Tag Archives: Design Guidelines

Rosalie Lynne Emmons v. Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H055-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-08-22
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Rosalie Lynne Emmons Counsel —
Respondent Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association Counsel Michael S. McLeran

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 2 §§ 3.2, 3.3, and 3.11

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof that the Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association engaged in selective enforcement regarding the shed constructed without prior approval, which violated the CC&Rs and design guidelines.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence of selective enforcement. She admitted her shed was built without prior approval, was taller than the fence line, and was visible from the street, all of which violated the CC&Rs. The evidence presented by the Respondent showed consistent enforcement actions regarding similar violations.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged selective, arbitrary, and capricious enforcement of CC&Rs regarding shed construction and prior approval.

Petitioner alleged that the HOA selectively enforced its shed policy against her, claiming that her denial for a shed built without prior approval and exceeding the fence height should be excused because other, similar non-compliant sheds existed in the community and were not consistently cited.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was dismissed. Petitioner's request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent was denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
  • CC&Rs Article 2 §§ 3.2, 3.3, and 3.11
  • 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

Topics: HOA Enforcement, Selective Enforcement, Shed, Design Guidelines, CC&Rs, Prior Approval
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
  • CC&Rs Article 2 §§ 3.2, 3.3, and 3.11
  • 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)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H055-REL Decision – 1062778.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:44 (44.1 KB)

23F-H055-REL Decision – 1086088.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:46 (110.9 KB)

Questions

Question

If I claim my HOA is engaging in 'selective enforcement', do I have to prove it, or do they have to prove they aren't?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proving selective enforcement by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the burden falls on the homeowner to provide sufficient evidence that the HOA violated its own CC&Rs or acted arbitrarily. Merely alleging selective enforcement without sufficient proof is not enough to win the case.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&Rs… Petitioner alleged but failed to provide sufficient evidence of Respondent’s supposed selective enforcement.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • selective enforcement
  • burden of proof
  • legal procedure

Question

Can my HOA punish me for building a structure (like a shed) without prior approval, even if I apply for approval after building it?

Short Answer

Yes. Building without prior written approval violates standard CC&Rs, and a subsequent application denial is valid if the structure violates guidelines.

Detailed Answer

Most CC&Rs explicitly state that no construction or modification can occur without prior written approval. Admitting to building a structure without this approval constitutes a violation in itself. If the structure also violates design guidelines (e.g., height or visibility), the HOA can enforce the rules against it.

Alj Quote

Petitioner admitted she built her shed without prior approval from the Design Review Committee… all of which are violations of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

CC&R Violation

Topic Tags

  • architectural approval
  • unauthorized construction
  • violations

Question

If my HOA relaxed enforcement during a specific period (like the COVID-19 pandemic), does that mean they can never enforce those rules again?

Short Answer

No. A temporary reduction in enforcement during a crisis does not prevent the HOA from resuming enforcement later.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ decision accepted testimony that while enforcement might have been reduced during a specific event like the COVID-19 pandemic, the HOA is entitled to resume enforcement of rules (such as design guidelines) once normal operations return.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s witness testified during COVID enforcement was reduced, however, following the reopening of the economy post-COVID, enforcement was resumed.

Legal Basis

Enforcement Discretion

Topic Tags

  • waiver
  • enforcement history
  • COVID-19

Question

Can the HOA deny my shed if it is visible from the street or taller than the fence line?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs or Design Guidelines prohibit structures that are taller than the fence or visible from the street.

Detailed Answer

Violating specific physical constraints listed in the community documents, such as height restrictions relative to a fence line or visibility from public streets, are valid grounds for the HOA to find a violation and deny approval.

Alj Quote

Here, Petitioner admitted… her shed is taller than the current fence line, and the shed can be seen from the street; all of which are violations of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

Design Guidelines

Topic Tags

  • architectural standards
  • sheds
  • visibility

Question

What is the 'standard of proof' used in these HOA hearings?

Short Answer

The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing something is more probably true than not.

Detailed Answer

To win an administrative hearing against an HOA, a homeowner does not need to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They must simply show that their claim is 'more probably true than not'—essentially carrying greater evidentiary weight than the opposing side.

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

Evidentiary Standard

Topic Tags

  • legal definitions
  • evidence
  • hearings

Question

Where can I file a legal dispute against my HOA without going to civil court?

Short Answer

Arizona homeowners can petition the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) for a hearing.

Detailed Answer

The ADRE has jurisdiction over disputes between owners and planned community associations regarding violations of community documents or statutes. The case is then typically heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Alj Quote

The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities as long as the petitioner has filed a petition with the department…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • ADRE
  • dispute resolution

Case

Docket No
23F-H055-REL
Case Title
Rosalie Lynne Emmons vs Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2023-08-22
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

If I claim my HOA is engaging in 'selective enforcement', do I have to prove it, or do they have to prove they aren't?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proving selective enforcement by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the burden falls on the homeowner to provide sufficient evidence that the HOA violated its own CC&Rs or acted arbitrarily. Merely alleging selective enforcement without sufficient proof is not enough to win the case.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&Rs… Petitioner alleged but failed to provide sufficient evidence of Respondent’s supposed selective enforcement.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • selective enforcement
  • burden of proof
  • legal procedure

Question

Can my HOA punish me for building a structure (like a shed) without prior approval, even if I apply for approval after building it?

Short Answer

Yes. Building without prior written approval violates standard CC&Rs, and a subsequent application denial is valid if the structure violates guidelines.

Detailed Answer

Most CC&Rs explicitly state that no construction or modification can occur without prior written approval. Admitting to building a structure without this approval constitutes a violation in itself. If the structure also violates design guidelines (e.g., height or visibility), the HOA can enforce the rules against it.

Alj Quote

Petitioner admitted she built her shed without prior approval from the Design Review Committee… all of which are violations of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

CC&R Violation

Topic Tags

  • architectural approval
  • unauthorized construction
  • violations

Question

If my HOA relaxed enforcement during a specific period (like the COVID-19 pandemic), does that mean they can never enforce those rules again?

Short Answer

No. A temporary reduction in enforcement during a crisis does not prevent the HOA from resuming enforcement later.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ decision accepted testimony that while enforcement might have been reduced during a specific event like the COVID-19 pandemic, the HOA is entitled to resume enforcement of rules (such as design guidelines) once normal operations return.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s witness testified during COVID enforcement was reduced, however, following the reopening of the economy post-COVID, enforcement was resumed.

Legal Basis

Enforcement Discretion

Topic Tags

  • waiver
  • enforcement history
  • COVID-19

Question

Can the HOA deny my shed if it is visible from the street or taller than the fence line?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs or Design Guidelines prohibit structures that are taller than the fence or visible from the street.

Detailed Answer

Violating specific physical constraints listed in the community documents, such as height restrictions relative to a fence line or visibility from public streets, are valid grounds for the HOA to find a violation and deny approval.

Alj Quote

Here, Petitioner admitted… her shed is taller than the current fence line, and the shed can be seen from the street; all of which are violations of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

Design Guidelines

Topic Tags

  • architectural standards
  • sheds
  • visibility

Question

What is the 'standard of proof' used in these HOA hearings?

Short Answer

The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing something is more probably true than not.

Detailed Answer

To win an administrative hearing against an HOA, a homeowner does not need to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They must simply show that their claim is 'more probably true than not'—essentially carrying greater evidentiary weight than the opposing side.

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

Evidentiary Standard

Topic Tags

  • legal definitions
  • evidence
  • hearings

Question

Where can I file a legal dispute against my HOA without going to civil court?

Short Answer

Arizona homeowners can petition the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) for a hearing.

Detailed Answer

The ADRE has jurisdiction over disputes between owners and planned community associations regarding violations of community documents or statutes. The case is then typically heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Alj Quote

The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities as long as the petitioner has filed a petition with the department…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • ADRE
  • dispute resolution

Case

Docket No
23F-H055-REL
Case Title
Rosalie Lynne Emmons vs Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2023-08-22
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Rosalie Lynne Emmons (petitioner)
    Rovey Farm Estates property owner; appeared on her own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Michael S. McLeran (HOA attorney)
    Childers Hanlon & Hudson, PLC
    Appeared on behalf of Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association
  • Matt Johnson (community manager/witness)
    Envision Community Management
    Community Manager for Rovey Farm Estate; Appeared as a witness for the Association
  • Mark Schmidt (HOA staff)
    Envision Community Management
    Completed exhibit list (Exhibit 7) used by Respondent
  • Carrie Schmidt (compliance officer)
    Envision Community Management
    Compliance inspector responsible for citing violations

Neutral Parties

  • Brian Del Vecchio (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner

Other Participants

  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of decision transmission
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of decision transmission
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of decision transmission
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of decision transmission
  • Jose Garcia (homeowner/applicant)
    Rovey Farm Estates Homeowner whose shed application was denied
  • Gilbert Bar (homeowner/applicant)
    Rovey Farm Estates Homeowner whose shed application was denied
  • Jane Kim (homeowner/applicant)
    Rovey Farm Estates Homeowner whose shed application (with MJ Kim) was denied
  • MJ Kim (homeowner/applicant)
    Rovey Farm Estates Homeowner whose shed application (with Jane Kim) was denied

Kathy J Green v. Cross Creek Ranch Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222064-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-09-29
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome total
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kathy J. Green, MD Counsel —
Respondent Cross Creek Ranch Community Association Counsel Nick Eicher, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the petition, finding that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by improperly holding a closed executive session primarily focused on reviewing homeowner comments on design guidelines that did not meet the statutory exceptions for closure. The ALJ ordered the HOA to reimburse the petitioner's filing fee and comply with the statute in the future.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of open meetings requirements regarding closed executive session.

