Case Summary
| Case ID |
19F-H1918037-REL-RHG |
| Agency |
ADRE |
| Tribunal |
OAH |
| Decision Date |
2019-09-12 |
| Administrative Law Judge |
Jenna Clark |
| Outcome |
full |
| Filing Fees Refunded |
$500.00 |
| Civil Penalties |
$500.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner |
Tom Barrs |
Counsel |
Jonathan A. Dessaules |
| Respondent |
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association |
Counsel |
B. Austin Baillio |
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to provide the full requested documentation relating to EDC actions and communications. The Petitioner's request for relief was granted, resulting in the reimbursement of the $500 filing fee and the imposition of a $500 civil penalty against the HOA.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request.
The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fully comply with Petitioner's specific request for EDC records (submissions, requests, and approvals) by providing only a summary table instead of the totality of requested communications within the statutory deadline.
Orders: Petitioner's petition granted. Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01) and tender a $500.00 civil penalty to the Department (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)).
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $500.00
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Records Request, HOA Violation, Civil Penalty, Filing Fee Reimbursement
Additional Citations:
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
- ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-243
- ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-107
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
Decision Documents
19F-H1918037-REL Decision – 700566.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:55 (149.3 KB)
Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918037-REL
Briefing Document: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Case No. 19F-H1918037-REL)
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes two Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decisions concerning a records request dispute between homeowner Tom Barrs (Petitioner) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute was the Association’s failure to fully comply with a request for records under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805.
The case is notable for its complete reversal upon rehearing. An initial ruling on April 10, 2019, favored the Association, finding that the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request by not emailing all Board members. However, this decision was overturned in a final, binding order on September 12, 2019. In the rehearing, the Petitioner presented new evidence demonstrating he was following the Association’s own prior written instructions for submitting such requests.
The ALJ ultimately concluded that the Association did violate A.R.S. § 33-1805 by providing only a summary document instead of making the full records available for examination. Consequently, the final order granted the Petitioner’s petition, mandated the full reimbursement of his $500 filing fee, and levied an additional $500 civil penalty against the Association. The case underscores the critical importance of procedural compliance and the weight of documented instructions in governing interactions between homeowners and their associations.
——————————————————————————–
I. Case Overview
• Parties:
◦ Petitioner: Tom Barrs, a property owner and member of the Association.
◦ Respondent: Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (“the Association”).
• Venue: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark.
• Core Allegation: Whether the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner.
• Case Numbers:
◦ 19F-H1918037-REL (Initial Decision)
◦ 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG (Rehearing Decision)
II. Chronology of the Dispute
Jul. 19, 2017
Association President Catherine Overby appoints Environmental Design Committee (EDC) Director Brian Schoeffler as the Petitioner’s primary contact for records requests.
Jul. 18, 2018
Ms. Overby instructs the Petitioner to direct all requests to the Association’s management company, Associated Asset Management (AAM), specifically to Lori Lock-Lee.
Nov. 1, 2018
Petitioner submits the records request at issue via email to Catherine Overby, Brian Schoeffler, and Lori Loch-Lee.
Nov. 2, 2018
Ms. Loch-Lee acknowledges the request, states she will forward it to all Board members, and clarifies that AAM is only the Association’s accounting firm.
Nov. 18, 2018
Mr. Schoeffler responds on behalf of the Association, providing a summary table of EDC actions but not the full records. He also advises the Petitioner that all Board members must be copied on future requests.
Dec. 17, 2018
Petitioner files a single-issue petition against the Association with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, paying a $500 fee.
Mar. 6, 2019
Petitioner sends a follow-up email specifying the exact documents he is seeking, referencing items listed in the summary table he received.
Mar. 11, 2019
Mr. Schoeffler replies, asserting the request was already fulfilled and instructing the Petitioner to submit a new request for the additional items.
Mar. 17, 2019
Mr. Schoeffler emails again, claiming the original request was improperly submitted to only two of four Board members and that providing more documents could be seen as an “admission of guilt.”
Mar. 21, 2019
The first evidentiary hearing is held at the OAH.
Apr. 10, 2019
The initial ALJ Decision is issued, denying the Petitioner’s petition.
Jun. 10, 2019
Petitioner submits an appeal to the Department, which is granted.
Aug. 27, 2019
A rehearing is held at the OAH.
Sep. 12, 2019
The final ALJ Decision is issued, reversing the initial ruling and granting the Petitioner’s petition.
