Tag Archives: Condominium

Ronna Biesecker, v. 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association,

Posted on June 26, 2020 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2020050-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2020-06-25
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	none
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Ronna Biesecker	Counsel	—
Respondent	6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1247 and CC&Rs § 10(c)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs or Arizona statutes; therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, as evidence suggested the water leak was caused by the sliding glass door of the unit above, not a flaw in the common elements.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to maintain all Common Elements (Water Leak Dispute)

Petitioner alleged the Respondent HOA failed to maintain Common Elements, leading to water leaks in her unit. Respondent denied the violation, asserting the leak originated from the upstairs unit’s sliding doors or track assemblies, which are the responsibility of that unit owner.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

• A.R.S. § 33-1247
• CC&Rs § 10(c)
• Article II.E, Section 1 of the Bylaws
• Article C of the CC&Rs

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium, maintenance dispute, common elements, water damage, burden of proof

Additional Citations:

• A.R.S. § 33-1247
• CC&Rs § 10(c)
• A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
• A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
• A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
• A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
• Powell v. Washburn
• Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs.
• Vazanno v. Superior Court

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020050-REL Decision – 802352.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:05 (103.2 KB)

Administrative Hearing Brief: Biesecker v. 6100 Fifth Condominium HOA

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 20F-H2020050-REL, wherein Petitioner Ronna Biesecker alleged that the 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association (HOA) failed to fulfill its maintenance responsibilities. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately dismissed the petition, ruling that the Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof required to substantiate her claim.

The central conflict involved recurring water leaks in Ms. Biesecker’s condominium unit (A113). The Petitioner contended that the leaks originated from cracks in the building’s exterior stucco, which are defined as “Common Elements” and are therefore the HOA’s responsibility to repair under its governing documents and Arizona state law. In contrast, the HOA argued that the source of the water was the sliding door assembly of the upstairs unit, making its maintenance the responsibility of that unit’s owner.

The final decision rested on the weight of evidence presented. Multiple expert inspections, conducted by Olander’s and another inspector retained by the HOA, concluded that the leaks were attributable to the upstairs unit’s sliding doors. This evidence was deemed more convincing than the Petitioner’s own assessment regarding the stucco. The ALJ concluded that Ms. Biesecker failed to prove by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the damage was caused by a flaw in the common elements, leading to the dismissal of her case.

Case Overview

Case Name

Ronna Biesecker, Petitioner, vs. 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association, Respondent.

Case Number

20F-H2020050-REL

Office of Administrative Hearings (Arizona)

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

Hearing Date

June 5, 2020

Decision Date

June 25, 2020

Petitioner

Ronna Biesecker, owner of unit A113

Respondent

6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association, represented by Robert Eric Struse, Statutory Agent

Core Allegations and Defenses

Petitioner’s Claim (Ronna Biesecker)

• Core Allegation: The Petitioner filed a petition on March 10, 2020, alleging that the Respondent (HOA) violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) § 10(c) and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1247 by failing to maintain the common elements of the condominium community.

• Specifics of Claim: Ms. Biesecker asserted that persistent water leaks into her unit were caused by cracks in the exterior stucco surrounding the sliding doors.

• Basis of Responsibility: She argued that because the exterior stucco is a “common element,” the HOA was legally responsible for its repair and any subsequent damage to her unit.

• Requested Action: The Petitioner had previously requested that the HOA repair the exterior leaks and had attempted to have the HOA mediate the issue with the owner of the upstairs unit.

Respondent’s Position (6100 Fifth Condominium HOA)

• Core Defense: The HOA denied any violation of its CC&Rs or state statutes.

• Specifics of Defense: The HOA maintained that the source of the water leaks was not a common element. Instead, it attributed the leaks to the sliding doors or track assemblies of the condominium unit located directly above the Petitioner’s.

• Basis of Responsibility: According to the HOA’s governing documents and state law, the maintenance of elements belonging to an individual unit (such as a sliding door) is the responsibility of that unit’s owner, not the association.

• Actions Taken: The HOA declined to “arbitrate, mediate, or serve as a third party” in the dispute between the Petitioner and the owner of the upstairs unit. It also conducted an inspection which supported its position.

Evidentiary Timeline and Key Findings

The decision was based on a sequence of events and expert assessments presented as evidence.

• January 5, 2019: Petitioner experiences the first water leak in her unit (A113) near the sliding glass door.

• January 18, 2019: An employee from Olander’s, a door installation company contacted by the Petitioner, inspects the unit. The employee’s opinion was that “the leak was coming from the unit above Petitioner and that the sliding door above Petitioner’s unit had large gaps under the threshold which allowed water to get in.”

• February 8, 2019: Nathan’s Handyman Service repairs plaster damage in the Petitioner’s unit and notes in a report that the damage was “the result of an old leak coming from above Petitioner’s unit.” The report also identified rusted wire mesh, indicating previous repairs to the area.

• March/April 2019: The HOA’s Property Manager formally refuses the Petitioner’s request to mediate the dispute with the owner of the upstairs unit.

• May 1, 2019: Petitioner emails the HOA, proposing that new cracks in the stucco pop-out at the roof level could be the source of the leak.

• October 28, 2019: A “Roof Opinion Report” from Roof Savers Locke Roofing states that no roof repairs are needed but notes the presence of “server [sic] cracking at the stucco.” The report recommends contacting a stucco or window contractor.

• November 27, 2019: Another leak occurs in the same area of the Petitioner’s unit.

• December 9, 2019: The HOA’s Property Manager and an inspector assess the water damage in the Petitioner’s unit.

• December 23, 2019: An invoice from the inspector states: “After inspecting the shared roof and building interior/exterior it appears the water damage to the lower unit is coming from the upstairs unit sliding doors or their track assemblies.”

• June 5, 2020 (Hearing Testimony):

◦ The Petitioner stated it was “obvious” the leak originated from the stucco crack.

◦ The HOA’s Statutory Agent, Robert Eric Struse, testified that the December 2019 inspection included the interior of the upstairs unit. He argued that if the stucco crack were the cause, the upstairs unit would also show internal water damage, which it did not.

Governing Documents and Statutes

The case revolved around the interpretation of responsibility as defined by the following legal framework:

• Bylaws (Article II.E, Section 1) & CC&Rs (Article C): These documents obligate the HOA to collect assessments to meet common expenses, including the “maintenance, upkeep, care, repair, [and] reconstruction… for the common elements.”

• A.R.S. § 33-1247: This Arizona statute codifies the division of maintenance responsibility. It states that “the association is responsible for maintenance, repair and replacement of the common elements and each unit owner is responsible for maintenance, repair and replacement of the unit.”

Conclusions of Law and Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was based on the application of the legal standard of proof to the evidence presented.

• Burden of Proof: The ALJ established that the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to demonstrate, by a “preponderance of the evidence,” that the HOA violated the applicable statutes or CC&Rs. A preponderance of the evidence is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is “more probably true than not.”

• Central Legal Finding: The judge determined that if the water damage was caused by a flaw in the common elements, the HOA would be responsible. However, the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof in establishing this causal link.

• Reasoning for Decision: The ruling states: “Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the water leak and damage was attributable to the condition of the common elements. Rather, the opinions of the companies that inspected the area concluded that the leak was coming from the sliding glass door of the unit above Petitioner’s.” The collective weight of the expert opinions from Olander’s and the HOA’s inspector outweighed the Petitioner’s personal theory about the stucco cracks.

• Final Order: Based on these findings, the judge issued a final order: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is dismissed.” This order is binding unless a rehearing is granted.

Study Guide: Biesecker v. 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case No. 20F-H2020050-REL, concerning a dispute between condominium owner Ronna Biesecker and the 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association. The case centers on determining responsibility for water leaks affecting the Petitioner’s unit. Use the following sections to test and deepen your understanding of the facts, legal arguments, and final outcome.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, using only information provided in the case document.

1. Who were the Petitioner and Respondent in this case, and what was their relationship?

2. What was the central claim made by the Petitioner against the Respondent?

3. According to the Respondent, what was the source of the water leaks and who was responsible for the repair?

4. What legal standard, or “burden of proof,” did the Petitioner need to meet to win her case?

5. What two key community documents, in addition to Arizona state law, define the Respondent’s responsibility for maintaining “common elements”?

6. Summarize the findings of the two inspection reports mentioned in the evidence (from Olander’s and the December 23, 2019 invoice).

7. What was the Petitioner’s theory about the source of the leak, as stated during the hearing?

8. How did Robert Eric Struse, the Respondent’s Statutory Agent, counter the Petitioner’s theory about the stucco crack?

9. What was the final ruling, or “Order,” issued by the Administrative Law Judge?

10. Why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude that the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was Ronna Biesecker, who owned condominium unit A113. The Respondent was the 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association, of which the Petitioner was a member.

2. The Petitioner filed a petition alleging the Respondent violated its CC&Rs (§ 10(c)) and Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1247 by failing to maintain the common elements, which she believed were the source of water leaks in her unit.

3. The Respondent argued that the source of the water leaks was the upstairs unit’s sliding doors or track assemblies. Therefore, the responsibility for maintenance and repair belonged to the owner of that specific unit, not the Homeowners Association.

4. The Petitioner had the burden of proof to establish her claim by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This legal standard requires providing proof that convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

5. The Respondent’s responsibility is defined in Article II.E, Section 1 of the community Bylaws and Section C of the CC&Rs. Both documents state the association is responsible for the maintenance and repair of common elements using assessments paid by owners.

6. An employee from Olander’s opined that the leak was coming from the unit above Petitioner’s, specifically from large gaps under the sliding door’s threshold. Similarly, the inspector’s invoice from December 23, 2019, concluded that the water damage appeared to be coming from the upstairs unit’s sliding doors or their track assemblies.

7. During the hearing, the Petitioner stated that it was “obvious” the leak was coming from a crack in the stucco in the pop-out surrounding the sliding doors at the roof level. She posited this was a common element and therefore the Respondent’s responsibility to repair.

8. Mr. Struse testified that if water were leaking through the crack in the stucco, the upstairs unit would have also sustained internal damage. He confirmed that an inspection of the inside of the upstairs unit showed this was not happening, undermining the Petitioner’s theory.

9. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be dismissed.

10. The judge concluded the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof because the credible evidence, particularly the opinions of the companies that inspected the area, concluded the leak was coming from the sliding glass door of the unit above. The Petitioner did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the leak was attributable to the condition of the common elements.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for longer-form analysis. Formulate a detailed response for each, citing specific evidence and legal principles from the case document to support your arguments.

1. Analyze the distinction between “common elements” and an individual “unit” as defined by A.R.S. § 33-1247 and the community’s governing documents. How was this distinction central to the judge’s final decision in this case?

2. Discuss the role and weight of evidence presented during the hearing. Compare the Petitioner’s testimony and personal observations with the professional opinions from Olander’s and the inspector. Why did the judge find the professional opinions more convincing in determining the outcome?

3. Explain the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the case document’s Conclusions of Law. Using specific examples from the hearing evidence, detail why Ronna Biesecker failed to meet this standard.

4. Based on the referenced community documents, what are the primary maintenance responsibilities of the 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association? How did the Respondent’s stated refusal to “arbitrate, mediate, or serve as a third party” in the dispute between unit owners align with or diverge from these responsibilities?

5. Imagine you are advising the Petitioner before the hearing. What additional evidence or types of expert testimony could she have presented to potentially change the outcome of the case and successfully prove the leak was the Respondent’s responsibility?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official (Tammy L. Eigenheer) from the Office of Administrative Hearings who presides over the evidentiary hearing and issues a legally binding decision and order.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The codified laws of the state of Arizona. The statutes referenced (e.g., § 33-1247) govern the responsibilities of condominium associations and the legal procedures for disputes.

Bylaws

A set of rules governing the internal operations of an organization. In this case, Article II.E, Section 1 of the Bylaws obligates the Association to maintain the common elements using assessments paid by owners.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

A legal document that outlines the rights and obligations of property owners and the homeowners association. Section C of the CC&Rs required the Association to maintain, repair, and care for the common elements.

Common Elements

Areas of the condominium property for which the homeowners association is responsible for maintenance, upkeep, care, and repair, as distinguished from an individual owner’s unit.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Ronna Biesecker, the condominium owner who alleged the homeowners association violated its duties.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this hearing. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and is established by evidence with the most convincing force.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association.

Statutory Agent

An individual designated to receive legal notices and appear on behalf of a business entity. In this case, Robert Eric Struse appeared and testified on behalf of the Respondent association.

Your HOA Isn’t Your Landlord: 3 Surprising Lessons from a Condo Water Leak Lawsuit

Introduction: The Dreaded Drip

It’s a scenario that strikes fear into the heart of any condo owner: the tell-tale stain on the ceiling, the damp spot on the wall, the dreaded drip of a mysterious water leak. The immediate anxiety is followed by a pressing question: “Who is responsible for fixing this, and who pays for the damage?” Many assume the answer is straightforward, but as a recent lawsuit involving the 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association demonstrates, the lines of responsibility in a condominium community are often more complicated than they appear.

This article explores a real-life court case between a condo owner and her HOA to uncover three surprising truths about condo ownership, liability, and the true role of your HOA.

——————————————————————————–

1. It’s Not Where the Damage Is, It’s Where the Leak Starts

In the case, condo owner Ronna Biesecker experienced persistent water leaks in her unit (A113) around her sliding glass door. On May 1, 2019, after observing new cracks in the exterior stucco, she “posited that the cracks could be a source of the leak.” This became the foundation of her claim: if the water was coming from the stucco—a “Common Element”—then the HOA was responsible for the repairs.

However, a year-long trail of evidence pointed in a different direction. As early as January 18, 2019, an employee from the door installation company opined that the leak was “coming from the unit above.” On February 8, 2019, a handyman repairing plaster damage stated the issue was from “an old leak coming from above.” Even a roofing report from October 28, 2019, which noted the stucco cracking, stopped short of blaming it, instead recommending the owner contact a “stucco contractor or Window Company.”

This evidence culminated in a formal inspector’s report on December 23, 2019, which concluded the water was “coming from the upstairs unit sliding doors or their track assemblies.” Because the source of the leak originated from a part of the neighbor’s private unit, the legal responsibility shifted. Based on Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1247, the HOA was not liable. The key lesson here is unambiguous: legal responsibility follows the source of the problem, not the location of the resulting damage.

——————————————————————————–

2. “More Probably True Than Not”: The Burden of Proof Is on You

In any lawsuit, the person bringing the complaint—in this case, the homeowner—carries the “burden of proof.” This means she had to provide enough evidence to meet a specific legal standard, which the court defined as “preponderance of the evidence.” The legal decision offers a clear definition of this standard:

“The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

In simple terms, Ms. Biesecker had to convince the judge that her theory—that the leak came from the common element stucco—was more likely to be true than the HOA’s theory that it came from the neighbor’s door.

Her claim was undone by simple logic. The HOA’s Statutory Agent, Mr. Struse, provided devastating testimony, arguing that “if water was leaking through the crack in the stucco, the upstairs unit would have also had internal damage, which was not happening.” This single point made the petitioner’s theory far less probable. The judge ultimately ruled that the petitioner “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the provisions of the CC&Rs or Arizona statutes,” proving that an owner’s belief isn’t enough without convincing evidence.

——————————————————————————–

3. Your HOA Won’t (and Often Can’t) Settle Neighbor-to-Neighbor Fights

Before filing the lawsuit, the petitioner attempted to resolve the issue directly. On or about February 11, 2019, she contacted the owner of the unit above hers to request repairs but “did not receive a response.” Frustrated, she turned to the HOA for help. In March or April 2019, she asked the Property Manager to “help mediate the issue” between her and her neighbor.

The HOA’s response was direct and legally sound: the Property Manager “responded that it would not arbitrate, mediate, or serve as a third party to the dispute.” This is a crucial and often misunderstood takeaway for condo owners. While an HOA’s role is to manage common elements and enforce community-wide rules, it is not legally obligated—and often not permitted—to intervene in private disputes between two homeowners over damage originating from private property. Your HOA is not a landlord or a mediator for personal conflicts; it’s an administrative body with a specific and legally defined scope of authority.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Know Your Lines

The lessons from this case are clear: condo living involves a complex web of overlapping responsibilities. The line between what constitutes a common element, your private property, and your neighbor’s property is legally significant and determines who is ultimately responsible when things go wrong. Understanding these distinctions isn’t just helpful—it’s essential for protecting your investment and resolving issues effectively.

Before the next problem arises, have you read your community documents to know exactly where your responsibility ends and your neighbor’s begins?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

• Ronna Biesecker (petitioner)
  Appeared and testified on her own behalf.

Respondent Side

• Robert Eric Struse (statutory agent)
  6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association
  Appeared and presented testimony on behalf of Respondent.

Neutral Parties

• Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
  Office of Administrative Hearings
• Judy Lowe (commissioner)
  Arizona Department of Real Estate

Ronna Biesecker, v. 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association,

Posted on June 26, 2020 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2020050-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2020-06-25
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	none
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Ronna Biesecker	Counsel	—
Respondent	6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1247 and CC&Rs § 10(c)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs or Arizona statutes; therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, as evidence suggested the water leak was caused by the sliding glass door of the unit above, not a flaw in the common elements.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to maintain all Common Elements (Water Leak Dispute)

Petitioner alleged the Respondent HOA failed to maintain Common Elements, leading to water leaks in her unit. Respondent denied the violation, asserting the leak originated from the upstairs unit’s sliding doors or track assemblies, which are the responsibility of that unit owner.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

• A.R.S. § 33-1247
• CC&Rs § 10(c)
• Article II.E, Section 1 of the Bylaws
• Article C of the CC&Rs

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium, maintenance dispute, common elements, water damage, burden of proof

Additional Citations:

• A.R.S. § 33-1247
• CC&Rs § 10(c)
• A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
• A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
• A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
• A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
• Powell v. Washburn
• Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs.
• Vazanno v. Superior Court

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020050-REL Decision – 802352.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:32:09 (103.2 KB)

Administrative Hearing Brief: Biesecker v. 6100 Fifth Condominium HOA

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 20F-H2020050-REL, wherein Petitioner Ronna Biesecker alleged that the 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association (HOA) failed to fulfill its maintenance responsibilities. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately dismissed the petition, ruling that the Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof required to substantiate her claim.

The central conflict involved recurring water leaks in Ms. Biesecker’s condominium unit (A113). The Petitioner contended that the leaks originated from cracks in the building’s exterior stucco, which are defined as “Common Elements” and are therefore the HOA’s responsibility to repair under its governing documents and Arizona state law. In contrast, the HOA argued that the source of the water was the sliding door assembly of the upstairs unit, making its maintenance the responsibility of that unit’s owner.

The final decision rested on the weight of evidence presented. Multiple expert inspections, conducted by Olander’s and another inspector retained by the HOA, concluded that the leaks were attributable to the upstairs unit’s sliding doors. This evidence was deemed more convincing than the Petitioner’s own assessment regarding the stucco. The ALJ concluded that Ms. Biesecker failed to prove by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the damage was caused by a flaw in the common elements, leading to the dismissal of her case.

Case Overview

Case Name

Ronna Biesecker, Petitioner, vs. 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association, Respondent.

Case Number

20F-H2020050-REL

Office of Administrative Hearings (Arizona)

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

Hearing Date

June 5, 2020

Decision Date

June 25, 2020

Petitioner

Ronna Biesecker, owner of unit A113

Respondent

6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association, represented by Robert Eric Struse, Statutory Agent

Core Allegations and Defenses

Petitioner’s Claim (Ronna Biesecker)

• Core Allegation: The Petitioner filed a petition on March 10, 2020, alleging that the Respondent (HOA) violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) § 10(c) and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1247 by failing to maintain the common elements of the condominium community.

• Specifics of Claim: Ms. Biesecker asserted that persistent water leaks into her unit were caused by cracks in the exterior stucco surrounding the sliding doors.

• Basis of Responsibility: She argued that because the exterior stucco is a “common element,” the HOA was legally responsible for its repair and any subsequent damage to her unit.

• Requested Action: The Petitioner had previously requested that the HOA repair the exterior leaks and had attempted to have the HOA mediate the issue with the owner of the upstairs unit.

Respondent’s Position (6100 Fifth Condominium HOA)

• Core Defense: The HOA denied any violation of its CC&Rs or state statutes.

• Specifics of Defense: The HOA maintained that the source of the water leaks was not a common element. Instead, it attributed the leaks to the sliding doors or track assemblies of the condominium unit located directly above the Petitioner’s.

• Basis of Responsibility: According to the HOA’s governing documents and state law, the maintenance of elements belonging to an individual unit (such as a sliding door) is the responsibility of that unit’s owner, not the association.

• Actions Taken: The HOA declined to “arbitrate, mediate, or serve as a third party” in the dispute between the Petitioner and the owner of the upstairs unit. It also conducted an inspection which supported its position.

Evidentiary Timeline and Key Findings

The decision was based on a sequence of events and expert assessments presented as evidence.

• January 5, 2019: Petitioner experiences the first water leak in her unit (A113) near the sliding glass door.

• January 18, 2019: An employee from Olander’s, a door installation company contacted by the Petitioner, inspects the unit. The employee’s opinion was that “the leak was coming from the unit above Petitioner and that the sliding door above Petitioner’s unit had large gaps under the threshold which allowed water to get in.”

• February 8, 2019: Nathan’s Handyman Service repairs plaster damage in the Petitioner’s unit and notes in a report that the damage was “the result of an old leak coming from above Petitioner’s unit.” The report also identified rusted wire mesh, indicating previous repairs to the area.

• March/April 2019: The HOA’s Property Manager formally refuses the Petitioner’s request to mediate the dispute with the owner of the upstairs unit.

• May 1, 2019: Petitioner emails the HOA, proposing that new cracks in the stucco pop-out at the roof level could be the source of the leak.

• October 28, 2019: A “Roof Opinion Report” from Roof Savers Locke Roofing states that no roof repairs are needed but notes the presence of “server [sic] cracking at the stucco.” The report recommends contacting a stucco or window contractor.

• November 27, 2019: Another leak occurs in the same area of the Petitioner’s unit.

• December 9, 2019: The HOA’s Property Manager and an inspector assess the water damage in the Petitioner’s unit.

• December 23, 2019: An invoice from the inspector states: “After inspecting the shared roof and building interior/exterior it appears the water damage to the lower unit is coming from the upstairs unit sliding doors or their track assemblies.”

• June 5, 2020 (Hearing Testimony):

◦ The Petitioner stated it was “obvious” the leak originated from the stucco crack.

◦ The HOA’s Statutory Agent, Robert Eric Struse, testified that the December 2019 inspection included the interior of the upstairs unit. He argued that if the stucco crack were the cause, the upstairs unit would also show internal water damage, which it did not.

Governing Documents and Statutes

The case revolved around the interpretation of responsibility as defined by the following legal framework:

• Bylaws (Article II.E, Section 1) & CC&Rs (Article C): These documents obligate the HOA to collect assessments to meet common expenses, including the “maintenance, upkeep, care, repair, [and] reconstruction… for the common elements.”

• A.R.S. § 33-1247: This Arizona statute codifies the division of maintenance responsibility. It states that “the association is responsible for maintenance, repair and replacement of the common elements and each unit owner is responsible for maintenance, repair and replacement of the unit.”

Conclusions of Law and Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was based on the application of the legal standard of proof to the evidence presented.

• Burden of Proof: The ALJ established that the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to demonstrate, by a “preponderance of the evidence,” that the HOA violated the applicable statutes or CC&Rs. A preponderance of the evidence is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is “more probably true than not.”

• Central Legal Finding: The judge determined that if the water damage was caused by a flaw in the common elements, the HOA would be responsible. However, the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof in establishing this causal link.

• Reasoning for Decision: The ruling states: “Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the water leak and damage was attributable to the condition of the common elements. Rather, the opinions of the companies that inspected the area concluded that the leak was coming from the sliding glass door of the unit above Petitioner’s.” The collective weight of the expert opinions from Olander’s and the HOA’s inspector outweighed the Petitioner’s personal theory about the stucco cracks.

• Final Order: Based on these findings, the judge issued a final order: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is dismissed.” This order is binding unless a rehearing is granted.

Study Guide: Biesecker v. 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case No. 20F-H2020050-REL, concerning a dispute between condominium owner Ronna Biesecker and the 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association. The case centers on determining responsibility for water leaks affecting the Petitioner’s unit. Use the following sections to test and deepen your understanding of the facts, legal arguments, and final outcome.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, using only information provided in the case document.

1. Who were the Petitioner and Respondent in this case, and what was their relationship?

2. What was the central claim made by the Petitioner against the Respondent?

3. According to the Respondent, what was the source of the water leaks and who was responsible for the repair?

4. What legal standard, or “burden of proof,” did the Petitioner need to meet to win her case?

5. What two key community documents, in addition to Arizona state law, define the Respondent’s responsibility for maintaining “common elements”?

