Tag Archives: Executive Session

Anne F. Segal vs Prince Court Homeowners Association, INC.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H032-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-05-22
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Anne F. Segal Counsel —
Respondent Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel Wendy Ehrlich, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1812, 33-1803(B-E), 33-1804, 33-1817, and CC&Rs Article VII

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Association was legally permitted to amend its CC&Rs via written, notarized consent of the members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(A)(1), and that the actions taken did not violate the cited statutes or the governing documents.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; statutory requirements regarding voting (33-1812) and violation notices (33-1803) were inapplicable, and the process of using written consent and closed sessions for legal advice adhered to ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1817 and 33-1804.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged unlawful procedures in replacing CC&Rs

Petitioner alleged the Association violated multiple Arizona Revised Statutes and CC&Rs Article VII by using unlawful procedures to replace the existing CC&Rs. Specific complaints included the Board directing members to sign a notarized agreement without permitting open discussion or dissent on specific proposed changes, arguing that a full vote was required. Respondent argued compliance with ARS § 33-1817 and CC&Rs Article VII, which permits amendment via written consent.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B-E)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817
  • CC&Rs Article VII
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3704

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R Amendment, Written Consent, Executive Session, Statutory Interpretation, Planned Community, Filing Fee
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B-E)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817
  • CC&Rs Article VII
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3704
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1269718.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:43 (53.7 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1269742.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:47 (7.8 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1274756.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:51 (54.6 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1274775.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:55 (7.9 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1277633.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:18:01 (48.1 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1288621.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:18:08 (51.6 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1308520.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:18:15 (206.1 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H032-REL


Briefing Document: Segal vs. Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case Anne F. Segal, Petitioner, vs. Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc., Respondent (No. 25F-H032-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute centered on the petitioner’s allegation that the respondent HOA utilized unlawful procedures to replace the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

The petitioner argued that the HOA violated state statutes and the original governing documents by failing to hold sufficient open meetings for discussion, by not providing a proper ballot for a vote, and by circumventing a one-year discussion period intended by the original developer. Key evidence presented by the petitioner included testimony from the community’s original developer, who affirmed his intent for a lengthy, homeowner-driven amendment process, and testimony detailing significant, substantive changes to the CC&Rs that were allegedly not transparently communicated.

The respondent HOA defended its actions by asserting full compliance with Arizona law, particularly A.R.S. § 33-1817, which permits amendments via written consent of a majority of homeowners—a process legally distinct from a formal vote. The HOA maintained that state law superseded any conflicting provisions in the original CC&Rs. The board justified its decision to forgo a large, open-forum meeting by citing perceived “aggressive and threatening” communications from the petitioner, opting instead for a process of email-based “straw polls,” a formal Q&A period with its attorney, and a notarization event for collecting written consent.

Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the petition. The final decision concluded that the petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof. The ALJ found that the HOA acted lawfully by using executive sessions to obtain legal advice, by amending the CC&Rs through the statutory process of written consent, and that other statutes cited by the petitioner were inapplicable to the case.

Case Overview

The matter involves a formal petition filed on December 22, 2024, by homeowner Anne F. Segal with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The petition alleged that the Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc. violated multiple Arizona Revised Statutes (§§ 33-1812, 33-1803(B-E), 33-1804, 33-1817) and its own governing documents (initially cited as Article V, later amended to Article VII) during the process of replacing the community’s CC&Rs.

The case was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings, with evidentiary hearings held on March 27, 2025, and May 2, 2025, before Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark. A final decision denying the petition was issued on May 22, 2025.

Key Parties and Witnesses

Name / Entity

Key Contributions

Anne F. Segal

Petitioner, Homeowner

Argued the HOA’s process was unlawful, lacked transparency, and violated open meeting laws and voting rights. Provided testimony and evidence regarding communications and the substance of the CC&R changes.

Prince Court Homeowners Association

Respondent

Defended its amendment process as compliant with state statutes for written consent and justified its communication methods based on legal advice and the petitioner’s conduct.

Mary Beth Snyder

President, HOA Board

Testified on behalf of the HOA (also called as an adverse witness by Petitioner). Detailed the board’s decision-making process, reliance on legal counsel, and rationale for avoiding an open-forum meeting.

Susan Matheson

Vice President, HOA Board

Corroborated Snyder’s testimony. Testified to managing the HOA’s email communications, including the accidental removal of David Zinfeld from the distribution list. Detailed complaints received from other homeowners about the petitioner’s communications.

David Zinfeld

Witness for Petitioner; Original Developer of Prince Court

Testified that he wrote the original CC&Rs with the intent for a year-long, homeowner-led discussion before any amendments. Stated he stopped receiving HOA communications and was not involved in or properly notified of the replacement process.