III. The Records Request and Response
Petitioner’s Request (November 1, 2018)
The Petitioner submitted a clear and direct request for specific records via email, citing the relevant statute:
“Pursuant to ARS 33-1805, I am requesting a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018. Soft copies via return email are preferable; otherwise, please let me know when hard copies are available for pickup.”
Association’s Response (November 18, 2018)
The Association did not provide the requested documents (e.g., letters, emails, applications). Instead, it provided a “summary table listing of some, not all, EDC actions.” As of the August 27, 2019, rehearing, the Petitioner had still not received the full documentation he originally requested.
Petitioner’s Clarification (March 6, 2019)
In an attempt to resolve the issue, the Petitioner sent a detailed follow-up email outlining the specific missing records by referencing the line items in the Association’s own summary table. This demonstrated that his request was not for a vague “list of actions” but for the underlying correspondence. This included requests for:
• Copies of violation notices and “Full Compliance” correspondence.
• Complaint correspondence from homeowners regarding shrubs and subsequent citations.
• Submittal correspondence for a project from Mr. Schoeffler himself, along with approvals.
• Original submittals and approvals for a garage remodel and septic install.
IV. Analysis of the Two Administrative Rulings
The opposite outcomes of the two hearings hinged entirely on the validity of the Petitioner’s original email submission.
A. Initial ALJ Decision (April 10, 2019) – In Favor of Respondent (HOA)
• Central Finding: The Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request because he sent it to only two Board members, not the entire Board.
• Reasoning: The ALJ concluded that because the request was improperly submitted, the Association was not obligated to fulfill it under A.R.S. § 33-1805. Therefore, its failure to provide the full records did not constitute a violation. The decision noted, “Because the credible evidence of record reflects that Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to the Board, Petitioner has failed established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation…”
• Outcome: The petition was denied. The Association was not required to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee, and his request for a civil penalty was denied.
B. Rehearing ALJ Decision (September 12, 2019) – In Favor of Petitioner (Barrs)
• Central Finding: The Petitioner did properly submit his records request by emailing the designated contacts.
• Key New Evidence: The Petitioner introduced two exhibits proving he had received explicit instructions from the Association President on where to direct his requests:
1. A July 19, 2017 communication appointing EDC Chairman Brian Schoeffler as his primary records request contact.
2. A July 18, 2018 communication instructing him to direct requests to the management company (AAM).
• Reasoning: The ALJ found this evidence dispositive, stating, “Petitioner’s November 01, 2018, records request was not required to be sent to all members of the Association’s Board, as Petitioner had expressly been instructed to only send his records requests to the Association’s EDC Chairman, Mr. Schoeffler, which he did.” With the submission deemed proper, the focus shifted to the response. The ALJ concluded that providing a summary table was not compliant with the statute’s requirement to make records “reasonably available for examination.”
• Outcome: The initial decision was reversed, and the Petitioner’s petition was granted.
V. Key Arguments and Testimonies
• Petitioner (Tom Barrs):
◦ Argued his dispute was with the adequacy of the Association’s response, not its timeliness.
◦ Alleged the Association acted in bad faith and willfully withheld records, citing a previous OAH adjudication over a similar request.
◦ Successfully demonstrated he had followed the Association’s own prior instructions for submitting requests.
• Respondent (via Brian Schoeffler):
◦ Maintained that the request was invalid because it was not sent to all four Board members, an argument that collapsed during the rehearing.
◦ Admitted the Association’s governing documents do not contain a requirement that all Board members be copied on records requests.
◦ Justified the incomplete response by stating that providing additional documents after the petition was filed could be “interpreted as an admission of guilt.”
◦ Reasoned that the Association acted as it did because a previous, similar dispute had been decided in its favor.
VI. Final Order and Penalties
The binding order issued on September 12, 2019, following the rehearing, mandated the following:
1. Petition Granted: The Petitioner’s petition was granted in its entirety.
2. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee.
3. Civil Penalty: The Association was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $500 to the Arizona Department of Real Estate for its violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918037-REL
Study Guide: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal case between petitioner Tom Barrs and respondent Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, covering the initial hearing and the subsequent rehearing. It includes a quiz to test factual recall, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences based on the provided source documents.
1. Who are the primary parties in this legal dispute, and what are their respective roles?
2. What specific Arizona Revised Statute was the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association accused of violating, and what does this statute generally require?