The Respondent HOA held a closed executive session on June 9, 2022, noticed under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1) (legal advice), to discuss approximately 72 homeowner comments on proposed design guideline revisions. The ALJ found that the meeting did not qualify under exceptions (A)(1) or (A)(2) as no legal advice was given and the discussion of most comments did not constitute pending or contemplated litigation.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is affirmed. Respondent must reimburse the Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee and is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 33-1804(A)(1)
  • 33-1804(A)(2)
  • 33-1804(B)
  • 33-1804(F)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Open Meetings, Executive Session, Legal Advice, Contemplated Litigation, Design Guidelines
Additional Citations:

  • 33-1804
  • 33-1804(A)
  • 33-1804(A)(1)
  • 33-1804(A)(2)
  • 33-1804(F)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3XtSYMRtgvLrHJNNS3sJMi

Decision Documents

22F-H2222064-REL Decision – 1003060.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:38 (149.0 KB)

22F-H2222064-REL Decision – 989940.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:41 (49.8 KB)

Questions

Question

Can my HOA board hold a closed meeting to discuss homeowner feedback on design guidelines?

Short Answer

No, discussing general homeowner feedback does not qualify for a closed executive session unless it meets specific statutory exceptions like pending litigation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that reviewing general comments from homeowners regarding proposed changes to design guidelines is not a valid reason to close a meeting. Even if some comments are critical, the board must discuss them in an open meeting unless they specifically relate to pending or contemplated litigation or legal advice.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge concludes… that the issue discussed at the June 9, 2022 executive session does not fall under the exceptions listed in A.R.S. §§ 33-1804(A)(1) or (A)(2), and Respondent did not properly consider the issue in an executive session closed to its members.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Topic Tags

  • open meetings
  • design guidelines
  • executive session

Question

Does a homeowner saying they 'can and will challenge' a rule in court count as pending litigation?

Short Answer

No, vague statements about potential legal challenges do not necessarily constitute 'contemplated litigation' sufficient to close a meeting.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that comments stating changes 'can and will be challenged in court' did not put the Board on notice of imminent lawsuits. Therefore, such comments did not justify closing the meeting under the 'pending or contemplated litigation' exception.

Alj Quote

Further, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that none of the comments can be reasonably construed as contemplating litigation.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(2)

Topic Tags

  • litigation
  • definitions
  • executive session

Question

Can the board close an entire meeting if they receive just one threat of litigation?

Short Answer

No, the board should only close the portion of the meeting dealing with the specific threat.

Detailed Answer

If an HOA receives many comments and only one contains a potential legal threat (e.g., copying an attorney), the board should hold an executive session for that specific item and discuss the remaining general business in an open meeting.

Alj Quote

As acknowledged by Mr. Chambers, the Board could have held an executive session to discuss only that one comment/letter in which an attorney was copied, and held an open meeting to discuss the other solicited comments.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(2)

Topic Tags

  • procedure
  • litigation
  • open meetings

Question

Can the HOA claim 'legal advice' as a reason to close a meeting if no attorney is present?

Short Answer

No, the 'legal advice' exception generally requires actual advice being given or discussed from an attorney.

Detailed Answer

The board cannot use the 'legal advice' exception to close a meeting if they are simply preparing questions for an attorney or reviewing documents before sending them to counsel. In this case, the attorney had not yet reviewed the documents, so no legal advice could be discussed.

Alj Quote

Prior to the June 9, 2022 executive session, an attorney had not yet reviewed the proposed revisions to the Guidelines and therefore, did not provide feedback for discussion at that meeting.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)

Topic Tags

  • legal advice
  • attorney
  • executive session

Question

How should HOA board members and managers interpret open meeting laws?

Short Answer

They must interpret the laws in favor of open meetings.

Detailed Answer

Arizona statute explicitly states that the policy of the state is to conduct meetings openly. Any ambiguity in the law should be construed by board members and managers to support openness rather than secrecy.

Alj Quote

Toward this end, any person or entity that is charged with the interpretation of these provisions, including members of the board of directors and any community manager, shall take into account this declaration of policy and shall construe any provision of this section in favor of open meetings.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)

Topic Tags

  • statutory interpretation
  • policy
  • open meetings

Question

Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) has the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the statute. This means they must show it is more probable than not that the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • hearing procedure
  • evidence

Question

Can I get my filing fee back if I win my case against the HOA?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ has the authority to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

If the homeowner prevails in showing a violation occurred, the judge may order the association to pay back the cost of filing the petition.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • fees
  • penalties

Question

Will the HOA always be fined if they violate open meeting laws?

Short Answer

Not necessarily; the judge has discretion on whether to impose a civil penalty.

Detailed Answer

Even if a violation is found, the judge may decide not to issue a civil penalty based on the specific facts of the case.

Alj Quote

Based on the facts presented, the Administrative Law Judge finds no civil penalty is appropriate in this matter.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • enforcement
  • fines

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222064-REL
Case Title
Kathy J. Green v. Cross Creek Ranch Community Association
Decision Date
2022-09-29
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA board hold a closed meeting to discuss homeowner feedback on design guidelines?

Short Answer

No, discussing general homeowner feedback does not qualify for a closed executive session unless it meets specific statutory exceptions like pending litigation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that reviewing general comments from homeowners regarding proposed changes to design guidelines is not a valid reason to close a meeting. Even if some comments are critical, the board must discuss them in an open meeting unless they specifically relate to pending or contemplated litigation or legal advice.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge concludes… that the issue discussed at the June 9, 2022 executive session does not fall under the exceptions listed in A.R.S. §§ 33-1804(A)(1) or (A)(2), and Respondent did not properly consider the issue in an executive session closed to its members.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Topic Tags

  • open meetings
  • design guidelines
  • executive session

Question

Does a homeowner saying they 'can and will challenge' a rule in court count as pending litigation?

Short Answer

No, vague statements about potential legal challenges do not necessarily constitute 'contemplated litigation' sufficient to close a meeting.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that comments stating changes 'can and will be challenged in court' did not put the Board on notice of imminent lawsuits. Therefore, such comments did not justify closing the meeting under the 'pending or contemplated litigation' exception.

Alj Quote

Further, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that none of the comments can be reasonably construed as contemplating litigation.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(2)

Topic Tags

  • litigation
  • definitions
  • executive session

Question

Can the board close an entire meeting if they receive just one threat of litigation?

Short Answer

No, the board should only close the portion of the meeting dealing with the specific threat.

Detailed Answer

If an HOA receives many comments and only one contains a potential legal threat (e.g., copying an attorney), the board should hold an executive session for that specific item and discuss the remaining general business in an open meeting.

Alj Quote

As acknowledged by Mr. Chambers, the Board could have held an executive session to discuss only that one comment/letter in which an attorney was copied, and held an open meeting to discuss the other solicited comments.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(2)

Topic Tags

  • procedure
  • litigation
  • open meetings

Question

Can the HOA claim 'legal advice' as a reason to close a meeting if no attorney is present?

Short Answer

No, the 'legal advice' exception generally requires actual advice being given or discussed from an attorney.

Detailed Answer

The board cannot use the 'legal advice' exception to close a meeting if they are simply preparing questions for an attorney or reviewing documents before sending them to counsel. In this case, the attorney had not yet reviewed the documents, so no legal advice could be discussed.

Alj Quote

Prior to the June 9, 2022 executive session, an attorney had not yet reviewed the proposed revisions to the Guidelines and therefore, did not provide feedback for discussion at that meeting.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)

Topic Tags

  • legal advice
  • attorney
  • executive session

Question

How should HOA board members and managers interpret open meeting laws?

Short Answer

They must interpret the laws in favor of open meetings.

Detailed Answer

Arizona statute explicitly states that the policy of the state is to conduct meetings openly. Any ambiguity in the law should be construed by board members and managers to support openness rather than secrecy.

Alj Quote

Toward this end, any person or entity that is charged with the interpretation of these provisions, including members of the board of directors and any community manager, shall take into account this declaration of policy and shall construe any provision of this section in favor of open meetings.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)

Topic Tags

  • statutory interpretation
  • policy
  • open meetings

Question

Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) has the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the statute. This means they must show it is more probable than not that the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • hearing procedure
  • evidence

Question

Can I get my filing fee back if I win my case against the HOA?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ has the authority to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

If the homeowner prevails in showing a violation occurred, the judge may order the association to pay back the cost of filing the petition.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • fees
  • penalties

Question

Will the HOA always be fined if they violate open meeting laws?

Short Answer

Not necessarily; the judge has discretion on whether to impose a civil penalty.

Detailed Answer

Even if a violation is found, the judge may decide not to issue a civil penalty based on the specific facts of the case.

Alj Quote

Based on the facts presented, the Administrative Law Judge finds no civil penalty is appropriate in this matter.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • enforcement
  • fines

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222064-REL
Case Title
Kathy J. Green v. Cross Creek Ranch Community Association
Decision Date
2022-09-29
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Kathy J. Green (petitioner)
    Cross Creek Ranch Owner
    Also referred to as Dr. Green, Colonel (retired),
  • Peter Calogero (witness)
    Spouse of Petitioner,

Respondent Side

  • Cross Creek Ranch Community Association (respondent)
  • Nick Eicher (HOA attorney)
    Cross Creek Ranch Community Association,
    Also referred to as Nick Iker
  • Greg Chambers (board president)
    Cross Creek Ranch Board
    Also appeared as a witness,
  • Charles Olden (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazelwood
  • Steve Germaine (board member/ARC chair)
    Cross Creek Ranch Board/ARC,
    Subpoenaed individual,,
  • John Kinich (board member)
    Cross Creek Ranch Board
    Also referred to as John Halenich
  • Lynn Grigg (ARC member)
    Cross Creek Ranch ARC,
  • Dan Donahghue (board member)
    Cross Creek Ranch Board,
  • Lisa Henson (board member)
    Cross Creek Ranch Board
  • Laura Malone (property manager)
    Community association manager,,
  • Edith I. Rudder (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP,
    Recipient of final order
  • Edward D. O'Brien (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP,
    Recipient of final order

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
    Presided over the matter,
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE),

Other Participants

  • Brian (regional manager)
    Homeco/Property Management
    Provided guidance to Laura Malone
  • Miranda Alvarez (legal secretary)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP

Richard J. Jones v. Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121038-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-11-15
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Richard J Jones Counsel —
Respondent Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association Counsel Troy Stratman, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Design Guidelines; CC&Rs Section 4.1.1

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner Richard J. Jones failed to meet his burden of proof to show the Association violated its Design Guidelines or engaged in selective enforcement.