6. Summarize the findings of the two inspection reports mentioned in the evidence (from Olander’s and the December 23, 2019 invoice).

7. What was the Petitioner’s theory about the source of the leak, as stated during the hearing?

8. How did Robert Eric Struse, the Respondent’s Statutory Agent, counter the Petitioner’s theory about the stucco crack?

9. What was the final ruling, or “Order,” issued by the Administrative Law Judge?

10. Why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude that the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was Ronna Biesecker, who owned condominium unit A113. The Respondent was the 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association, of which the Petitioner was a member.

2. The Petitioner filed a petition alleging the Respondent violated its CC&Rs (§ 10(c)) and Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1247 by failing to maintain the common elements, which she believed were the source of water leaks in her unit.

3. The Respondent argued that the source of the water leaks was the upstairs unit’s sliding doors or track assemblies. Therefore, the responsibility for maintenance and repair belonged to the owner of that specific unit, not the Homeowners Association.

4. The Petitioner had the burden of proof to establish her claim by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This legal standard requires providing proof that convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

5. The Respondent’s responsibility is defined in Article II.E, Section 1 of the community Bylaws and Section C of the CC&Rs. Both documents state the association is responsible for the maintenance and repair of common elements using assessments paid by owners.

6. An employee from Olander’s opined that the leak was coming from the unit above Petitioner’s, specifically from large gaps under the sliding door’s threshold. Similarly, the inspector’s invoice from December 23, 2019, concluded that the water damage appeared to be coming from the upstairs unit’s sliding doors or their track assemblies.

7. During the hearing, the Petitioner stated that it was “obvious” the leak was coming from a crack in the stucco in the pop-out surrounding the sliding doors at the roof level. She posited this was a common element and therefore the Respondent’s responsibility to repair.

8. Mr. Struse testified that if water were leaking through the crack in the stucco, the upstairs unit would have also sustained internal damage. He confirmed that an inspection of the inside of the upstairs unit showed this was not happening, undermining the Petitioner’s theory.

9. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be dismissed.

10. The judge concluded the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof because the credible evidence, particularly the opinions of the companies that inspected the area, concluded the leak was coming from the sliding glass door of the unit above. The Petitioner did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the leak was attributable to the condition of the common elements.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for longer-form analysis. Formulate a detailed response for each, citing specific evidence and legal principles from the case document to support your arguments.

1. Analyze the distinction between “common elements” and an individual “unit” as defined by A.R.S. § 33-1247 and the community’s governing documents. How was this distinction central to the judge’s final decision in this case?

2. Discuss the role and weight of evidence presented during the hearing. Compare the Petitioner’s testimony and personal observations with the professional opinions from Olander’s and the inspector. Why did the judge find the professional opinions more convincing in determining the outcome?

3. Explain the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the case document’s Conclusions of Law. Using specific examples from the hearing evidence, detail why Ronna Biesecker failed to meet this standard.

4. Based on the referenced community documents, what are the primary maintenance responsibilities of the 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association? How did the Respondent’s stated refusal to “arbitrate, mediate, or serve as a third party” in the dispute between unit owners align with or diverge from these responsibilities?

5. Imagine you are advising the Petitioner before the hearing. What additional evidence or types of expert testimony could she have presented to potentially change the outcome of the case and successfully prove the leak was the Respondent’s responsibility?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official (Tammy L. Eigenheer) from the Office of Administrative Hearings who presides over the evidentiary hearing and issues a legally binding decision and order.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The codified laws of the state of Arizona. The statutes referenced (e.g., § 33-1247) govern the responsibilities of condominium associations and the legal procedures for disputes.

Bylaws

A set of rules governing the internal operations of an organization. In this case, Article II.E, Section 1 of the Bylaws obligates the Association to maintain the common elements using assessments paid by owners.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

A legal document that outlines the rights and obligations of property owners and the homeowners association. Section C of the CC&Rs required the Association to maintain, repair, and care for the common elements.

Common Elements

Areas of the condominium property for which the homeowners association is responsible for maintenance, upkeep, care, and repair, as distinguished from an individual owner’s unit.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Ronna Biesecker, the condominium owner who alleged the homeowners association violated its duties.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this hearing. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and is established by evidence with the most convincing force.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association.

Statutory Agent

An individual designated to receive legal notices and appear on behalf of a business entity. In this case, Robert Eric Struse appeared and testified on behalf of the Respondent association.

Your HOA Isn’t Your Landlord: 3 Surprising Lessons from a Condo Water Leak Lawsuit

Introduction: The Dreaded Drip

It’s a scenario that strikes fear into the heart of any condo owner: the tell-tale stain on the ceiling, the damp spot on the wall, the dreaded drip of a mysterious water leak. The immediate anxiety is followed by a pressing question: “Who is responsible for fixing this, and who pays for the damage?” Many assume the answer is straightforward, but as a recent lawsuit involving the 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association demonstrates, the lines of responsibility in a condominium community are often more complicated than they appear.

This article explores a real-life court case between a condo owner and her HOA to uncover three surprising truths about condo ownership, liability, and the true role of your HOA.

——————————————————————————–

1. It’s Not Where the Damage Is, It’s Where the Leak Starts

In the case, condo owner Ronna Biesecker experienced persistent water leaks in her unit (A113) around her sliding glass door. On May 1, 2019, after observing new cracks in the exterior stucco, she “posited that the cracks could be a source of the leak.” This became the foundation of her claim: if the water was coming from the stucco—a “Common Element”—then the HOA was responsible for the repairs.

However, a year-long trail of evidence pointed in a different direction. As early as January 18, 2019, an employee from the door installation company opined that the leak was “coming from the unit above.” On February 8, 2019, a handyman repairing plaster damage stated the issue was from “an old leak coming from above.” Even a roofing report from October 28, 2019, which noted the stucco cracking, stopped short of blaming it, instead recommending the owner contact a “stucco contractor or Window Company.”

This evidence culminated in a formal inspector’s report on December 23, 2019, which concluded the water was “coming from the upstairs unit sliding doors or their track assemblies.” Because the source of the leak originated from a part of the neighbor’s private unit, the legal responsibility shifted. Based on Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1247, the HOA was not liable. The key lesson here is unambiguous: legal responsibility follows the source of the problem, not the location of the resulting damage.

——————————————————————————–

2. “More Probably True Than Not”: The Burden of Proof Is on You

In any lawsuit, the person bringing the complaint—in this case, the homeowner—carries the “burden of proof.” This means she had to provide enough evidence to meet a specific legal standard, which the court defined as “preponderance of the evidence.” The legal decision offers a clear definition of this standard:

“The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

In simple terms, Ms. Biesecker had to convince the judge that her theory—that the leak came from the common element stucco—was more likely to be true than the HOA’s theory that it came from the neighbor’s door.

Her claim was undone by simple logic. The HOA’s Statutory Agent, Mr. Struse, provided devastating testimony, arguing that “if water was leaking through the crack in the stucco, the upstairs unit would have also had internal damage, which was not happening.” This single point made the petitioner’s theory far less probable. The judge ultimately ruled that the petitioner “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the provisions of the CC&Rs or Arizona statutes,” proving that an owner’s belief isn’t enough without convincing evidence.

——————————————————————————–

3. Your HOA Won’t (and Often Can’t) Settle Neighbor-to-Neighbor Fights

Before filing the lawsuit, the petitioner attempted to resolve the issue directly. On or about February 11, 2019, she contacted the owner of the unit above hers to request repairs but “did not receive a response.” Frustrated, she turned to the HOA for help. In March or April 2019, she asked the Property Manager to “help mediate the issue” between her and her neighbor.

The HOA’s response was direct and legally sound: the Property Manager “responded that it would not arbitrate, mediate, or serve as a third party to the dispute.” This is a crucial and often misunderstood takeaway for condo owners. While an HOA’s role is to manage common elements and enforce community-wide rules, it is not legally obligated—and often not permitted—to intervene in private disputes between two homeowners over damage originating from private property. Your HOA is not a landlord or a mediator for personal conflicts; it’s an administrative body with a specific and legally defined scope of authority.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Know Your Lines

The lessons from this case are clear: condo living involves a complex web of overlapping responsibilities. The line between what constitutes a common element, your private property, and your neighbor’s property is legally significant and determines who is ultimately responsible when things go wrong. Understanding these distinctions isn’t just helpful—it’s essential for protecting your investment and resolving issues effectively.

Before the next problem arises, have you read your community documents to know exactly where your responsibility ends and your neighbor’s begins?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

• Ronna Biesecker (petitioner)
  Appeared and testified on her own behalf.

Respondent Side

• Robert Eric Struse (statutory agent)
  6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association
  Appeared and presented testimony on behalf of Respondent.

Neutral Parties

• Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
  Office of Administrative Hearings
• Judy Lowe (commissioner)
  Arizona Department of Real Estate

John H. Kelly v. Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association

Posted on September 13, 2019 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1919060-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-09-13
Administrative Law Judge	Jenna Clark
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John H. Kelly	Counsel	—
Respondent	Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association	Counsel	Jonathan A. Dessaules

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243

Outcome Summary

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet the required threshold of 21 valid signatures from eligible voters needed to compel the Association to call a special meeting under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243. The petition was consequently denied.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to provide the minimum required 21 valid signatures from eligible unit owners (only 13 were valid) as required by the Association's Bylaws and state statute.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of failure to call a special meeting to remove a board member.

Petitioner filed a petition alleging the Association failed to call a special meeting to remove a board member after collecting what Petitioner believed were sufficient signatures (36 collected, 21 required). The Association countered that only 13 of those signatures were valid (excluding non-owners, duplicates, and delinquent members ineligible to vote).

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)(c)
• ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
• Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Condominium, Special Meeting, Board Member Removal, Petition Signature Validity, Voting Rights, Delinquency

Additional Citations:

• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)(c)
• ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
• Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919060-REL Decision – 737890.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:17 (142.6 KB)

Administrative Hearing Briefing: Kelly vs. Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1919060-REL, a dispute between Petitioner John H. Kelly and the Respondent, Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association (“the Association”). The core issue was whether the Association violated Arizona state law by refusing to call a special meeting to remove a board member, as demanded by a petition initiated by Mr. Kelly.

The Association’s bylaws require a petition signed by at least 25% of eligible voting members—in this case, 21 of the 84 unit owners—to compel such a meeting. Mr. Kelly submitted a petition with 36 signatures. However, upon review, the Association invalidated 23 signatures for specific reasons: 11 were from non-owner renters, 6 were duplicate signatures from units that had already signed, and 6 were from owners whose voting rights were suspended due to being over 15 days delinquent on payments.

This left only 13 valid signatures, well short of the 21 required. The Administrative Law Judge, Jenna Clark, concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The evidence clearly demonstrated that the number of valid signatures was insufficient to legally compel the Association to call a special meeting. Consequently, the judge ruled that the Association did not violate Arizona statute § 33-1243 and denied Mr. Kelly’s petition.

Case Overview

Parties Involved

Name / Entity

Details

Petitioner

John H. Kelly

A condominium owner and member of the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association. Appeared on his own behalf.

Respondent

Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association

The homeowners’ association for the Cortez Canyon condominium development in Phoenix, AZ. Represented by Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq.

Witness

Saundra Garcia

President of the Association’s Board of Directors.

Adjudicator

Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge, Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.

Core Dispute

The central issue adjudicated was whether the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association violated Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1243 by failing to call a special meeting for the purpose of removing a board member after receiving a petition from unit owners. The Petitioner alleged that the required number of signatures had been collected, while the Respondent denied this claim, asserting that the petition lacked the requisite number of valid signatures from eligible voters.

Legal and Governance Framework

The dispute was governed by Arizona state law and the Association’s own internal documents.

• Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1243(H)(4): This statute mandates that an association with 1,000 or fewer members must call a special meeting to remove a board member upon receipt of a petition signed by at least 25% of the eligible voters in the association.

• Association Bylaws, Article II, Section 2: Mirrors the state statute, stipulating that a special meeting may be called by unit owners holding at least 25% of the votes in the Association.

• Association Bylaws, Article II, Section 7: Critically, this section states that a unit owner’s right to vote is automatically suspended if they are in arrears on payments (assessments, penalties, etc.) for a period of 15 days. This suspension remains until all payments are brought current.

Petitioner’s Position and Evidence (John H. Kelly)

Mr. Kelly initiated the petition to recall an Association board member. His position and the evidence he presented are summarized as follows:

• Petition Submission: Mr. Kelly, with assistance from others, collected 36 signatures and submitted them to the Association’s then-property management group, Golden Valley.

• Initial Confirmation: He testified that Golden Valley initially informed him that he had secured enough signatures to compel the special meeting.

• Reversal by New Management: A short time later, after the Association’s contract with Golden Valley expired on June 1, 2019, a new property management company informed him that the petition did not meet the signature threshold.

• Key Admission: Mr. Kelly testified that neither he nor his assistants verified whether the signatories were unit owners eligible to vote prior to submitting the petition.

• Argument at Hearing: Mr. Kelly argued that he had submitted a minimum of 23 valid signatures. This included the signature of Jeffery Law, an owner of six units, which Mr. Kelly contended should be counted six times. However, it was established that Mr. Law’s signature was secured after the initial submission and was never provided to the management company.

• Formal Allegation: In his April 29, 2019, filing with the Department, Mr. Kelly stated: “Cortez Canyon has 84 units and 25% is 21 units. Homeowners have collected more than the required 21 home-owner’s signatures. The Cortez Canyon HOA board has stated that they will not schedule the required special meeting.”

Respondent’s Position and Evidence (Cortez Canyon Association)

The Association, represented by its Board President Saundra Garcia, presented a detailed rebuttal based on a thorough review of the submitted petition.

• Receipt of Petition: The Association received the petition with 36 purported unit owner signatures on or about April 19, 2019.

• Signature Verification Process: Upon review, the Association determined that a significant number of signatures were invalid based on the community’s governing documents.

• Disqualification of Signatures: The Association provided a specific breakdown of the 23 signatures it disqualified:

◦ 11 signatures were removed because they were from non-owner renters or occupants.

◦ 6 signatures were removed because they were from units for which another owner’s signature had already been collected (only one vote is permitted per unit).

◦ 6 signatures were removed because the unit owner was ineligible to vote, being more than 15 days delinquent on fines, fees, or dues owed to the Association, as stipulated in the Bylaws.

• Final Tally: After removing the 23 invalid signatures from the 36 submitted, the Association concluded that the petition contained only 13 valid signatures.

• Conclusion: Since 13 signatures is below the required threshold of 21, the Association determined it was not obligated by law or its bylaws to call the special meeting. The signature from the multi-unit owner, Jeffrey Law, was not part of the petition received by the Association and was therefore not considered in its count.

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Ruling

The Administrative Law Judge, Jenna Clark, reviewed the evidence and testimony from both parties and issued a decision decisively in favor of the Respondent.

Conclusions of Law

• Burden of Proof: The Judge established that the Petitioner, John H. Kelly, bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association had violated the statute. A preponderance of evidence is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.

• Undisputed Facts: The material facts of the case were not at issue. Both parties agreed that 21 valid signatures were required to compel the special meeting.

• Evidence of Record: The Judge found that the evidence presented demonstrated the Petitioner’s failure to meet the required threshold. The decision states, “While Petitioner is correct that he submitted more than twenty-one signatures to the Association, he is incorrect that all of signatures provided were valid.”

• Final Determination on Signatures: The ruling affirmed the Association’s count, concluding, “What the evidence of record reflects is that Petitioner only provided thirteen valid signatures along with his petition to the Association, which was not enough to compel the Association to call a special meeting.”

Final Order

Based on the failure of the Petitioner to sustain his burden of proof, the Administrative Law Judge issued the following order on September 13, 2019:

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition be denied.

Study Guide: Kelly v. Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association (Case No. 19F-H1919060-REL)

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the matter between Petitioner John H. Kelly and Respondent Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association. It is designed to test and reinforce understanding of the case’s facts, legal arguments, governing documents, and final outcome.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following ten questions in two to three complete sentences, based solely on the information provided in the case document.

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

2. What was the specific violation of Arizona law alleged by the Petitioner in his initial petition to the Department of Real Estate?

3. How many condominium units are in the Cortez Canyon development, and what number of valid signatures was consequently required to compel a special meeting?

4. According to the Association’s Bylaws, what circumstances would cause a Unit Owner to have their voting rights suspended?

5. List the three categories of invalid signatures that the Association identified in its review of the Petitioner’s submission.

6. Who was Jeffery Law, and why was his signature ultimately not counted by the Association?

7. What was the initial assessment given to the Petitioner by the property management group, Golden Valley, and how did it differ from the Association’s final determination?

8. In this type of legal proceeding, who bears the “burden of proof,” and what standard of proof must be met?

9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding the Petitioner’s claim?

10. What was the final ORDER issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. The primary parties were John H. Kelly, the “Petitioner,” who appeared on his own behalf, and the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association, the “Respondent,” which was represented by Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq. Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark presided over the hearing. Saundra Garcia, the Association’s Board President, appeared as a witness for the Respondent.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243 by failing to call a special meeting for the purpose of removing a board member. He claimed to have collected the required number of signatures from homeowners to compel such a meeting.

3. The Cortez Canyon development has 84 units. Based on the requirement for signatures from 25% of the votes in the Association, a total of 21 valid Unit Owner signatures were required to compel a special meeting.

4. According to Bylaws Article II, Section 7, a Unit Owner’s right to vote is automatically suspended if the owner is in arrears in the payment of any Assessment, monetary penalties, or other fees for a period of fifteen days. This suspension remains in effect until all payments are brought current.

5. The Association determined that of the 36 submitted signatures, 23 were invalid. The categories for invalidation were: eleven signatures from non-owner renters or occupants, six signatures from units where another signature had already been collected, and six signatures from Unit Owners who were ineligible to vote due to being delinquent on payments.

6. Jeffery Law was an Association member and owner of six condominium units. His signature was not counted because the Petitioner secured it after submitting the petition to the management company and never provided it to the Association as part of the formal submission.

7. The former property management group, Golden Valley, initially informed the Petitioner that he had secured enough valid signatures to compel a special meeting. However, after the Association directly reviewed the petition, it determined that only 13 of the signatures were valid, far short of the required 21.

8. In this proceeding, the Petitioner, John H. Kelly, bore the burden of proof. The standard of proof required was a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means providing evidence that is more convincing and has superior weight than the evidence presented by the opposing side.

9. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof. The credible evidence demonstrated that the Petitioner submitted only thirteen valid signatures, which was insufficient to compel the Association to call a special meeting under its Bylaws and state law.

10. The final ORDER, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, was that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses. They require a deeper analysis of the case’s themes, legal principles, and procedural elements. Do not provide answers.

1. Analyze the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means in this context, who held the burden, and how the failure to meet this standard was the central reason for the judge’s final decision.

2. Discuss the critical importance of an association’s governing documents (CC&Rs and Bylaws) in resolving internal disputes. Use specific articles and sections from the Cortez Canyon Bylaws to illustrate how they definitively established the rules for calling a special meeting and determining voter eligibility, leaving little room for interpretation.

3. Evaluate the Petitioner’s strategy and execution in collecting signatures for his petition. Identify the critical errors he and his assistants made in the process, and outline the specific steps he could have taken to verify signatures and ensure his petition was valid before its submission.

4. Explain the legal and practical distinctions between a Unit Owner, an occupant/renter, and an “eligible voter” within the context of the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association. How did the Petitioner’s failure to understand these distinctions become the central point of failure for his petition?

5. Imagine you are advising the Cortez Canyon Board of Directors following this hearing. Based on the evidence and outcome of the case, what recommendations would you make regarding their procedures for validating petitions and their communication with Unit Owners about voting rights, petition requirements, and the consequences of financial delinquency?

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official (Jenna Clark) who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings, reviews evidence, and makes legal findings and conclusions.

Answer

The formal written response filed by the Respondent (the Association) on May 28, 2019, denying the Petitioner’s allegations.

ARIZ. REV. STAT.

Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona. The specific statute at issue was § 33-1243.

Association

The Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association, the governing body for the condominium development, comprised of all unit owners.

Board of Directors (the Board)

The group of individuals that oversees the Association, as empowered by the CC&Rs. The petition sought to remove a member of this board.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation on one party in a dispute (in this case, the Petitioner) to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim.

Bylaws

The set of rules adopted by the Association on June 14, 2000, that govern its internal operations, including meetings and voting rights.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The primary governing documents for the development, recorded on May 9, 2000, which form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner.

Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions from members of homeowners’ associations.

Eligible Votes

A term defined in the Bylaws as the total number of votes that can be lawfully cast, excluding those from members whose voting rights are suspended.

Findings of Fact

The section of the legal decision that outlines the established, undisputed facts of the case based on the hearing evidence.

OAH (Office of Administrative Hearings)

An independent state agency where evidentiary hearings are conducted by Administrative Law Judges.

The final, legally binding command issued by the judge at the conclusion of the decision. In this case, the Order was to deny the petition.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, John H. Kelly.

Petition

The formal document filed by the Petitioner on April 29, 2019, with the Department to initiate the hearing process against the Association.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case, meaning that the evidence must be sufficient to convince the judge that the contention is more probably true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who must respond to the allegations. In this case, the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association.

Special Meeting

A meeting of Association members called for a specific purpose outside of the regularly scheduled meetings. The petition sought to compel a special meeting to remove a board member.

Unit Owner

An individual who holds legal title to a condominium within the Cortez Canyon development and is a member of the Association.

He Gathered 36 Signatures to Oust His HOA Board. Here’s Why Only 13 Counted.

Introduction: The Power and Pitfalls of Community Action

Many homeowners have felt the frustration of trying to enact change within their community, especially when it involves challenging the decisions of a Homeowners Association (HOA) board. It can feel like an uphill battle, but the right to petition and call for special meetings is a cornerstone of community governance.

However, a real-world case involving homeowner John H. Kelly and the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association serves as a critical cautionary tale. Mr. Kelly gathered what he believed were more than enough signatures to force a special meeting to remove a board member. Despite his significant effort, his petition failed spectacularly. This article breaks down the key legal and procedural reasons why, offering essential lessons for every homeowner.

1. Not All Signatures Are Created Equal: The Validity Gauntlet

The core of the issue began with a simple numbers game. The Cortez Canyon HOA has 84 units, meaning a petition required signatures from 25%, or 21, of the unit owners to compel a special meeting. Mr. Kelly successfully collected 36 signatures—a number that seemed to guarantee his success.

In a moment of false victory, the association’s property management company at the time, Golden Valley, informed Mr. Kelly that he had indeed secured enough signatures. But this assurance was short-lived. A new management company took over, and after a formal review, the association delivered devastating news: only 13 of the 36 signatures were valid. The petition was dead on arrival.

The association disqualified 23 signatures for specific, documented reasons:

• Non-Owners: Eleven signatures were from renters or other residential occupants who were not the legal owners of the unit.

• Duplicate Units: Six signatures were removed because another signature had already been collected from the same unit, upholding the “one vote per unit” principle.

• Ineligible Owners: Six signatures were from homeowners who were technically owners but were found to be ineligible to vote at the time they signed.

This reveals the petitioner’s first critical, and ultimately fatal, assumption: that the HOA would do the work of verifying his supporters. In reality, the burden of proof was his alone. The legal findings state it plainly: “Neither Petitioner nor his assistants verified if the signatures that were collected belonged to Unit Owners eligible to vote.” From a governance perspective, this initial culling of signatures is where most grassroots community efforts fail.

2. The Fine Print That Disenfranchises: “Good Standing” and Your Right to Vote

Here, we find the kind of boilerplate legal language that is often ignored by homeowners but wielded with immense power by boards. The ineligibility of six homeowners stemmed from a specific clause in the association’s bylaws related to financial standing.

The bylaw states:

“In the event any Unit Owner is in arrears in the payment of any Assessment, monetary penalties or other fees and charges due under the terms of the Condominium Documents for a period of fifteen (15) days, the Unit Owner’s right to vote as a member of the Association shall be automatically suspended…”

This single provision had a profound impact. Six of the signatures Mr. Kelly collected were from homeowners who were more than 15 days late on their dues or fines. Their voting rights were suspended, and their signatures were rendered invalid. This highlights a crucial preparatory step for any petitioner: confidentially requesting a list of members in good standing from the association before collecting signatures, if the governing documents allow, or at minimum, reminding potential signatories to ensure their accounts are current.

3. Process is Paramount: The Signature That Never Was

Facing a losing battle at the administrative hearing, the petitioner made a final argument to salvage his petition. He contended that he had also secured the signature of a member named Jeffrey Law, who owned six separate units. Mr. Kelly argued this single signature should count as six votes, which would have put him over the required threshold.

However, this argument failed due to a simple but fatal procedural error. According to the court’s findings, the signature from Mr. Law was never actually submitted with the petition to the association.