3. What was the exact nature of the records request Tom Barrs submitted on November 1, 2018?
4. In the initial hearing, what was the key reason the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Association?
5. What was the Association’s initial response to Barrs’ records request, and why did Barrs consider it incomplete?
6. Upon what grounds was a rehearing of the case granted?
7. What crucial new evidence presented at the rehearing changed the outcome of the case?
8. How did the Association’s own bylaws and concessions during the rehearing weaken its defense?
9. What was the final ruling in the Administrative Law Judge’s decision after the rehearing?
10. What financial penalties were imposed on the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association in the final order?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Tom Barrs, the Petitioner, and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, the Respondent. Barrs, a homeowner and member of the Association, filed a petition alleging the Association failed to comply with a records request. The Association, represented in the hearings by Brian Schoeffler, defended its actions against this claim.
2. The Association was accused of violating A.R.S. § 33-1805. This statute requires a homeowners’ association to make its financial and other records reasonably available for examination by a member within ten business days of a request. It also allows the association to charge a fee of not more than fifteen cents per page for copies.
3. On November 1, 2018, Tom Barrs requested “a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018.” He specified that electronic copies were preferable but that he was also willing to pick up hard copies.
4. In the initial hearing, the judge ruled for the Association because the evidence indicated Barrs had failed to properly submit his request to all members of the Association’s Board. This procedural error meant Barrs failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation of the statute.
5. The Association responded on November 18, 2018, by providing Barrs with a summary table of Environmental Design Committee (EDC) actions. Barrs considered this incomplete because his request was for the underlying communications, including all written requests and approvals, not just a summary list of actions.
6. A rehearing was granted after Petitioner Tom Barrs submitted an appeal to the Arizona Department of Real Estate on June 10, 2019. The Department granted the appeal and referred the matter back to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a new evidentiary hearing.
7. The crucial new evidence showed that the Association’s President had previously appointed Brian Schoeffler as Barrs’ primary contact for records requests. This evidence demonstrated that Barrs had, in fact, followed the specific instructions given to him and was not required to send his request to all board members, directly contradicting the basis for the initial ruling.
8. The Association conceded that its governing documents do not require members to copy all Board members on records requests. It also admitted that its own bylaws regarding the submission of forms for such requests were not adhered to or enforced, which undermined its argument that Barrs had failed to follow proper procedure.
9. The final ruling, issued September 12, 2019, granted the Petitioner’s petition. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Association’s conduct violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 because it did not fully comply with Barrs’ specific and properly submitted request.
10. The Association was ordered to reimburse Petitioner Tom Barrs’ $500.00 filing fee. Additionally, a civil penalty of $500.00 was levied against the Association, payable to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-format answers that require critical thinking and synthesis of information from the case documents. Answers are not provided.
1. Compare and contrast the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the initial decision (April 10, 2019) with those in the rehearing decision (September 12, 2019). Analyze how specific factual clarifications led to a complete reversal of the legal conclusion.
2. Explain the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the decisions. Detail why the petitioner initially failed to meet this burden and what specific evidence allowed him to successfully meet it in the rehearing.
3. Analyze the testimony and arguments presented by Brian Schoeffler on behalf of the Association across both hearings. Discuss the consistency of his defense, his reasoning based on prior OAH decisions, and his stated fear that providing more documents could be interpreted as an “admission of guilt.”
4. Trace the complete procedural timeline of case No. 19F-H1918037-REL, from the filing of the initial petition on December 17, 2018, to the final, binding order on September 12, 2019. Highlight the roles of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
5. Using the details of this case, write an analysis of the function and importance of A.R.S. § 33-1805 in regulating the relationship between a homeowner and a homeowners’ association. Discuss the statute’s requirements for both parties and the consequences of non-compliance.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent, impartial judge who presides over administrative hearings at government agencies like the Office of Administrative Hearings. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.
A.R.S. § 33-1805
The section of the Arizona Revised Statutes that governs a homeowner’s right to access the records of a homeowners’ association. It mandates that an association must make records available for examination within ten business days of a request.
Associated Asset Management (AAM)
The management company that served as the accounting firm for the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. Petitioner was instructed at one point to direct requests to Lori Lock-Lee at AAM.
Board of Directors (the Board)
The governing body that oversees the operations of the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community or subdivision. The Desert Ranch HOA is governed by its CC&Rs.
Environmental Design Committee (EDC)
A committee within the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association responsible for reviewing and approving architectural and landscaping changes. Brian Schoeffler was the Chairman of the EDC.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, Tom Barrs is the Petitioner.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof in this civil administrative case. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and has superior weight, inclining a fair mind to one side of the issue over the other.