Why this result: Petitioner did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the Guidelines or engaged in selective enforcement. Evidence indicated that the Petitioner was in violation of the existing Guidelines by failing to obtain prior approval for his driveway extension and failing to meet the required setback.

Key Issues & Findings

Petitioner alleged the Association violated Design Guidelines regarding setback requirements for driveway extensions and engaged in selective enforcement.

Petitioner filed a single issue petition asserting that Design Guidelines did not require a twelve-inch setback for driveway extensions from the property line and that the Association was selectively enforcing its rules. The Petitioner had installed a concrete driveway extension without obtaining prior ARC approval, and approval was denied due to the lack of the twelve-inch setback.

Orders: Richard J. Jones’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 173, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Driveway Extension, Architectural Review Committee, Setback Requirements, Design Guidelines, Selective Enforcement, HOA Violation
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09
  • Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 173, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121038-REL Decision – 924982.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:52 (100.9 KB)

21F-H2121038-REL Decision – 924983.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:57 (94.9 KB)





Briefing Doc – 21F-H2121038-REL


Briefing Document: Jones v. Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge in the case of Richard J. Jones versus the Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association (Case No. 21F-H2121038-REL). The dispute centered on a concrete driveway extension installed by Mr. Jones without the prior approval of the Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC). Mr. Jones contested the Association’s denial of his post-installation application, alleging that the Design Guidelines were misinterpreted and selectively enforced.

The Administrative Law Judge, Thomas Shedden, ultimately dismissed Mr. Jones’s petition. The decision rested on three key determinations:

1. Clear Violation: Mr. Jones was in direct violation of the Design Guidelines by failing to obtain prior approval for the modification and by not adhering to a mandatory 12-inch setback from the common block wall, a fact he acknowledged.

2. Reasonable Interpretation: The Association’s interpretation that the 12-inch setback requirement applied to the entire property line—not just the block wall—was deemed “not unreasonable,” particularly since the common wall is part of the property line.

3. Failure to Prove Selective Enforcement: Mr. Jones did not meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard to prove his claim of selective enforcement. The Association provided credible evidence demonstrating consistent application of the setback rule to other homeowners.

The final order upholds the Association’s enforcement actions and dismisses the petitioner’s claims.

Case Overview

Parties and Jurisdictional Details

Name / Entity

Representation

Petitioner

Richard J. Jones

On his own behalf

Respondent

Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association

Troy Stratman, Esq.

Adjudicator

Thomas Shedden

Administrative Law Judge

Case No.

21F-H2121038-REL

Hearing Date

November 2, 2021

Decision Date

November 15, 2021

Core Dispute

The central conflict arose from a concrete driveway extension installed by Richard J. Jones on his property on May 11, 2020. The installation was performed without submitting a request for prior approval to the Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC), a violation of the community’s CC&Rs. Following the installation, the ARC denied Mr. Jones’s retroactive application, citing its failure to meet a required 12-inch setback from the property line. This led to a notice of non-compliance and a fine, prompting Mr. Jones to file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Chronology of Events

• April 2020: Mr. Jones contacted AAM, LLC, the Association’s property management company, to inquire about adding concrete strips. He was informed this was not allowed but that an employee could assist with an approval process for a paver driveway extension.

• May 11, 2020: Having not received further guidance from the management company, Mr. Jones proceeded to have the concrete driveway extension installed.

• Post-May 11, 2020: Mr. Jones submitted an application to the ARC for retroactive approval of the already-installed extension.

• December 2, 2020: The ARC formally denied Mr. Jones’s application. The denial letter stated the extension did not meet the 12-inch setback requirement and advised him to reapply after cutting the driveway back from the property line.

• January 12, 2021: The Association issued a Second Notice of Non-compliance/Fine.

• February 12, 2021: Mr. Jones filed a petition with the Department of Real Estate, alleging the Association was misinterpreting and selectively enforcing its Design Guidelines.

• November 2, 2021: The administrative hearing was conducted.

• November 15, 2021: The Administrative Law Judge issued a decision dismissing Mr. Jones’s petition.

Analysis of Arguments and Evidence

Petitioner’s Position (Richard J. Jones)

Mr. Jones’s case was built on two primary arguments:

• Interpretation of Design Guidelines: He contended that the Guidelines in effect at the time of installation required a 12-inch setback from the “common wall” but were silent regarding the “property line.” He argued that since the Guidelines explicitly mandated a property line setback for sidewalks, the absence of such language for driveway extensions meant the requirement did not apply.

• Allegation of Selective Enforcement: He asserted that the Association was applying its Guidelines and Rules inconsistently among homeowners.

During testimony, Mr. Jones acknowledged that his driveway extension did not comply with the 12-inch setback from the common wall and expressed a willingness to correct that specific deficiency. He also testified that his neighbors did not object to the extension as installed.

Respondent’s Position (Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association)

The Association, represented by counsel, presented a multi-faceted defense:

• Procedural Failure: A core issue was Mr. Jones’s failure to obtain prior approval from the ARC before installation, as mandated by Section 4.1.1 of the CC&Rs.

• Violation of Setback Rule: The Association maintained that the extension violated the required 12-inch setback. The property manager, Paul Favale, testified that this rule is intended to ensure water does not drain onto a neighbor’s property.

• Evidence of Consistent Enforcement: To counter the claim of selective enforcement, the Association submitted an “Architectural Status Report” for the period of August 27, 2020, through April 21, 2021. This report demonstrated that other homeowners’ requests for driveway extensions had also been denied for failing to meet the 12-inch property line setback.

It was also noted that the Design Guidelines have since been modified to explicitly require a 12-inch setback from both the common wall and the property line.

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

The Judge’s decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence presented and the applicable legal standards.

Key Findings of Fact

• Mr. Jones installed the driveway extension on May 11, 2020, without prior approval from the ARC.

• The extension does not have a 12-inch setback from the common block wall, which is part of the property line.

• The Design Guidelines at the time explicitly required a 12-inch setback from the block wall.

• Mr. Jones acknowledged his non-compliance with the block wall setback requirement.

Conclusions of Law

The Judge concluded that Mr. Jones failed to meet his burden of proof, which required demonstrating a violation by the Association by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

1. Petitioner’s Violation: Mr. Jones was found to be in violation of the Guidelines. His acknowledgment that the driveway did not comply with the 12-inch setback from the common wall was a critical factor.

2. Reasonableness of Association’s Interpretation: The Judge determined that the Association’s interpretation of the Guidelines—requiring a 12-inch setback along the entire property line—was “not unreasonable.” This conclusion was supported by two points: the common wall is physically part of the property line, and Mr. Jones had failed to follow the required prior approval process, where such ambiguities would have been clarified.

3. No Evidence of Selective Enforcement: The Association presented “credible evidence” via its Architectural Status Report showing that other members were subject to the same rule. Consequently, Mr. Jones “did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was selectively enforcing the Guidelines.”

Final Order and Implications

• Order: The Judge ordered that Richard J. Jones’s petition be dismissed.

• Legal Standing: The decision is binding on both parties.

• Appeal Process: The order can only be challenged through a request for rehearing, which must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order (November 15, 2021).






Study Guide – 21F-H2121038-REL


Study Guide: Jones v. Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case No. 21F-H2121038-REL, involving Petitioner Richard J. Jones and Respondent Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a thorough understanding of the case’s facts, legal arguments, and final judgment.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

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

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

2. What specific modification did Richard J. Jones make to his property, and on what date did he complete it?

3. What critical step did Mr. Jones fail to take before installing the modification, as required by Section 4.1.1 of the CC&Rs?

4. According to the Design Guidelines in effect at the time of installation, what was the specific rule regarding the placement of driveway extensions that Mr. Jones’s project violated?

5. What was Mr. Jones’s main argument regarding the ambiguity of the Design Guidelines concerning the twelve-inch setback requirement?

6. What justification did the Association’s property manager, Paul Favale, provide for the setback requirement?

7. What were the two primary claims Mr. Jones made against the Association in his petition filed on February 12, 2021?

8. What is the standard of proof required in this matter, and which party carried the burden of meeting that standard?

9. How did the Association counter Mr. Jones’s claim that it was selectively enforcing its rules?

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

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Richard J. Jones, a homeowner who appeared on his own behalf, and the Respondent, the Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association, which was represented by its counsel, Troy Stratman, Esq.

2. On May 11, 2020, Mr. Jones added a concrete driveway running from the street to a side gate on his property. This modification is referred to in the documents as a “driveway extension.”

3. Mr. Jones did not submit a request for prior approval to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) before installing his driveway extension. This pre-approval is required for such modifications under the Association’s CC&Rs.

4. The driveway extension violated the rule requiring a twelve-inch setback from the common block wall. Mr. Jones acknowledged that his driveway did not comply with this specific requirement of the Design Guidelines.

5. Mr. Jones argued that since the Design Guidelines explicitly required a twelve-inch setback from the property line for sidewalks but did not explicitly state the same for driveway extensions, the requirement did not apply to his project along the full property line.

6. Mr. Favale testified that the purpose of the setback requirement is functional. It is designed to help ensure that water does not drain from one property onto a neighboring property.

7. Mr. Jones’s petition asserted that the Design Guidelines for driveway extensions did not require a setback from the property line (only the common wall). He also claimed that the Association was selectively enforcing its Guidelines and Rules against him.

8. The standard of proof was a preponderance of the evidence. The Petitioner, Mr. Jones, bore the burden of proof to show that the Association had violated its own guidelines.

9. The Association submitted an Architectural Status Report covering August 27, 2020, to April 21, 2021. This report provided credible evidence that other Association members had also been denied requests for driveway extensions due to a failure to meet the twelve-inch setback requirement.