Dr. Robert Segal

Witness for Petitioner; Husband of Petitioner and Property Manager

Testified to the lack of open meetings and poor communication. Described the proposed CC&R changes as a “heart transplant” and highlighted discrepancies between the board’s “summary of changes” and the actual legal text.

Wendy Ehrlich, Esq.

Counsel for Respondent

Provided legal advice to the HOA board, which formed the basis for their procedural decisions. Argued the case for the Respondent during the hearings.

Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge

Presided over the hearings and issued the final decision, concluding the HOA acted lawfully and denying the petition.

——————————————————————————–

Central Arguments and Evidence

Petitioner’s Core Allegations

The petitioner’s case was built on the premise that the HOA’s procedure for replacing the CC&Rs was fundamentally flawed and unlawful.

• Violation of Governing Documents (Article VII): The petitioner argued the HOA ignored the original CC&Rs, which, according to the original developer David Zinfeld, intended a one-year period of open discussion prior to any amendment. Zinfeld testified, “I wanted it to be done at least a year beforehand…with discussion and meetings before any amendments should take place.”

• Improper Amendment Process: The petitioner contended that the “notarized agreement” process was not a valid “vote” and violated A.R.S. § 33-1812. This process did not provide a formal ballot or an opportunity for homeowners to vote “for or against” the action, effectively silencing dissent.

• Violation of Open Meeting Laws (A.R.S. § 33-1804): The petitioner alleged a lack of genuine open meetings where the substance of the new CC&Rs could be debated. Testimony indicated that discussions about the CC&Rs primarily occurred in closed executive sessions, justified by the board as necessary for receiving legal advice.

• Inadequate and Misleading Communication: Dr. Robert Segal described the summary of changes provided by the board as misleading and incomplete. He gave specific examples, such as a new rule allowing the board to remove any “objectionable” vehicle, which was not mentioned in the summary provided to homeowners. The petitioner also argued that relying solely on an incomplete and unverified email list was an unreasonable means of notice.

• Substantive Overhaul Without Consent: Dr. Segal characterized the changes as a “heart transplant,” not a minor revision. He noted the new CC&Rs gave the board “much more power and authority,” including the ability to raise fees by 20% per year.

Respondent’s Defense

The respondent HOA maintained that its actions were deliberate, based on legal counsel, and fully compliant with Arizona law.

• Adherence to Statutory Process (A.R.S. § 33-1817): The HOA’s central defense was that A.R.S. § 33-1817 allows for CC&R amendments through either an “affirmative vote or written consent.” They argued they lawfully chose the written consent path, which does not require a formal ballot under A.R.S. § 33-1812. Their counsel stated, “Article 7 dictated written consent. There was no vote conducted.”

• State Law Supersedes Governing Documents: The HOA argued, and noted in its October 14, 2024 email to members, that “The time limitations for CC&R amendments set forth in our current CC&Rs, Article VII… have been superseded by Arizona law which allows CC&Rs to be amended at any time; see A.R.S. § 33-1817.”

• Justification for Avoiding an Open Forum: Both Mary Beth Snyder and Susan Matheson testified that the decision not to hold a large, in-person informational meeting was based on legal advice and the board’s concern that the petitioner would “hijack the meeting” due to her perceived “aggressive and threatening” emails and communications. Matheson read excerpts from petitioner’s emails, including phrases like “This unilateral decision of the board is buying a lawsuit” and “I’m willing to legally challenge this effort.”

• Reasonable Communication Efforts: The board defended its use of email as a reasonable means of notice. They testified to sending eight separate email communications regarding the CC&Rs, including “straw polls” to gauge opinion, drafts of the new CC&Rs, and a formal Q&A where the board’s attorney answered submitted questions.

——————————————————————————–

Final Adjudication: Administrative Law Judge Decision

On May 22, 2025, Judge Jenna Clark issued a decision denying the petition in its entirety, finding that the petitioner had not sustained her burden of proof.

Findings of Fact

The decision outlined a timeline of events from the initial announcement in March 2024 to the notarization event in December 2024. Key findings included:

• The board hired counsel in April 2024 to assist with updating the CC&Rs.

• The association conducted “straw poll” emails in July and August 2024.

• The board held closed executive sessions to discuss legal advice from its attorney regarding the CC&R revisions.

• A draft of the proposed CC&Rs was distributed to members via email on October 14, 2024.

• A Q&A process was conducted, with attorney-provided answers distributed on November 25, 2025.

• The association intentionally did not hold a large open meeting due to concerns over the petitioner’s perceived behavior.

• A majority of homeowners (at least 20 of 39) provided signed and notarized consent agreements.

Conclusions of Law

The ALJ made the following legal conclusions, which formed the basis of the denial:

1. Written Consent is a Lawful Process: The Tribunal found that A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1) explicitly allows an association to amend its declaration by “an affirmative vote or written consent.” The HOA lawfully chose the written consent method.