Rehearing
A second hearing of a case, granted upon appeal, to re-examine the issues and evidence. The rehearing in this case took place on August 27, 2019, and resulted in the reversal of the initial decision.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association is the Respondent.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, providing a neutral forum for resolving disputes like the one between Barrs and the Association.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918037-REL
Briefing Document: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Case No. 19F-H1918037-REL)
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes two Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decisions concerning a records request dispute between homeowner Tom Barrs (Petitioner) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute was the Association’s failure to fully comply with a request for records under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805.
The case is notable for its complete reversal upon rehearing. An initial ruling on April 10, 2019, favored the Association, finding that the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request by not emailing all Board members. However, this decision was overturned in a final, binding order on September 12, 2019. In the rehearing, the Petitioner presented new evidence demonstrating he was following the Association’s own prior written instructions for submitting such requests.
The ALJ ultimately concluded that the Association did violate A.R.S. § 33-1805 by providing only a summary document instead of making the full records available for examination. Consequently, the final order granted the Petitioner’s petition, mandated the full reimbursement of his $500 filing fee, and levied an additional $500 civil penalty against the Association. The case underscores the critical importance of procedural compliance and the weight of documented instructions in governing interactions between homeowners and their associations.
——————————————————————————–
I. Case Overview
• Parties:
◦ Petitioner: Tom Barrs, a property owner and member of the Association.
◦ Respondent: Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (“the Association”).
• Venue: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark.
• Core Allegation: Whether the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner.
• Case Numbers:
◦ 19F-H1918037-REL (Initial Decision)
◦ 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG (Rehearing Decision)
II. Chronology of the Dispute
Jul. 19, 2017
Association President Catherine Overby appoints Environmental Design Committee (EDC) Director Brian Schoeffler as the Petitioner’s primary contact for records requests.
Jul. 18, 2018
Ms. Overby instructs the Petitioner to direct all requests to the Association’s management company, Associated Asset Management (AAM), specifically to Lori Lock-Lee.
Nov. 1, 2018
Petitioner submits the records request at issue via email to Catherine Overby, Brian Schoeffler, and Lori Loch-Lee.
Nov. 2, 2018
Ms. Loch-Lee acknowledges the request, states she will forward it to all Board members, and clarifies that AAM is only the Association’s accounting firm.
Nov. 18, 2018
Mr. Schoeffler responds on behalf of the Association, providing a summary table of EDC actions but not the full records. He also advises the Petitioner that all Board members must be copied on future requests.
Dec. 17, 2018
Petitioner files a single-issue petition against the Association with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, paying a $500 fee.
Mar. 6, 2019
Petitioner sends a follow-up email specifying the exact documents he is seeking, referencing items listed in the summary table he received.
Mar. 11, 2019
Mr. Schoeffler replies, asserting the request was already fulfilled and instructing the Petitioner to submit a new request for the additional items.
Mar. 17, 2019
Mr. Schoeffler emails again, claiming the original request was improperly submitted to only two of four Board members and that providing more documents could be seen as an “admission of guilt.”
Mar. 21, 2019
The first evidentiary hearing is held at the OAH.
Apr. 10, 2019
The initial ALJ Decision is issued, denying the Petitioner’s petition.
Jun. 10, 2019
Petitioner submits an appeal to the Department, which is granted.
Aug. 27, 2019
A rehearing is held at the OAH.
Sep. 12, 2019
The final ALJ Decision is issued, reversing the initial ruling and granting the Petitioner’s petition.
III. The Records Request and Response
Petitioner’s Request (November 1, 2018)
The Petitioner submitted a clear and direct request for specific records via email, citing the relevant statute:
“Pursuant to ARS 33-1805, I am requesting a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018. Soft copies via return email are preferable; otherwise, please let me know when hard copies are available for pickup.”
Association’s Response (November 18, 2018)
The Association did not provide the requested documents (e.g., letters, emails, applications). Instead, it provided a “summary table listing of some, not all, EDC actions.” As of the August 27, 2019, rehearing, the Petitioner had still not received the full documentation he originally requested.
Petitioner’s Clarification (March 6, 2019)
In an attempt to resolve the issue, the Petitioner sent a detailed follow-up email outlining the specific missing records by referencing the line items in the Association’s own summary table. This demonstrated that his request was not for a vague “list of actions” but for the underlying correspondence. This included requests for:
• Copies of violation notices and “Full Compliance” correspondence.