10. The Administrative Law Judge, Thomas Shedden, ordered that Richard J. Jones’s petition be dismissed. The judge concluded that Mr. Jones had not met his burden of proof to show the Association had violated its guidelines or enforced them selectively.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Answers are not provided.

1. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” and the “preponderance of the evidence” standard as they were applied in this case. Explain specifically how Mr. Jones failed to meet this burden for both of his primary claims.

2. Analyze the legal reasoning used by the Administrative Law Judge to determine that the Association’s interpretation of its Design Guidelines was “not unreasonable.” Consider the judge’s reference to the common wall being part of the property line and Mr. Jones’s failure to obtain prior approval.

3. Trace the timeline of events from Mr. Jones’s initial inquiry to AAM, LLC in April 2020 to the final order in November 2021. Discuss how Mr. Jones’s decision to proceed with construction without explicit approval ultimately weakened his legal position.

4. Evaluate the claim of “selective enforcement.” What kind of evidence would Mr. Jones have needed to present to successfully prove this claim, and why was the Association’s Architectural Status Report considered more compelling evidence by the court?

5. The “Conclusions of Law” section states that the Design Guidelines are part of a contract between the parties. Using the facts of this case, explain the legal and practical implications of this principle for a homeowner living within a master association.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

AAM, LLC

The property management company for the Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The judge who presides over administrative hearings and renders decisions. In this case, the ALJ was Thomas Shedden.

Architectural Review Committee (ARC)

The committee within the homeowners’ association responsible for reviewing and granting prior approval for modifications to properties, such as driveway extensions.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the burden of proof was on the petitioner, Mr. Jones.

An abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, which are the governing legal documents for a planned community or homeowners’ association.

Design Guidelines

A set of rules that are part of the contract between homeowners and the association, detailing requirements for property modifications.

Driveway Extension

As defined by the parties, a concrete driveway running from the street to a gate at the side of a house.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, Richard J. Jones.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case. It is defined as evidence that has “the most convincing force” and is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association.

Selective Enforcement

The legal claim that an association is not applying its rules and guidelines uniformly, instead penalizing some members while allowing others to violate the same rules.

Setback

A required distance that a structure must be located away from a property line or other feature, such as a common wall. In this case, the requirement was for a twelve-inch setback.






Blog Post – 21F-H2121038-REL


He Fought the HOA Over 12 Inches of Concrete—and Lost. Here Are 4 Surprising Lessons from His Case.

Navigating the rules of a Homeowners’ Association (HOA) can feel like walking through a minefield of regulations, where a small misstep can lead to notices, fines, and protracted disputes. For one homeowner, Richard J. Jones, a conflict with his HOA, the Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association, over a new driveway extension escalated all the way to a formal hearing. The official legal decision in his case reveals several counter-intuitive truths about how these disputes are won and lost, offering valuable lessons for any homeowner living under HOA governance.

——————————————————————————–

1. “Asking for Forgiveness” is a Losing Strategy.

The first major takeaway is that violating rules first and hoping for retroactive approval is an approach doomed to fail, even when the situation feels complex. The story here is more nuanced than simple defiance. In April 2020, before any work began, Mr. Jones contacted the HOA’s management company about his plans. After being told his initial idea for “two concrete strips” was not allowed, he was directed to another employee for help with an application for a different design. According to the case file, Mr. Jones “did not hear back from her and he had the driveway extension installed” on May 11, 2020.

While his frustration is relatable, this impatient miscalculation was his crucial error. Section 4.1.1 of the community’s CC&Rs requires prior approval from the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). By proceeding without securing this written approval, Mr. Jones was in immediate violation. His subsequent application, submitted only after the work was done, was predictably denied on December 2, 2020. The lesson is stark: a breakdown in communication does not absolve a homeowner of their responsibility to follow procedure. The moment unapproved work begins, you are in breach of the community’s governing documents, and the merits of the project become secondary to the procedural failure.

——————————————————————————–

2. You Have to Prove the HOA is Wrong—Not the Other Way Around.

Many homeowners assume that in a dispute, the burden is on the HOA to prove the homeowner is wrong. The legal reality is the exact opposite. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision formally stated in Conclusion of Law #2 that Mr. Jones, as the petitioner who brought the case, bore the “burden of proof.”

To win, he had to demonstrate that the Association committed a violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.” The judge’s decision cites the formal definition from Black’s Law Dictionary, which essentially means the evidence presented must be convincing enough to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other. The reality for homeowners is surprising and crucial: in a formal dispute, the legal scales are not neutral. You must actively build a case and convincingly prove the HOA has violated its own rules. Mr. Jones failed to meet this standard.

——————————————————————————–

3. A Small Loophole Isn’t Enough to Win.

Mr. Jones’s central argument rested on a perceived loophole in the governing documents. He claimed the Design Guidelines required a 12-inch setback from the “common wall” but were silent about the “property line” as a whole, and therefore the rule didn’t apply to the entirety of his project. This highlights a key aspect of HOA governance: the purpose behind a rule matters. The property manager testified that the setback requirement exists to “ensure that water does not drain to the neighbor’s property,” transforming the rule from an arbitrary measurement into a practical and defensible standard.

Ultimately, the judge was unpersuaded by the loophole argument, and the reason is a masterclass in how these cases are decided. The judge’s decision, articulated in Conclusion of Law #7, pointed out that the common wall is fundamentally part of the property line. More importantly, the decision explicitly connected this conclusion to Mr. Jones’s prior actions: “…considering that Mr. Jones did not obtain prior approval from ARC before constructing his driveway extension, the Association’s interpretation…is not unreasonable.” This is the crucial insight: his procedural failure (Lesson #1) directly weakened his ability to argue about ambiguous wording. An HOA’s reasonable interpretation of its own rules is far more likely to be upheld when the homeowner has already disregarded clear procedural mandates. Tellingly, the Association later modified the guidelines to explicitly close this perceived loophole.

——————————————————————————–

4. Proving “Selective Enforcement” is Harder Than You Think.

A common defense from homeowners is that the HOA is engaging in “selective enforcement”—singling them out while letting others get away with similar violations. Mr. Jones made this exact claim, but the Association came prepared with meticulous documentation to defeat it.

As detailed in Finding of Fact #21, the HOA presented an “Architectural Status Report” covering August 27, 2020 through April 21, 2021. This document provided time-stamped evidence that other homeowners’ requests for similar driveway extensions had also been consistently denied for failing to meet the same 12-inch setback requirement. This report systematically dismantled the selective enforcement argument. For homeowners, this underscores a critical point: the feeling of being singled out is not evidence. To win a selective enforcement claim, you must provide clear proof that other members in the exact same situation were treated differently, a high bar that an HOA with good records can easily overcome.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: A Contract is a Contract

The overarching theme from this case is that HOA governing documents are not merely suggestions; they are legally binding. As stated in Conclusion of Law #5, the Design Guidelines are part of a contract between the homeowner and the association. While HOA rules can often feel arbitrary or frustrating, they carry the weight of a contract. The path to successfully challenging them is narrow and requires a clear, well-documented case that proves the HOA, not the homeowner, has breached its duties.

This case serves as a powerful reminder for all community members. How well do you really know the contract you’re living under?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Richard J Jones (petitioner)
    Appeared and testified on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Troy Stratman (attorney)
    Stratman Law Firm, PLC
    Counsel for Respondent
  • Paul Favale (property manager)
    Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association
    Testified for Respondent
  • Angela Pate (property manager employee)
    AAM, LLC
    Contacted by Petitioner regarding installation inquiry

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision (email alias listed)
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision (email alias listed)
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision (email alias listed)
  • Miranda Alvarez (Staff)
    Transmitted decision

Will Schreiber v. Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners

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

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019003-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-03-16
Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Will Schreiber Counsel Aaron M. Green
Respondent Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners Association Counsel Mark K. Sahl

Alleged Violations

Design Guidelines HH Walls/View Fences and CC&R’s Article 12.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge decision, issued following a rehearing, dismissed the Petitioner's dispute petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated its governing documents by reasonably denying the retroactive application for the unapproved glass view fence.

Why this result: Petitioner installed the fence prior to seeking approval, failing to comply with the procedural requirements (Design Guidelines Section HH). Consequently, the HOA's denial based on consistency and maintenance concerns was deemed reasonable.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA's denial of Petitioner's glass view fence modification

Petitioner alleged the HOA improperly denied the retroactive approval of a glass view fence installed without prior permission. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he rightfully sought approval pursuant to Design Guidelines Section HH, and that the Respondent's denial was reasonable due to procedural failure, community inconsistency (Design Guidelines Section E), and liability/maintenance concerns (CC&R Article 12.3).

Orders: Petitioner Will Schreiber’s Petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • CC&R’s Article 12.3
  • Design Guidelines Section HH
  • Design Guidelines Section E
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Homeowner dispute, View fence, Architectural approval, Design Guidelines, CC&R's violation, Retroactive approval, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019003-REL-RHG Decision – 769789.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:30:11 (42.2 KB)

20F-H2019003-REL-RHG Decision – 775433.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:30:17 (123.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2019003-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Schreiber v. Cimarron Hills HOA

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the legal proceedings and outcome of the dispute between homeowner Will Schreiber (Petitioner) and the Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners Association (Respondent) concerning an unapproved glass fence. The case, adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, centered on Mr. Schreiber’s retroactive application for a glass view fence he installed without prior permission, which replaced a wrought iron fence.

The Homeowners Association (HOA) denied the application, citing a lack of consistency with community design standards, as well as significant maintenance and liability concerns stipulated in the governing documents. The Petitioner argued the denial was unreasonable, asserting that a glass fence is visually similar to having no fence (an approved option), that the HOA failed to provide a valid reason for denial, and that safety concerns were unfounded.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately dismissed Mr. Schreiber’s petition. The final decision concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof showing the HOA had violated its own rules. The ruling affirmed that the HOA’s denial was reasonable because the Petitioner did not follow the required procedure of seeking approval before installation, as mandated by the community’s Design Guidelines. The decision underscored the HOA’s right to enforce uniformity and manage its maintenance and liability responsibilities as defined in its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

Case Identification and Participants

Detail

Information

Case Name

Will Schreiber, Petitioner, vs. Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners Association, Respondent

Case Number

20F-H2019003-REL-RHG

Tribunal

Office of Administrative Hearings (Arizona)

Administrative Law Judge

Antara Nath Rivera

Petitioner

Will Schreiber

Petitioner’s Counsel

Aaron M. Green, Esq.