The Administrative Law Judge’s finding was unambiguous: “The signature Petitioner collected from the multiple unit owner, Jeffrey Law, was not a part of the petition received by the Association and therefore was not counted.” This procedural error, while seemingly minor, is an absolute bar to success in administrative law. Unlike a casual disagreement, there is no room for “I meant to” or “I thought I had.”

Conclusion: Knowledge is Power in an HOA

Because the petitioner could only provide 13 valid signatures instead of the required 21, the Administrative Law Judge denied his petition. The HOA was not required to call the special meeting, and the board member remained in place. Mr. Kelly’s story is a powerful reminder that enthusiasm and effort are not enough to navigate the complexities of community governance. The case provides three clear takeaways for any homeowner:

1. Quality Over Quantity: A short, verified list of eligible voters is infinitely more powerful than a long list of unverified names.

2. Bylaws are Your Battlefield: The governing documents contain the rules of engagement. Ignoring them—especially clauses on voter eligibility—is a unilateral surrender.

3. Documentation is Everything: If it wasn’t formally submitted to the correct party, it legally never happened. Your ability to prove submission is as important as the submission itself.

This case is a powerful reminder that enthusiasm and effort aren’t enough. The real question every homeowner should ask is: Do you truly know the rules that govern your rights in your own community?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

• John H. Kelly (petitioner)

Respondent Side

• Jonathan A. Dessaules (attorney)
  Dessaules Law Group
  Appeared on behalf of Respondent
• Saundra Garcia (board member)
  Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association
  Called as a witness and testified as Board President
• Jacob A. Kubert (attorney)
  Dessaules Law Group
  Counsel receiving notice of decision

Neutral Parties

• Jenna Clark (ALJ)
  Office of Administrative Hearings
• Judy Lowe (commissioner)
  Arizona Department of Real Estate
  Decision transmitted to Commissioner

Other Participants

• Jeffery Law (owner)
  Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association
  Unit owner whose signature Petitioner secured but was not submitted to the Association

John H. Kelly v. Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association

Posted on September 13, 2019 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1919060-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-09-13
Administrative Law Judge	Jenna Clark
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John H. Kelly	Counsel	—
Respondent	Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association	Counsel	Jonathan A. Dessaules

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243

Outcome Summary

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet the required threshold of 21 valid signatures from eligible voters needed to compel the Association to call a special meeting under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243. The petition was consequently denied.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to provide the minimum required 21 valid signatures from eligible unit owners (only 13 were valid) as required by the Association's Bylaws and state statute.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of failure to call a special meeting to remove a board member.

Petitioner filed a petition alleging the Association failed to call a special meeting to remove a board member after collecting what Petitioner believed were sufficient signatures (36 collected, 21 required). The Association countered that only 13 of those signatures were valid (excluding non-owners, duplicates, and delinquent members ineligible to vote).

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)(c)
• ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
• Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Condominium, Special Meeting, Board Member Removal, Petition Signature Validity, Voting Rights, Delinquency

Additional Citations:

• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)(c)
• ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
• Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919060-REL Decision – 737890.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:29:30 (142.6 KB)

Administrative Hearing Briefing: Kelly vs. Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1919060-REL, a dispute between Petitioner John H. Kelly and the Respondent, Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association (“the Association”). The core issue was whether the Association violated Arizona state law by refusing to call a special meeting to remove a board member, as demanded by a petition initiated by Mr. Kelly.

The Association’s bylaws require a petition signed by at least 25% of eligible voting members—in this case, 21 of the 84 unit owners—to compel such a meeting. Mr. Kelly submitted a petition with 36 signatures. However, upon review, the Association invalidated 23 signatures for specific reasons: 11 were from non-owner renters, 6 were duplicate signatures from units that had already signed, and 6 were from owners whose voting rights were suspended due to being over 15 days delinquent on payments.

This left only 13 valid signatures, well short of the 21 required. The Administrative Law Judge, Jenna Clark, concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The evidence clearly demonstrated that the number of valid signatures was insufficient to legally compel the Association to call a special meeting. Consequently, the judge ruled that the Association did not violate Arizona statute § 33-1243 and denied Mr. Kelly’s petition.

Case Overview

Parties Involved

Name / Entity

Details

Petitioner

John H. Kelly

A condominium owner and member of the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association. Appeared on his own behalf.

Respondent

Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association

The homeowners’ association for the Cortez Canyon condominium development in Phoenix, AZ. Represented by Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq.

Witness

Saundra Garcia

President of the Association’s Board of Directors.

Adjudicator

Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge, Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.

Core Dispute

The central issue adjudicated was whether the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association violated Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1243 by failing to call a special meeting for the purpose of removing a board member after receiving a petition from unit owners. The Petitioner alleged that the required number of signatures had been collected, while the Respondent denied this claim, asserting that the petition lacked the requisite number of valid signatures from eligible voters.

Legal and Governance Framework

The dispute was governed by Arizona state law and the Association’s own internal documents.

• Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1243(H)(4): This statute mandates that an association with 1,000 or fewer members must call a special meeting to remove a board member upon receipt of a petition signed by at least 25% of the eligible voters in the association.

• Association Bylaws, Article II, Section 2: Mirrors the state statute, stipulating that a special meeting may be called by unit owners holding at least 25% of the votes in the Association.

• Association Bylaws, Article II, Section 7: Critically, this section states that a unit owner’s right to vote is automatically suspended if they are in arrears on payments (assessments, penalties, etc.) for a period of 15 days. This suspension remains until all payments are brought current.

Petitioner’s Position and Evidence (John H. Kelly)

Mr. Kelly initiated the petition to recall an Association board member. His position and the evidence he presented are summarized as follows:

• Petition Submission: Mr. Kelly, with assistance from others, collected 36 signatures and submitted them to the Association’s then-property management group, Golden Valley.

• Initial Confirmation: He testified that Golden Valley initially informed him that he had secured enough signatures to compel the special meeting.

• Reversal by New Management: A short time later, after the Association’s contract with Golden Valley expired on June 1, 2019, a new property management company informed him that the petition did not meet the signature threshold.

• Key Admission: Mr. Kelly testified that neither he nor his assistants verified whether the signatories were unit owners eligible to vote prior to submitting the petition.

• Argument at Hearing: Mr. Kelly argued that he had submitted a minimum of 23 valid signatures. This included the signature of Jeffery Law, an owner of six units, which Mr. Kelly contended should be counted six times. However, it was established that Mr. Law’s signature was secured after the initial submission and was never provided to the management company.

• Formal Allegation: In his April 29, 2019, filing with the Department, Mr. Kelly stated: “Cortez Canyon has 84 units and 25% is 21 units. Homeowners have collected more than the required 21 home-owner’s signatures. The Cortez Canyon HOA board has stated that they will not schedule the required special meeting.”

Respondent’s Position and Evidence (Cortez Canyon Association)

The Association, represented by its Board President Saundra Garcia, presented a detailed rebuttal based on a thorough review of the submitted petition.

• Receipt of Petition: The Association received the petition with 36 purported unit owner signatures on or about April 19, 2019.

• Signature Verification Process: Upon review, the Association determined that a significant number of signatures were invalid based on the community’s governing documents.

• Disqualification of Signatures: The Association provided a specific breakdown of the 23 signatures it disqualified:

◦ 11 signatures were removed because they were from non-owner renters or occupants.

◦ 6 signatures were removed because they were from units for which another owner’s signature had already been collected (only one vote is permitted per unit).

◦ 6 signatures were removed because the unit owner was ineligible to vote, being more than 15 days delinquent on fines, fees, or dues owed to the Association, as stipulated in the Bylaws.

• Final Tally: After removing the 23 invalid signatures from the 36 submitted, the Association concluded that the petition contained only 13 valid signatures.

• Conclusion: Since 13 signatures is below the required threshold of 21, the Association determined it was not obligated by law or its bylaws to call the special meeting. The signature from the multi-unit owner, Jeffrey Law, was not part of the petition received by the Association and was therefore not considered in its count.

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Ruling

The Administrative Law Judge, Jenna Clark, reviewed the evidence and testimony from both parties and issued a decision decisively in favor of the Respondent.

Conclusions of Law

• Burden of Proof: The Judge established that the Petitioner, John H. Kelly, bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association had violated the statute. A preponderance of evidence is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.

• Undisputed Facts: The material facts of the case were not at issue. Both parties agreed that 21 valid signatures were required to compel the special meeting.

• Evidence of Record: The Judge found that the evidence presented demonstrated the Petitioner’s failure to meet the required threshold. The decision states, “While Petitioner is correct that he submitted more than twenty-one signatures to the Association, he is incorrect that all of signatures provided were valid.”

• Final Determination on Signatures: The ruling affirmed the Association’s count, concluding, “What the evidence of record reflects is that Petitioner only provided thirteen valid signatures along with his petition to the Association, which was not enough to compel the Association to call a special meeting.”

Final Order

Based on the failure of the Petitioner to sustain his burden of proof, the Administrative Law Judge issued the following order on September 13, 2019:

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition be denied.

Study Guide: Kelly v. Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association (Case No. 19F-H1919060-REL)

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the matter between Petitioner John H. Kelly and Respondent Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association. It is designed to test and reinforce understanding of the case’s facts, legal arguments, governing documents, and final outcome.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following ten questions in two to three complete sentences, based solely on the information provided in the case document.

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

2. What was the specific violation of Arizona law alleged by the Petitioner in his initial petition to the Department of Real Estate?

3. How many condominium units are in the Cortez Canyon development, and what number of valid signatures was consequently required to compel a special meeting?

4. According to the Association’s Bylaws, what circumstances would cause a Unit Owner to have their voting rights suspended?

5. List the three categories of invalid signatures that the Association identified in its review of the Petitioner’s submission.

6. Who was Jeffery Law, and why was his signature ultimately not counted by the Association?

7. What was the initial assessment given to the Petitioner by the property management group, Golden Valley, and how did it differ from the Association’s final determination?

8. In this type of legal proceeding, who bears the “burden of proof,” and what standard of proof must be met?

9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding the Petitioner’s claim?

10. What was the final ORDER issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. The primary parties were John H. Kelly, the “Petitioner,” who appeared on his own behalf, and the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association, the “Respondent,” which was represented by Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq. Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark presided over the hearing. Saundra Garcia, the Association’s Board President, appeared as a witness for the Respondent.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243 by failing to call a special meeting for the purpose of removing a board member. He claimed to have collected the required number of signatures from homeowners to compel such a meeting.

3. The Cortez Canyon development has 84 units. Based on the requirement for signatures from 25% of the votes in the Association, a total of 21 valid Unit Owner signatures were required to compel a special meeting.

4. According to Bylaws Article II, Section 7, a Unit Owner’s right to vote is automatically suspended if the owner is in arrears in the payment of any Assessment, monetary penalties, or other fees for a period of fifteen days. This suspension remains in effect until all payments are brought current.

5. The Association determined that of the 36 submitted signatures, 23 were invalid. The categories for invalidation were: eleven signatures from non-owner renters or occupants, six signatures from units where another signature had already been collected, and six signatures from Unit Owners who were ineligible to vote due to being delinquent on payments.

6. Jeffery Law was an Association member and owner of six condominium units. His signature was not counted because the Petitioner secured it after submitting the petition to the management company and never provided it to the Association as part of the formal submission.

7. The former property management group, Golden Valley, initially informed the Petitioner that he had secured enough valid signatures to compel a special meeting. However, after the Association directly reviewed the petition, it determined that only 13 of the signatures were valid, far short of the required 21.

8. In this proceeding, the Petitioner, John H. Kelly, bore the burden of proof. The standard of proof required was a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means providing evidence that is more convincing and has superior weight than the evidence presented by the opposing side.

9. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof. The credible evidence demonstrated that the Petitioner submitted only thirteen valid signatures, which was insufficient to compel the Association to call a special meeting under its Bylaws and state law.

10. The final ORDER, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, was that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses. They require a deeper analysis of the case’s themes, legal principles, and procedural elements. Do not provide answers.

1. Analyze the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means in this context, who held the burden, and how the failure to meet this standard was the central reason for the judge’s final decision.

2. Discuss the critical importance of an association’s governing documents (CC&Rs and Bylaws) in resolving internal disputes. Use specific articles and sections from the Cortez Canyon Bylaws to illustrate how they definitively established the rules for calling a special meeting and determining voter eligibility, leaving little room for interpretation.

3. Evaluate the Petitioner’s strategy and execution in collecting signatures for his petition. Identify the critical errors he and his assistants made in the process, and outline the specific steps he could have taken to verify signatures and ensure his petition was valid before its submission.

4. Explain the legal and practical distinctions between a Unit Owner, an occupant/renter, and an “eligible voter” within the context of the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association. How did the Petitioner’s failure to understand these distinctions become the central point of failure for his petition?

5. Imagine you are advising the Cortez Canyon Board of Directors following this hearing. Based on the evidence and outcome of the case, what recommendations would you make regarding their procedures for validating petitions and their communication with Unit Owners about voting rights, petition requirements, and the consequences of financial delinquency?

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official (Jenna Clark) who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings, reviews evidence, and makes legal findings and conclusions.

Answer

The formal written response filed by the Respondent (the Association) on May 28, 2019, denying the Petitioner’s allegations.

ARIZ. REV. STAT.

Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona. The specific statute at issue was § 33-1243.

Association

The Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association, the governing body for the condominium development, comprised of all unit owners.

Board of Directors (the Board)

The group of individuals that oversees the Association, as empowered by the CC&Rs. The petition sought to remove a member of this board.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation on one party in a dispute (in this case, the Petitioner) to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim.

Bylaws

The set of rules adopted by the Association on June 14, 2000, that govern its internal operations, including meetings and voting rights.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The primary governing documents for the development, recorded on May 9, 2000, which form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner.

Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions from members of homeowners’ associations.

Eligible Votes

A term defined in the Bylaws as the total number of votes that can be lawfully cast, excluding those from members whose voting rights are suspended.

Findings of Fact

The section of the legal decision that outlines the established, undisputed facts of the case based on the hearing evidence.

OAH (Office of Administrative Hearings)

An independent state agency where evidentiary hearings are conducted by Administrative Law Judges.

The final, legally binding command issued by the judge at the conclusion of the decision. In this case, the Order was to deny the petition.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, John H. Kelly.

Petition

The formal document filed by the Petitioner on April 29, 2019, with the Department to initiate the hearing process against the Association.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case, meaning that the evidence must be sufficient to convince the judge that the contention is more probably true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who must respond to the allegations. In this case, the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association.

Special Meeting

A meeting of Association members called for a specific purpose outside of the regularly scheduled meetings. The petition sought to compel a special meeting to remove a board member.

Unit Owner

An individual who holds legal title to a condominium within the Cortez Canyon development and is a member of the Association.

He Gathered 36 Signatures to Oust His HOA Board. Here’s Why Only 13 Counted.

Introduction: The Power and Pitfalls of Community Action

Many homeowners have felt the frustration of trying to enact change within their community, especially when it involves challenging the decisions of a Homeowners Association (HOA) board. It can feel like an uphill battle, but the right to petition and call for special meetings is a cornerstone of community governance.

However, a real-world case involving homeowner John H. Kelly and the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association serves as a critical cautionary tale. Mr. Kelly gathered what he believed were more than enough signatures to force a special meeting to remove a board member. Despite his significant effort, his petition failed spectacularly. This article breaks down the key legal and procedural reasons why, offering essential lessons for every homeowner.

1. Not All Signatures Are Created Equal: The Validity Gauntlet

The core of the issue began with a simple numbers game. The Cortez Canyon HOA has 84 units, meaning a petition required signatures from 25%, or 21, of the unit owners to compel a special meeting. Mr. Kelly successfully collected 36 signatures—a number that seemed to guarantee his success.

In a moment of false victory, the association’s property management company at the time, Golden Valley, informed Mr. Kelly that he had indeed secured enough signatures. But this assurance was short-lived. A new management company took over, and after a formal review, the association delivered devastating news: only 13 of the 36 signatures were valid. The petition was dead on arrival.

The association disqualified 23 signatures for specific, documented reasons:

• Non-Owners: Eleven signatures were from renters or other residential occupants who were not the legal owners of the unit.

• Duplicate Units: Six signatures were removed because another signature had already been collected from the same unit, upholding the “one vote per unit” principle.

• Ineligible Owners: Six signatures were from homeowners who were technically owners but were found to be ineligible to vote at the time they signed.

This reveals the petitioner’s first critical, and ultimately fatal, assumption: that the HOA would do the work of verifying his supporters. In reality, the burden of proof was his alone. The legal findings state it plainly: “Neither Petitioner nor his assistants verified if the signatures that were collected belonged to Unit Owners eligible to vote.” From a governance perspective, this initial culling of signatures is where most grassroots community efforts fail.

2. The Fine Print That Disenfranchises: “Good Standing” and Your Right to Vote

Here, we find the kind of boilerplate legal language that is often ignored by homeowners but wielded with immense power by boards. The ineligibility of six homeowners stemmed from a specific clause in the association’s bylaws related to financial standing.

The bylaw states:

“In the event any Unit Owner is in arrears in the payment of any Assessment, monetary penalties or other fees and charges due under the terms of the Condominium Documents for a period of fifteen (15) days, the Unit Owner’s right to vote as a member of the Association shall be automatically suspended…”

This single provision had a profound impact. Six of the signatures Mr. Kelly collected were from homeowners who were more than 15 days late on their dues or fines. Their voting rights were suspended, and their signatures were rendered invalid. This highlights a crucial preparatory step for any petitioner: confidentially requesting a list of members in good standing from the association before collecting signatures, if the governing documents allow, or at minimum, reminding potential signatories to ensure their accounts are current.

3. Process is Paramount: The Signature That Never Was

Facing a losing battle at the administrative hearing, the petitioner made a final argument to salvage his petition. He contended that he had also secured the signature of a member named Jeffrey Law, who owned six separate units. Mr. Kelly argued this single signature should count as six votes, which would have put him over the required threshold.

However, this argument failed due to a simple but fatal procedural error. According to the court’s findings, the signature from Mr. Law was never actually submitted with the petition to the association.

The Administrative Law Judge’s finding was unambiguous: “The signature Petitioner collected from the multiple unit owner, Jeffrey Law, was not a part of the petition received by the Association and therefore was not counted.” This procedural error, while seemingly minor, is an absolute bar to success in administrative law. Unlike a casual disagreement, there is no room for “I meant to” or “I thought I had.”

Conclusion: Knowledge is Power in an HOA

Because the petitioner could only provide 13 valid signatures instead of the required 21, the Administrative Law Judge denied his petition. The HOA was not required to call the special meeting, and the board member remained in place. Mr. Kelly’s story is a powerful reminder that enthusiasm and effort are not enough to navigate the complexities of community governance. The case provides three clear takeaways for any homeowner:

1. Quality Over Quantity: A short, verified list of eligible voters is infinitely more powerful than a long list of unverified names.

2. Bylaws are Your Battlefield: The governing documents contain the rules of engagement. Ignoring them—especially clauses on voter eligibility—is a unilateral surrender.

3. Documentation is Everything: If it wasn’t formally submitted to the correct party, it legally never happened. Your ability to prove submission is as important as the submission itself.

This case is a powerful reminder that enthusiasm and effort aren’t enough. The real question every homeowner should ask is: Do you truly know the rules that govern your rights in your own community?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

• John H. Kelly (petitioner)

Respondent Side

• Jonathan A. Dessaules (attorney)
  Dessaules Law Group
  Appeared on behalf of Respondent
• Saundra Garcia (board member)
  Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association
  Called as a witness and testified as Board President
• Jacob A. Kubert (attorney)
  Dessaules Law Group
  Counsel receiving notice of decision

Neutral Parties

• Jenna Clark (ALJ)
  Office of Administrative Hearings
• Judy Lowe (commissioner)
  Arizona Department of Real Estate
  Decision transmitted to Commissioner

Other Participants

• Jeffery Law (owner)
  Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association
  Unit owner whose signature Petitioner secured but was not submitted to the Association

John A Sellers vs. Rancho Madera Condominium Association

Posted on December 26, 2018 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1918010-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-05-10
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John A Sellers	Counsel	—
Respondent	Rancho Madera Condominium Association	Counsel	Edward D. O'Brien

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs § 3.10

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the HOA (Respondent) did not violate CC&R Section 3.10. The CC&Rs imposed the duty of keeping the drainage area clear primarily on the Unit Owners, and the HOA only retained the right to enforce this requirement, not an explicit obligation.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the CC&Rs because the HOA did not have an obligation to enforce clearance requirements against unit owners under the cited covenant provisions.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&Rs § 3.10 by failing to require unit owners to remove vegetation and fencing materials from the stormwater channel behind their homes.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs § 3.10 by failing to compel unit owners to clear vegetation and debris (including chicken wire) from the stormwater drainage channel, asserting this failure created a flood risk to unit 12. The ALJ found that the CC&Rs placed the primary maintenance responsibility on Unit Owners, and the HOA only had the right, but not the obligation, to enforce clearance requirements.

Orders: The petition was denied and dismissed. No action was required of Respondent because Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent violated the CC&Rs regarding maintenance of the drainage easement.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

• A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
• Title 33, Chapter 9
• A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
• Vazanno v. Superior Court
• A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
• MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5
• BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY
• Powell v. Washburn
• Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Drainage, Maintenance, Enforcement, Condominium

Additional Citations:

• A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
• Title 33, Chapter 9
• A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
• Vazanno v. Superior Court
• A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
• MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5
• BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY
• Powell v. Washburn
• Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs.

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918010-REL Decision – 667122.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:27 (50.0 KB)

19F-H1918010-REL Decision – 678371.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:27 (129.5 KB)

Briefing Document: Sellers vs. Rancho Madera Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the legal proceedings and outcomes of the case John A Sellers, Petitioner, vs. Rancho Madera Condominium Association, Respondent (Case No. 19F-H1918010-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute was a claim by Petitioner John Sellers that his homeowner’s association (HOA) violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by failing to compel other homeowners to remove vegetation and fencing from a common stormwater drainage channel, which he alleged created a flood risk to his property, Unit 12.

The petitioner’s claim was ultimately unsuccessful. It was denied first in an initial evidentiary hearing and again in a subsequent rehearing. The central finding of the Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) in both decisions was a critical distinction between an HOA’s right to enforce rules and an obligation to do so. The ALJs determined that the CC&Rs placed the primary responsibility for maintaining the drainage easement on the individual unit owners. The HOA’s mandatory duty to intervene was found to be triggered only by actual damage resulting from an owner’s negligence, not by the mere potential for future damage. As no flooding or damage had ever occurred, the HOA was found to have acted within its authority and had not violated the CC&Rs. The petitioner’s personal circumstances, including a contentious divorce and court-ordered sale of the property, were noted but deemed legally irrelevant to the determination of a CC&R violation.

Case Chronology and Procedural History

The case progressed through an initial petition, a hearing, a decision, a request for rehearing, and a final decision on rehearing. A notable procedural anomaly occurred when a hearing scheduled for November 5, 2018, was officially vacated due to a withdrawal notice from the petitioner, yet the hearing proceeded on that date as originally planned.

Details

Aug 23, 2018

Petition Filed

John A. Sellers filed a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging the Rancho Madera Condominium Association violated CC&R § 3.10.

Oct 23, 2018

Hearing Vacated

An order was issued by ALJ Diane Mihalsky vacating the November 5 hearing because the petitioner had notified the Department of his wish to withdraw the petition.

Nov 5 & Dec 12, 2018

Initial Hearing

Despite the prior vacating order, an evidentiary hearing was held before ALJ Mihalsky.

Dec 26, 2018

Initial Decision

ALJ Mihalsky issued a decision finding that the petitioner failed to prove his case. The petition was denied.

Feb 1, 2019

Rehearing Requested

The petitioner filed a request for a rehearing, alleging procedural irregularities and errors in the initial decision.

Feb 22, 2019

Rehearing Granted

The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted the request for a rehearing.

Apr 15, 2019

Rehearing Held

A rehearing was held before a new judge, ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer.

May 7, 2019

Post-Hearing Filing Stricken

The petitioner submitted an unauthorized supplemental argument after the rehearing. ALJ Eigenheer issued an order striking the filing from the record and closing the record.

May 10, 2019

Final Decision on Rehearing

ALJ Eigenheer issued a final decision, again finding for the respondent and dismissing the petition.

Core Dispute Analysis

Petitioner’s Position and Allegations

• Core Allegation: The petitioner alleged that the Rancho Madera Condominium Association (Respondent) violated CC&R § 3.10 by failing to enforce its rules. Specifically, the Association did not require owners of “Drainage Easement Units” to remove obstructions—such as large succulents, cacti, shrubs, and chicken wire fencing—from a 3′ x 3′ stormwater drainage canal located behind their homes.

• Perceived Risk: The petitioner testified that these items could catch storm debris, clog the channel, and cause flooding that would damage his property, Unit 12. He submitted videos of heavy rains to support his concern.