2. State Law Supersedes CC&Rs: The provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1817 supersede the edicts outlined in Article VII of the original CC&Rs regarding the amendment timeline.

3. Executive Sessions Were Permissible: The board was permitted under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) to go into executive session to receive legal advice from its attorney, even if the advice was unrelated to pending litigation.

4. Inapplicability of Other Statutes: The statutes regarding voting procedures (A.R.S. § 33-1812) and violation notices (A.R.S. § 33-1803) were deemed inapplicable and irrelevant to the matter at hand, as no formal vote was conducted and no violation notice was issued to the petitioner.

5. Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: The decision concluded that the petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent had violated any of the cited statutes or its governing documents. The petition was therefore denied.






Study Guide – 25F-H032-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H032-REL”, “case_title”: “Anne F. Segal v. Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2025-05-22”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can an HOA amend its CC&Rs by obtaining written consent from homeowners rather than holding a vote?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, an HOA is permitted to amend CC&Rs by written consent under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1), and voting statutes do not apply to this process.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the association was permitted to modify its CC&Rs by written consent of its members. Because this process falls under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1), the statutes governing voting (A.R.S. § 33-1812) are considered unrelated and irrelevant to the proceedings.”, “alj_quote”: “It is clear from the record that the Association … was also permitted to modify or otherwise amend its CC&Rs by written consent of its Members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(A)(1)… Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1812(A) and 33-1803 are inapplicable to the proceedings at bar as unrelated and irrelevant.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&R Amendments”, “Written Consent”, “Voting Rights” ] }, { “question”: “Does state law override CC&R provisions that restrict when amendments can be made (e.g., only every 10 years)?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1) supersedes original CC&R restrictions regarding periodic renewal or specific timelines for amendments.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision clarifies that state statute supersedes ‘edicts’ in original CC&Rs regarding timing for amendments. Even if the original documents specify a renewal period, the association can amend the documents via the statutory written consent process.”, “alj_quote”: “…permitted to modify or otherwise amend its CC&Rs by written consent of its Members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(A)(1); which supersedes any edicts outlined in Article VII of the original CC&Rs.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&R Amendments”, “State Statute Supremacy”, “Governing Documents” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA Board hold a closed executive session to get legal advice if there is no pending lawsuit?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Board may meet in executive session to receive legal advice from their attorney, even if it is unrelated to pending litigation.”, “detailed_answer”: “Homeowners often believe legal advice must relate to a lawsuit for a meeting to be closed. However, the ALJ ruled that the Board is permitted to go into executive session to receive legal advice unrelated to pending litigation under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).”, “alj_quote”: “It is clear from the record that the Association was not only permitted to go into executive session to receive legal advice unrelated to pending litigation from its attorney under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Open Meetings”, “Executive Session”, “Legal Advice” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA required to hold an open discussion or town hall meeting before amending the CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “No, the tribunal found that there is no requirement to permit members to openly deliberate proposed changes for a specific period if the statutory process is followed.”, “detailed_answer”: “The petitioner argued that the HOA was required to permit open deliberation for at least one year. The ALJ disagreed, ruling that the petitioner did not sustain the burden of proof for this contention, implying statutory compliance for written consent is sufficient.”, “alj_quote”: “Specifically, Petitioner contends that Respondent was required to permit Members to openly deliberate proposed changes to the CC&Rs for at least 1 year… the Tribunal is not in agreement with either of Petitioner’s contentions, and holds that she has not sustained her burden of proof in this matter.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817”, “topic_tags”: [ “Procedural Requirements”, “Open Discussion”, “CC&R Amendments” ] }, { “question”: “Do statutes regarding monetary penalties apply to the process of amending CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “No, statutes regarding fines and penalties are irrelevant to the amendment process if no actual violation notice was issued or penalty imposed.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ dismissed allegations regarding A.R.S. § 33-1803 (which governs monetary penalties) because they were inapplicable to a dispute centered on the procedural validity of amending CC&Rs where no fines were levied.”, “alj_quote”: “Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1812(A) and 33-1803 are inapplicable to the proceedings at bar as unrelated and irrelevant. No violations of these statutes have been established by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1803”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Statutory Application”, “Relevance” ] }, { “question”: “Who bears the burden of proof in a hearing regarding HOA procedural violations?”, “short_answer”: “The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “In administrative hearings regarding HOA disputes, it is up to the homeowner filing the petition to prove that their allegations are more probably true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory and/or governing document violation(s).”