Respondent

Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners Association (a subdivision of McDowell Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association)

Respondent’s Counsel

Nick Nogami, Esq. (at hearing); Mark K. Sahl, Esq. (on record)

Property Address

11551 East Caribbean Lane, Scottsdale, Arizona, 85255

Procedural History and Timeline

1. November 2017: Petitioner submitted an architectural form for backyard work, which was approved by the HOA’s Design Review Committee (DRC). This submission did not mention any changes to fencing.

2. January 2019: During a violation tour, the HOA discovered that Petitioner had replaced the pre-existing wrought iron view fencing with an unapproved glass fence.

3. January 24, 2019: After being contacted by the HOA, Petitioner submitted a second variance request seeking retroactive approval for the installed glass fence.

4. March 5, 2019: The HOA sent a letter to Petitioner requesting that the fence be returned to its original wrought iron condition.

5. May 10, 2019: The HOA officially notified Petitioner that his appeal was denied because the application was not filed in a timely manner (i.e., prior to installation).

6. July 2, 2019: Petitioner filed a Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging violations of community documents.

7. August 9, 2019: The HOA filed its Answer, denying all claims, and a Motion to Dismiss.

8. October 2, 2019: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the HOA’s Motion to Dismiss.

9. December 10, 2019: The Department of Real Estate issued a Notice of Rehearing.

10. January 30, 2020: A rehearing was held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

11. February 4, 2020: The HOA’s counsel submitted a Posthearing Memorandum without leave from the tribunal.

12. February 14, 2020: The ALJ issued an order reopening the record solely to allow the Petitioner an opportunity to respond to the HOA’s unauthorized filing by February 24, 2020.

13. March 16, 2020: The ALJ issued the final decision, ordering that the Petitioner’s petition be dismissed.

Analysis of Arguments

Petitioner’s Position (Will Schreiber)

The Petitioner’s case rested on the argument that the HOA’s denial of his glass fence was arbitrary and unreasonable.

• Lack of Justification: Petitioner claimed the HOA’s Design Review Committee (DRC) met with him but failed to provide any verbal or written reasons for the initial disapproval.

• Aesthetic and Functional Equivalence: He argued a glass fence is “just as invisible” as having no fence at all, an option permitted by the HOA. He contended that since his neighbor did not have a wrought iron fence, denying his glass fence on grounds of consistency was illogical.

• Safety and Maintenance: Petitioner asserted that the safety glass used was comparable to that of the Grand Canyon Skywalk and had been inspected and approved by a Scottsdale City Inspector. He argued the HOA’s concerns about safety, fire barriers, and continuity were manufactured “excuses.” He also offered to waive the HOA’s maintenance responsibility for the fence.

• Procedural Failure: The core of the petition was the allegation that the HOA violated its own community documents, specifically “Design Guidelines HH Walls/View Fences and CC&R’s Article 12.”

Respondent’s Position (Cimarron Hills HOA)

The HOA’s defense, presented primarily through the testimony of Whitney Bostic, focused on procedural compliance, community uniformity, and non-negotiable maintenance responsibilities.

• Violation of Process: The HOA established that the Petitioner installed the glass fence prior to seeking approval, in direct violation of the Design Guidelines which require submission of detailed plans for any view fence modifications. His approved 2017 plans made no mention of fencing.

• Lack of Consistency: Ms. Bostic testified that out of 656 homes in the Cimarron Hills subdivision and 3,800 homes in the master McDowell Mountain Ranch association, none had a glass fence. The established design standard allows only for a wrought iron fence or no fence at all to maintain community conformity.

• Maintenance and Liability: The HOA argued that under Article 12.3 of the CC&Rs, it is legally responsible for maintaining the exterior half of all boundary view fences and the five-foot easement from the boundary wall. This responsibility cannot be waived by a homeowner. A glass fence introduces unique maintenance concerns and liability risks, such as shards of glass falling into an area of HOA responsibility.

• Multi-Level Review: The decision to deny the request was made after consideration by both the Cimarron Hills DRC and the master association (MMRHA), which weighed factors of consistency, responsibility, and maintenance before issuing a denial.

Governing Documents Cited

The decision in this case was based on the interpretation of several key sections of the community’s governing documents.

• CC&Rs Article 12.3 (Boundary Walls and Association Responsibility): This article explicitly states that the Association “shall be responsible for the repair and maintenance of the side of the Boundary Wall which faces the Area of Association Responsibility.” This formed the basis of the HOA’s argument regarding non-waivable liability and maintenance obligations.

• Design Guidelines Section HH (View Fencing): This section mandates that “The Owner shall submit for approval from the DRC including detailed drawings of proposed changes… for view fence modifications.” The Petitioner’s failure to do this prior to installation was a central fact in the case. It also specifies the approved paint color for fences, “MMR Brown Fence.”

• Design Guidelines Section E (General Principles): This section outlines the DRC’s goal to “maintain consistency of the community and of its decisions.” It notes that variances may be granted but “shall remain consistent with the architectural and neighborhood characteristics.” This supported the HOA’s argument against introducing a unique fence type.

• Design Guidelines Section GG (View Decks): While pertaining to decks, this section was cited to show the level of detail required in applications to the DRC, including materials, dimensions, and impact on views, underscoring the formal process the Petitioner bypassed.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ, Antara Nath Rivera, dismissed Will Schreiber’s petition, finding in favor of the Cimarron Hills HOA.

• Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the HOA violated Article 12.3 of its CC&Rs.

• Failure to Follow Procedure: The judge concluded that the Petitioner “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he rightfully sought approval to change his existing fence, pursuant to Section HH of the Design Guidelines.” The key issue was not the aesthetics of the fence, but the Petitioner’s failure to abide by the required approval process before installation.

• Reasonableness of Denial: The ALJ found that the “Respondent was reasonable in its denial” and “did not violate any rules or regulations.” The evidence demonstrated that the HOA’s decision was based on established principles of uniformity, consistency, and its obligations under the CC&Rs.

• Final Order: The petition was formally dismissed. The order noted that as a decision from a rehearing, it is binding on the parties. Any appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days of the order’s service date.






Study Guide – 20F-H2019003-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Schreiber v. Cimarron Hills HOA

This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case between Will Schreiber and the Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners Association, based on the provided legal documents. It is designed to test and reinforce understanding of the case’s facts, legal arguments, and procedural history.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer each of the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing exclusively from the provided source documents.

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

2. What specific action did the Petitioner, Will Schreiber, take that initiated the dispute with the Homeowners Association?

3. According to the Respondent, what were the primary reasons for denying the Petitioner’s request for the glass fence?

4. What was the Petitioner’s core argument regarding the fairness of the Respondent’s denial, particularly in relation to his neighbor?

5. What was the legal standard of proof required for the Petitioner to win his case, and did he meet it?

6. Identify two specific governing documents that were central to the Respondent’s defense and the final ruling.

7. Who was Whitney Bostic, and what key information did her testimony provide during the rehearing?

8. What procedural event occurred on or about February 4, 2020, that prompted the Administrative Law Judge to issue the “Order Holding Record Open” on February 14, 2020?

9. According to the CC&Rs, who is responsible for maintaining the “Boundary Wall” that separates a lot from an “Area of Association Responsibility”?

10. What was the final outcome of the administrative rehearing held on January 30, 2020?

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Will Schreiber, the Petitioner and homeowner, and the Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners Association, the Respondent. Mr. Schreiber filed a petition against the HOA, alleging a violation of community documents after they denied his request for a fence modification.

2. Mr. Schreiber replaced his preexisting wrought iron view fencing with glass fencing without first receiving approval from the HOA’s Design Review Committee (DRC). He then submitted a variance request on January 24, 2019, seeking retroactive approval for the already-installed fence.

3. The Respondent denied the request based on several factors, including the need for design consistency across the community’s 656 homes, as no other home had a glass fence. They also cited maintenance concerns and potential liability, as the HOA is responsible for the exterior half of view fences and a five-foot easement from the boundary wall.

4. The Petitioner argued that the denial was unreasonable because his neighbor was allowed to have no fence at all. He contended that a glass fence was “just as invisible” as no fence and that the concept was essentially the same.

5. The Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish his case by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means convincing the judge that his contention was more probably true than not. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet this burden.

6. The two central documents were the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for Cimarron Hills (CC&Rs) and the Cimarron Hills Design Guidelines For Community Living (Design Guidelines). The Respondent specifically cited Sections E (General Principles), GG (View Decks), and HH (Walls/View Fences) of the Design Guidelines.

7. Whitney Bostic testified on behalf of the Respondent HOA. She explained that the glass fence was unapproved, inconsistent with the 656 homes in the community, and posed maintenance and liability concerns for the HOA.

8. Counsel for the Respondent submitted a Posthearing Memorandum and Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law without having been granted permission (leave) by the tribunal. Because the Petitioner did not have an opportunity to respond, the judge reopened the record to allow him to do so by February 24, 2020.

9. According to Article 12.3 of the CC&Rs, the resident is responsible for their side of the wall, but the Association is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the side of the Boundary Wall which faces the Area of Association Responsibility.

10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that Petitioner Will Schreiber’s Petition be dismissed. The judge found that the Respondent HOA’s denial of the glass fence was reasonable and that it did not violate any of its rules or regulations.

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for longer, more analytical responses. Formulate an argument using only the evidence and facts presented in the source documents.

1. Analyze the procedural timeline of the case from the initial filing of the petition on July 2, 2019, to the final decision on March 16, 2020. Discuss the significance of the initial dismissal, the subsequent rehearing, and the order to reopen the record.