• Evolving Legal Argument: In the rehearing, the petitioner’s argument shifted. He acknowledged that the CC&Rs gave the Association the right to enforce maintenance standards but argued that “at a certain point exercising a right becomes an obligation,” particularly when matters of safety and property values are implicated.

• Claimed Financial Damages: The petitioner testified he was undergoing a contentious divorce and his condominium was being sold by order of the Maricopa County Superior Court. He asserted that due to the unresolved flood risk, which he was obligated to disclose, the sale price of Unit 12 was “$40,000 less than it would have been.”

Respondent’s Position and Actions

• Denial of Violation: The Association denied it had violated any CC&Rs by its handling of the drainage channel.

• Evidence and Testimony: The Association, represented by its President, Jeffrey Kaplan, presented several key points:

◦ No History of Flooding: Mr. Kaplan testified that Unit 12 had never sustained any flood damage since the development was built in 2012, including during a “100-year storm” in 2014. After a significant rainstorm in August 2018, he personally inspected the easement and saw no water in it.

◦ Origin of Plants: Mr. Kaplan stated that the builder had originally planted the vegetation in the drainage easement that the petitioner was concerned about.

◦ No Other Complaints: No other members of the 46-unit Association had expressed any concerns about drainage.

◦ Proactive Communication: To assuage the petitioner’s concerns, the Association’s management company sent letters to the relevant homeowners on April 18, 2018, and July 19, 2018, reminding them of their responsibility to keep the drainage area free of obstructions.

◦ Due Diligence: Mr. Kaplan contacted officials at the Maricopa County Flood Control District and the Town of Cave Creek, who confirmed the drainage area was not on any official floodplain maps and that the Association was solely responsible for its maintenance.

Key CC&R Provisions and Legal Interpretation

The ALJs’ decisions hinged on a close reading of the Rancho Madera CC&Rs. The analysis consistently differentiated between the duties of individual owners and the duties of the Association.

• CC&R § 3.10.2 — Unit Owner Responsibility: This section places the primary maintenance burden directly on the homeowners of the Drainage Easement Units.

◦ Interpretation: The legal conclusion was that this provision unambiguously makes individual owners responsible for keeping their portion of the easement clear.

• CC&R § 3.10.4 — Association Responsibility: This section defines the specific circumstance under which the Association is required to act.

◦ Interpretation: Both ALJs found that this clause creates a reactionary, not a proactive, duty for the Association. Its obligation to repair is triggered by actual damage occurring, not by a perceived risk of future damage.

• CC&R § 13.1.1 — Association Enforcement Power: This section, highlighted in the rehearing, grants the Association authority to act.

◦ Interpretation: The ALJ in the rehearing ruled that this language grants a discretionary right, not a mandatory obligation. The CC&Rs contain no provision that converts this right into a duty under the circumstances presented by the petitioner.

Judicial Findings and Rulings

Initial Decision (ALJ Diane Mihalsky, Dec 26, 2018)

• Burden of Proof: The petitioner failed to establish his claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

• Findings of Fact: The petitioner successfully established that plants and chicken wire existed in the stormwater canal. However, he failed to establish that these items actually impeded the flow of water.

• Conclusion: The respondent proved that the drainage canal had functioned as intended since 2012 and that Unit 12 had never flooded. The petitioner’s divorce was noted to have “cast a long shadow over his administrative complaint” but was irrelevant to the legal issue. The petition was denied.

Rehearing Decision (ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer, May 10, 2019)

• Central Legal Finding: The CC&Rs clearly intend for unit owners to bear the primary responsibility for keeping the drainage area clear. The Association’s only specified obligation is to repair damage after it has occurred and bill the responsible owner.

• Right vs. Obligation: The decision explicitly states, “While Respondent has the right to enforce the requirements that the Unit Owners keep the Drainage Easement Area clear, nothing in the CC&Rs provides that Respondent has an obligation to do so.”

• Final Order: The petitioner failed to establish that the respondent violated Section 3.10 of the CC&Rs. The petition was dismissed.

Notable Evidence

A key piece of evidence submitted by the respondent was a June 22, 2018, email from the petitioner’s wife, Debborah Sellers, which directly refuted the petitioner’s claims. In the email, she stated:

“There has never been any issue with the storm drain behind our house and it is not a major disclosure item… Stop making something out of nothing. AND I HOPE YOU AREN[’]T FREAKING POTENTIAL BUYERS AND OTHER REALTORS WITH THIS NONSENSE.”

Study Guide for Case No. 19F-H1918010-REL: Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences, drawing exclusively from the information provided in the case documents.

1. What was the specific allegation John A. Sellers made against the Rancho Madera Condominium Association in his petition filed on August 23, 2018?

2. Identify the key responsibilities assigned to individual unit owners of Drainage Easement Units according to Section 3.10.2 of the CC&Rs.

3. Who is Jeffrey Kaplan, and what key testimony did he provide on behalf of the Respondent?

4. What specific actions did the Respondent’s management company take in April and July of 2018 to address the Petitioner’s concerns?

5. According to the decision by Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky, what did the Petitioner fail to establish regarding the plants and chicken wire in the drainage canal?

6. On what grounds did John A. Sellers file his Homeowner’s Association (HOA) Dispute Rehearing Request on February 1, 2019?

7. What was the Petitioner’s core argument regarding the Association’s “right to enforce” the CC&Rs versus an “obligation to enforce” them?

8. What was the final conclusion of Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer regarding the Association’s responsibilities under the CC&Rs?

9. What occurred after the April 15, 2019 rehearing when the Petitioner attempted to submit supplemental information to the Office of Administrative Hearings?

10. Describe the evidence presented in an email from Debborah Sellers and its relevance to the case.

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. John A. Sellers alleged that the Rancho Madera Condominium Association violated Section 3.10 of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). He claimed the Association failed to require condominium owners to remove vegetation and fencing materials from the stormwater channel, creating a flood risk for his unit.

2. Section 3.10.2 of the CC&Rs requires each Unit Owner of a Drainage Easement Unit to keep their respective Drainage Easement Area free of weeds and other debris. The purpose is to ensure that stormwater can flow freely and that no improvement, including plant materials, impedes this flow.

3. Jeffrey Kaplan is the President of the Rancho Madera Condominium Association. He testified that the drainage easement had never failed, even during a 100-year storm in 2014, that the original builder had planted the vegetation in question, and that he had consulted with county and town officials about the drainage area.

4. To address the Petitioner’s concerns, the Respondent’s management company sent letters to the owners of the Drainage Easement Units. Letters sent on April 18, 2018, and July 19, 2018, reminded owners of their responsibility to keep the drainage area free of obstructions, weeds, and debris.

5. Judge Mihalsky’s decision on December 26, 2018, concluded that the Petitioner established the presence of plants and chicken wire but failed to establish that these items actually impede the flow of water. The judge found that the drainage system functions as intended and there was no unreasonable risk of flooding.

6. The Petitioner filed for a rehearing based on several alleged issues with the original proceeding. These included an irregularity in the proceedings, the existence of newly discovered evidence, errors in the admission or rejection of evidence, and a belief that the findings of fact or decision were arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence.

7. The Petitioner argued that while the CC&Rs grant the Association the “right to enforce” maintenance requirements, this right becomes an “obligation” when issues of property values and safety are at stake. He maintained that the potential for flooding created such an obligation for the Association to act.

8. Judge Eigenheer concluded that the CC&Rs intend for unit owners to bear the responsibility of keeping the Drainage Easement Area clear. She determined that while the Association has the right to enforce this, nothing in the CC&Rs creates an obligation for it to do so, and its only specified responsibility is to repair damage after it occurs, billing the responsible unit owner.

9. After the rehearing, the Petitioner submitted supplemental authority and argument without having requested leave to do so. The Respondent’s counsel argued this filing was untimely and introduced new arguments, requesting it be struck. On May 7, 2019, Judge Eigenheer ordered the filing struck from the record and closed the record.

10. The Respondent submitted a June 22, 2018 email from Debborah Sellers, the Petitioner’s wife. In the email, she stated there had never been an issue with the storm drain, called his concerns “nonsense,” and noted that the developer had done a good job, undermining the Petitioner’s claim of a significant and obvious flood risk.

——————————————————————————–

Suggested Essay Questions

1. Analyze the legal reasoning used by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer to dismiss the petition after the rehearing. Contrast her interpretation of the Association’s duties under the CC&Rs with the findings presented by Judge Diane Mihalsky in the initial decision.

2. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the legal documents. Evaluate the evidence presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent, explaining why the Petitioner ultimately failed to meet this burden of proof in both hearings.

3. Trace the complete procedural history of case No. 19F-H1918010-REL. Identify and explain the significance of key events, including the initial petition, the vacated hearing, the first Administrative Law Judge Decision, the request for rehearing, and the final order dismissing the case.

4. Examine the role and responsibilities of the Rancho Madera Condominium Association versus the individual unit owners as defined by Sections 3.10, 3.10.2, 3.10.4, and 13.1.1 of the CC&Rs. How did the interpretation of these sections form the basis of the final legal decision?

5. Evaluate the different types of evidence presented in the hearings, including witness testimony (Sellers, Kaplan), documentary evidence (CC&Rs, letters, emails), and physical evidence (photographs, videos). How did each type of evidence contribute to the final outcome of the case?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, takes evidence, and makes legal decisions and orders. In this case, Diane Mihalsky and Tammy L. Eigenheer served as ALJs.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The governing legal documents that set up the guidelines for a planned community or condominium association. In this case, the CC&Rs for Rancho Madera were the central document in the dispute.

Drainage Easement

A perpetual, non-exclusive legal right created over a specific portion of property (the eastern five feet of Units 9-18) for constructing and maintaining a stormwater drainage channel.

Drainage Easement Area

The specific portion of land encumbered by the Drainage Easement, defined as the eastern five feet of the designated units.

Drainage Improvements

The physical components of the drainage system, such as the channel, decomposed granite, rip rap (large stones), or concrete, as originally constructed by the developer.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency in Arizona responsible for conducting evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or files a petition seeking a legal remedy. In this case, John A. Sellers.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in this civil administrative case. It is defined as evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of an issue rather than the other, making a contention more probably true than not.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case, granted by the Commissioner in this instance, to re-examine the issues based on claims such as procedural irregularities, newly discovered evidence, or errors in the original decision.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed; the party who must respond to the petitioner’s claims. In this case, the Rancho Madera Condominium Association.

The Department

Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide on petitions for hearings from members of condominium unit owners’ associations.

I Read an Entire HOA Lawsuit. Here Are 4 Shocking Lessons About Power, Rules, and Reality.

The Anatomy of a Neighborhood War

Living under a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) often means navigating a complex world of rules, regulations, and neighborhood politics. For most, disagreements are minor annoyances. But sometimes, a seemingly small issue can escalate into a full-blown legal war.

This is the story of one homeowner’s single-minded crusade against his HOA over a stormwater drainage channel he believed was a serious flooding risk. After filing a formal petition, the dispute escalated into a multi-stage legal battle that spanned nearly a year. The official court documents reveal that even after a judge ruled decisively against him, the homeowner doubled down, demanding a rare rehearing.

A deep dive into this protracted case reveals a fascinating and cautionary tale. The legal reasoning that ultimately settled the matter highlights several surprising lessons that apply to anyone living in a planned community.

1. Proving a Rule Was Broken Isn’t the Same as Proving Harm

The initial hearing, held before Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky in late 2018, centered on a seemingly straightforward argument from the petitioner, John Sellers. He pointed out that his neighbors had placed plants—including large succulents, shrubs, and cacti—as well as chicken wire in a stormwater drainage channel. This, he argued, was a clear violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which stated that no improvement “shall be constructed, installed or allowed to grow… that may… impede the flow of water.”

But in her December 26, 2018 decision, the judge ruled against him. While Sellers successfully proved the obstructions existed, he failed to meet the legal burden of proof that they actually “impede the flow of water.” His claim was defeated by testimony from the HOA President, Jeffrey Kaplan, who stated that the unit had never sustained any flood damage, not even during a “100-year storm in 2014.”

The lesson from this first round is stark: in this legal context, simply pointing out a technical rule break was not enough. The petitioner had to prove that the violation was causing a tangible, negative impact. Without evidence of actual harm or impeded water flow, the theoretical risk was insufficient to win the case.

2. An HOA’s “Right” to Enforce Is Not an “Obligation”

After losing the first round on a question of evidence, Sellers’ argument evolved. He requested a rehearing, which was granted, and the case landed before a new judge, Tammy L. Eigenheer, in the spring of 2019. This shifted the legal focus from physical proof of impeded water flow to a more fundamental question of the HOA’s duties.

Sellers argued that because safety and property values were at stake, the association had a duty to enforce the CC&Rs and compel his neighbors to clear the drainage channel. He contended that at a certain point, an organization’s “right” to act becomes an “obligation.”

The judge’s final decision on May 10, 2019, was clear, absolute, and is where the most powerful lesson of the entire case lies.

“While Respondent has the right to enforce the requirements that the Unit Owners keep the Drainage Easement Area clear, nothing in the CC&Rs provides that Respondent has an obligation to do so.”

This distinction is critical for any homeowner. An HOA can possess the legal power to act but may not be legally compelled to use it. According to the judge’s interpretation, the governing documents placed the responsibility for keeping the channel clear on the individual unit owners. The association’s only stated obligation was to repair damage after it happened, with the cost being billed back to the responsible party.

3. Outside Conflicts Can Cast a Long Shadow

Legal disputes are rarely just about the facts of the case. During the initial hearing, it was revealed that the petitioner was going through a “contentious divorce” and that the condo unit at the center of the dispute was a community asset being sold by the court.

The most dramatic evidence, however, came from an email written by the petitioner’s own wife, Debborah Sellers. The email, submitted as evidence by the HOA, directly undermined his claims about the severity of the drainage issue.

“There has never been any issue with the storm drain behind our house and it is not a major disclosure item… Stop making something out of nothing. AND I HOPE YOU AREN[’]T FREAKING POTENTIAL BUYERS AND OTHER REALTORS WITH THIS NONSENSE.”

In her decision, Judge Mihalsky officially stated that the divorce was “not relevant” to the technical question of whether the HOA violated the CC&Rs. However, she immediately added that the situation “cast a long shadow over his administrative complaint,” suggesting that the personal context, and especially the damaging email, severely harmed the petitioner’s credibility.

4. Writing Letters Isn’t the Same as Being Heard

Throughout the dispute, the petitioner made his concerns known by writing “many letters” to the HOA president. He was persistent in his written communications, attempting to force the issue onto the association’s radar.

Yet, this effort was contrasted with a notable lack of direct participation. According to the testimony of HOA President Kaplan during the first hearing, Sellers “never attended any of Respondent’s noticed Board meetings” where his concerns could have been discussed among the board members.

The HOA’s response to his letters was limited; it sent two general reminder letters to all residents in the affected area but did not take direct enforcement action against any specific homeowner. The practical takeaway is that to effect change or be taken seriously in an HOA dispute, visibility and participation are critical. Writing letters is a start, but attending official meetings to present a case in person can be a more effective strategy for ensuring an issue is formally addressed.

A Cautionary Tale for Any Homeowner

What began as a seemingly straightforward complaint about drainage and rule enforcement devolved into a legal battle that consumed nearly a year, involving two multi-day hearings before two different administrative law judges. The petitioner lost his case on the evidence, then lost it again on the law.

It serves as a potent cautionary tale, demonstrating that in the world of HOA disputes, the obvious path is not always the winning one. It leaves every homeowner with a final, thought-provoking question to ponder: When you see a problem in your community, how do you decide if a fight is worth the cost—not just in money, but in time, credibility, and peace?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

• John A Sellers (petitioner)

Respondent Side

• Edward D. O’Brien (HOA attorney)
  Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC/LLP
  Represented Respondent
• Edith I. Rudder (HOA attorney)
  Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC/LLP
  Represented Respondent
• Jeffrey Kaplan (HOA President/witness)
  Rancho Madera Condominium Association
  Testified on behalf of Respondent

Neutral Parties

• Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
  OAH
  ALJ for initial proceedings
• Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
  OAH
  ALJ for rehearing
• Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
  ADRE
• LDettorre (ADRE staff)
  ADRE
  Recipient of transmission
• AHansen (ADRE staff)
  ADRE
  Recipient of transmission
• djones (ADRE staff)
  ADRE
  Recipient of transmission
• DGardner (ADRE staff)
  ADRE
  Recipient of transmission
• ncano (ADRE staff)
  ADRE
  Recipient of transmission
• c. serrano (Clerical staff)
  Transmitted document
• F. Del Sol (Clerical staff)
  Transmitted document

Other Participants

• Debborah Sellers (witness)
  Petitioner's wife, email submitted as evidence

John A Sellers vs. Rancho Madera Condominium Association

Posted on December 26, 2018 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1918010-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-05-10
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John A Sellers	Counsel	—
Respondent	Rancho Madera Condominium Association	Counsel	Edward D. O'Brien

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs § 3.10

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the HOA (Respondent) did not violate CC&R Section 3.10. The CC&Rs imposed the duty of keeping the drainage area clear primarily on the Unit Owners, and the HOA only retained the right to enforce this requirement, not an explicit obligation.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the CC&Rs because the HOA did not have an obligation to enforce clearance requirements against unit owners under the cited covenant provisions.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&Rs § 3.10 by failing to require unit owners to remove vegetation and fencing materials from the stormwater channel behind their homes.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs § 3.10 by failing to compel unit owners to clear vegetation and debris (including chicken wire) from the stormwater drainage channel, asserting this failure created a flood risk to unit 12. The ALJ found that the CC&Rs placed the primary maintenance responsibility on Unit Owners, and the HOA only had the right, but not the obligation, to enforce clearance requirements.

Orders: The petition was denied and dismissed. No action was required of Respondent because Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent violated the CC&Rs regarding maintenance of the drainage easement.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

• A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
• Title 33, Chapter 9
• A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
• Vazanno v. Superior Court
• A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
• MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5
• BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY
• Powell v. Washburn
• Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Drainage, Maintenance, Enforcement, Condominium

Additional Citations:

• A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
• Title 33, Chapter 9
• A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
• Vazanno v. Superior Court
• A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
• MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5
• BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY
• Powell v. Washburn
• Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs.

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918010-REL Decision – 667122.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:26:17 (50.0 KB)

19F-H1918010-REL Decision – 678371.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:26:21 (129.5 KB)

Briefing Document: Sellers vs. Rancho Madera Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the legal proceedings and outcomes of the case John A Sellers, Petitioner, vs. Rancho Madera Condominium Association, Respondent (Case No. 19F-H1918010-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute was a claim by Petitioner John Sellers that his homeowner’s association (HOA) violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by failing to compel other homeowners to remove vegetation and fencing from a common stormwater drainage channel, which he alleged created a flood risk to his property, Unit 12.

The petitioner’s claim was ultimately unsuccessful. It was denied first in an initial evidentiary hearing and again in a subsequent rehearing. The central finding of the Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) in both decisions was a critical distinction between an HOA’s right to enforce rules and an obligation to do so. The ALJs determined that the CC&Rs placed the primary responsibility for maintaining the drainage easement on the individual unit owners. The HOA’s mandatory duty to intervene was found to be triggered only by actual damage resulting from an owner’s negligence, not by the mere potential for future damage. As no flooding or damage had ever occurred, the HOA was found to have acted within its authority and had not violated the CC&Rs. The petitioner’s personal circumstances, including a contentious divorce and court-ordered sale of the property, were noted but deemed legally irrelevant to the determination of a CC&R violation.

Case Chronology and Procedural History

The case progressed through an initial petition, a hearing, a decision, a request for rehearing, and a final decision on rehearing. A notable procedural anomaly occurred when a hearing scheduled for November 5, 2018, was officially vacated due to a withdrawal notice from the petitioner, yet the hearing proceeded on that date as originally planned.

Details

Aug 23, 2018

Petition Filed

John A. Sellers filed a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging the Rancho Madera Condominium Association violated CC&R § 3.10.

Oct 23, 2018

Hearing Vacated

An order was issued by ALJ Diane Mihalsky vacating the November 5 hearing because the petitioner had notified the Department of his wish to withdraw the petition.

Nov 5 & Dec 12, 2018

Initial Hearing

Despite the prior vacating order, an evidentiary hearing was held before ALJ Mihalsky.

Dec 26, 2018

Initial Decision

ALJ Mihalsky issued a decision finding that the petitioner failed to prove his case. The petition was denied.

Feb 1, 2019

Rehearing Requested

The petitioner filed a request for a rehearing, alleging procedural irregularities and errors in the initial decision.

Feb 22, 2019

Rehearing Granted

The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted the request for a rehearing.

Apr 15, 2019

Rehearing Held

A rehearing was held before a new judge, ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer.

May 7, 2019

Post-Hearing Filing Stricken

The petitioner submitted an unauthorized supplemental argument after the rehearing. ALJ Eigenheer issued an order striking the filing from the record and closing the record.

May 10, 2019

Final Decision on Rehearing

ALJ Eigenheer issued a final decision, again finding for the respondent and dismissing the petition.

Core Dispute Analysis

Petitioner’s Position and Allegations

• Core Allegation: The petitioner alleged that the Rancho Madera Condominium Association (Respondent) violated CC&R § 3.10 by failing to enforce its rules. Specifically, the Association did not require owners of “Drainage Easement Units” to remove obstructions—such as large succulents, cacti, shrubs, and chicken wire fencing—from a 3′ x 3′ stormwater drainage canal located behind their homes.

• Perceived Risk: The petitioner testified that these items could catch storm debris, clog the channel, and cause flooding that would damage his property, Unit 12. He submitted videos of heavy rains to support his concern.

• Evolving Legal Argument: In the rehearing, the petitioner’s argument shifted. He acknowledged that the CC&Rs gave the Association the right to enforce maintenance standards but argued that “at a certain point exercising a right becomes an obligation,” particularly when matters of safety and property values are implicated.

• Claimed Financial Damages: The petitioner testified he was undergoing a contentious divorce and his condominium was being sold by order of the Maricopa County Superior Court. He asserted that due to the unresolved flood risk, which he was obligated to disclose, the sale price of Unit 12 was “$40,000 less than it would have been.”

Respondent’s Position and Actions

• Denial of Violation: The Association denied it had violated any CC&Rs by its handling of the drainage channel.

• Evidence and Testimony: The Association, represented by its President, Jeffrey Kaplan, presented several key points:

◦ No History of Flooding: Mr. Kaplan testified that Unit 12 had never sustained any flood damage since the development was built in 2012, including during a “100-year storm” in 2014. After a significant rainstorm in August 2018, he personally inspected the easement and saw no water in it.

◦ Origin of Plants: Mr. Kaplan stated that the builder had originally planted the vegetation in the drainage easement that the petitioner was concerned about.

◦ No Other Complaints: No other members of the 46-unit Association had expressed any concerns about drainage.

◦ Proactive Communication: To assuage the petitioner’s concerns, the Association’s management company sent letters to the relevant homeowners on April 18, 2018, and July 19, 2018, reminding them of their responsibility to keep the drainage area free of obstructions.

◦ Due Diligence: Mr. Kaplan contacted officials at the Maricopa County Flood Control District and the Town of Cave Creek, who confirmed the drainage area was not on any official floodplain maps and that the Association was solely responsible for its maintenance.

Key CC&R Provisions and Legal Interpretation

The ALJs’ decisions hinged on a close reading of the Rancho Madera CC&Rs. The analysis consistently differentiated between the duties of individual owners and the duties of the Association.

• CC&R § 3.10.2 — Unit Owner Responsibility: This section places the primary maintenance burden directly on the homeowners of the Drainage Easement Units.

◦ Interpretation: The legal conclusion was that this provision unambiguously makes individual owners responsible for keeping their portion of the easement clear.

• CC&R § 3.10.4 — Association Responsibility: This section defines the specific circumstance under which the Association is required to act.

◦ Interpretation: Both ALJs found that this clause creates a reactionary, not a proactive, duty for the Association. Its obligation to repair is triggered by actual damage occurring, not by a perceived risk of future damage.

• CC&R § 13.1.1 — Association Enforcement Power: This section, highlighted in the rehearing, grants the Association authority to act.

◦ Interpretation: The ALJ in the rehearing ruled that this language grants a discretionary right, not a mandatory obligation. The CC&Rs contain no provision that converts this right into a duty under the circumstances presented by the petitioner.

Judicial Findings and Rulings

Initial Decision (ALJ Diane Mihalsky, Dec 26, 2018)

• Burden of Proof: The petitioner failed to establish his claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

• Findings of Fact: The petitioner successfully established that plants and chicken wire existed in the stormwater canal. However, he failed to establish that these items actually impeded the flow of water.

• Conclusion: The respondent proved that the drainage canal had functioned as intended since 2012 and that Unit 12 had never flooded. The petitioner’s divorce was noted to have “cast a long shadow over his administrative complaint” but was irrelevant to the legal issue. The petition was denied.

