Case Summary
| Case ID | 24F-H035-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2024-08-09 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Jenna Clark |
| Outcome | loss |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $500.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Jesse Freeman | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association | Counsel | Augustus H. Shaw IV, Esq. |
Alleged Violations
Bylaws Article II, Section 8, as amended October 18, 2000
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge determined that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof required to show the Association violated the purported Bylaws amendment, and therefore, the petition was denied.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the validity or implementation of the purported Bylaws amendment, and the language of the amendment itself was found not to be compulsory in requiring a subsequent meeting.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged failure to hold a second and subsequent meeting of the membership with a diminished quorum.
Petitioner alleged the Association violated its Bylaws by failing to hold a second meeting with a diminished 15% quorum after failing to meet the initial 25% quorum at the Annual Meeting on January 16, 2024, despite a motion and second being made to adjourn and reset the meeting.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(1)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
- Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
- MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
- BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Analytics Highlights
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(1)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1
- BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
- MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
- Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
24F-H035-REL Decision – 1163387.pdf
24F-H035-REL Decision – 1163395.pdf
24F-H035-REL Decision – 1165696.pdf
24F-H035-REL Decision – 1165699.pdf
24F-H035-REL Decision – 1179128.pdf
24F-H035-REL Decision – 1179136.pdf
24F-H035-REL Decision – 1209016.pdf
Questions
Question
If a document appears on the HOA's website, is it automatically considered a valid governing document?
Short Answer
No. The presence of a document on a website does not prove it was voted on or adopted.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found that simply finding a document on the association's website is insufficient to prove it is a valid, adopted amendment. There must be evidence that members participated in a vote or that the association officially adopted it.
Alj Quote
The document’s presence on the Association’s website does not establish or tend to suggest that members participated in a vote on or about October 18, 2000, or that the Association adopted an amendment to Bylaw Article II Section 8 thereafter.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact No. 7
Topic Tags
- governing documents
- website
- validity
Question
What specific features does a bylaw amendment need to be considered valid and enforceable?
Short Answer
It generally requires signatures, stamps, seals, or filing receipts to prove it isn't just a draft.
Detailed Answer
To be considered a valid governing document rather than a failed proposal or draft, the document should ideally have an embossed stamp, seal, or at least one signature indicating it was finalized and adopted.
Alj Quote
Moreover, the document itself does not have an embossed stamp or seal, or reflect at least one (1) signature that would reasonably suggest it was indeed a valid governing document, rather than a failed proposal or draft, which is supported by the fact that a filing receipt was not affixed.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact No. 7
Topic Tags
- governing documents
- signatures
- enforceability
Question
If the bylaws mention a reduced quorum for a 'second meeting', is the HOA required to hold that second meeting?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. If the language doesn't explicitly say the HOA 'must' hold the meeting, it may be optional.
Detailed Answer
Even if a bylaw provision states that a second meeting 'shall require' a lower quorum, this does not automatically compel the HOA to hold that meeting. Unless words like 'shall' or 'must' apply specifically to the act of holding the meeting itself, the HOA may not be required to schedule it.
Alj Quote
There are no accompanying words that are inherently binding such as shall or must that would require Respondent to hold a second meeting based on the aforementioned verbiage used.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact No. 8
Topic Tags
- meetings
- quorum
- bylaw interpretation
Question
Who is responsible for proving that an HOA violated the rules?
Short Answer
The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition is responsible for proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the HOA committed the alleged violation.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory violation.
Legal Basis
Conclusions of Law No. 3
Topic Tags
- burden of proof
- legal standards
- procedure
Question
Does it matter if the HOA hasn't followed a specific rule for many years?
Short Answer
Yes. Long-term non-enforcement or lack of awareness by the board can be evidence that the rule was never validly adopted.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ considered the fact that the petitioner and board members were unaware of the amendment for years, and had failed to use it during previous quorum failures, as evidence weighing against the document's validity.
Alj Quote
Petitioner conceded that during his tenure on the Board and thereafter he was unaware of the purported amendment’s existence, notwithstanding several instances over a number of years where voting members failed to meet quorum requirements and did not utilize the provisions of the alleged amendment.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact No. 7
Topic Tags
- past practice
- board conduct
- validity
Question
What standard of proof is used in these HOA hearings?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing that a contention is more probably true than not. It is based on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the number of witnesses.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Conclusions of Law No. 4
Topic Tags
- legal standards
- evidence
Case
- Docket No
- 24F-H035-REL
- Case Title
- Jesse Freeman v. Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association
- Decision Date
- 2024-08-09
- Alj Name
- Jenna Clark
- Tribunal
- OAH
- Agency
- ADRE
Questions
Question
If a document appears on the HOA's website, is it automatically considered a valid governing document?
