did not violate state law or its own governing documents.

• The “Flag Display Rule”: The HOA’s rules explicitly prohibit flying any flag other than those on an approved list, which includes:

◦ The American Flag

◦ Official flags of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard

◦ A POW/MIA flag

◦ An Arizona Indian National flag

◦ The Arizona State flag

◦ The Gadsden Flag

• Authority to Regulate: The HOA asserted its authority to create this rule stemmed from Article V, Section 5.3 of its CC&Rs. This section grants the Board the power to adopt, amend, and repeal rules pertaining to “the health, safety or welfare of the owners… or restrictions on the use of Lots.” It also specifies that such rules are “enforceable in the same manner” as the CC&Rs themselves.

• Defense Arguments: The HOA contended that the petition should be dismissed because:

1. The Flag Display Rule was not inconsistent with the CC&Rs.

2. The rule was properly adopted under the authority granted in the CC&Rs.

3. The petitioner failed to allege that the HOA had actually violated a specific statute or provision of its governing documents.

V. Analysis of Governing Law: A.R.S. § 33-1808

This Arizona Revised Statute was central to the dispute. It places specific limitations on an HOA’s ability to regulate the display of certain flags and political signs.

Provision

Description of Regulation

Subsection A: Protected Flags

An HOA cannot prohibit the outdoor display of: The American flag (if displayed consistent with federal code), official U.S. military flags, the POW/MIA flag, the Arizona state flag, an Arizona Indian nations flag, or the Gadsden flag.

Subsection C: Political Signs

An HOA cannot prohibit the display of political signs on a member’s property, but may regulate them. Permissible regulations include:
• Time: Prohibiting display earlier than 71 days before an election and later than 3 days after an election.
• Size & Number: Regulations must be no more restrictive than applicable city/county ordinances. If no such ordinance exists, the HOA cannot limit the number of signs, but can cap the maximum aggregate dimensions at nine square feet.

• Definition of “Political Sign”: The statute defines a political sign as “a sign that attempts to influence the outcome of an election.”

VI. Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order

The ALJ concluded that the petitioner failed to meet the required burden of proof, which is to prove a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

1. Rule Consistency: The ALJ concluded that the “Petitioner has not established that the Flag Display Rule was inconsistent with the CC&Rs.”

2. Rule Adoption: The ALJ found that the “Petitioner has not established that the Association improperly adopted the Flag Display Rule under its CC&Rs.”

3. Failure to Allege Violation: The judge noted that the “Petitioner has not alleged that Carter Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.” This indicates a failure in the petition’s framing to connect the HOA’s actions to a specific statutory prohibition.

4. Final Determination: Based on these conclusions, the judge determined that “Mr. Van Dan Elzen’s petition should be dismissed and the Respondent be deemed to be the prevailing party in this matter.”

• Dismissal: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen’s petition is dismissed.”

• Binding Nature: The order is binding on the parties as it resulted from a rehearing.

• Appeal Rights: Any appeal must be filed with the superior court within 35 days from the date the order was served.