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Procedure”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Procedure” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 25F-H032-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H032-REL”, “case_title”: “Anne F. Segal v. Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2025-05-22”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can an HOA amend its CC&Rs by obtaining written consent from homeowners rather than holding a vote?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, an HOA is permitted to amend CC&Rs by written consent under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1), and voting statutes do not apply to this process.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the association was permitted to modify its CC&Rs by written consent of its members. Because this process falls under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1), the statutes governing voting (A.R.S. § 33-1812) are considered unrelated and irrelevant to the proceedings.”, “alj_quote”: “It is clear from the record that the Association … was also permitted to modify or otherwise amend its CC&Rs by written consent of its Members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(A)(1)… Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1812(A) and 33-1803 are inapplicable to the proceedings at bar as unrelated and irrelevant.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&R Amendments”, “Written Consent”, “Voting Rights” ] }, { “question”: “Does state law override CC&R provisions that restrict when amendments can be made (e.g., only every 10 years)?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1) supersedes original CC&R restrictions regarding periodic renewal or specific timelines for amendments.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision clarifies that state statute supersedes ‘edicts’ in original CC&Rs regarding timing for amendments. Even if the original documents specify a renewal period, the association can amend the documents via the statutory written consent process.”, “alj_quote”: “…permitted to modify or otherwise amend its CC&Rs by written consent of its Members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(A)(1); which supersedes any edicts outlined in Article VII of the original CC&Rs.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&R Amendments”, “State Statute Supremacy”, “Governing Documents” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA Board hold a closed executive session to get legal advice if there is no pending lawsuit?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Board may meet in executive session to receive legal advice from their attorney, even if it is unrelated to pending litigation.”, “detailed_answer”: “Homeowners often believe legal advice must relate to a lawsuit for a meeting to be closed. However, the ALJ ruled that the Board is permitted to go into executive session to receive legal advice unrelated to pending litigation under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).”, “alj_quote”: “It is clear from the record that the Association was not only permitted to go into executive session to receive legal advice unrelated to pending litigation from its attorney under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Open Meetings”, “Executive Session”, “Legal Advice” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA required to hold an open discussion or town hall meeting before amending the CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “No, the tribunal found that there is no requirement to permit members to openly deliberate proposed changes for a specific period if the statutory process is followed.”, “detailed_answer”: “The petitioner argued that the HOA was required to permit open deliberation for at least one year. The ALJ disagreed, ruling that the petitioner did not sustain the burden of proof for this contention, implying statutory compliance for written consent is sufficient.”, “alj_quote”: “Specifically, Petitioner contends that Respondent was required to permit Members to openly deliberate proposed changes to the CC&Rs for at least 1 year… the Tribunal is not in agreement with either of Petitioner’s contentions, and holds that she has not sustained her burden of proof in this matter.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817”, “topic_tags”: [ “Procedural Requirements”, “Open Discussion”, “CC&R Amendments” ] }, { “question”: “Do statutes regarding monetary penalties apply to the process of amending CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “No, statutes regarding fines and penalties are irrelevant to the amendment process if no actual violation notice was issued or penalty imposed.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ dismissed allegations regarding A.R.S. § 33-1803 (which governs monetary penalties) because they were inapplicable to a dispute centered on the procedural validity of amending CC&Rs where no fines were levied.”, “alj_quote”: “Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1812(A) and 33-1803 are inapplicable to the proceedings at bar as unrelated and irrelevant. No violations of these statutes have been established by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1803”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Statutory Application”, “Relevance” ] }, { “question”: “Who bears the burden of proof in a hearing regarding HOA procedural violations?”, “short_answer”: “The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “In administrative hearings regarding HOA disputes, it is up to the homeowner filing the petition to prove that their allegations are more probably true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory and/or governing document violation(s).”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Procedure”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Procedure” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Anne F. Segal (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf.
  • David Zeinfeld (witness)
    Original developer and declarant of the subdivision.
  • Robert J. Seagull (witness)
    Petitioner's husband and property manager.