Rehearing Decision (ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer, May 10, 2019)

• Central Legal Finding: The CC&Rs clearly intend for unit owners to bear the primary responsibility for keeping the drainage area clear. The Association’s only specified obligation is to repair damage after it has occurred and bill the responsible owner.

• Right vs. Obligation: The decision explicitly states, “While Respondent has the right to enforce the requirements that the Unit Owners keep the Drainage Easement Area clear, nothing in the CC&Rs provides that Respondent has an obligation to do so.”

• Final Order: The petitioner failed to establish that the respondent violated Section 3.10 of the CC&Rs. The petition was dismissed.

Notable Evidence

A key piece of evidence submitted by the respondent was a June 22, 2018, email from the petitioner’s wife, Debborah Sellers, which directly refuted the petitioner’s claims. In the email, she stated:

“There has never been any issue with the storm drain behind our house and it is not a major disclosure item… Stop making something out of nothing. AND I HOPE YOU AREN[’]T FREAKING POTENTIAL BUYERS AND OTHER REALTORS WITH THIS NONSENSE.”

Study Guide for Case No. 19F-H1918010-REL: Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences, drawing exclusively from the information provided in the case documents.

1. What was the specific allegation John A. Sellers made against the Rancho Madera Condominium Association in his petition filed on August 23, 2018?

2. Identify the key responsibilities assigned to individual unit owners of Drainage Easement Units according to Section 3.10.2 of the CC&Rs.

3. Who is Jeffrey Kaplan, and what key testimony did he provide on behalf of the Respondent?

4. What specific actions did the Respondent’s management company take in April and July of 2018 to address the Petitioner’s concerns?

5. According to the decision by Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky, what did the Petitioner fail to establish regarding the plants and chicken wire in the drainage canal?

6. On what grounds did John A. Sellers file his Homeowner’s Association (HOA) Dispute Rehearing Request on February 1, 2019?

7. What was the Petitioner’s core argument regarding the Association’s “right to enforce” the CC&Rs versus an “obligation to enforce” them?

8. What was the final conclusion of Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer regarding the Association’s responsibilities under the CC&Rs?

9. What occurred after the April 15, 2019 rehearing when the Petitioner attempted to submit supplemental information to the Office of Administrative Hearings?

10. Describe the evidence presented in an email from Debborah Sellers and its relevance to the case.

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. John A. Sellers alleged that the Rancho Madera Condominium Association violated Section 3.10 of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). He claimed the Association failed to require condominium owners to remove vegetation and fencing materials from the stormwater channel, creating a flood risk for his unit.

2. Section 3.10.2 of the CC&Rs requires each Unit Owner of a Drainage Easement Unit to keep their respective Drainage Easement Area free of weeds and other debris. The purpose is to ensure that stormwater can flow freely and that no improvement, including plant materials, impedes this flow.

3. Jeffrey Kaplan is the President of the Rancho Madera Condominium Association. He testified that the drainage easement had never failed, even during a 100-year storm in 2014, that the original builder had planted the vegetation in question, and that he had consulted with county and town officials about the drainage area.

4. To address the Petitioner’s concerns, the Respondent’s management company sent letters to the owners of the Drainage Easement Units. Letters sent on April 18, 2018, and July 19, 2018, reminded owners of their responsibility to keep the drainage area free of obstructions, weeds, and debris.

5. Judge Mihalsky’s decision on December 26, 2018, concluded that the Petitioner established the presence of plants and chicken wire but failed to establish that these items actually impede the flow of water. The judge found that the drainage system functions as intended and there was no unreasonable risk of flooding.

6. The Petitioner filed for a rehearing based on several alleged issues with the original proceeding. These included an irregularity in the proceedings, the existence of newly discovered evidence, errors in the admission or rejection of evidence, and a belief that the findings of fact or decision were arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence.

7. The Petitioner argued that while the CC&Rs grant the Association the “right to enforce” maintenance requirements, this right becomes an “obligation” when issues of property values and safety are at stake. He maintained that the potential for flooding created such an obligation for the Association to act.

8. Judge Eigenheer concluded that the CC&Rs intend for unit owners to bear the responsibility of keeping the Drainage Easement Area clear. She determined that while the Association has the right to enforce this, nothing in the CC&Rs creates an obligation for it to do so, and its only specified responsibility is to repair damage after it occurs, billing the responsible unit owner.

9. After the rehearing, the Petitioner submitted supplemental authority and argument without having requested leave to do so. The Respondent’s counsel argued this filing was untimely and introduced new arguments, requesting it be struck. On May 7, 2019, Judge Eigenheer ordered the filing struck from the record and closed the record.

10. The Respondent submitted a June 22, 2018 email from Debborah Sellers, the Petitioner’s wife. In the email, she stated there had never been an issue with the storm drain, called his concerns “nonsense,” and noted that the developer had done a good job, undermining the Petitioner’s claim of a significant and obvious flood risk.

——————————————————————————–

Suggested Essay Questions

1. Analyze the legal reasoning used by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer to dismiss the petition after the rehearing. Contrast her interpretation of the Association’s duties under the CC&Rs with the findings presented by Judge Diane Mihalsky in the initial decision.

2. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the legal documents. Evaluate the evidence presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent, explaining why the Petitioner ultimately failed to meet this burden of proof in both hearings.

3. Trace the complete procedural history of case No. 19F-H1918010-REL. Identify and explain the significance of key events, including the initial petition, the vacated hearing, the first Administrative Law Judge Decision, the request for rehearing, and the final order dismissing the case.

4. Examine the role and responsibilities of the Rancho Madera Condominium Association versus the individual unit owners as defined by Sections 3.10, 3.10.2, 3.10.4, and 13.1.1 of the CC&Rs. How did the interpretation of these sections form the basis of the final legal decision?

5. Evaluate the different types of evidence presented in the hearings, including witness testimony (Sellers, Kaplan), documentary evidence (CC&Rs, letters, emails), and physical evidence (photographs, videos). How did each type of evidence contribute to the final outcome of the case?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, takes evidence, and makes legal decisions and orders. In this case, Diane Mihalsky and Tammy L. Eigenheer served as ALJs.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The governing legal documents that set up the guidelines for a planned community or condominium association. In this case, the CC&Rs for Rancho Madera were the central document in the dispute.

Drainage Easement

A perpetual, non-exclusive legal right created over a specific portion of property (the eastern five feet of Units 9-18) for constructing and maintaining a stormwater drainage channel.

Drainage Easement Area

The specific portion of land encumbered by the Drainage Easement, defined as the eastern five feet of the designated units.

Drainage Improvements

The physical components of the drainage system, such as the channel, decomposed granite, rip rap (large stones), or concrete, as originally constructed by the developer.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency in Arizona responsible for conducting evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or files a petition seeking a legal remedy. In this case, John A. Sellers.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in this civil administrative case. It is defined as evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of an issue rather than the other, making a contention more probably true than not.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case, granted by the Commissioner in this instance, to re-examine the issues based on claims such as procedural irregularities, newly discovered evidence, or errors in the original decision.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed; the party who must respond to the petitioner’s claims. In this case, the Rancho Madera Condominium Association.

The Department

Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide on petitions for hearings from members of condominium unit owners’ associations.

I Read an Entire HOA Lawsuit. Here Are 4 Shocking Lessons About Power, Rules, and Reality.

The Anatomy of a Neighborhood War

Living under a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) often means navigating a complex world of rules, regulations, and neighborhood politics. For most, disagreements are minor annoyances. But sometimes, a seemingly small issue can escalate into a full-blown legal war.

This is the story of one homeowner’s single-minded crusade against his HOA over a stormwater drainage channel he believed was a serious flooding risk. After filing a formal petition, the dispute escalated into a multi-stage legal battle that spanned nearly a year. The official court documents reveal that even after a judge ruled decisively against him, the homeowner doubled down, demanding a rare rehearing.

A deep dive into this protracted case reveals a fascinating and cautionary tale. The legal reasoning that ultimately settled the matter highlights several surprising lessons that apply to anyone living in a planned community.

1. Proving a Rule Was Broken Isn’t the Same as Proving Harm

The initial hearing, held before Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky in late 2018, centered on a seemingly straightforward argument from the petitioner, John Sellers. He pointed out that his neighbors had placed plants—including large succulents, shrubs, and cacti—as well as chicken wire in a stormwater drainage channel. This, he argued, was a clear violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which stated that no improvement “shall be constructed, installed or allowed to grow… that may… impede the flow of water.”

But in her December 26, 2018 decision, the judge ruled against him. While Sellers successfully proved the obstructions existed, he failed to meet the legal burden of proof that they actually “impede the flow of water.” His claim was defeated by testimony from the HOA President, Jeffrey Kaplan, who stated that the unit had never sustained any flood damage, not even during a “100-year storm in 2014.”

The lesson from this first round is stark: in this legal context, simply pointing out a technical rule break was not enough. The petitioner had to prove that the violation was causing a tangible, negative impact. Without evidence of actual harm or impeded water flow, the theoretical risk was insufficient to win the case.

2. An HOA’s “Right” to Enforce Is Not an “Obligation”

After losing the first round on a question of evidence, Sellers’ argument evolved. He requested a rehearing, which was granted, and the case landed before a new judge, Tammy L. Eigenheer, in the spring of 2019. This shifted the legal focus from physical proof of impeded water flow to a more fundamental question of the HOA’s duties.

Sellers argued that because safety and property values were at stake, the association had a duty to enforce the CC&Rs and compel his neighbors to clear the drainage channel. He contended that at a certain point, an organization’s “right” to act becomes an “obligation.”

The judge’s final decision on May 10, 2019, was clear, absolute, and is where the most powerful lesson of the entire case lies.

“While Respondent has the right to enforce the requirements that the Unit Owners keep the Drainage Easement Area clear, nothing in the CC&Rs provides that Respondent has an obligation to do so.”

This distinction is critical for any homeowner. An HOA can possess the legal power to act but may not be legally compelled to use it. According to the judge’s interpretation, the governing documents placed the responsibility for keeping the channel clear on the individual unit owners. The association’s only stated obligation was to repair damage after it happened, with the cost being billed back to the responsible party.

3. Outside Conflicts Can Cast a Long Shadow

Legal disputes are rarely just about the facts of the case. During the initial hearing, it was revealed that the petitioner was going through a “contentious divorce” and that the condo unit at the center of the dispute was a community asset being sold by the court.

The most dramatic evidence, however, came from an email written by the petitioner’s own wife, Debborah Sellers. The email, submitted as evidence by the HOA, directly undermined his claims about the severity of the drainage issue.

“There has never been any issue with the storm drain behind our house and it is not a major disclosure item… Stop making something out of nothing. AND I HOPE YOU AREN[’]T FREAKING POTENTIAL BUYERS AND OTHER REALTORS WITH THIS NONSENSE.”

In her decision, Judge Mihalsky officially stated that the divorce was “not relevant” to the technical question of whether the HOA violated the CC&Rs. However, she immediately added that the situation “cast a long shadow over his administrative complaint,” suggesting that the personal context, and especially the damaging email, severely harmed the petitioner’s credibility.

4. Writing Letters Isn’t the Same as Being Heard

Throughout the dispute, the petitioner made his concerns known by writing “many letters” to the HOA president. He was persistent in his written communications, attempting to force the issue onto the association’s radar.

Yet, this effort was contrasted with a notable lack of direct participation. According to the testimony of HOA President Kaplan during the first hearing, Sellers “never attended any of Respondent’s noticed Board meetings” where his concerns could have been discussed among the board members.

The HOA’s response to his letters was limited; it sent two general reminder letters to all residents in the affected area but did not take direct enforcement action against any specific homeowner. The practical takeaway is that to effect change or be taken seriously in an HOA dispute, visibility and participation are critical. Writing letters is a start, but attending official meetings to present a case in person can be a more effective strategy for ensuring an issue is formally addressed.

A Cautionary Tale for Any Homeowner

What began as a seemingly straightforward complaint about drainage and rule enforcement devolved into a legal battle that consumed nearly a year, involving two multi-day hearings before two different administrative law judges. The petitioner lost his case on the evidence, then lost it again on the law.

It serves as a potent cautionary tale, demonstrating that in the world of HOA disputes, the obvious path is not always the winning one. It leaves every homeowner with a final, thought-provoking question to ponder: When you see a problem in your community, how do you decide if a fight is worth the cost—not just in money, but in time, credibility, and peace?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

• John A Sellers (petitioner)

Respondent Side

• Edward D. O’Brien (HOA attorney)
  Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC/LLP
  Represented Respondent
• Edith I. Rudder (HOA attorney)
  Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC/LLP
  Represented Respondent
• Jeffrey Kaplan (HOA President/witness)
  Rancho Madera Condominium Association
  Testified on behalf of Respondent

Neutral Parties

• Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
  OAH
  ALJ for initial proceedings
• Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
  OAH
  ALJ for rehearing
• Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
  ADRE
• LDettorre (ADRE staff)
  ADRE
  Recipient of transmission
• AHansen (ADRE staff)
  ADRE
  Recipient of transmission
• djones (ADRE staff)
  ADRE
  Recipient of transmission
• DGardner (ADRE staff)
  ADRE
  Recipient of transmission
• ncano (ADRE staff)
  ADRE
  Recipient of transmission
• c. serrano (Clerical staff)
  Transmitted document
• F. Del Sol (Clerical staff)
  Transmitted document

Other Participants

• Debborah Sellers (witness)
  Petitioner's wife, email submitted as evidence

George E Lord vs. The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association

Posted on December 17, 2018 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1918013-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2018-12-17
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	George E Lord	Counsel	—
Respondent	The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association	Counsel	Maria Kupillas

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1242, A.R.S. § 33-1260.01, and CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition in its entirety, concluding that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent Condominium Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1242, A.R.S. § 33-1260.01, or the association's CC&Rs.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation of any statute or covenant alleged. The core findings supported the HOA's position that the lessee was engaging in prohibited business activity and subletting, and that the charged attorney fees were permissible.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violations concerning notice procedures, leasing restrictions, prohibited business use, and excessive fees.

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1242 by failing to include proper citations in violation notices, violated A.R.S. § 33-1260.01 and CC&Rs by imposing illegal restrictions on occupancy dates and prohibiting tenant guests, and violated fee limits under A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E) by charging $250 in attorney fees.

Orders: The Petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

• A.R.S. § 33-1242
• A.R.S. § 33-1260.01
• A.R.S. § 33-1258
• A.A.C. R2-19-119
• CC&Rs Section 7.21
• CC&Rs Section 7.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium, HOA dispute, leasing restrictions, short-term rental, business use, notice procedure, attorney fees

Additional Citations:

• A.R.S. § 33-1242
• A.R.S. § 33-1260.01
• A.R.S. § 33-1258
• A.A.C. R2-19-119
• CC&Rs Section 7.21
• CC&Rs Section 7.3

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918013-REL Decision – 677039.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:32 (115.9 KB)

19F-H1918013-REL Decision – 677040.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:32 (47.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Lord v. The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and conclusions from the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1918013-REL, involving Petitioner George E. Lord and Respondent The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association. The judge ultimately dismissed all claims brought by the Petitioner, ruling that the Association acted within the bounds of Arizona statutes and its governing documents.

The core of the dispute centered on Mr. Lord’s leasing of three condominium units to an individual, Barrie Shepley, who used the properties to house participants for his commercial fitness training camps. The Association contended this arrangement constituted a prohibited short-term sublease and an improper business use of the units, leading them to suspend amenity access for the occupants.

The judge’s decision affirmed the Association’s position on all counts. Key takeaways include:

• Substance Over Form: The judge concluded that despite the absence of a formal sublease agreement, the nature of the arrangement—specifically a camp pricing structure that varied based on the number of occupants per condo—was effectively a sublet designed to house an “itinerant population,” contrary to the “spirit and purpose” of the community’s rules.

• Business Use Violation: The operation was found to be a business activity that violated the CC&Rs by requiring persons (camp participants) to come to the residential units.

• Procedural Compliance: The Association’s violation notices were deemed compliant with Arizona law. The judge noted that the statute only requires a detailed citation of the violated rule after the owner responds to the initial notice, which the Petitioner failed to do.

• Legality of Fees: A $250 charge levied by the Association’s counsel was determined to be a permissible charge for attorney’s fees related to potential collection, not an illegal penalty for leasing information as the Petitioner alleged.

As a result of these findings, the Petitioner’s request for relief was denied, and the petition was dismissed in its entirety.

I. Case Overview

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: George E. Lord (unit owner)

◦ Respondent: The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association

• Case Number: 19F-H1918013-REL

• Venue: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

• Presiding Judge: Tammy L. Eigenheer, Administrative Law Judge

• Hearing Date: November 26, 2018

• Decision Date: December 17, 2018

• Final Disposition: The petition filed by George E. Lord was dismissed.

II. Factual Background and Timeline of Events

1. Lease Agreements: On or about December 4, 2017, Petitioner George Lord, through his management company, leased two units at The Boulders to Barrie Shepley for a term from March 7, 2018, to April 30, 2018. A third unit was subsequently leased to Mr. Shepley on or about January 15, 2018.

2. Commercial Use: Mr. Shepley operated a Canadian fitness business, “Personal Best,” which offered training camps in Tucson. Accommodations at The Boulders were included in the camp packages. The price for a camp varied based on occupancy:

◦ $950.00 each for four campers in a condo

◦ $1075.00 each for three campers in a condo

◦ $1299.00 each for two campers in a condo

3. Occupancy Begins: On March 7, 2018, guests of Mr. Shepley (camp participants) began arriving to occupy the three leased units.

4. Association Intervention: On March 9, 2018, Community Manager Danielle Morris emailed Mr. Lord, stating the Association’s belief that he was in violation of the CC&Rs by allowing subleasing for periods less than the 30-day minimum. Ms. Morris informed him that amenity access cards for the three units were deactivated.

5. Dispute Escalation: Mr. Lord contended that the occupants were merely “guests” of Mr. Shepley, not subletters. Ms. Morris countered that the Association required the names of all occupants and the duration of their stays, and that each occupant must stay for a minimum of 30 days.

6. Information Provided: On March 13, 2018, Mr. Lord provided the names of the occupants and their dates of occupancy, requesting that amenities be restored.

7. Violation Reiterated: On March 16, 2018, Ms. Morris stated the violation was ongoing, as occupants staying from March 7 to March 31 did not meet the 30-day minimum stay requirement.

8. Formal Notice of Violation: On March 18, 2018, Mr. Lord received formal Notices of Violations for the three units. The notices stated that amenity access was suspended because the HOA was not provided with the names of adult occupants and their timeframes. The notice warned that a $300 fine could be applied. Mr. Lord did not respond to these notices.

9. Attorney Involvement: On March 22, 2018, Mr. Lord received a letter from the Association’s legal counsel outlining its legal position and noting an amount due of $250 for attorney’s fees already incurred.

10. Lease Cancellation & Financial Loss: On April 2, 2018, Mr. Shepley cancelled the remainder of the leases due to the lack of amenities for his guests. Mr. Lord asserted a resulting financial loss of $6,900 in rental fees for April 2018.

11. Petition Filing: On August 31, 2018, Mr. Lord filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the Association violated state statutes and its own CC&Rs.

III. Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments

Mr. Lord’s petition was based on three primary allegations against the Association:

• Allegation 1: Defective Violation Notice (A.R.S. § 33-1242): The Petitioner argued that the Notices of Violations were legally deficient because they failed to cite the specific statute or CC&R provision that had allegedly been violated.

• Allegation 2: Unlawful Occupancy Requirements (A.R.S. § 33-1260.01 & CC&Rs): The Petitioner asserted that the Association overstepped its authority by demanding that each occupant, whom he characterized as a “guest” of the primary lessee, must stay for a minimum of 30 days. He argued the 30-day minimum lease term applied only to the primary lease with Mr. Shepley, not to the occupants.

• Allegation 3: Improper Fees (A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E)): The Petitioner claimed that the $250 charge from the Association’s attorney constituted an illegal fee, penalty, or charge related to providing leasing information, which he argued was prohibited by statute.

IV. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge found that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof for any of his allegations and dismissed the petition. The judge’s reasoning is detailed below.

Finding 1: No Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1242 (Violation Notice)

The judge determined that the Association’s initial Notices of Violations were legally sufficient.

• Legal Reasoning: A.R.S. § 33-1242(C) requires an association to cite the specific provision of the condominium documents that has been violated. However, this obligation is only triggered after the unit owner sends a written response to the initial notice by certified mail.

• Factual Basis: The Petitioner admitted that he did not respond to the formal Notices of Violations he received.

• Conclusion: Because the Petitioner did not take the legally required step to trigger the Association’s duty to provide a specific citation, the Association did not violate the statute.

Finding 2: No Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1260.01 or CC&Rs (Leasing Rules)

The judge concluded that the Association was justified in its actions regarding the occupancy of the units.

• The Arrangement was a “Form” of Subletting: The judge ruled against the Petitioner’s argument that the occupants were merely “guests.” The fact that the price of the fitness camp changed based on how many people shared a unit was seen as evidence that Mr. Shepley was, in effect, subletting the units for his business.

• Prohibited Business Activity: The judge found that Mr. Shepley was operating a business from the units in a manner prohibited by Section 7.3 of the CC&Rs, which disallows business activity that “involve[s] persons coming to the Unit.”

• Spirit of the Law: The decision acknowledged that the specific facts of the case “falls between the cracks of the specific language of the statutes and the regulations.” However, the judge emphasized that the Association’s actions were consistent with the broader intent of its rules, stating, “given the totality of the circumstances, the spirit and purpose of the applicable rules is to allow an association to know who is in the community and to prevent an itinerant population.”

• Conclusion: The Petitioner failed to establish that the Association violated leasing statutes or its own CC&Rs.

Finding 3: No Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E) (Fees)

The judge found that the $250 charge was not an illegal penalty.

• Nature of the Charge: The evidence showed that no fines for the lease policy violation had actually been assessed. The $250 charge was explicitly for attorney’s fees related to the potential collection of assessments.

• Legal Reasoning: The judge stated, “Nothing in the cited statute or the CC&Rs prohibits such a charge being implemented.” The fee was not a penalty for “incomplete or late information” as covered by the statute, but a charge for legal costs incurred by the Association.

• Conclusion: The Petitioner failed to establish a violation regarding the assessed fees.

V. Referenced Statutes and Governing Documents

Reference

Provision Summary

Relevance to Case

A.R.S. § 33-1242(B)&(C)

Outlines the process for a unit owner to respond to a violation notice and the association’s subsequent duty to provide specific details of the violation.

The judge found no violation because the Petitioner did not follow the procedure to trigger the association’s duty.

A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(C)

Limits the information an association can require about a tenant to names, contact info for adults, lease period, and vehicle information.

The Petitioner’s case rested on interpreting this statute; the judge found the Association’s inquiries justified by the unique circumstances.

A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E)

Prohibits an association from imposing fees greater than $15 for incomplete or late leasing information.

The Petitioner argued the $250 attorney fee violated this, but the judge found it was a permissible charge for legal costs, not a penalty.

CC&R Section 7.21

Requires leases to be in writing, for a term of not less than 30 days, and requires owners to provide lessee names and lease dates.

The Association argued the arrangement violated the 30-day minimum stay rule for occupants, which the judge upheld in spirit.

CC&R Section 7.3

Prohibits business activities within a unit that involve persons coming to the unit.

The judge found Mr. Shepley’s fitness camp, which housed participants in the units, was a clear violation of this provision.

Leasing Policy

States a $300 fine may be imposed for violations of the 30-day minimum lease policy.

The Notice of Violation referenced this potential fine, though it was never actually assessed.

VI. Final Order and Procedural Notes

• Order: Based on the above findings, the Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petition be dismissed.

• Binding Nature: The decision is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted. A request for rehearing must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.

• Related Filings: On the same day the decision was issued, December 17, 2018, the court also issued a separate “Order Vacating Hearing,” likely a procedural filing to cancel a future hearing that was rendered unnecessary by the dismissal of the case.

Study Guide: Lord v. The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association

This study guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case No. 19F-H1918013-REL, heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The case involves a dispute between a condominium unit owner, George E. Lord, and his condominium association, The Boulders at La Reserve, concerning leasing policies, occupant regulations, and alleged statutory violations.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, based on the information provided in the source documents.

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

2. Describe the business arrangement that Barrie Shepley, the petitioner’s lessee, was operating from the leased condominium units.

3. What was the first official action the Condominium Association’s management took in response to the arrival of Barrie Shepley’s guests, and what was their stated reason?

4. According to the Association, what two specific provisions of the governing documents were being violated by the petitioner and his lessee?

5. What was the petitioner’s central argument for why the occupants of the units were not in violation of the Association’s 30-day minimum stay requirement?

6. On what procedural grounds did the petitioner, George Lord, claim that the Association’s “Notice of Violations” was itself a violation of Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1242)?