2. Examine the concept of “consistency” as described in Section E of the Design Guidelines. How did this principle form the foundation of the Respondent’s case, and why was it a more compelling argument than the Petitioner’s claims about aesthetics and safety?

3. The Petitioner argued that since his neighbor was permitted to have no fence, his “invisible” glass fence should also be permitted. Deconstruct this argument and explain why it ultimately failed to persuade the Administrative Law Judge, citing the Respondent’s counterarguments regarding maintenance and responsibility.

4. Discuss the role of the governing community documents (the CC&Rs and Design Guidelines) in this dispute. Explain how specific articles, such as CC&R Article 12.3 and Design Guideline Section HH, were applied to the facts of the case to reach a final decision.

5. Define “preponderance of the evidence” as described in the legal decision. Detail the evidence presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent at the rehearing and evaluate why the Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet this evidentiary standard.

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The presiding judge (Antara Nath Rivera) at the Office of Administrative Hearings who heard the evidence and issued the final decision.

Answer

The formal written response filed by the Respondent on August 9, 2019, denying all complaint items in the Petition.

Areas of Association Responsibility

Areas that the Homeowners Association is responsible for maintaining, as defined in the CC&Rs. This includes the exterior side of boundary walls and a five-foot easement.

An acronym for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for Cimarron Hills, a primary governing document for the community.

Design Guidelines

A document titled Cimarron Hills Design Guidelines For Community Living that supplements the CC&Rs and provides specific rules on community aesthetics, including fences.

Design Review Committee (DRC)

A committee within the HOA responsible for reviewing and approving or denying residents’ proposed architectural and landscape modifications.

Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition

The formal document filed by Will Schreiber with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on July 2, 2019, to initiate the legal dispute.

McDowell Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association (MMRHA)

The master association of which the Cimarron Hills HOA is a subdivision. The MMRHA also considered and denied the Petitioner’s request.

Petitioner

The party who filed the petition initiating the legal action; in this case, the homeowner, Will Schreiber.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof required in the hearing. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and has superior weight, inclining an impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

Respondent

The party against whom the petition was filed; in this case, the Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners Association.

Retroactive Approval

Approval sought for a modification or construction that has already been completed without prior authorization.

Variance

A formal exception to the standard Design Guidelines that the DRC may grant on a case-by-case basis.






Blog Post – 20F-H2019003-REL-RHG


The Glass Fence Standoff: 4 Critical Lessons from a Homeowner’s Losing Battle with His HOA

Introduction: The Dream Project and the Unseen Rules

Will Schreiber had a vision for his Scottsdale, Arizona home: a sleek, modern property with an uninterrupted backyard view. To preserve that stunning vista, he installed an elegant glass fence—a choice that seemed perfect for the landscape. His neighbors didn’t complain; in fact, there’s no evidence the fence bothered anyone. But his Homeowners Association (HOA) denied the project, triggering a legal dispute that went before an administrative law judge. Mr. Schreiber ultimately lost.

The conflict wasn’t driven by neighborhood animosity, but by the impersonal application of community documents. This case offers a masterclass in the often counter-intuitive world of HOA governance. The reasons he lost reveal surprising and invaluable lessons for any homeowner considering a modification to their property.

1. The most critical mistake wasn’t the fence—it was the timing.

The core reason the homeowner lost his case had less to do with the aesthetics of glass versus wrought iron and everything to do with procedural failure. He installed the fence before getting formal approval from the HOA.

The timeline of events was fatal to his argument. In November 2017, the HOA approved Mr. Schreiber’s plan for backyard improvements, but this plan made no mention of fencing. At some point after, he installed the unapproved glass fence. It wasn’t until a routine violation tour in January 2019 that the HOA discovered the new fence. Only after being caught, on January 24, 2019, did the homeowner submit a request for retroactive approval.

In the end, the judge’s decision hinged on this sequence. The key question wasn’t whether a glass fence was a good idea, but whether the HOA’s denial was reasonable “because Petitioner failed to abide by the regulations to get approval for the glass fence prior to installing it.” In any dispute with an HOA, following the established process is paramount. Once you break the rules of that process, the merits of your project often become irrelevant.

2. A logical argument can lose to a written rule.

The homeowner presented a seemingly logical and compelling argument. He contended that his neighbor didn’t have a fence at all, and a glass fence was conceptually the same thing. In his words:

A glass fence was “just as invisible” as not having a fence. In essence, both were the same concept.

To add weight to his point, he made a powerful real-world comparison, arguing the safety glass he used was similar to that of the railing of the Grand Canyon Skywalk tourist attraction.

This “common sense” approach, however, failed to persuade the judge. The HOA’s decision wasn’t based on a subjective interpretation of “invisibility” or a comparison to national landmarks. It was based on the binding community documents. The Design Guidelines were written to promote uniformity and consistency. According to the HOA, the established rules were clear: a homeowner could have a wrought iron fence or no fence at all. A glass fence was not an approved option. The lesson here is stark: the governing documents create the binding reality for every member of the community. A personal, logical argument is not a valid defense against a clearly written rule you have contractually agreed to follow.

3. The HOA’s biggest concern wasn’t curb appeal; it was risk.

While the dispute appeared to be about aesthetics, the HOA’s defense focused on much more practical and significant concerns: consistency, maintenance, and liability. These arguments reveal the often-unseen function of an HOA, which is to manage shared risk for the entire community.

The HOA presented several key points:

• Consistency: Out of 3,800 homes in the master community and 656 in the sub-community, not a single one had a glass fence. Approving this one would set a precedent that could undermine the community’s uniform design.

• Maintenance: The community’s CC&Rs (Article 12.3) explicitly stated the Association was responsible for maintaining “the side of the Boundary Wall which faces the Area of Association Responsibility.” This meant the HOA would be financially and logistically on the hook for repairing and maintaining an unfamiliar and potentially costly material.

• Safety & Liability: The HOA raised a critical safety issue. If the glass fence were to break, “large amount of glass shards would fall onto an area of Respondent’s responsibility, causing additional liability for Respondent.”

Sensing the maintenance issue was a key obstacle, Mr. Schreiber made a reasonable offer: he was willing to waive the HOA’s responsibility to maintain the glass fence. However, this proactive solution came too late. Because he had already violated the approval process, his concession was not enough to overcome the HOA’s other concerns about precedent and liability, which remained firmly grounded in the community’s governing documents.

4. In a dispute, you are the one who has to prove the HOA is wrong.

When a homeowner takes their HOA to court, the legal scales are not perfectly balanced from the start. The legal decision in this case clearly states the principle: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated Article 12.3 of its CC&Rs.”

In simple terms, “burden of proof” meant it was Mr. Schreiber’s job to convince the judge with a “preponderance of the evidence”—meaning it was more likely true than not—that the HOA had broken its own rules when it denied his request. It was not the HOA’s job to prove it was right; it was his job to prove they were wrong.

The judge ultimately found that the homeowner “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he rightfully sought approval.” The conclusion was that the “Respondent was reasonable in its denial.” It is not enough to feel you have been wronged; in a legal setting, you must be able to demonstrate with convincing evidence that the organization violated its own governing documents.

Conclusion: The Unwritten Lessons of Community Living

HOA rules can be a source of frustration, but this case demonstrates that they form a complex web of process, liability, and shared responsibility that exists for reasons beyond simple aesthetics. The homeowner’s dream of a glass fence was shattered not by a neighbor’s complaint, but by a series of procedural missteps and a misunderstanding of the contract he was bound by.

This case wasn’t just about a fence; it was about the power of a contract you agree to when you buy a home. How well do you really know your own community’s rulebook?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Will Schreiber (petitioner)
    Complainant
  • Aaron M. Green (petitioner attorney)
    Law Office of Aaron Green, P.C.

Respondent Side

  • Nick Nogami (respondent attorney)
    Represented Respondent at hearing
  • Mark K. Sahl (respondent attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
  • Whitney Bostic (witness)
    Testified for Respondent

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

  • c. serrano (clerk)
    Transmitting agent for Order
  • 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

Will Schreiber v. Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners

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

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019003-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-03-16
Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Will Schreiber Counsel Aaron M. Green
Respondent Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners Association Counsel Mark K. Sahl

Alleged Violations

CC&R's Article 12; Design Guidelines HH Walls/View Fences

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's dispute petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the HOA violated its governing documents regarding the denial of a retroactively submitted view fence modification.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish the HOA violated its CC&Rs or Design Guidelines. Specifically, the Petitioner did not establish he rightfully sought approval prior to installing the fence.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA's denial of Petitioner's glass view fence modification

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated community documents by denying approval for a glass view fence installed without prior approval. The ALJ found Petitioner failed to establish the HOA violated its documents, as Petitioner did not follow required procedures for seeking approval.

Orders: Petitioner Will Schreiber’s Petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • CC&R's Article 12.3
  • Design Guidelines Section HH

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Homeowner dispute, View fence, Architectural approval, Design Guidelines, CC&R's violation, Retroactive application
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019003-REL-RHG Decision – 769789.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:30 (42.2 KB)

20F-H2019003-REL-RHG Decision – 775433.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:30 (123.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2019003-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Schreiber v. Cimarron Hills HOA

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the legal proceedings and outcome of the dispute between homeowner Will Schreiber (Petitioner) and the Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners Association (Respondent) concerning an unapproved glass fence. The case, adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, centered on Mr. Schreiber’s retroactive application for a glass view fence he installed without prior permission, which replaced a wrought iron fence.