Respondent Side

  • Wendy Ehrlich (HOA attorney)
    Counsel for Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.
  • Mary Beth Snyder (board member)
    Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.
    President of the Association and witness.
  • Susan Matheson (board member)
    Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Vice President of the Association and witness.

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (ADRE Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • Dianna Tidle (observer)
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • mneat (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • lrecchia (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • gosborn (ADRE staff)
    ADRE

Aaron Solen & Anh Jung v. Power Ranch Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H036-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-07-05
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Aaron Solen and Anh Jung Counsel —
Respondent Power Ranch Community Association Counsel Charles H. Oldham

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §33-1803(B) and Article 5.2.4 of the Association’s by-laws

Outcome Summary

The tribunal granted the petition, finding the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B) and CC&R section 5.2.3 by failing to provide Petitioners an opportunity to be heard before imposing monetary penalties. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500 filing fee. However, the tribunal denied all other requests for relief, including the reimbursement of fines, imposition of civil penalties, and forced approval of the modification, citing lack of statutory authority.

Why this result: The tribunal lacks statutory authority to erase fines imposed, force the Association to rewrite its CC&R’s, or force the Association to accept the planters without Petitioners going through the proper Design Review Committee processes.

Key Issues & Findings

Petitioner was issued fines as a result of a Design Review Committee decision and petitioner was not provided an opportunity to appeal to or be heard by the board of directors as required by A.R.S. §33-1803(B) and Article 5, specifically Article 5.2.4 of the Association’s by-laws.

Petitioners were fined for an unapproved modification (planter) without being granted a proper opportunity to be heard by the Board, as required by statute and bylaws, leading to a violation finding against the Association. The May 2023 meeting did not include the hearing, and the June 2023 Executive Session was not deemed a proper 'hearing' due to confusion over the closed session terminology.

Orders: The petition alleging violation of hearing rights was granted. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A). Requests for reimbursement of fines incurred ($400.00), approval of the planters, imposition of a civil penalty, and rewriting CC&R’s procedures were denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B)
  • Article 5.2.4
  • CC&R Section 5.2.3
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: DRC denial, hearing rights, monetary penalty, unapproved modification, executive session, CC&R violation
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B)
  • Article 5.2.4
  • CC&R Section 5.2.3
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1162665.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:30 (42.0 KB)

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1184634.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:33 (40.0 KB)

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1191323.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:37 (37.4 KB)

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1196403.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:42 (146.0 KB)





Study Guide – 24F-H036-REL


{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “24F-H036-REL”,
“case_title”: “Aaron Solen & Anh Jung vs Power Ranch Community Association”,
“decision_date”: “2024-07-05”,
“alj_name”: “Adam D. Stone”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“questions”: [
{
“question”: “Does the HOA have to provide a hearing before imposing fines?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes, state law requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before monetary penalties are imposed.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The decision cites Arizona Revised Statutes, which mandate that a board of directors may only impose reasonable monetary penalties after providing the member with notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the violation.”,
“alj_quote”: “After notice and an opportunity to be heard, the board of directors may impose reasonable monetary penalties on members for violations of the declaration, bylaws and rules of the association.”,
“legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fines”,
“hearings”,
“due process”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the Administrative Law Judge order the HOA to remove fines from my account?”,
“short_answer”: “No, the tribunal stated it lacks the statutory authority to erase fines.”,
“detailed_answer”: “Even if the homeowner prevails on the procedural issue (like lack of a hearing), the ALJ in this case ruled that they do not have the power to order the fines be removed or erased.”,
“alj_quote”: “However, the tribunal has no statutory authority to erase the fines imposed nor force the Association to rewrite its CC&R’s”,
“legal_basis”: “Administrative Authority”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fines”,
“remedies”,
“jurisdiction”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the ALJ force the HOA to approve my architectural modification (e.g., planters)?”,
“short_answer”: “No, the tribunal cannot force the HOA to accept improvements that haven’t gone through the proper design review process.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ denied the request to force approval of the unapproved planters, noting that the homeowners must still go through the association’s Design Review Committee (DRC) processes.”,
“alj_quote”: “nor can it force the Association to accept the planters as is without Petitioners going through the property DRC processes.”,
“legal_basis”: “Administrative Authority”,
“topic_tags”: [
“architectural review”,
“landscaping”,
“remedies”
]
},
{
“question”: “Is an invitation to an ‘Executive Session’ sufficient to satisfy the requirement for a hearing?”,
“short_answer”: “Not necessarily, especially if the terminology is confusing and leads homeowners to believe they cannot attend.”,
“detailed_answer”: “In this case, the ALJ found that inviting homeowners to an Executive Session—which is generally understood to be closed to the public—was confusing. Because the homeowners believed they couldn’t attend, the session did not count as a valid opportunity to be heard.”,
“alj_quote”: “Thus, the tribunal finds that the June 2023 Executive Session was not a “hearing” for purposes of the CC&R’s, and it was not an opportunity to be heard based upon the confusion the Executive Session terminology caused.”,
“legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“hearings”,
“executive session”,
“meetings”
]
},
{
“question”: “If I own my home through an LLC, can I still file a petition against the HOA?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes, provided you are the member residing at the property and the HOA has treated you as the owner.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The HOA argued the petition was deficient because the title was held by an LLC. The ALJ rejected this, finding the residents were the proper parties because they were members of the association and the HOA sent mail to them individually.”,
“alj_quote”: “At the outset, the tribunal finds that Petitioners are the proper parties to the action. They are the members of the Association, and all mail went directly to Petitioners individually, and not as a member/manager of the LLC.”,
“legal_basis”: “Standing”,
“topic_tags”: [
“LLC ownership”,
“standing”,
“membership”
]
},
{
“question”: “If I win my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The decision ordered the Respondent (the HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee pursuant to Arizona statutes.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.”,
“legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fees”,
“reimbursement”,
“costs”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the Board delay my hearing to give me time to fix a violation instead of hearing my appeal?”,
“short_answer”: “No, if you requested a hearing, the Board should address it rather than delaying it indefinitely.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The Board delayed the hearing to avoid issuing a final denial, hoping the homeowner would fix the issue. The ALJ ruled that while well-intentioned (“noble gesture”), this delay violated the homeowner’s right to be heard when the matter was not addressed at the monthly meetings.”,
“alj_quote”: “Therefore, although the Board was most generous in delaying the “hearing” to avoid a final decision, the matter should have been addressed in May and June at the monthly meetings and it was not.”,
“legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“hearings”,
“delays”,
“board conduct”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the ALJ impose civil penalties on the HOA for their actions?”,
“short_answer”: “It is possible but was denied in this specific case.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The homeowners requested civil penalties against the HOA. The ALJ explicitly denied this request in the final order.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioners’ request for the imposition of a civil penalty…”,
“legal_basis”: “Administrative Discretion”,
“topic_tags”: [
“civil penalties”,
“sanctions”
]
}
]
}