7. Why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately rule that the Association did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1242?

8. How did the judge interpret the fact that the price for Barrie Shepley’s fitness camps varied based on the number of people sharing a condo?

9. What financial loss did the petitioner claim to have suffered, and what was the direct cause of this loss?

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

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were George E. Lord, the petitioner and owner of multiple condominium units, and The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association, the respondent and governing body for the community. The case was adjudicated by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer.

2. Barrie Shepley operated a fitness business called “Personal Best” that offered training camps in the Tucson area. The price for these camps included accommodations at The Boulders, with the cost per person varying based on how many campers shared a condominium unit.

3. The Association’s first action was to deactivate the amenity access cards for the three units leased by Shepley. Danielle Morris, the Community Manager, stated this was due to a belief that the petitioner’s lessee was subleasing the units for periods of less than the 30-day minimum in violation of the CC&Rs.

4. The Association alleged violations of the CC&Rs related to subleasing for less than the 30-day minimum timeframe. The formal Notices of Violations also cited the failure to provide the names of all adult occupants and the timeframes of their stays to the HOA.

5. The petitioner argued that because his lessee, Mr. Shepley, was not charging a specific rental fee to the occupants, they were merely “guests” and not sub-lessees. Therefore, the 30-day minimum stay requirement applicable to leases did not apply to them.

6. The petitioner alleged that the Association’s failure to include a citation to the specific statute or CC&R provision that had allegedly been violated in the initial Notice of Violations was a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1242.

7. The judge ruled against the petitioner because A.R.S. § 33-1242 only requires an association to provide the specific provision violated after the unit owner sends a written response to the initial notice by certified mail. The petitioner admitted that he did not respond to the Notices of Violations.

8. The judge found that the tiered pricing structure supported the conclusion that Mr. Shepley was, “in a form, subletting the units.” The fact that the camp price decreased as more people shared a unit indicated that the occupants were paying for their accommodations, not simply staying as guests.

9. The petitioner asserted a financial loss of $6,900 in rental fees for April 2018. This loss was directly caused by Barrie Shepley canceling the remainder of his leases due to the lack of amenities for his occupants.

10. The Administrative Law Judge’s final order was that the Petition filed by George E. Lord be dismissed. This decision was binding unless a rehearing was granted.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more analytical understanding of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each prompt, citing specific facts, arguments, and legal interpretations from the case file.

1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s reasoning for concluding that Barrie Shepley was “in a form, subletting” the units. Discuss the evidence cited and the concept of the “spirit and purpose” of the rules versus their literal interpretation.

2. Examine the procedural misstep made by the petitioner, George Lord, after receiving the Notices of Violations. How did this action directly impact the judge’s ruling on his claim regarding A.R.S. § 33-1242?

3. Discuss the conflict between a unit owner’s right to lease their property and a condominium association’s right to enforce its governing documents, using the specific provisions of the CC&Rs (Sections 7.21 and 7.3) and state law (A.R.S. § 33-1260.01) as examples from the case.

4. Explain the distinction the judge made between the $300 potential fine mentioned in the Notice of Violations and the $250 attorney’s fee charged to the petitioner. How did this distinction relate to A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E), and why was the Association’s action deemed permissible?

5. Evaluate the concept of an “itinerant population” as mentioned by the judge. How did Barrie Shepley’s business model contribute to this concern for the Association, and how did it ultimately weigh into the judge’s decision to dismiss the petition?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Term / Name

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, weighs evidence, and makes legal rulings on disputes involving government agencies. In this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The codified body of laws for the state of Arizona. The petitioner alleged violations of specific statutes within this code, namely A.R.S. § 33-1242 and § 33-1260.01.

A.R.S. § 33-1242

A state law governing the process for notifying a unit owner of a violation of condominium documents and the procedures for the owner to respond and contest the notice.

A.R.S. § 33-1260.01

A state law that places limitations on what information an association can require from a unit owner regarding a tenant and caps certain fees or penalties for incomplete information at $15.

Amenity

A feature or facility of a property that provides comfort, convenience, or pleasure. In this case, access to amenities was controlled by key cards, which the Association deactivated.

Barrie Shepley

The individual who leased three condominium units from the petitioner. He operated a fitness business, “Personal Best,” and used the units to house clients attending his training camps.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community or condominium. The Association alleged Shepley’s use of the units violated Sections 7.21 (leasing limitations) and 7.3 (business use limitations).

George E. Lord

The Petitioner in the case. He was the owner of multiple condominium units at The Boulders at La Reserve and filed the petition against the Association.

Itinerant population

A term used by the judge to describe a population of short-term, transient occupants. The judge concluded that the purpose of the Association’s rules was, in part, to prevent this type of occupancy.

Notice of Violations

A formal written document sent by the Association to the petitioner informing him of alleged violations of the governing documents and outlining potential consequences, such as fines.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal or administrative action. In this case, George E. Lord.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It means that the petitioner had the burden of showing that the facts they sought to prove were “more probable than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association.

Subletting

The practice of a tenant leasing a rented property to a third party. The Association contended Shepley was subletting the units to his campers, while the petitioner argued they were merely guests.

The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association

The Respondent in the case. The homeowners’ association (HOA) responsible for governing the condominium community in Oro Valley, Arizona.

The $6,900 ‘Guest’ Mistake: 3 Hard Lessons from an HOA Lawsuit

A $6,900 loss in rental income and a losing legal battle with his HOA—all because of a dispute over the definition of a “guest.” This case between owner George Lord and The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association is a masterclass in how quickly and completely an owner can lose when they misinterpret the rules and underestimate an association’s power.

For any homeowner or landlord, this dispute provides three crucial lessons distilled from the administrative court’s decision. Understanding these precedents is essential before you ever find yourself at odds with your own HOA.

Lesson 1: The “Spirit of the Rule” Can Outweigh Your Clever Workaround

The dispute began when the property owner, Mr. Lord, leased three condos to Barrie Shepley, who ran fitness training camps. Mr. Shepley then used the condos to house his camp attendees, often for periods shorter than the HOA’s 30-day minimum lease term.

The owner argued his arrangement complied with the rules. He claimed his tenant, Mr. Shepley, was not subleasing the units; the attendees were merely “guests,” and therefore not subject to the 30-day minimum. It was a clever workaround, but it fell apart under scrutiny for two distinct reasons.

First, the judge looked past the “guest” label to the financial substance of the arrangement. A key piece of evidence was the camp’s pricing: the cost changed based on how many campers shared a condo ($950 each for four campers vs. $1299 each for two). The judge saw this as clear proof that housing was being paid for, making it a form of subletting.

Second, the judge found that the arrangement constituted a prohibited business activity. The association’s CC&Rs (Section 7.3) explicitly forbade any business activity that “involve[s] persons coming to the Unit.” Since the fitness camp required attendees to come to the condos for lodging, it was a direct violation. The judge’s decision was therefore not just based on a subjective interpretation, but was also grounded in a concrete rule violation.

The court looked at the “totality of the circumstances” to make its ruling, a point powerfully summarized in the final decision:

However, given the totality of the circumstances, the spirit and purpose of the applicable rules is to allow an association to know who is in the community and to prevent an itinerant population.

Pro Tip: Before implementing a workaround, ask yourself: “Does this honor the community’s stated goal?” If the answer is no, you’re on thin ice, even if you think you’ve found a loophole.

Lesson 2: You Must Follow Procedure to the Letter, Or You Forfeit Your Rights

Confident in his “guest” interpretation, the homeowner made his next critical error by underestimating the importance of legal procedure. He argued that the HOA’s initial “Notice of Violations” was invalid because it failed to cite the specific CC&R provision that had allegedly been violated.

This argument was swiftly dismissed due to a simple but fatal mistake: the owner never sent a formal written response to the notice by certified mail.

Under Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1242), an owner’s formal written response via certified mail triggers the HOA’s obligation to provide the specific provision that was violated. Without that trigger, the HOA’s duty to explain further is never activated. The homeowner failed to pull the trigger. Because he did not follow this exact procedure, his claim was thrown out, and the HOA had no further legal obligation to detail its case.

Analyst’s Takeaway: In a legal dispute, communication that isn’t sent via the officially mandated channel (like certified mail) is legally equivalent to communication that never happened.

Lesson 3: The HOA’s Legal Fees Can Hit Your Wallet Sooner Than You Think

Early in the dispute, the owner received a letter from the HOA’s legal counsel. The letter outlined the association’s position and included a charge for $250.00. This was not a fine for the violation. It was a fee for the lawyer’s time, as explained in the letter:

“As you know, the Association is entitled to recover its costs and attorneys’ fees from you, including $250.00 already incurred for the preparation of this letter.”

Many governing documents contain clauses that allow an HOA to recover its “costs of enforcement.” This letter was an enforcement action, and the legal fee was the cost. The judge found that nothing in the law or CC&Rs prohibited the HOA from immediately passing this expense to the owner.

This initial charge was a precursor to a much larger financial blow. As an enforcement tool for the violations discussed in Lesson 1, the HOA suspended the tenants’ access to community amenities. This pressure tactic worked perfectly. The tenant, Mr. Shepley, cancelled his leases due to the lack of amenity access, leading to the owner’s stated loss of $6,900 in rental fees.

Pro Tip: Assume your HOA’s first legal letter starts a running tab. Budget for legal costs from day one of a formal dispute, not just for potential fines.

Conclusion: Knowledge is Your Best Defense

The case of Lord vs. The Boulders at La Reserve establishes three clear precedents for owners: a rule’s intent can supersede its literal interpretation, procedural shortcuts void your rights, and the financial clock starts ticking the moment an HOA retains counsel.

This case is a firm reminder of an HOA’s power to enforce its rules, but it also highlights the owner’s responsibility to understand them. It begs the question: In our own communities, are we fully aware of the rules we’ve agreed to live by?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

• George E. Lord (petitioner)

Respondent Side

• Maria Kupillas (respondent attorney)
  Law offices of Farley, Choate & Bergin
• Danielle Morris (community manager)
  The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association

Neutral Parties

• Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
• Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
  Arizona Department of Real Estate
• LDettorre (ADRE staff)
  Arizona Department of Real Estate
• AHansen (ADRE staff)
  Arizona Department of Real Estate
• djones (ADRE staff)
  Arizona Department of Real Estate
• DGardner (ADRE staff)
  Arizona Department of Real Estate
• ncano (ADRE staff)
  Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

• Barrie Shepley (renter/key individual)

George E Lord vs. The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association

Posted on December 17, 2018 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1918013-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2018-12-17
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	George E Lord	Counsel	—
Respondent	The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association	Counsel	Maria Kupillas

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1242, A.R.S. § 33-1260.01, and CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition in its entirety, concluding that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent Condominium Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1242, A.R.S. § 33-1260.01, or the association's CC&Rs.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation of any statute or covenant alleged. The core findings supported the HOA's position that the lessee was engaging in prohibited business activity and subletting, and that the charged attorney fees were permissible.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violations concerning notice procedures, leasing restrictions, prohibited business use, and excessive fees.

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1242 by failing to include proper citations in violation notices, violated A.R.S. § 33-1260.01 and CC&Rs by imposing illegal restrictions on occupancy dates and prohibiting tenant guests, and violated fee limits under A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E) by charging $250 in attorney fees.

Orders: The Petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

• A.R.S. § 33-1242
• A.R.S. § 33-1260.01
• A.R.S. § 33-1258
• A.A.C. R2-19-119
• CC&Rs Section 7.21
• CC&Rs Section 7.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium, HOA dispute, leasing restrictions, short-term rental, business use, notice procedure, attorney fees

Additional Citations:

• A.R.S. § 33-1242
• A.R.S. § 33-1260.01
• A.R.S. § 33-1258
• A.A.C. R2-19-119
• CC&Rs Section 7.21
• CC&Rs Section 7.3

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918013-REL Decision – 677039.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:26:46 (115.9 KB)

19F-H1918013-REL Decision – 677040.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:26:49 (47.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Lord v. The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and conclusions from the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1918013-REL, involving Petitioner George E. Lord and Respondent The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association. The judge ultimately dismissed all claims brought by the Petitioner, ruling that the Association acted within the bounds of Arizona statutes and its governing documents.

The core of the dispute centered on Mr. Lord’s leasing of three condominium units to an individual, Barrie Shepley, who used the properties to house participants for his commercial fitness training camps. The Association contended this arrangement constituted a prohibited short-term sublease and an improper business use of the units, leading them to suspend amenity access for the occupants.

The judge’s decision affirmed the Association’s position on all counts. Key takeaways include:

• Substance Over Form: The judge concluded that despite the absence of a formal sublease agreement, the nature of the arrangement—specifically a camp pricing structure that varied based on the number of occupants per condo—was effectively a sublet designed to house an “itinerant population,” contrary to the “spirit and purpose” of the community’s rules.

• Business Use Violation: The operation was found to be a business activity that violated the CC&Rs by requiring persons (camp participants) to come to the residential units.

• Procedural Compliance: The Association’s violation notices were deemed compliant with Arizona law. The judge noted that the statute only requires a detailed citation of the violated rule after the owner responds to the initial notice, which the Petitioner failed to do.

• Legality of Fees: A $250 charge levied by the Association’s counsel was determined to be a permissible charge for attorney’s fees related to potential collection, not an illegal penalty for leasing information as the Petitioner alleged.

As a result of these findings, the Petitioner’s request for relief was denied, and the petition was dismissed in its entirety.

I. Case Overview

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: George E. Lord (unit owner)

◦ Respondent: The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association

• Case Number: 19F-H1918013-REL

• Venue: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

• Presiding Judge: Tammy L. Eigenheer, Administrative Law Judge

• Hearing Date: November 26, 2018

• Decision Date: December 17, 2018

• Final Disposition: The petition filed by George E. Lord was dismissed.

II. Factual Background and Timeline of Events

1. Lease Agreements: On or about December 4, 2017, Petitioner George Lord, through his management company, leased two units at The Boulders to Barrie Shepley for a term from March 7, 2018, to April 30, 2018. A third unit was subsequently leased to Mr. Shepley on or about January 15, 2018.

2. Commercial Use: Mr. Shepley operated a Canadian fitness business, “Personal Best,” which offered training camps in Tucson. Accommodations at The Boulders were included in the camp packages. The price for a camp varied based on occupancy:

◦ $950.00 each for four campers in a condo

◦ $1075.00 each for three campers in a condo

◦ $1299.00 each for two campers in a condo

3. Occupancy Begins: On March 7, 2018, guests of Mr. Shepley (camp participants) began arriving to occupy the three leased units.

4. Association Intervention: On March 9, 2018, Community Manager Danielle Morris emailed Mr. Lord, stating the Association’s belief that he was in violation of the CC&Rs by allowing subleasing for periods less than the 30-day minimum. Ms. Morris informed him that amenity access cards for the three units were deactivated.

5. Dispute Escalation: Mr. Lord contended that the occupants were merely “guests” of Mr. Shepley, not subletters. Ms. Morris countered that the Association required the names of all occupants and the duration of their stays, and that each occupant must stay for a minimum of 30 days.

6. Information Provided: On March 13, 2018, Mr. Lord provided the names of the occupants and their dates of occupancy, requesting that amenities be restored.

7. Violation Reiterated: On March 16, 2018, Ms. Morris stated the violation was ongoing, as occupants staying from March 7 to March 31 did not meet the 30-day minimum stay requirement.

8. Formal Notice of Violation: On March 18, 2018, Mr. Lord received formal Notices of Violations for the three units. The notices stated that amenity access was suspended because the HOA was not provided with the names of adult occupants and their timeframes. The notice warned that a $300 fine could be applied. Mr. Lord did not respond to these notices.

9. Attorney Involvement: On March 22, 2018, Mr. Lord received a letter from the Association’s legal counsel outlining its legal position and noting an amount due of $250 for attorney’s fees already incurred.

10. Lease Cancellation & Financial Loss: On April 2, 2018, Mr. Shepley cancelled the remainder of the leases due to the lack of amenities for his guests. Mr. Lord asserted a resulting financial loss of $6,900 in rental fees for April 2018.

11. Petition Filing: On August 31, 2018, Mr. Lord filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the Association violated state statutes and its own CC&Rs.

III. Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments

Mr. Lord’s petition was based on three primary allegations against the Association:

• Allegation 1: Defective Violation Notice (A.R.S. § 33-1242): The Petitioner argued that the Notices of Violations were legally deficient because they failed to cite the specific statute or CC&R provision that had allegedly been violated.

• Allegation 2: Unlawful Occupancy Requirements (A.R.S. § 33-1260.01 & CC&Rs): The Petitioner asserted that the Association overstepped its authority by demanding that each occupant, whom he characterized as a “guest” of the primary lessee, must stay for a minimum of 30 days. He argued the 30-day minimum lease term applied only to the primary lease with Mr. Shepley, not to the occupants.

• Allegation 3: Improper Fees (A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E)): The Petitioner claimed that the $250 charge from the Association’s attorney constituted an illegal fee, penalty, or charge related to providing leasing information, which he argued was prohibited by statute.

IV. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge found that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof for any of his allegations and dismissed the petition. The judge’s reasoning is detailed below.

Finding 1: No Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1242 (Violation Notice)

The judge determined that the Association’s initial Notices of Violations were legally sufficient.

• Legal Reasoning: A.R.S. § 33-1242(C) requires an association to cite the specific provision of the condominium documents that has been violated. However, this obligation is only triggered after the unit owner sends a written response to the initial notice by certified mail.

• Factual Basis: The Petitioner admitted that he did not respond to the formal Notices of Violations he received.

• Conclusion: Because the Petitioner did not take the legally required step to trigger the Association’s duty to provide a specific citation, the Association did not violate the statute.

Finding 2: No Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1260.01 or CC&Rs (Leasing Rules)

The judge concluded that the Association was justified in its actions regarding the occupancy of the units.

• The Arrangement was a “Form” of Subletting: The judge ruled against the Petitioner’s argument that the occupants were merely “guests.” The fact that the price of the fitness camp changed based on how many people shared a unit was seen as evidence that Mr. Shepley was, in effect, subletting the units for his business.

• Prohibited Business Activity: The judge found that Mr. Shepley was operating a business from the units in a manner prohibited by Section 7.3 of the CC&Rs, which disallows business activity that “involve[s] persons coming to the Unit.”

• Spirit of the Law: The decision acknowledged that the specific facts of the case “falls between the cracks of the specific language of the statutes and the regulations.” However, the judge emphasized that the Association’s actions were consistent with the broader intent of its rules, stating, “given the totality of the circumstances, the spirit and purpose of the applicable rules is to allow an association to know who is in the community and to prevent an itinerant population.”

• Conclusion: The Petitioner failed to establish that the Association violated leasing statutes or its own CC&Rs.

Finding 3: No Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E) (Fees)

The judge found that the $250 charge was not an illegal penalty.

• Nature of the Charge: The evidence showed that no fines for the lease policy violation had actually been assessed. The $250 charge was explicitly for attorney’s fees related to the potential collection of assessments.

• Legal Reasoning: The judge stated, “Nothing in the cited statute or the CC&Rs prohibits such a charge being implemented.” The fee was not a penalty for “incomplete or late information” as covered by the statute, but a charge for legal costs incurred by the Association.

• Conclusion: The Petitioner failed to establish a violation regarding the assessed fees.

V. Referenced Statutes and Governing Documents

Reference

Provision Summary

Relevance to Case

A.R.S. § 33-1242(B)&(C)

Outlines the process for a unit owner to respond to a violation notice and the association’s subsequent duty to provide specific details of the violation.

The judge found no violation because the Petitioner did not follow the procedure to trigger the association’s duty.

A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(C)

Limits the information an association can require about a tenant to names, contact info for adults, lease period, and vehicle information.

The Petitioner’s case rested on interpreting this statute; the judge found the Association’s inquiries justified by the unique circumstances.

A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E)

Prohibits an association from imposing fees greater than $15 for incomplete or late leasing information.

The Petitioner argued the $250 attorney fee violated this, but the judge found it was a permissible charge for legal costs, not a penalty.

CC&R Section 7.21

Requires leases to be in writing, for a term of not less than 30 days, and requires owners to provide lessee names and lease dates.

The Association argued the arrangement violated the 30-day minimum stay rule for occupants, which the judge upheld in spirit.

CC&R Section 7.3

Prohibits business activities within a unit that involve persons coming to the unit.

The judge found Mr. Shepley’s fitness camp, which housed participants in the units, was a clear violation of this provision.

Leasing Policy

States a $300 fine may be imposed for violations of the 30-day minimum lease policy.

The Notice of Violation referenced this potential fine, though it was never actually assessed.

VI. Final Order and Procedural Notes

• Order: Based on the above findings, the Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petition be dismissed.

• Binding Nature: The decision is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted. A request for rehearing must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.

• Related Filings: On the same day the decision was issued, December 17, 2018, the court also issued a separate “Order Vacating Hearing,” likely a procedural filing to cancel a future hearing that was rendered unnecessary by the dismissal of the case.

Study Guide: Lord v. The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association

This study guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case No. 19F-H1918013-REL, heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The case involves a dispute between a condominium unit owner, George E. Lord, and his condominium association, The Boulders at La Reserve, concerning leasing policies, occupant regulations, and alleged statutory violations.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, based on the information provided in the source documents.

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

2. Describe the business arrangement that Barrie Shepley, the petitioner’s lessee, was operating from the leased condominium units.

3. What was the first official action the Condominium Association’s management took in response to the arrival of Barrie Shepley’s guests, and what was their stated reason?

4. According to the Association, what two specific provisions of the governing documents were being violated by the petitioner and his lessee?

5. What was the petitioner’s central argument for why the occupants of the units were not in violation of the Association’s 30-day minimum stay requirement?

6. On what procedural grounds did the petitioner, George Lord, claim that the Association’s “Notice of Violations” was itself a violation of Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1242)?

7. Why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately rule that the Association did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1242?

8. How did the judge interpret the fact that the price for Barrie Shepley’s fitness camps varied based on the number of people sharing a condo?

9. What financial loss did the petitioner claim to have suffered, and what was the direct cause of this loss?

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

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were George E. Lord, the petitioner and owner of multiple condominium units, and The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association, the respondent and governing body for the community. The case was adjudicated by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer.

2. Barrie Shepley operated a fitness business called “Personal Best” that offered training camps in the Tucson area. The price for these camps included accommodations at The Boulders, with the cost per person varying based on how many campers shared a condominium unit.

3. The Association’s first action was to deactivate the amenity access cards for the three units leased by Shepley. Danielle Morris, the Community Manager, stated this was due to a belief that the petitioner’s lessee was subleasing the units for periods of less than the 30-day minimum in violation of the CC&Rs.

4. The Association alleged violations of the CC&Rs related to subleasing for less than the 30-day minimum timeframe. The formal Notices of Violations also cited the failure to provide the names of all adult occupants and the timeframes of their stays to the HOA.

5. The petitioner argued that because his lessee, Mr. Shepley, was not charging a specific rental fee to the occupants, they were merely “guests” and not sub-lessees. Therefore, the 30-day minimum stay requirement applicable to leases did not apply to them.

6. The petitioner alleged that the Association’s failure to include a citation to the specific statute or CC&R provision that had allegedly been violated in the initial Notice of Violations was a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1242.

7. The judge ruled against the petitioner because A.R.S. § 33-1242 only requires an association to provide the specific provision violated after the unit owner sends a written response to the initial notice by certified mail. The petitioner admitted that he did not respond to the Notices of Violations.

8. The judge found that the tiered pricing structure supported the conclusion that Mr. Shepley was, “in a form, subletting the units.” The fact that the camp price decreased as more people shared a unit indicated that the occupants were paying for their accommodations, not simply staying as guests.

9. The petitioner asserted a financial loss of $6,900 in rental fees for April 2018. This loss was directly caused by Barrie Shepley canceling the remainder of his leases due to the lack of amenities for his occupants.

10. The Administrative Law Judge’s final order was that the Petition filed by George E. Lord be dismissed. This decision was binding unless a rehearing was granted.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more analytical understanding of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each prompt, citing specific facts, arguments, and legal interpretations from the case file.

1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s reasoning for concluding that Barrie Shepley was “in a form, subletting” the units. Discuss the evidence cited and the concept of the “spirit and purpose” of the rules versus their literal interpretation.

2. Examine the procedural misstep made by the petitioner, George Lord, after receiving the Notices of Violations. How did this action directly impact the judge’s ruling on his claim regarding A.R.S. § 33-1242?

3. Discuss the conflict between a unit owner’s right to lease their property and a condominium association’s right to enforce its governing documents, using the specific provisions of the CC&Rs (Sections 7.21 and 7.3) and state law (A.R.S. § 33-1260.01) as examples from the case.

4. Explain the distinction the judge made between the $300 potential fine mentioned in the Notice of Violations and the $250 attorney’s fee charged to the petitioner. How did this distinction relate to A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E), and why was the Association’s action deemed permissible?