The Homeowners Association (HOA) denied the application, citing a lack of consistency with community design standards, as well as significant maintenance and liability concerns stipulated in the governing documents. The Petitioner argued the denial was unreasonable, asserting that a glass fence is visually similar to having no fence (an approved option), that the HOA failed to provide a valid reason for denial, and that safety concerns were unfounded.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately dismissed Mr. Schreiber’s petition. The final decision concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof showing the HOA had violated its own rules. The ruling affirmed that the HOA’s denial was reasonable because the Petitioner did not follow the required procedure of seeking approval before installation, as mandated by the community’s Design Guidelines. The decision underscored the HOA’s right to enforce uniformity and manage its maintenance and liability responsibilities as defined in its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

Case Identification and Participants

Detail

Information

Case Name

Will Schreiber, Petitioner, vs. Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners Association, Respondent

Case Number

20F-H2019003-REL-RHG

Tribunal

Office of Administrative Hearings (Arizona)

Administrative Law Judge

Antara Nath Rivera

Petitioner

Will Schreiber

Petitioner’s Counsel

Aaron M. Green, Esq.

Respondent

Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners Association (a subdivision of McDowell Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association)

Respondent’s Counsel

Nick Nogami, Esq. (at hearing); Mark K. Sahl, Esq. (on record)

Property Address

11551 East Caribbean Lane, Scottsdale, Arizona, 85255

Procedural History and Timeline

1. November 2017: Petitioner submitted an architectural form for backyard work, which was approved by the HOA’s Design Review Committee (DRC). This submission did not mention any changes to fencing.

2. January 2019: During a violation tour, the HOA discovered that Petitioner had replaced the pre-existing wrought iron view fencing with an unapproved glass fence.

3. January 24, 2019: After being contacted by the HOA, Petitioner submitted a second variance request seeking retroactive approval for the installed glass fence.

4. March 5, 2019: The HOA sent a letter to Petitioner requesting that the fence be returned to its original wrought iron condition.

5. May 10, 2019: The HOA officially notified Petitioner that his appeal was denied because the application was not filed in a timely manner (i.e., prior to installation).

6. July 2, 2019: Petitioner filed a Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging violations of community documents.

7. August 9, 2019: The HOA filed its Answer, denying all claims, and a Motion to Dismiss.

8. October 2, 2019: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the HOA’s Motion to Dismiss.

9. December 10, 2019: The Department of Real Estate issued a Notice of Rehearing.

10. January 30, 2020: A rehearing was held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

11. February 4, 2020: The HOA’s counsel submitted a Posthearing Memorandum without leave from the tribunal.

12. February 14, 2020: The ALJ issued an order reopening the record solely to allow the Petitioner an opportunity to respond to the HOA’s unauthorized filing by February 24, 2020.

13. March 16, 2020: The ALJ issued the final decision, ordering that the Petitioner’s petition be dismissed.

Analysis of Arguments

Petitioner’s Position (Will Schreiber)

The Petitioner’s case rested on the argument that the HOA’s denial of his glass fence was arbitrary and unreasonable.

• Lack of Justification: Petitioner claimed the HOA’s Design Review Committee (DRC) met with him but failed to provide any verbal or written reasons for the initial disapproval.

• Aesthetic and Functional Equivalence: He argued a glass fence is “just as invisible” as having no fence at all, an option permitted by the HOA. He contended that since his neighbor did not have a wrought iron fence, denying his glass fence on grounds of consistency was illogical.

• Safety and Maintenance: Petitioner asserted that the safety glass used was comparable to that of the Grand Canyon Skywalk and had been inspected and approved by a Scottsdale City Inspector. He argued the HOA’s concerns about safety, fire barriers, and continuity were manufactured “excuses.” He also offered to waive the HOA’s maintenance responsibility for the fence.

• Procedural Failure: The core of the petition was the allegation that the HOA violated its own community documents, specifically “Design Guidelines HH Walls/View Fences and CC&R’s Article 12.”

Respondent’s Position (Cimarron Hills HOA)

The HOA’s defense, presented primarily through the testimony of Whitney Bostic, focused on procedural compliance, community uniformity, and non-negotiable maintenance responsibilities.

• Violation of Process: The HOA established that the Petitioner installed the glass fence prior to seeking approval, in direct violation of the Design Guidelines which require submission of detailed plans for any view fence modifications. His approved 2017 plans made no mention of fencing.

• Lack of Consistency: Ms. Bostic testified that out of 656 homes in the Cimarron Hills subdivision and 3,800 homes in the master McDowell Mountain Ranch association, none had a glass fence. The established design standard allows only for a wrought iron fence or no fence at all to maintain community conformity.

• Maintenance and Liability: The HOA argued that under Article 12.3 of the CC&Rs, it is legally responsible for maintaining the exterior half of all boundary view fences and the five-foot easement from the boundary wall. This responsibility cannot be waived by a homeowner. A glass fence introduces unique maintenance concerns and liability risks, such as shards of glass falling into an area of HOA responsibility.

• Multi-Level Review: The decision to deny the request was made after consideration by both the Cimarron Hills DRC and the master association (MMRHA), which weighed factors of consistency, responsibility, and maintenance before issuing a denial.

Governing Documents Cited

The decision in this case was based on the interpretation of several key sections of the community’s governing documents.

• CC&Rs Article 12.3 (Boundary Walls and Association Responsibility): This article explicitly states that the Association “shall be responsible for the repair and maintenance of the side of the Boundary Wall which faces the Area of Association Responsibility.” This formed the basis of the HOA’s argument regarding non-waivable liability and maintenance obligations.

• Design Guidelines Section HH (View Fencing): This section mandates that “The Owner shall submit for approval from the DRC including detailed drawings of proposed changes… for view fence modifications.” The Petitioner’s failure to do this prior to installation was a central fact in the case. It also specifies the approved paint color for fences, “MMR Brown Fence.”

• Design Guidelines Section E (General Principles): This section outlines the DRC’s goal to “maintain consistency of the community and of its decisions.” It notes that variances may be granted but “shall remain consistent with the architectural and neighborhood characteristics.” This supported the HOA’s argument against introducing a unique fence type.

• Design Guidelines Section GG (View Decks): While pertaining to decks, this section was cited to show the level of detail required in applications to the DRC, including materials, dimensions, and impact on views, underscoring the formal process the Petitioner bypassed.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ, Antara Nath Rivera, dismissed Will Schreiber’s petition, finding in favor of the Cimarron Hills HOA.

• Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the HOA violated Article 12.3 of its CC&Rs.

• Failure to Follow Procedure: The judge concluded that the Petitioner “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he rightfully sought approval to change his existing fence, pursuant to Section HH of the Design Guidelines.” The key issue was not the aesthetics of the fence, but the Petitioner’s failure to abide by the required approval process before installation.

• Reasonableness of Denial: The ALJ found that the “Respondent was reasonable in its denial” and “did not violate any rules or regulations.” The evidence demonstrated that the HOA’s decision was based on established principles of uniformity, consistency, and its obligations under the CC&Rs.

• Final Order: The petition was formally dismissed. The order noted that as a decision from a rehearing, it is binding on the parties. Any appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days of the order’s service date.






Study Guide – 20F-H2019003-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Schreiber v. Cimarron Hills HOA

This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case between Will Schreiber and the Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners Association, based on the provided legal documents. It is designed to test and reinforce understanding of the case’s facts, legal arguments, and procedural history.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer each of the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing exclusively from the provided source documents.

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

2. What specific action did the Petitioner, Will Schreiber, take that initiated the dispute with the Homeowners Association?

3. According to the Respondent, what were the primary reasons for denying the Petitioner’s request for the glass fence?

4. What was the Petitioner’s core argument regarding the fairness of the Respondent’s denial, particularly in relation to his neighbor?

5. What was the legal standard of proof required for the Petitioner to win his case, and did he meet it?

6. Identify two specific governing documents that were central to the Respondent’s defense and the final ruling.

7. Who was Whitney Bostic, and what key information did her testimony provide during the rehearing?

8. What procedural event occurred on or about February 4, 2020, that prompted the Administrative Law Judge to issue the “Order Holding Record Open” on February 14, 2020?

9. According to the CC&Rs, who is responsible for maintaining the “Boundary Wall” that separates a lot from an “Area of Association Responsibility”?

10. What was the final outcome of the administrative rehearing held on January 30, 2020?

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Will Schreiber, the Petitioner and homeowner, and the Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners Association, the Respondent. Mr. Schreiber filed a petition against the HOA, alleging a violation of community documents after they denied his request for a fence modification.

2. Mr. Schreiber replaced his preexisting wrought iron view fencing with glass fencing without first receiving approval from the HOA’s Design Review Committee (DRC). He then submitted a variance request on January 24, 2019, seeking retroactive approval for the already-installed fence.

3. The Respondent denied the request based on several factors, including the need for design consistency across the community’s 656 homes, as no other home had a glass fence. They also cited maintenance concerns and potential liability, as the HOA is responsible for the exterior half of view fences and a five-foot easement from the boundary wall.

4. The Petitioner argued that the denial was unreasonable because his neighbor was allowed to have no fence at all. He contended that a glass fence was “just as invisible” as no fence and that the concept was essentially the same.

5. The Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish his case by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means convincing the judge that his contention was more probably true than not. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet this burden.

6. The two central documents were the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for Cimarron Hills (CC&Rs) and the Cimarron Hills Design Guidelines For Community Living (Design Guidelines). The Respondent specifically cited Sections E (General Principles), GG (View Decks), and HH (Walls/View Fences) of the Design Guidelines.

7. Whitney Bostic testified on behalf of the Respondent HOA. She explained that the glass fence was unapproved, inconsistent with the 656 homes in the community, and posed maintenance and liability concerns for the HOA.

8. Counsel for the Respondent submitted a Posthearing Memorandum and Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law without having been granted permission (leave) by the tribunal. Because the Petitioner did not have an opportunity to respond, the judge reopened the record to allow him to do so by February 24, 2020.

9. According to Article 12.3 of the CC&Rs, the resident is responsible for their side of the wall, but the Association is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the side of the Boundary Wall which faces the Area of Association Responsibility.

10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that Petitioner Will Schreiber’s Petition be dismissed. The judge found that the Respondent HOA’s denial of the glass fence was reasonable and that it did not violate any of its rules or regulations.

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for longer, more analytical responses. Formulate an argument using only the evidence and facts presented in the source documents.