Blog Post – 24F-H036-REL


{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “24F-H036-REL”,
“case_title”: “Aaron Solen & Anh Jung vs Power Ranch Community Association”,
“decision_date”: “2024-07-05”,
“alj_name”: “Adam D. Stone”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“questions”: [
{
“question”: “Does the HOA have to provide a hearing before imposing fines?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes, state law requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before monetary penalties are imposed.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The decision cites Arizona Revised Statutes, which mandate that a board of directors may only impose reasonable monetary penalties after providing the member with notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the violation.”,
“alj_quote”: “After notice and an opportunity to be heard, the board of directors may impose reasonable monetary penalties on members for violations of the declaration, bylaws and rules of the association.”,
“legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fines”,
“hearings”,
“due process”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the Administrative Law Judge order the HOA to remove fines from my account?”,
“short_answer”: “No, the tribunal stated it lacks the statutory authority to erase fines.”,
“detailed_answer”: “Even if the homeowner prevails on the procedural issue (like lack of a hearing), the ALJ in this case ruled that they do not have the power to order the fines be removed or erased.”,
“alj_quote”: “However, the tribunal has no statutory authority to erase the fines imposed nor force the Association to rewrite its CC&R’s”,
“legal_basis”: “Administrative Authority”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fines”,
“remedies”,
“jurisdiction”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the ALJ force the HOA to approve my architectural modification (e.g., planters)?”,
“short_answer”: “No, the tribunal cannot force the HOA to accept improvements that haven’t gone through the proper design review process.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ denied the request to force approval of the unapproved planters, noting that the homeowners must still go through the association’s Design Review Committee (DRC) processes.”,
“alj_quote”: “nor can it force the Association to accept the planters as is without Petitioners going through the property DRC processes.”,
“legal_basis”: “Administrative Authority”,
“topic_tags”: [
“architectural review”,
“landscaping”,
“remedies”
]
},
{
“question”: “Is an invitation to an ‘Executive Session’ sufficient to satisfy the requirement for a hearing?”,
“short_answer”: “Not necessarily, especially if the terminology is confusing and leads homeowners to believe they cannot attend.”,
“detailed_answer”: “In this case, the ALJ found that inviting homeowners to an Executive Session—which is generally understood to be closed to the public—was confusing. Because the homeowners believed they couldn’t attend, the session did not count as a valid opportunity to be heard.”,
“alj_quote”: “Thus, the tribunal finds that the June 2023 Executive Session was not a “hearing” for purposes of the CC&R’s, and it was not an opportunity to be heard based upon the confusion the Executive Session terminology caused.”,
“legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“hearings”,
“executive session”,
“meetings”
]
},
{
“question”: “If I own my home through an LLC, can I still file a petition against the HOA?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes, provided you are the member residing at the property and the HOA has treated you as the owner.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The HOA argued the petition was deficient because the title was held by an LLC. The ALJ rejected this, finding the residents were the proper parties because they were members of the association and the HOA sent mail to them individually.”,
“alj_quote”: “At the outset, the tribunal finds that Petitioners are the proper parties to the action. They are the members of the Association, and all mail went directly to Petitioners individually, and not as a member/manager of the LLC.”,
“legal_basis”: “Standing”,
“topic_tags”: [
“LLC ownership”,
“standing”,
“membership”
]
},
{
“question”: “If I win my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The decision ordered the Respondent (the HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee pursuant to Arizona statutes.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.”,
“legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fees”,
“reimbursement”,
“costs”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the Board delay my hearing to give me time to fix a violation instead of hearing my appeal?”,
“short_answer”: “No, if you requested a hearing, the Board should address it rather than delaying it indefinitely.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The Board delayed the hearing to avoid issuing a final denial, hoping the homeowner would fix the issue. The ALJ ruled that while well-intentioned (“noble gesture”), this delay violated the homeowner’s right to be heard when the matter was not addressed at the monthly meetings.”,
“alj_quote”: “Therefore, although the Board was most generous in delaying the “hearing” to avoid a final decision, the matter should have been addressed in May and June at the monthly meetings and it was not.”,
“legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“hearings”,
“delays”,
“board conduct”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the ALJ impose civil penalties on the HOA for their actions?”,
“short_answer”: “It is possible but was denied in this specific case.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The homeowners requested civil penalties against the HOA. The ALJ explicitly denied this request in the final order.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioners’ request for the imposition of a civil penalty…”,
“legal_basis”: “Administrative Discretion”,
“topic_tags”: [
“civil penalties”,
“sanctions”
]
}
]
}