5. Evaluate the concept of an “itinerant population” as mentioned by the judge. How did Barrie Shepley’s business model contribute to this concern for the Association, and how did it ultimately weigh into the judge’s decision to dismiss the petition?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Term / Name

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, weighs evidence, and makes legal rulings on disputes involving government agencies. In this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The codified body of laws for the state of Arizona. The petitioner alleged violations of specific statutes within this code, namely A.R.S. § 33-1242 and § 33-1260.01.

A.R.S. § 33-1242

A state law governing the process for notifying a unit owner of a violation of condominium documents and the procedures for the owner to respond and contest the notice.

A.R.S. § 33-1260.01

A state law that places limitations on what information an association can require from a unit owner regarding a tenant and caps certain fees or penalties for incomplete information at $15.

Amenity

A feature or facility of a property that provides comfort, convenience, or pleasure. In this case, access to amenities was controlled by key cards, which the Association deactivated.

Barrie Shepley

The individual who leased three condominium units from the petitioner. He operated a fitness business, “Personal Best,” and used the units to house clients attending his training camps.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community or condominium. The Association alleged Shepley’s use of the units violated Sections 7.21 (leasing limitations) and 7.3 (business use limitations).

George E. Lord

The Petitioner in the case. He was the owner of multiple condominium units at The Boulders at La Reserve and filed the petition against the Association.

Itinerant population

A term used by the judge to describe a population of short-term, transient occupants. The judge concluded that the purpose of the Association’s rules was, in part, to prevent this type of occupancy.

Notice of Violations

A formal written document sent by the Association to the petitioner informing him of alleged violations of the governing documents and outlining potential consequences, such as fines.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal or administrative action. In this case, George E. Lord.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It means that the petitioner had the burden of showing that the facts they sought to prove were “more probable than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association.

Subletting

The practice of a tenant leasing a rented property to a third party. The Association contended Shepley was subletting the units to his campers, while the petitioner argued they were merely guests.

The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association

The Respondent in the case. The homeowners’ association (HOA) responsible for governing the condominium community in Oro Valley, Arizona.

The $6,900 ‘Guest’ Mistake: 3 Hard Lessons from an HOA Lawsuit

A $6,900 loss in rental income and a losing legal battle with his HOA—all because of a dispute over the definition of a “guest.” This case between owner George Lord and The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association is a masterclass in how quickly and completely an owner can lose when they misinterpret the rules and underestimate an association’s power.

For any homeowner or landlord, this dispute provides three crucial lessons distilled from the administrative court’s decision. Understanding these precedents is essential before you ever find yourself at odds with your own HOA.

Lesson 1: The “Spirit of the Rule” Can Outweigh Your Clever Workaround

The dispute began when the property owner, Mr. Lord, leased three condos to Barrie Shepley, who ran fitness training camps. Mr. Shepley then used the condos to house his camp attendees, often for periods shorter than the HOA’s 30-day minimum lease term.

The owner argued his arrangement complied with the rules. He claimed his tenant, Mr. Shepley, was not subleasing the units; the attendees were merely “guests,” and therefore not subject to the 30-day minimum. It was a clever workaround, but it fell apart under scrutiny for two distinct reasons.

First, the judge looked past the “guest” label to the financial substance of the arrangement. A key piece of evidence was the camp’s pricing: the cost changed based on how many campers shared a condo ($950 each for four campers vs. $1299 each for two). The judge saw this as clear proof that housing was being paid for, making it a form of subletting.

Second, the judge found that the arrangement constituted a prohibited business activity. The association’s CC&Rs (Section 7.3) explicitly forbade any business activity that “involve[s] persons coming to the Unit.” Since the fitness camp required attendees to come to the condos for lodging, it was a direct violation. The judge’s decision was therefore not just based on a subjective interpretation, but was also grounded in a concrete rule violation.

The court looked at the “totality of the circumstances” to make its ruling, a point powerfully summarized in the final decision:

However, given the totality of the circumstances, the spirit and purpose of the applicable rules is to allow an association to know who is in the community and to prevent an itinerant population.

Pro Tip: Before implementing a workaround, ask yourself: “Does this honor the community’s stated goal?” If the answer is no, you’re on thin ice, even if you think you’ve found a loophole.

Lesson 2: You Must Follow Procedure to the Letter, Or You Forfeit Your Rights

Confident in his “guest” interpretation, the homeowner made his next critical error by underestimating the importance of legal procedure. He argued that the HOA’s initial “Notice of Violations” was invalid because it failed to cite the specific CC&R provision that had allegedly been violated.

This argument was swiftly dismissed due to a simple but fatal mistake: the owner never sent a formal written response to the notice by certified mail.

Under Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1242), an owner’s formal written response via certified mail triggers the HOA’s obligation to provide the specific provision that was violated. Without that trigger, the HOA’s duty to explain further is never activated. The homeowner failed to pull the trigger. Because he did not follow this exact procedure, his claim was thrown out, and the HOA had no further legal obligation to detail its case.

Analyst’s Takeaway: In a legal dispute, communication that isn’t sent via the officially mandated channel (like certified mail) is legally equivalent to communication that never happened.

Lesson 3: The HOA’s Legal Fees Can Hit Your Wallet Sooner Than You Think

Early in the dispute, the owner received a letter from the HOA’s legal counsel. The letter outlined the association’s position and included a charge for $250.00. This was not a fine for the violation. It was a fee for the lawyer’s time, as explained in the letter:

“As you know, the Association is entitled to recover its costs and attorneys’ fees from you, including $250.00 already incurred for the preparation of this letter.”

Many governing documents contain clauses that allow an HOA to recover its “costs of enforcement.” This letter was an enforcement action, and the legal fee was the cost. The judge found that nothing in the law or CC&Rs prohibited the HOA from immediately passing this expense to the owner.

This initial charge was a precursor to a much larger financial blow. As an enforcement tool for the violations discussed in Lesson 1, the HOA suspended the tenants’ access to community amenities. This pressure tactic worked perfectly. The tenant, Mr. Shepley, cancelled his leases due to the lack of amenity access, leading to the owner’s stated loss of $6,900 in rental fees.

Pro Tip: Assume your HOA’s first legal letter starts a running tab. Budget for legal costs from day one of a formal dispute, not just for potential fines.

Conclusion: Knowledge is Your Best Defense

The case of Lord vs. The Boulders at La Reserve establishes three clear precedents for owners: a rule’s intent can supersede its literal interpretation, procedural shortcuts void your rights, and the financial clock starts ticking the moment an HOA retains counsel.

This case is a firm reminder of an HOA’s power to enforce its rules, but it also highlights the owner’s responsibility to understand them. It begs the question: In our own communities, are we fully aware of the rules we’ve agreed to live by?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

• George E. Lord (petitioner)

Respondent Side

• Maria Kupillas (respondent attorney)
  Law offices of Farley, Choate & Bergin
• Danielle Morris (community manager)
  The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association

Neutral Parties

• Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
• Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
  Arizona Department of Real Estate
• LDettorre (ADRE staff)
  Arizona Department of Real Estate
• AHansen (ADRE staff)
  Arizona Department of Real Estate
• djones (ADRE staff)
  Arizona Department of Real Estate
• DGardner (ADRE staff)
  Arizona Department of Real Estate
• ncano (ADRE staff)
  Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

• Barrie Shepley (renter/key individual)

Peter Biondi, Jr. vs. Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners

Posted on August 21, 2018 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	18F-H1818048-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2018-08-21
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Peter Biondi, Jr.	Counsel	—
Respondent	Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association	Counsel	Maria R. Kupillas

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §§ 33-1242, 33-1243, Respondent’s Bylaw Article II, Section 3 and Article III, Sections 2 and 3, and Respondent’s CC&Rs Section 8.13

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the homeowner's petition, finding that the HOA's remaining Director acted permissibly and reasonably upon legal advice in refusing to defend a previous legal action, as the initial Board decision to remove fellow directors was contrary to mandatory statutory procedures outlined in A.R.S. § 33-1243, which requires removal by unit owners, not by the board.

Why this result: The Board's previous action of removing directors was illegal under A.R.S. § 33-1243 because director removal must be performed by a member vote. Because the HOA lacked a legal defense to the directors' challenge, the current petition failed to prove a violation when the sole remaining Director chose not to incur unnecessary fees contesting an unwinnable case, which was permissive under A.R.S. § 33-1242.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged failure of the sole remaining Director to defend a prior petition challenging the board's removal of two directors.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated governing documents and statutes when the remaining Director chose not to contest a prior Department petition filed by two removed Directors, resulting in their reinstatement. The ALJ found that the initial removal of the Directors by fellow Directors was illegal under A.R.S. § 33-1243(B) and (H), which reserves removal power to members. Because the HOA lacked a good legal defense, the remaining Director's decision not to defend the prior petition, based on legal advice, was permissive under A.R.S. § 33-1242 and not a violation.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

• A.R.S. § 33-1243
• A.R.S. § 33-1242
• A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)
• A.R.S. § 33-1803

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Condominium, HOA Director Removal, Board Authority, Condo Bylaws

Additional Citations:

• A.R.S. § 33-1243
• A.R.S. § 33-1242
• A.R.S. § 32-2199
• A.R.S. § 33-1248
• A.R.S. § 33-1803
• A.A.C. R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818048-REL Decision – 654904.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:58 (155.5 KB)

Briefing Document: Analysis of Administrative Law Judge Decision in Biondi v. Lakeshore at Andersen Springs HOA

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision in Case No. 18F-H1818048-REL, where a petition filed by homeowner Peter Biondi, Jr. against the Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association (HOA) was denied. The central conflict revolved around the HOA Board’s removal of two directors, Jim Luzzis and Jerry Dubasquier, for alleged violations of the association’s leasing restrictions.

The ALJ’s decision rested on a critical point of law: the HOA Board acted improperly and in violation of Arizona state statute when it removed two of its own members. According to A.R.S. § 33-1243, the power to remove a board director is reserved exclusively for the association’s members (the unit owners) through a formal petition and vote, not for the Board of Directors itself.

Because the initial removal was legally invalid, the subsequent actions of the sole remaining director, Bonnie Henden, were deemed reasonable and permissible. Her decision not to defend the HOA against a petition from the improperly removed directors, a choice made upon the advice of three separate attorneys, was not a violation of her duties. The governing statute (A.R.S. § 33-1242) uses the permissive term “may” regarding the defense of litigation, and the ALJ concluded that no entity is required to mount a defense that is ill-advised and likely to fail. Consequently, Henden’s reinstatement of the directors was a logical correction of the Board’s unlawful action. The factual question of whether the directors had violated the leasing rules was considered secondary to this overriding procedural and statutory failure by the Board.

Case Background and Procedural History

The dispute originated from complaints by HOA members that two serving directors, Jim Luzzis and Jerry Dubasquier, were violating Section 8.13 of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by renting their units as short-term Vacation Rental By Owner (“VRBOs”).

1. Initial Board Action: The Board of Directors met to consider the complaints, concluded that Luzzis and Dubasquier had violated the CC&Rs, and gave them 14 days to remedy the violation by presenting compliant long-term rental agreements.

2. Removal of Directors: At a contentious executive session on January 4, 2018, the five other directors voted to remove or disqualify Luzzis and Dubasquier from the Board. Board member Bonnie Henden testified that she felt this action was a “vendetta” against the two directors for taking opposing positions on other issues.

3. Board Collapse: Following the removal, the Board structure disintegrated. The petitioner, Peter Biondi, Jr., and another director, Jeffrey Washburn, “decided to resign in order to restore calm in the community.” A third director was removed or resigned due to non-payment of assessments. By March or April 2018, this left Bonnie Henden as the sole remaining director.

4. Legal Challenge and Reinstatement: Luzzis and Dubasquier filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate to protest their removal. After consulting with three different attorneys, Henden chose not to file an answer on behalf of the HOA. The Department subsequently issued a decision in favor of Luzzis and Dubasquier. Following this outcome, Henden reinstated them to the Board to complete their elected terms and cancelled the planned election for their replacements.

5. Petitioner’s Complaint: On May 9, 2018, Peter Biondi, Jr. filed the current petition, alleging that Henden’s refusal to defend the HOA and her decision to reinstate the two directors constituted a violation of Arizona statutes (§§ 33-1242 and 33-1243), HOA Bylaws, and CC&Rs.

Central Legal Issues and Findings

The ALJ determined that the petitioner, Biondi, bore the burden of proof but that the operative facts of the case were not in dispute. The core of the case was not a factual determination but a legal one.

The Dispositive Question: Legality of Director Removal

The judge identified the central legal question as the primary determinant of the case’s outcome:

“…the dispositive issue is not the factual issue of whether Messrs. Luzzis and Dubasquier violated CC&R Section 8.13 by using their units as short-term VRBOs, but the legal issue of whether the other directors on Respondent’s Board properly removed them from the Board…”

The ruling established that the Board’s method of removal was the critical point of failure, rendering the underlying CC&R violation secondary.

Analysis of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.)

The decision was grounded in a de novo review of A.R.S. § 33-1243, which governs the powers and removal of a condominium association’s board of directors.

• A.R.S. § 33-1243(B): This subsection explicitly prohibits a board from acting on behalf of the association to “determine the qualifications, powers and duties or terms of office of board of directors members.” The ALJ found that the Board’s vote to disqualify Luzzis and Dubasquier was in direct violation of this provision.

• A.R.S. § 33-1243(H): This subsection establishes the exclusive procedure for removing a director, stating that its provisions apply “notwithstanding any provision of the declaration or bylaws to the contrary.” The statute mandates that removal can only be accomplished by:

1. A petition signed by a specified percentage or number of eligible unit owners (e.g., 25% or 100 votes, whichever is less, for an association of 1,000 or fewer members).

2. A majority vote of the unit owners at a special meeting called for this purpose within 30 days of receiving the petition.

The ALJ’s conclusion was unequivocal: “The referenced provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1243 specifically and unequivocally require that the members who elected a director must remove the director.” Because the Board failed to follow this statutory procedure, its removal of Luzzis and Dubasquier was legally invalid, and the HOA “lacked any good legal defense” to their subsequent petition.

The Legality of the Sole Director’s Actions

Based on the finding that the initial removal was unlawful, the ALJ assessed the actions taken by the sole remaining director, Bonnie Henden.

Decision Not to Defend the HOA

The petitioner argued Henden had a duty to defend the HOA against the petition from Luzzis and Dubasquier. The ALJ rejected this argument by citing A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(4), which states an association “may… defend or intervene in litigation or administrative proceedings.”

The judge’s legal interpretation was that the word “may” indicates permissive intent, not a mandatory requirement. Henden was not statutorily obligated to contest the petition. Her decision was further supported by the legal advice she received from three attorneys, who advised that a defense would likely fail and result in unnecessary legal fees for the association. The ALJ affirmed this prudence, stating, “No statute requires a condominium association or a director to take an ill-advised act or to mount a defense of a previously taken ill-advised act that likely will fail on its merits.”

Reinstatement of Removed Directors

Henden’s decision to reinstate Luzzis and Dubasquier to the Board was found to be a direct and logical consequence of the legally improper removal. By reinstating them, she was correcting the Board’s previous unlawful action.

Relevant Governing Documents and Testimony

Document/Testimony

Key Provisions or Content

Relevance to Decision

A.R.S. § 33-1243

Prohibits boards from determining member qualifications and mandates that only unit owners can remove directors via a petition and vote.

This was the controlling statute that rendered the Board’s initial removal of Luzzis and Dubasquier unlawful.

A.R.S. § 33-1242

States an association “may” defend itself in litigation.

Provided the legal basis for Henden’s discretionary and permissible decision not to defend the HOA.

HOA CC&Rs Section 8.13

Prohibits leasing for “transient, hotel, club, timeshare or similar purposes” and requires all leases to be for a minimum of six months.

This section was the basis for the original complaint but was deemed not the dispositive issue in the case.

HOA Bylaws Article III

Governs director qualifications, number, and the filling of vacancies.

While relevant to Board governance, these bylaws were superseded by the conflicting and more specific state statute (A.R.S. § 33-1243).

Bonnie Henden Testimony

Stated the removal felt like a “vendetta” and that she consulted three attorneys before deciding not to defend the HOA.

Provided context for the internal Board conflict and established that her actions were taken after seeking extensive legal counsel.

Peter Biondi, Jr. Evidence

Submitted exhibits showing Luzzis and Dubasquier were continuing to advertise their units as VRBOs.

The evidence was acknowledged but deemed irrelevant to the central legal question of whether the Board had the authority to remove them.

Final Order and Conclusion

The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the petitioner’s petition be denied.

The final decision establishes a clear legal principle: a homeowners association’s Board of Directors does not have the authority to remove its own members in Arizona. That power is reserved for the unit owners through a specific statutory process. Any action taken by a board in contravention of this statute is legally invalid. Consequently, a director’s decision not to defend such an invalid action, especially when based on legal advice, is not a breach of duty but a prudent measure to avoid wasting association resources on a defense with no legal merit.

Study Guide: Biondi v. Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case No. 18F-H1818048-REL, concerning a dispute between a condominium owner and a homeowners association. It includes a quiz with an answer key, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found within the legal document.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the information provided in the source document.

1. Who were the Petitioner and the Respondent in this case, and what was their relationship?

2. What specific event prompted the Petitioner, Peter Biondi, Jr., to file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?

3. According to the Respondent’s CC&Rs (Section 8.13), what were the rules regarding the leasing of condominium units?

4. Why were Board Directors Jim Luzzis and Jerry Dubasquier initially removed from their positions by the other directors?

5. How did Bonnie Henden become the sole remaining member of the Respondent’s Board of Directors?

6. What was the “dispositive issue” that the Administrative Law Judge identified as central to the case?

7. According to Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1243(H), what is the proper procedure for removing a member of a condominium association’s board of directors?

8. Why did Ms. Henden choose not to defend the association against the petition filed by Messrs. Luzzis and Dubasquier?

9. What does the legal standard “preponderance of the evidence” mean, as defined in the decision?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was Peter Biondi, Jr., who is a condominium owner and a member of the Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association. The Respondent was the Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association itself.

2. The Petitioner filed the petition because the Board’s sole remaining member, Bonnie Henden, refused to defend the association against a petition filed by two former directors. Instead of defending the board’s prior action, Ms. Henden reinstated the two directors who had been removed.

3. Section 8.13 of the CC&Rs stipulated that all leases must be for a minimum of six months and that units could not be leased for transient, hotel, or similar purposes. Owners were also limited to leasing their unit no more than two separate times in any 12-month period and had to provide a signed copy of the lease to the association.

4. Messrs. Luzzis and Dubasquier were removed after other Board members concluded they had violated CC&R Section 8.13 by renting their units as short-term Vacation Rentals By Owner (VRBOs). The removal occurred after they were given 14 days to remedy the violation and failed to do so to the Board’s satisfaction.

5. After the removal of Luzzis and Dubasquier, the Petitioner and another director resigned to “restore calm.” A third director was removed or resigned for failing to pay an assessment, which left Ms. Henden as the only director on the Board.

6. The dispositive issue was not the factual question of whether Luzzis and Dubasquier had violated the CC&Rs. Rather, it was the legal issue of whether the other directors had the authority to properly remove them from the Board in the first place.

7. A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) states that unit owners may remove a board member by a majority vote at a meeting. This process must be initiated by a petition signed by a specific percentage or number of the association’s members who are eligible to vote.

8. Ms. Henden consulted three different attorneys who advised her that the association would likely lose the case. Their legal advice was based on A.R.S. § 33-1243, which states that board members cannot remove other board members, and defending the improper removal would incur unnecessary legal fees.

9. “Preponderance of the evidence” is 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 evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of an issue over the other.

10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The judge concluded that the Board’s initial removal of the two directors was improper under state law and that Ms. Henden was not required to defend that ill-advised act.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for longer-form analysis and synthesis of the case details. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the conflict between the authority granted to the Board in the Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Bylaws (Article III, Sections 2 & 3) and the limitations placed upon it by Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1243. Explain which document takes precedence in the matter of director removal and why, citing the reasoning used by the Administrative Law Judge.

2. Discuss the role and actions of Bonnie Henden after she became the sole remaining director. Evaluate her decision to reinstate Messrs. Luzzis and Dubasquier, considering the legal advice she received, her powers as the sole director, and the potential consequences for the homeowners association.

3. Trace the procedural history of this dispute, beginning with the initial complaints about VRBOs and culminating in the final Administrative Law Judge Decision. Identify the key actions, legal filings, and turning points for each party involved (Luzzis/Dubasquier, the Board, Peter Biondi, and Bonnie Henden).

4. The judge states that the case hinges on a legal issue, not a factual one. Explain the difference between the factual issue (the VRBO rentals) and the legal issue (the removal process) and detail how this distinction was fundamental to the case’s outcome.

5. Based on the statutes cited in the decision, outline the correct, legally compliant process that the members of the Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association should have followed if they wished to remove Messrs. Luzzis and Dubasquier from the Board of Directors. Contrast this with the actions the Board actually took.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, in this case Diane Mihalsky from the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.R.S.

Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona. The decision references several statutes from Title 33 concerning property and condominiums.

Bylaws

The rules and regulations adopted by an organization, such as a homeowners association, for its internal governance. In this case, they govern matters like annual meetings and the composition of the Board of Directors.

Abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These are legally binding rules recorded with the property deed that govern what homeowners can and cannot do with their property. Section 8.13 on leasing was a key CC&R in this case.

De Novo Review

A type of legal review where a court or administrative body decides the issues without reference to any legal conclusions or assumptions made by the previous party that heard the case. It is used for determining the construction and application of statutes.

Department

Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide on petitions for hearings from members of condominium associations.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or brings an action in a legal proceeding. In this case, the Petitioner was Peter Biondi, Jr.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases. It requires the party with the burden of proof (the Petitioner in this matter) to present evidence that is more convincing and more likely to be true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed or an appeal is brought. In this case, the Respondent was the Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association.

Abbreviation for Vacation Rental By Owner, referring to the practice of renting out properties on a short-term basis, similar to a hotel. This practice was alleged to be in violation of the association’s CC&Rs.

Study Guide: Biondi v. Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case No. 18F-H1818048-REL, concerning a dispute between a condominium owner and a homeowners association. It includes a quiz with an answer key, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found within the legal document.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the information provided in the source document.

1. Who were the Petitioner and the Respondent in this case, and what was their relationship?

2. What specific event prompted the Petitioner, Peter Biondi, Jr., to file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?

3. According to the Respondent’s CC&Rs (Section 8.13), what were the rules regarding the leasing of condominium units?

4. Why were Board Directors Jim Luzzis and Jerry Dubasquier initially removed from their positions by the other directors?

5. How did Bonnie Henden become the sole remaining member of the Respondent’s Board of Directors?

6. What was the “dispositive issue” that the Administrative Law Judge identified as central to the case?

7. According to Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1243(H), what is the proper procedure for removing a member of a condominium association’s board of directors?

8. Why did Ms. Henden choose not to defend the association against the petition filed by Messrs. Luzzis and Dubasquier?

9. What does the legal standard “preponderance of the evidence” mean, as defined in the decision?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was Peter Biondi, Jr., who is a condominium owner and a member of the Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association. The Respondent was the Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association itself.

2. The Petitioner filed the petition because the Board’s sole remaining member, Bonnie Henden, refused to defend the association against a petition filed by two former directors. Instead of defending the board’s prior action, Ms. Henden reinstated the two directors who had been removed.

3. Section 8.13 of the CC&Rs stipulated that all leases must be for a minimum of six months and that units could not be leased for transient, hotel, or similar purposes. Owners were also limited to leasing their unit no more than two separate times in any 12-month period and had to provide a signed copy of the lease to the association.

4. Messrs. Luzzis and Dubasquier were removed after other Board members concluded they had violated CC&R Section 8.13 by renting their units as short-term Vacation Rentals By Owner (VRBOs). The removal occurred after they were given 14 days to remedy the violation and failed to do so to the Board’s satisfaction.

5. After the removal of Luzzis and Dubasquier, the Petitioner and another director resigned to “restore calm.” A third director was removed or resigned for failing to pay an assessment, which left Ms. Henden as the only director on the Board.

6. The dispositive issue was not the factual question of whether Luzzis and Dubasquier had violated the CC&Rs. Rather, it was the legal issue of whether the other directors had the authority to properly remove them from the Board in the first place.

7. A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) states that unit owners may remove a board member by a majority vote at a meeting. This process must be initiated by a petition signed by a specific percentage or number of the association’s members who are eligible to vote.

8. Ms. Henden consulted three different attorneys who advised her that the association would likely lose the case. Their legal advice was based on A.R.S. § 33-1243, which states that board members cannot remove other board members, and defending the improper removal would incur unnecessary legal fees.

9. “Preponderance of the evidence” is 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 evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of an issue over the other.