Short Answer
No. The presence of a document on a website does not prove it was voted on or adopted.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found that simply finding a document on the association's website is insufficient to prove it is a valid, adopted amendment. There must be evidence that members participated in a vote or that the association officially adopted it.
Alj Quote
The document’s presence on the Association’s website does not establish or tend to suggest that members participated in a vote on or about October 18, 2000, or that the Association adopted an amendment to Bylaw Article II Section 8 thereafter.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact No. 7
Topic Tags
- governing documents
- website
- validity
Question
What specific features does a bylaw amendment need to be considered valid and enforceable?
Short Answer
It generally requires signatures, stamps, seals, or filing receipts to prove it isn't just a draft.
Detailed Answer
To be considered a valid governing document rather than a failed proposal or draft, the document should ideally have an embossed stamp, seal, or at least one signature indicating it was finalized and adopted.
Alj Quote
Moreover, the document itself does not have an embossed stamp or seal, or reflect at least one (1) signature that would reasonably suggest it was indeed a valid governing document, rather than a failed proposal or draft, which is supported by the fact that a filing receipt was not affixed.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact No. 7
Topic Tags
- governing documents
- signatures
- enforceability
Question
If the bylaws mention a reduced quorum for a 'second meeting', is the HOA required to hold that second meeting?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. If the language doesn't explicitly say the HOA 'must' hold the meeting, it may be optional.
Detailed Answer
Even if a bylaw provision states that a second meeting 'shall require' a lower quorum, this does not automatically compel the HOA to hold that meeting. Unless words like 'shall' or 'must' apply specifically to the act of holding the meeting itself, the HOA may not be required to schedule it.
Alj Quote
There are no accompanying words that are inherently binding such as shall or must that would require Respondent to hold a second meeting based on the aforementioned verbiage used.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact No. 8
Topic Tags
- meetings
- quorum
- bylaw interpretation
Question
Who is responsible for proving that an HOA violated the rules?
Short Answer
The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition is responsible for proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the HOA committed the alleged violation.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory violation.
Legal Basis
Conclusions of Law No. 3
Topic Tags
- burden of proof
- legal standards
- procedure
Question
Does it matter if the HOA hasn't followed a specific rule for many years?
Short Answer
Yes. Long-term non-enforcement or lack of awareness by the board can be evidence that the rule was never validly adopted.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ considered the fact that the petitioner and board members were unaware of the amendment for years, and had failed to use it during previous quorum failures, as evidence weighing against the document's validity.
Alj Quote
Petitioner conceded that during his tenure on the Board and thereafter he was unaware of the purported amendment’s existence, notwithstanding several instances over a number of years where voting members failed to meet quorum requirements and did not utilize the provisions of the alleged amendment.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact No. 7
Topic Tags
- past practice
- board conduct
- validity
Question
What standard of proof is used in these HOA hearings?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing that a contention is more probably true than not. It is based on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the number of witnesses.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Conclusions of Law No. 4
Topic Tags
- legal standards
- evidence
Case
- Docket No
- 24F-H035-REL
- Case Title
- Jesse Freeman v. Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association
- Decision Date
- 2024-08-09
- Alj Name
- Jenna Clark
- Tribunal
- OAH
- Agency
- ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Jesse Freeman (petitioner)
Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association Member
Spelling varies as 'Jesse Freemen' in some sources; also served as Treasurer on the Board 2017-2018. - Nicholas Belisi (witness)
Potential witness for Petitioner; seconded the motion to adjourn and reconvene the meeting.
Respondent Side
- Augustus H. Shaw IV (HOA attorney)
Shaw & Lines, LLC
Counsel for Respondent Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association. - Brandon David Moore (senior community manager/witness)
Brown Property Management
Senior Community Manager for Respondent Millett Ranch HOA, testified as a witness. - Christopher Redden (Board President/witness)
Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association
Former Board President (9 years) and Board Member (13-14 years), testified as a witness. - Mark Saul (HOA attorney)
Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association
Identified by Petitioner as the association's attorney who abruptly ended the January 16, 2024 meeting.
Neutral Parties
- Jenna Clark (ALJ)
OAH - Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
ADRE - vnunez (ADRE staff (Recipient))
ADRE
Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries. - djones (ADRE staff (Recipient))
ADRE
Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries. - labril (ADRE staff (Recipient))
ADRE
Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries. - mneat (ADRE staff (Recipient))
ADRE
Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries. - akowaleski (ADRE staff (Recipient))
ADRE
Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries. - gosborn (ADRE staff (Recipient))
ADRE
Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries. - OAH Staff (OAH Staff)
OAH
Transmitted documents/Final Order.
Other Participants
- Rebecca Cook-Klaus (observer)
Observed the hearing. - Millie Lton (unknown)
Petitioner received a copy of the bylaws amendment from this person in May 2023.