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Aaron Solen (petitioner)
    ACRE Holdings, LLC
  • Anh Jung (petitioner)
    ACRE Holdings, LLC
    Also known as Ann Young

Respondent Side

  • Charles H. Oldham (HOA attorney)
    CHDB Law LLP
  • Jennifer Partridge (property manager/witness)
    CCMC
    Also known as Jennifer Campbell; Executive Director for Power Ranch
  • Nick Ferre (property manager)
    CCMC
    Jennifer Partridge's supervisor
  • Allison Sanchez (property manager)
    CCMC
  • Chris Ecknar (board member)
    Power Ranch Community Association
    Listed attendee in contested board minutes exhibit
  • Josh Bolen (HOA attorney)
    CHDB Law LLP
  • Marcus R. Martinez (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood
    Listed in early transmission list with Respondent's counsel
  • Curtis Mark (HOA attorney)
    Power Ranch Community Association
    Association attorney

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
    ADRE

Other Participants

  • Sherikillo (witness)
    Neighbor
    Confirmed petitioner's topic was raised at May 2023 board meeting

Jeffrey Connell & Corey Cox v. Casa Del Monte, INC.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H024-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-05-20
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jeffrey Connell & Corey Cox Counsel Ross Meyer, Esq.
Respondent Casa Del Monte, Inc. Counsel Solomon Krotzer, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioners' petition, concluding they failed to meet their burden of proving a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248 regarding the May 19, 2023, Executive Board Meeting.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to prove the statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence, as the Executive Session was deemed appropriate for receiving legal advice or conducting discussion related thereto, which falls under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)(1).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of open meeting law concerning Executive Board Meeting on May 19, 2023

Petitioners alleged the Association violated ARS § 33-1248 by improperly conducting business (Code of Conduct review and vote on minutes) in a closed Executive Session on May 19, 2023, and by failing to provide 48-hour notice.

Orders: Petitioners' petition was denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)(1)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Open Meeting Law, Executive Session, Legal Advice Exception, Code of Conduct, Burden of Proof, Condominium Association Statute, Filing Fee
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)(1)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • 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.

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1138580.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:38 (54.3 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1144884.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:41 (50.1 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1146526.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:44 (61.9 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1161533.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:47 (48.9 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1179547.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:52 (132.9 KB)

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law in a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA committed the alleged violation. This means showing that the claim is more likely true than not.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory violation.

Legal Basis

Preponderance of the Evidence

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • procedure

Question

Can the HOA board go into a closed executive session to get legal advice?

Short Answer

Yes, the board may close a meeting to receive legal advice from the association's attorney.

Detailed Answer

State statute explicitly allows portions of meetings to be closed if limited to consideration of legal advice from an attorney for the board or association. Legal advice is defined broadly as guidance given by lawyers to their clients.

Alj Quote

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that 'Any portion of a meeting may be closed only if that portion of the meeting is limited to consideration of one or more of the following: (1) legal advice from an attorney for the board or the association.'

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(1)

Topic Tags

  • executive session
  • legal advice
  • open meeting laws

Question

If I file a petition for one specific violation, can I bring up other issues during the hearing?

Short Answer

No, the tribunal will generally only address the specific issue paid for in the petition.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ may refuse to address tangential issues or additional complaints raised during the hearing if the petitioner only paid the filing fee for the adjudication of a single specific issue.

Alj Quote

Because Petitioners only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may not address all of the tangential issues Petitioners raised during the presentation of their case or closing arguments, including whether the Association properly provided notice of its May 19, 2023, Board Meeting.

Legal Basis

Procedural Scope

Topic Tags

  • hearing procedure
  • filing fees
  • scope of hearing

Question

Does draft language stating a policy 'has been approved' prove the board secretly voted on it?

Short Answer

No, the tense used in a draft document is considered irrelevant if the document was not actually adopted.

Detailed Answer

Even if a proposed document uses language like 'The Board… has approved,' this is considered a 'red herring' if the evidence shows the document was merely a proposal that board members were advised to sign but ultimately declined.

Alj Quote

The fact that language in the proposal used current language, rather than future tense, is a Red Herring argument and irrelevant.