10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The judge concluded that the Board’s initial removal of the two directors was improper under state law and that Ms. Henden was not required to defend that ill-advised act.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for longer-form analysis and synthesis of the case details. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the conflict between the authority granted to the Board in the Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Bylaws (Article III, Sections 2 & 3) and the limitations placed upon it by Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1243. Explain which document takes precedence in the matter of director removal and why, citing the reasoning used by the Administrative Law Judge.

2. Discuss the role and actions of Bonnie Henden after she became the sole remaining director. Evaluate her decision to reinstate Messrs. Luzzis and Dubasquier, considering the legal advice she received, her powers as the sole director, and the potential consequences for the homeowners association.

3. Trace the procedural history of this dispute, beginning with the initial complaints about VRBOs and culminating in the final Administrative Law Judge Decision. Identify the key actions, legal filings, and turning points for each party involved (Luzzis/Dubasquier, the Board, Peter Biondi, and Bonnie Henden).

4. The judge states that the case hinges on a legal issue, not a factual one. Explain the difference between the factual issue (the VRBO rentals) and the legal issue (the removal process) and detail how this distinction was fundamental to the case’s outcome.

5. Based on the statutes cited in the decision, outline the correct, legally compliant process that the members of the Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association should have followed if they wished to remove Messrs. Luzzis and Dubasquier from the Board of Directors. Contrast this with the actions the Board actually took.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, in this case Diane Mihalsky from the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.R.S.

Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona. The decision references several statutes from Title 33 concerning property and condominiums.

Bylaws

The rules and regulations adopted by an organization, such as a homeowners association, for its internal governance. In this case, they govern matters like annual meetings and the composition of the Board of Directors.

Abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These are legally binding rules recorded with the property deed that govern what homeowners can and cannot do with their property. Section 8.13 on leasing was a key CC&R in this case.

De Novo Review

A type of legal review where a court or administrative body decides the issues without reference to any legal conclusions or assumptions made by the previous party that heard the case. It is used for determining the construction and application of statutes.

Department

Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide on petitions for hearings from members of condominium associations.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or brings an action in a legal proceeding. In this case, the Petitioner was Peter Biondi, Jr.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases. It requires the party with the burden of proof (the Petitioner in this matter) to present evidence that is more convincing and more likely to be true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed or an appeal is brought. In this case, the Respondent was the Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association.

Abbreviation for Vacation Rental By Owner, referring to the practice of renting out properties on a short-term basis, similar to a hotel. This practice was alleged to be in violation of the association’s CC&Rs.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

• Peter Biondi, Jr. (petitioner)
  Appeared on his own behalf; also a unit owner and HOA member
• Jeffrey Washburn (witness)
  Former Board member; presented testimony by Petitioner

Respondent Side

• Maria R. Kupillas (HOA attorney)
  Law offices of Farley, Choate & Bergin
  Represented Respondent
• Bonnie Henden (board member)
  Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association
  Sole remaining Director; presented testimony
• Jim Luzzis (board member)
  Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association
  Director whose removal was overturned/reinstated
• Jerry Dubasquier (board member)
  Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association
  Director whose removal was overturned/reinstated

Neutral Parties

• Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
  Office of Administrative Hearings
• Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
  Arizona Department of Real Estate
  Recipient of transmission
• Felicia Del Sol (Clerk)
  Transmitting agent
• LDettorre (ADRE staff)
  Arizona Department of Real Estate
  Recipient of transmission
• AHansen (ADRE staff)
  Arizona Department of Real Estate
  Recipient of transmission
• djones (ADRE staff)
  Arizona Department of Real Estate
  Recipient of transmission
• DGardner (ADRE staff)
  Arizona Department of Real Estate
  Recipient of transmission
• ncano (ADRE staff)
  Arizona Department of Real Estate
  Recipient of transmission

Peter Biondi, Jr. vs. Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners

Posted on August 21, 2018 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	18F-H1818048-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2018-08-21
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Peter Biondi, Jr.	Counsel	—
Respondent	Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association	Counsel	Maria R. Kupillas

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §§ 33-1242, 33-1243, Respondent’s Bylaw Article II, Section 3 and Article III, Sections 2 and 3, and Respondent’s CC&Rs Section 8.13

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the homeowner's petition, finding that the HOA's remaining Director acted permissibly and reasonably upon legal advice in refusing to defend a previous legal action, as the initial Board decision to remove fellow directors was contrary to mandatory statutory procedures outlined in A.R.S. § 33-1243, which requires removal by unit owners, not by the board.

Why this result: The Board's previous action of removing directors was illegal under A.R.S. § 33-1243 because director removal must be performed by a member vote. Because the HOA lacked a legal defense to the directors' challenge, the current petition failed to prove a violation when the sole remaining Director chose not to incur unnecessary fees contesting an unwinnable case, which was permissive under A.R.S. § 33-1242.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged failure of the sole remaining Director to defend a prior petition challenging the board's removal of two directors.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated governing documents and statutes when the remaining Director chose not to contest a prior Department petition filed by two removed Directors, resulting in their reinstatement. The ALJ found that the initial removal of the Directors by fellow Directors was illegal under A.R.S. § 33-1243(B) and (H), which reserves removal power to members. Because the HOA lacked a good legal defense, the remaining Director's decision not to defend the prior petition, based on legal advice, was permissive under A.R.S. § 33-1242 and not a violation.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

• A.R.S. § 33-1243
• A.R.S. § 33-1242
• A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)
• A.R.S. § 33-1803

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Condominium, HOA Director Removal, Board Authority, Condo Bylaws

Additional Citations:

• A.R.S. § 33-1243
• A.R.S. § 33-1242
• A.R.S. § 32-2199
• A.R.S. § 33-1248
• A.R.S. § 33-1803
• A.A.C. R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818048-REL Decision – 654904.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:24:48 (155.5 KB)

Briefing Document: Analysis of Administrative Law Judge Decision in Biondi v. Lakeshore at Andersen Springs HOA

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision in Case No. 18F-H1818048-REL, where a petition filed by homeowner Peter Biondi, Jr. against the Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association (HOA) was denied. The central conflict revolved around the HOA Board’s removal of two directors, Jim Luzzis and Jerry Dubasquier, for alleged violations of the association’s leasing restrictions.

The ALJ’s decision rested on a critical point of law: the HOA Board acted improperly and in violation of Arizona state statute when it removed two of its own members. According to A.R.S. § 33-1243, the power to remove a board director is reserved exclusively for the association’s members (the unit owners) through a formal petition and vote, not for the Board of Directors itself.

Because the initial removal was legally invalid, the subsequent actions of the sole remaining director, Bonnie Henden, were deemed reasonable and permissible. Her decision not to defend the HOA against a petition from the improperly removed directors, a choice made upon the advice of three separate attorneys, was not a violation of her duties. The governing statute (A.R.S. § 33-1242) uses the permissive term “may” regarding the defense of litigation, and the ALJ concluded that no entity is required to mount a defense that is ill-advised and likely to fail. Consequently, Henden’s reinstatement of the directors was a logical correction of the Board’s unlawful action. The factual question of whether the directors had violated the leasing rules was considered secondary to this overriding procedural and statutory failure by the Board.

Case Background and Procedural History

The dispute originated from complaints by HOA members that two serving directors, Jim Luzzis and Jerry Dubasquier, were violating Section 8.13 of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by renting their units as short-term Vacation Rental By Owner (“VRBOs”).

1. Initial Board Action: The Board of Directors met to consider the complaints, concluded that Luzzis and Dubasquier had violated the CC&Rs, and gave them 14 days to remedy the violation by presenting compliant long-term rental agreements.

2. Removal of Directors: At a contentious executive session on January 4, 2018, the five other directors voted to remove or disqualify Luzzis and Dubasquier from the Board. Board member Bonnie Henden testified that she felt this action was a “vendetta” against the two directors for taking opposing positions on other issues.

3. Board Collapse: Following the removal, the Board structure disintegrated. The petitioner, Peter Biondi, Jr., and another director, Jeffrey Washburn, “decided to resign in order to restore calm in the community.” A third director was removed or resigned due to non-payment of assessments. By March or April 2018, this left Bonnie Henden as the sole remaining director.

4. Legal Challenge and Reinstatement: Luzzis and Dubasquier filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate to protest their removal. After consulting with three different attorneys, Henden chose not to file an answer on behalf of the HOA. The Department subsequently issued a decision in favor of Luzzis and Dubasquier. Following this outcome, Henden reinstated them to the Board to complete their elected terms and cancelled the planned election for their replacements.

5. Petitioner’s Complaint: On May 9, 2018, Peter Biondi, Jr. filed the current petition, alleging that Henden’s refusal to defend the HOA and her decision to reinstate the two directors constituted a violation of Arizona statutes (§§ 33-1242 and 33-1243), HOA Bylaws, and CC&Rs.

Central Legal Issues and Findings

The ALJ determined that the petitioner, Biondi, bore the burden of proof but that the operative facts of the case were not in dispute. The core of the case was not a factual determination but a legal one.

The Dispositive Question: Legality of Director Removal

The judge identified the central legal question as the primary determinant of the case’s outcome:

“…the dispositive issue is not the factual issue of whether Messrs. Luzzis and Dubasquier violated CC&R Section 8.13 by using their units as short-term VRBOs, but the legal issue of whether the other directors on Respondent’s Board properly removed them from the Board…”

The ruling established that the Board’s method of removal was the critical point of failure, rendering the underlying CC&R violation secondary.

Analysis of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.)

The decision was grounded in a de novo review of A.R.S. § 33-1243, which governs the powers and removal of a condominium association’s board of directors.

• A.R.S. § 33-1243(B): This subsection explicitly prohibits a board from acting on behalf of the association to “determine the qualifications, powers and duties or terms of office of board of directors members.” The ALJ found that the Board’s vote to disqualify Luzzis and Dubasquier was in direct violation of this provision.

• A.R.S. § 33-1243(H): This subsection establishes the exclusive procedure for removing a director, stating that its provisions apply “notwithstanding any provision of the declaration or bylaws to the contrary.” The statute mandates that removal can only be accomplished by:

1. A petition signed by a specified percentage or number of eligible unit owners (e.g., 25% or 100 votes, whichever is less, for an association of 1,000 or fewer members).

2. A majority vote of the unit owners at a special meeting called for this purpose within 30 days of receiving the petition.

The ALJ’s conclusion was unequivocal: “The referenced provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1243 specifically and unequivocally require that the members who elected a director must remove the director.” Because the Board failed to follow this statutory procedure, its removal of Luzzis and Dubasquier was legally invalid, and the HOA “lacked any good legal defense” to their subsequent petition.

The Legality of the Sole Director’s Actions

Based on the finding that the initial removal was unlawful, the ALJ assessed the actions taken by the sole remaining director, Bonnie Henden.

Decision Not to Defend the HOA

The petitioner argued Henden had a duty to defend the HOA against the petition from Luzzis and Dubasquier. The ALJ rejected this argument by citing A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(4), which states an association “may… defend or intervene in litigation or administrative proceedings.”

The judge’s legal interpretation was that the word “may” indicates permissive intent, not a mandatory requirement. Henden was not statutorily obligated to contest the petition. Her decision was further supported by the legal advice she received from three attorneys, who advised that a defense would likely fail and result in unnecessary legal fees for the association. The ALJ affirmed this prudence, stating, “No statute requires a condominium association or a director to take an ill-advised act or to mount a defense of a previously taken ill-advised act that likely will fail on its merits.”

Reinstatement of Removed Directors

Henden’s decision to reinstate Luzzis and Dubasquier to the Board was found to be a direct and logical consequence of the legally improper removal. By reinstating them, she was correcting the Board’s previous unlawful action.

Relevant Governing Documents and Testimony

Document/Testimony

Key Provisions or Content

Relevance to Decision

A.R.S. § 33-1243

Prohibits boards from determining member qualifications and mandates that only unit owners can remove directors via a petition and vote.

This was the controlling statute that rendered the Board’s initial removal of Luzzis and Dubasquier unlawful.

A.R.S. § 33-1242

States an association “may” defend itself in litigation.

Provided the legal basis for Henden’s discretionary and permissible decision not to defend the HOA.

HOA CC&Rs Section 8.13

Prohibits leasing for “transient, hotel, club, timeshare or similar purposes” and requires all leases to be for a minimum of six months.

This section was the basis for the original complaint but was deemed not the dispositive issue in the case.

HOA Bylaws Article III

Governs director qualifications, number, and the filling of vacancies.

While relevant to Board governance, these bylaws were superseded by the conflicting and more specific state statute (A.R.S. § 33-1243).

Bonnie Henden Testimony

Stated the removal felt like a “vendetta” and that she consulted three attorneys before deciding not to defend the HOA.

Provided context for the internal Board conflict and established that her actions were taken after seeking extensive legal counsel.

Peter Biondi, Jr. Evidence

Submitted exhibits showing Luzzis and Dubasquier were continuing to advertise their units as VRBOs.

The evidence was acknowledged but deemed irrelevant to the central legal question of whether the Board had the authority to remove them.

Final Order and Conclusion

The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the petitioner’s petition be denied.

The final decision establishes a clear legal principle: a homeowners association’s Board of Directors does not have the authority to remove its own members in Arizona. That power is reserved for the unit owners through a specific statutory process. Any action taken by a board in contravention of this statute is legally invalid. Consequently, a director’s decision not to defend such an invalid action, especially when based on legal advice, is not a breach of duty but a prudent measure to avoid wasting association resources on a defense with no legal merit.

Study Guide: Biondi v. Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case No. 18F-H1818048-REL, concerning a dispute between a condominium owner and a homeowners association. It includes a quiz with an answer key, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found within the legal document.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the information provided in the source document.

1. Who were the Petitioner and the Respondent in this case, and what was their relationship?

2. What specific event prompted the Petitioner, Peter Biondi, Jr., to file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?

3. According to the Respondent’s CC&Rs (Section 8.13), what were the rules regarding the leasing of condominium units?

4. Why were Board Directors Jim Luzzis and Jerry Dubasquier initially removed from their positions by the other directors?

5. How did Bonnie Henden become the sole remaining member of the Respondent’s Board of Directors?

6. What was the “dispositive issue” that the Administrative Law Judge identified as central to the case?

7. According to Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1243(H), what is the proper procedure for removing a member of a condominium association’s board of directors?

8. Why did Ms. Henden choose not to defend the association against the petition filed by Messrs. Luzzis and Dubasquier?

9. What does the legal standard “preponderance of the evidence” mean, as defined in the decision?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was Peter Biondi, Jr., who is a condominium owner and a member of the Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association. The Respondent was the Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association itself.

2. The Petitioner filed the petition because the Board’s sole remaining member, Bonnie Henden, refused to defend the association against a petition filed by two former directors. Instead of defending the board’s prior action, Ms. Henden reinstated the two directors who had been removed.

3. Section 8.13 of the CC&Rs stipulated that all leases must be for a minimum of six months and that units could not be leased for transient, hotel, or similar purposes. Owners were also limited to leasing their unit no more than two separate times in any 12-month period and had to provide a signed copy of the lease to the association.

4. Messrs. Luzzis and Dubasquier were removed after other Board members concluded they had violated CC&R Section 8.13 by renting their units as short-term Vacation Rentals By Owner (VRBOs). The removal occurred after they were given 14 days to remedy the violation and failed to do so to the Board’s satisfaction.

5. After the removal of Luzzis and Dubasquier, the Petitioner and another director resigned to “restore calm.” A third director was removed or resigned for failing to pay an assessment, which left Ms. Henden as the only director on the Board.

6. The dispositive issue was not the factual question of whether Luzzis and Dubasquier had violated the CC&Rs. Rather, it was the legal issue of whether the other directors had the authority to properly remove them from the Board in the first place.

7. A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) states that unit owners may remove a board member by a majority vote at a meeting. This process must be initiated by a petition signed by a specific percentage or number of the association’s members who are eligible to vote.

8. Ms. Henden consulted three different attorneys who advised her that the association would likely lose the case. Their legal advice was based on A.R.S. § 33-1243, which states that board members cannot remove other board members, and defending the improper removal would incur unnecessary legal fees.

9. “Preponderance of the evidence” is 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 evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of an issue over the other.

10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The judge concluded that the Board’s initial removal of the two directors was improper under state law and that Ms. Henden was not required to defend that ill-advised act.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for longer-form analysis and synthesis of the case details. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the conflict between the authority granted to the Board in the Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Bylaws (Article III, Sections 2 & 3) and the limitations placed upon it by Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1243. Explain which document takes precedence in the matter of director removal and why, citing the reasoning used by the Administrative Law Judge.

2. Discuss the role and actions of Bonnie Henden after she became the sole remaining director. Evaluate her decision to reinstate Messrs. Luzzis and Dubasquier, considering the legal advice she received, her powers as the sole director, and the potential consequences for the homeowners association.

3. Trace the procedural history of this dispute, beginning with the initial complaints about VRBOs and culminating in the final Administrative Law Judge Decision. Identify the key actions, legal filings, and turning points for each party involved (Luzzis/Dubasquier, the Board, Peter Biondi, and Bonnie Henden).

4. The judge states that the case hinges on a legal issue, not a factual one. Explain the difference between the factual issue (the VRBO rentals) and the legal issue (the removal process) and detail how this distinction was fundamental to the case’s outcome.

5. Based on the statutes cited in the decision, outline the correct, legally compliant process that the members of the Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association should have followed if they wished to remove Messrs. Luzzis and Dubasquier from the Board of Directors. Contrast this with the actions the Board actually took.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, in this case Diane Mihalsky from the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.R.S.

Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona. The decision references several statutes from Title 33 concerning property and condominiums.

Bylaws

The rules and regulations adopted by an organization, such as a homeowners association, for its internal governance. In this case, they govern matters like annual meetings and the composition of the Board of Directors.

Abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These are legally binding rules recorded with the property deed that govern what homeowners can and cannot do with their property. Section 8.13 on leasing was a key CC&R in this case.

De Novo Review

A type of legal review where a court or administrative body decides the issues without reference to any legal conclusions or assumptions made by the previous party that heard the case. It is used for determining the construction and application of statutes.

Department

Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide on petitions for hearings from members of condominium associations.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or brings an action in a legal proceeding. In this case, the Petitioner was Peter Biondi, Jr.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases. It requires the party with the burden of proof (the Petitioner in this matter) to present evidence that is more convincing and more likely to be true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed or an appeal is brought. In this case, the Respondent was the Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association.

Abbreviation for Vacation Rental By Owner, referring to the practice of renting out properties on a short-term basis, similar to a hotel. This practice was alleged to be in violation of the association’s CC&Rs.

Study Guide: Biondi v. Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case No. 18F-H1818048-REL, concerning a dispute between a condominium owner and a homeowners association. It includes a quiz with an answer key, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found within the legal document.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the information provided in the source document.

1. Who were the Petitioner and the Respondent in this case, and what was their relationship?

2. What specific event prompted the Petitioner, Peter Biondi, Jr., to file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?

3. According to the Respondent’s CC&Rs (Section 8.13), what were the rules regarding the leasing of condominium units?

4. Why were Board Directors Jim Luzzis and Jerry Dubasquier initially removed from their positions by the other directors?

5. How did Bonnie Henden become the sole remaining member of the Respondent’s Board of Directors?

6. What was the “dispositive issue” that the Administrative Law Judge identified as central to the case?

7. According to Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1243(H), what is the proper procedure for removing a member of a condominium association’s board of directors?

8. Why did Ms. Henden choose not to defend the association against the petition filed by Messrs. Luzzis and Dubasquier?

9. What does the legal standard “preponderance of the evidence” mean, as defined in the decision?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was Peter Biondi, Jr., who is a condominium owner and a member of the Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association. The Respondent was the Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association itself.

2. The Petitioner filed the petition because the Board’s sole remaining member, Bonnie Henden, refused to defend the association against a petition filed by two former directors. Instead of defending the board’s prior action, Ms. Henden reinstated the two directors who had been removed.

3. Section 8.13 of the CC&Rs stipulated that all leases must be for a minimum of six months and that units could not be leased for transient, hotel, or similar purposes. Owners were also limited to leasing their unit no more than two separate times in any 12-month period and had to provide a signed copy of the lease to the association.

4. Messrs. Luzzis and Dubasquier were removed after other Board members concluded they had violated CC&R Section 8.13 by renting their units as short-term Vacation Rentals By Owner (VRBOs). The removal occurred after they were given 14 days to remedy the violation and failed to do so to the Board’s satisfaction.

5. After the removal of Luzzis and Dubasquier, the Petitioner and another director resigned to “restore calm.” A third director was removed or resigned for failing to pay an assessment, which left Ms. Henden as the only director on the Board.

6. The dispositive issue was not the factual question of whether Luzzis and Dubasquier had violated the CC&Rs. Rather, it was the legal issue of whether the other directors had the authority to properly remove them from the Board in the first place.

7. A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) states that unit owners may remove a board member by a majority vote at a meeting. This process must be initiated by a petition signed by a specific percentage or number of the association’s members who are eligible to vote.

8. Ms. Henden consulted three different attorneys who advised her that the association would likely lose the case. Their legal advice was based on A.R.S. § 33-1243, which states that board members cannot remove other board members, and defending the improper removal would incur unnecessary legal fees.

9. “Preponderance of the evidence” is 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 evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of an issue over the other.

10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The judge concluded that the Board’s initial removal of the two directors was improper under state law and that Ms. Henden was not required to defend that ill-advised act.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for longer-form analysis and synthesis of the case details. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the conflict between the authority granted to the Board in the Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Bylaws (Article III, Sections 2 & 3) and the limitations placed upon it by Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1243. Explain which document takes precedence in the matter of director removal and why, citing the reasoning used by the Administrative Law Judge.

2. Discuss the role and actions of Bonnie Henden after she became the sole remaining director. Evaluate her decision to reinstate Messrs. Luzzis and Dubasquier, considering the legal advice she received, her powers as the sole director, and the potential consequences for the homeowners association.

3. Trace the procedural history of this dispute, beginning with the initial complaints about VRBOs and culminating in the final Administrative Law Judge Decision. Identify the key actions, legal filings, and turning points for each party involved (Luzzis/Dubasquier, the Board, Peter Biondi, and Bonnie Henden).

4. The judge states that the case hinges on a legal issue, not a factual one. Explain the difference between the factual issue (the VRBO rentals) and the legal issue (the removal process) and detail how this distinction was fundamental to the case’s outcome.

5. Based on the statutes cited in the decision, outline the correct, legally compliant process that the members of the Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association should have followed if they wished to remove Messrs. Luzzis and Dubasquier from the Board of Directors. Contrast this with the actions the Board actually took.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, in this case Diane Mihalsky from the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.R.S.

Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona. The decision references several statutes from Title 33 concerning property and condominiums.

Bylaws

The rules and regulations adopted by an organization, such as a homeowners association, for its internal governance. In this case, they govern matters like annual meetings and the composition of the Board of Directors.

Abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These are legally binding rules recorded with the property deed that govern what homeowners can and cannot do with their property. Section 8.13 on leasing was a key CC&R in this case.

De Novo Review

A type of legal review where a court or administrative body decides the issues without reference to any legal conclusions or assumptions made by the previous party that heard the case. It is used for determining the construction and application of statutes.

Department

Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide on petitions for hearings from members of condominium associations.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or brings an action in a legal proceeding. In this case, the Petitioner was Peter Biondi, Jr.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases. It requires the party with the burden of proof (the Petitioner in this matter) to present evidence that is more convincing and more likely to be true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed or an appeal is brought. In this case, the Respondent was the Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association.

Abbreviation for Vacation Rental By Owner, referring to the practice of renting out properties on a short-term basis, similar to a hotel. This practice was alleged to be in violation of the association’s CC&Rs.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

• Peter Biondi, Jr. (petitioner)
  Appeared on his own behalf; also a unit owner and HOA member
• Jeffrey Washburn (witness)
  Former Board member; presented testimony by Petitioner

Respondent Side

• Maria R. Kupillas (HOA attorney)
  Law offices of Farley, Choate & Bergin
  Represented Respondent
• Bonnie Henden (board member)
  Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association
  Sole remaining Director; presented testimony
• Jim Luzzis (board member)
  Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association
  Director whose removal was overturned/reinstated
• Jerry Dubasquier (board member)
  Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association
  Director whose removal was overturned/reinstated

Neutral Parties

• Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
  Office of Administrative Hearings
• Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
  Arizona Department of Real Estate
  Recipient of transmission
• Felicia Del Sol (Clerk)
  Transmitting agent
• LDettorre (ADRE staff)
  Arizona Department of Real Estate
  Recipient of transmission
• AHansen (ADRE staff)
  Arizona Department of Real Estate
  Recipient of transmission
• djones (ADRE staff)
  Arizona Department of Real Estate
  Recipient of transmission
• DGardner (ADRE staff)
  Arizona Department of Real Estate
  Recipient of transmission
• ncano (ADRE staff)
  Arizona Department of Real Estate
  Recipient of transmission