• Complaint correspondence from homeowners regarding shrubs and subsequent citations.
• Submittal correspondence for a project from Mr. Schoeffler himself, along with approvals.
• Original submittals and approvals for a garage remodel and septic install.
IV. Analysis of the Two Administrative Rulings
The opposite outcomes of the two hearings hinged entirely on the validity of the Petitioner’s original email submission.
A. Initial ALJ Decision (April 10, 2019) – In Favor of Respondent (HOA)
• Central Finding: The Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request because he sent it to only two Board members, not the entire Board.
• Reasoning: The ALJ concluded that because the request was improperly submitted, the Association was not obligated to fulfill it under A.R.S. § 33-1805. Therefore, its failure to provide the full records did not constitute a violation. The decision noted, “Because the credible evidence of record reflects that Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to the Board, Petitioner has failed established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation…”
• Outcome: The petition was denied. The Association was not required to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee, and his request for a civil penalty was denied.
B. Rehearing ALJ Decision (September 12, 2019) – In Favor of Petitioner (Barrs)
• Central Finding: The Petitioner did properly submit his records request by emailing the designated contacts.
• Key New Evidence: The Petitioner introduced two exhibits proving he had received explicit instructions from the Association President on where to direct his requests:
1. A July 19, 2017 communication appointing EDC Chairman Brian Schoeffler as his primary records request contact.
2. A July 18, 2018 communication instructing him to direct requests to the management company (AAM).
• Reasoning: The ALJ found this evidence dispositive, stating, “Petitioner’s November 01, 2018, records request was not required to be sent to all members of the Association’s Board, as Petitioner had expressly been instructed to only send his records requests to the Association’s EDC Chairman, Mr. Schoeffler, which he did.” With the submission deemed proper, the focus shifted to the response. The ALJ concluded that providing a summary table was not compliant with the statute’s requirement to make records “reasonably available for examination.”
• Outcome: The initial decision was reversed, and the Petitioner’s petition was granted.
V. Key Arguments and Testimonies
• Petitioner (Tom Barrs):
◦ Argued his dispute was with the adequacy of the Association’s response, not its timeliness.
◦ Alleged the Association acted in bad faith and willfully withheld records, citing a previous OAH adjudication over a similar request.
◦ Successfully demonstrated he had followed the Association’s own prior instructions for submitting requests.
• Respondent (via Brian Schoeffler):
◦ Maintained that the request was invalid because it was not sent to all four Board members, an argument that collapsed during the rehearing.
◦ Admitted the Association’s governing documents do not contain a requirement that all Board members be copied on records requests.
◦ Justified the incomplete response by stating that providing additional documents after the petition was filed could be “interpreted as an admission of guilt.”
◦ Reasoned that the Association acted as it did because a previous, similar dispute had been decided in its favor.
VI. Final Order and Penalties
The binding order issued on September 12, 2019, following the rehearing, mandated the following:
1. Petition Granted: The Petitioner’s petition was granted in its entirety.
2. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee.
3. Civil Penalty: The Association was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $500 to the Arizona Department of Real Estate for its violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Tom Barrs (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf in the initial hearing; appeared as a witness in the rehearing.
- Jonathan Dessaules (petitioner attorney)
Dessaules Law Group
Appeared on behalf of Petitioner in the rehearing.
Respondent Side
- Brian Schoeffler (respondent representative / EDC chairman / witness)
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Also identified as a Board Director.
- Catherine Overby (HOA president / board member)
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Appointed Mr. Schoeffler as Petitioner’s primary records request contact.
- Lori Loch-Lee (property manager)
Associated Asset Management (AAM)
Vice President of Client Services.
- Amanda Shaw (property manager)
AAM LLC
Contact for Respondent.
- B. Austin Baillio (HOA attorney)
Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
Received electronic transmission of the rehearing decision.
Neutral Parties
- Jenna Clark (ALJ)
OAH
- Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
ADRE
- Dan Gardner (ADRE staff)
ADRE
HOA Coordinator.
Other Participants
- Gerard Manieri (observer)
Listed as 'G. Mangiero' in initial hearing source.
- Peter Ashkin (observer)
Observed initial hearing.
- Stephen Banks (observer)
Observed initial hearing.
- Noah Banks (observer)
Observed initial hearing.
- Stephen Barrs (observer)
Observed rehearing.
- Abraham Barrs (observer)
Observed rehearing.