1. Analyze the procedural timeline of the case from the initial filing of the petition on July 2, 2019, to the final decision on March 16, 2020. Discuss the significance of the initial dismissal, the subsequent rehearing, and the order to reopen the record.

2. Examine the concept of “consistency” as described in Section E of the Design Guidelines. How did this principle form the foundation of the Respondent’s case, and why was it a more compelling argument than the Petitioner’s claims about aesthetics and safety?

3. The Petitioner argued that since his neighbor was permitted to have no fence, his “invisible” glass fence should also be permitted. Deconstruct this argument and explain why it ultimately failed to persuade the Administrative Law Judge, citing the Respondent’s counterarguments regarding maintenance and responsibility.

4. Discuss the role of the governing community documents (the CC&Rs and Design Guidelines) in this dispute. Explain how specific articles, such as CC&R Article 12.3 and Design Guideline Section HH, were applied to the facts of the case to reach a final decision.

5. Define “preponderance of the evidence” as described in the legal decision. Detail the evidence presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent at the rehearing and evaluate why the Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet this evidentiary standard.

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The presiding judge (Antara Nath Rivera) at the Office of Administrative Hearings who heard the evidence and issued the final decision.

Answer

The formal written response filed by the Respondent on August 9, 2019, denying all complaint items in the Petition.

Areas of Association Responsibility

Areas that the Homeowners Association is responsible for maintaining, as defined in the CC&Rs. This includes the exterior side of boundary walls and a five-foot easement.

An acronym for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for Cimarron Hills, a primary governing document for the community.

Design Guidelines

A document titled Cimarron Hills Design Guidelines For Community Living that supplements the CC&Rs and provides specific rules on community aesthetics, including fences.

Design Review Committee (DRC)

A committee within the HOA responsible for reviewing and approving or denying residents’ proposed architectural and landscape modifications.

Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition

The formal document filed by Will Schreiber with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on July 2, 2019, to initiate the legal dispute.

McDowell Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association (MMRHA)

The master association of which the Cimarron Hills HOA is a subdivision. The MMRHA also considered and denied the Petitioner’s request.

Petitioner

The party who filed the petition initiating the legal action; in this case, the homeowner, Will Schreiber.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof required in the hearing. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and has superior weight, inclining an impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

Respondent

The party against whom the petition was filed; in this case, the Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners Association.

Retroactive Approval

Approval sought for a modification or construction that has already been completed without prior authorization.

Variance

A formal exception to the standard Design Guidelines that the DRC may grant on a case-by-case basis.






Blog Post – 20F-H2019003-REL-RHG


The Glass Fence Standoff: 4 Critical Lessons from a Homeowner’s Losing Battle with His HOA

Introduction: The Dream Project and the Unseen Rules

Will Schreiber had a vision for his Scottsdale, Arizona home: a sleek, modern property with an uninterrupted backyard view. To preserve that stunning vista, he installed an elegant glass fence—a choice that seemed perfect for the landscape. His neighbors didn’t complain; in fact, there’s no evidence the fence bothered anyone. But his Homeowners Association (HOA) denied the project, triggering a legal dispute that went before an administrative law judge. Mr. Schreiber ultimately lost.

The conflict wasn’t driven by neighborhood animosity, but by the impersonal application of community documents. This case offers a masterclass in the often counter-intuitive world of HOA governance. The reasons he lost reveal surprising and invaluable lessons for any homeowner considering a modification to their property.

1. The most critical mistake wasn’t the fence—it was the timing.

The core reason the homeowner lost his case had less to do with the aesthetics of glass versus wrought iron and everything to do with procedural failure. He installed the fence before getting formal approval from the HOA.

The timeline of events was fatal to his argument. In November 2017, the HOA approved Mr. Schreiber’s plan for backyard improvements, but this plan made no mention of fencing. At some point after, he installed the unapproved glass fence. It wasn’t until a routine violation tour in January 2019 that the HOA discovered the new fence. Only after being caught, on January 24, 2019, did the homeowner submit a request for retroactive approval.

In the end, the judge’s decision hinged on this sequence. The key question wasn’t whether a glass fence was a good idea, but whether the HOA’s denial was reasonable “because Petitioner failed to abide by the regulations to get approval for the glass fence prior to installing it.” In any dispute with an HOA, following the established process is paramount. Once you break the rules of that process, the merits of your project often become irrelevant.

2. A logical argument can lose to a written rule.

The homeowner presented a seemingly logical and compelling argument. He contended that his neighbor didn’t have a fence at all, and a glass fence was conceptually the same thing. In his words:

A glass fence was “just as invisible” as not having a fence. In essence, both were the same concept.

To add weight to his point, he made a powerful real-world comparison, arguing the safety glass he used was similar to that of the railing of the Grand Canyon Skywalk tourist attraction.

This “common sense” approach, however, failed to persuade the judge. The HOA’s decision wasn’t based on a subjective interpretation of “invisibility” or a comparison to national landmarks. It was based on the binding community documents. The Design Guidelines were written to promote uniformity and consistency. According to the HOA, the established rules were clear: a homeowner could have a wrought iron fence or no fence at all. A glass fence was not an approved option. The lesson here is stark: the governing documents create the binding reality for every member of the community. A personal, logical argument is not a valid defense against a clearly written rule you have contractually agreed to follow.

3. The HOA’s biggest concern wasn’t curb appeal; it was risk.

While the dispute appeared to be about aesthetics, the HOA’s defense focused on much more practical and significant concerns: consistency, maintenance, and liability. These arguments reveal the often-unseen function of an HOA, which is to manage shared risk for the entire community.

The HOA presented several key points:

• Consistency: Out of 3,800 homes in the master community and 656 in the sub-community, not a single one had a glass fence. Approving this one would set a precedent that could undermine the community’s uniform design.

• Maintenance: The community’s CC&Rs (Article 12.3) explicitly stated the Association was responsible for maintaining “the side of the Boundary Wall which faces the Area of Association Responsibility.” This meant the HOA would be financially and logistically on the hook for repairing and maintaining an unfamiliar and potentially costly material.

• Safety & Liability: The HOA raised a critical safety issue. If the glass fence were to break, “large amount of glass shards would fall onto an area of Respondent’s responsibility, causing additional liability for Respondent.”

Sensing the maintenance issue was a key obstacle, Mr. Schreiber made a reasonable offer: he was willing to waive the HOA’s responsibility to maintain the glass fence. However, this proactive solution came too late. Because he had already violated the approval process, his concession was not enough to overcome the HOA’s other concerns about precedent and liability, which remained firmly grounded in the community’s governing documents.

4. In a dispute, you are the one who has to prove the HOA is wrong.

When a homeowner takes their HOA to court, the legal scales are not perfectly balanced from the start. The legal decision in this case clearly states the principle: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated Article 12.3 of its CC&Rs.”

In simple terms, “burden of proof” meant it was Mr. Schreiber’s job to convince the judge with a “preponderance of the evidence”—meaning it was more likely true than not—that the HOA had broken its own rules when it denied his request. It was not the HOA’s job to prove it was right; it was his job to prove they were wrong.

The judge ultimately found that the homeowner “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he rightfully sought approval.” The conclusion was that the “Respondent was reasonable in its denial.” It is not enough to feel you have been wronged; in a legal setting, you must be able to demonstrate with convincing evidence that the organization violated its own governing documents.

Conclusion: The Unwritten Lessons of Community Living

HOA rules can be a source of frustration, but this case demonstrates that they form a complex web of process, liability, and shared responsibility that exists for reasons beyond simple aesthetics. The homeowner’s dream of a glass fence was shattered not by a neighbor’s complaint, but by a series of procedural missteps and a misunderstanding of the contract he was bound by.

This case wasn’t just about a fence; it was about the power of a contract you agree to when you buy a home. How well do you really know your own community’s rulebook?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Will Schreiber (petitioner)
    Complainant
  • Aaron M. Green (petitioner attorney)
    Law Office of Aaron Green, P.C.

Respondent Side

  • Nick Nogami (respondent attorney)
    Represented Respondent at hearing
  • Mark K. Sahl (respondent attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
  • Whitney Bostic (witness)
    Testified for Respondent

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

  • c. serrano (clerk)
    Transmitting agent for Order
  • 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

Will Schreiber vs. Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019003-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-03-16
Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Will Schreiber Counsel Aaron M. Green
Respondent Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners Association Counsel Mark K. Sahl

Alleged Violations

Design Guidelines HH Walls/View Fences and CC&R’s Article 12.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge decision, issued following a rehearing, dismissed the Petitioner's dispute petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated its governing documents by reasonably denying the retroactive application for the unapproved glass view fence.

Why this result: Petitioner installed the fence prior to seeking approval, failing to comply with the procedural requirements (Design Guidelines Section HH). Consequently, the HOA's denial based on consistency and maintenance concerns was deemed reasonable.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA's denial of Petitioner's glass view fence modification

Petitioner alleged the HOA improperly denied the retroactive approval of a glass view fence installed without prior permission. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he rightfully sought approval pursuant to Design Guidelines Section HH, and that the Respondent's denial was reasonable due to procedural failure, community inconsistency (Design Guidelines Section E), and liability/maintenance concerns (CC&R Article 12.3).

Orders: Petitioner Will Schreiber’s Petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • CC&R’s Article 12.3
  • Design Guidelines Section HH
  • Design Guidelines Section E
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Homeowner dispute, View fence, Architectural approval, Design Guidelines, CC&R's violation, Retroactive approval, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)

Decision Documents

20F-H2019003-REL Decision – 769789.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-17T18:18:00 (42.2 KB)

20F-H2019003-REL Decision – 775433.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-17T18:18:00 (123.4 KB)

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Will Schreiber (petitioner)
  • Aaron M. Green (petitioner attorney)
    Law Office of Aaron Green, P.C.

Respondent Side

  • Nick Nogami (respondent attorney)
  • Mark K. Sahl (respondent attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
  • Whitney Bostic (witness)

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

  • c. serrano (clerk)
    Transmitted order/document
  • 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