Legal Basis

N/A

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • board documents
  • voting

Question

Is it a violation for the board to discuss public materials (like a website printout) in executive session?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, provided that discussing those materials was not the sole purpose of the closed session.

Detailed Answer

While discussing public materials alone is technically not legal advice, it does not invalidate an executive session if the session also included legitimate purposes, such as receiving counsel's advice on other matters.

Alj Quote

While it is accurate that going into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing reading materials printed from a public website regarding revision of Association’s governing documents is not technically legal advice, as it is inherently unprivileged documentation, this record reflects that this was not the sole purpose of closing the Board Meeting from the public.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248

Topic Tags

  • executive session
  • public records
  • violations

Question

What is the standard of proof required to win an HOA dispute case?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

This standard requires proof that convinces the judge that the claim is 'more probably true than not.' It is based on the convincing force and weight of the evidence, not just the number of witnesses.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Standard of Proof

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • evidence

Question

Can the board discuss a Code of Conduct in executive session?

Short Answer

Yes, if the discussion involves receiving legal advice or guidance from the association's attorney.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found no violation when the board went into executive session to discuss a Code of Conduct because the board members were receiving information, asking questions, and being advised by counsel regarding the document.

Alj Quote

The crux of the underlying issue is that newly elected Board Members, Petitioners, were provided with information regarding the Code of Conduct, the opportunity to discuss and ask questions privately, and advised to sign by Counsel for the Association; which they declined as was their right.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(1)

Topic Tags

  • code of conduct
  • executive session
  • board meetings

Case

Docket No
24F-H024-REL
Case Title
Jeffrey Connell & Corey Cox v. Casa Del Monte, Inc.
Decision Date
2024-05-20
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law in a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA committed the alleged violation. This means showing that the claim is more likely true than not.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory violation.

Legal Basis

Preponderance of the Evidence

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • procedure

Question

Can the HOA board go into a closed executive session to get legal advice?

Short Answer

Yes, the board may close a meeting to receive legal advice from the association's attorney.

Detailed Answer

State statute explicitly allows portions of meetings to be closed if limited to consideration of legal advice from an attorney for the board or association. Legal advice is defined broadly as guidance given by lawyers to their clients.

Alj Quote

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that 'Any portion of a meeting may be closed only if that portion of the meeting is limited to consideration of one or more of the following: (1) legal advice from an attorney for the board or the association.'

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(1)

Topic Tags

  • executive session
  • legal advice
  • open meeting laws

Question

If I file a petition for one specific violation, can I bring up other issues during the hearing?

Short Answer

No, the tribunal will generally only address the specific issue paid for in the petition.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ may refuse to address tangential issues or additional complaints raised during the hearing if the petitioner only paid the filing fee for the adjudication of a single specific issue.

Alj Quote

Because Petitioners only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may not address all of the tangential issues Petitioners raised during the presentation of their case or closing arguments, including whether the Association properly provided notice of its May 19, 2023, Board Meeting.

Legal Basis

Procedural Scope

Topic Tags

  • hearing procedure
  • filing fees
  • scope of hearing

Question

Does draft language stating a policy 'has been approved' prove the board secretly voted on it?

Short Answer

No, the tense used in a draft document is considered irrelevant if the document was not actually adopted.

Detailed Answer

Even if a proposed document uses language like 'The Board… has approved,' this is considered a 'red herring' if the evidence shows the document was merely a proposal that board members were advised to sign but ultimately declined.

Alj Quote

The fact that language in the proposal used current language, rather than future tense, is a Red Herring argument and irrelevant.

Legal Basis

N/A

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • board documents
  • voting

Question

Is it a violation for the board to discuss public materials (like a website printout) in executive session?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, provided that discussing those materials was not the sole purpose of the closed session.

Detailed Answer

While discussing public materials alone is technically not legal advice, it does not invalidate an executive session if the session also included legitimate purposes, such as receiving counsel's advice on other matters.

Alj Quote

While it is accurate that going into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing reading materials printed from a public website regarding revision of Association’s governing documents is not technically legal advice, as it is inherently unprivileged documentation, this record reflects that this was not the sole purpose of closing the Board Meeting from the public.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248

Topic Tags

  • executive session
  • public records
  • violations

Question

What is the standard of proof required to win an HOA dispute case?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

This standard requires proof that convinces the judge that the claim is 'more probably true than not.' It is based on the convincing force and weight of the evidence, not just the number of witnesses.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Standard of Proof

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • evidence

Question

Can the board discuss a Code of Conduct in executive session?

Short Answer

Yes, if the discussion involves receiving legal advice or guidance from the association's attorney.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found no violation when the board went into executive session to discuss a Code of Conduct because the board members were receiving information, asking questions, and being advised by counsel regarding the document.

Alj Quote

The crux of the underlying issue is that newly elected Board Members, Petitioners, were provided with information regarding the Code of Conduct, the opportunity to discuss and ask questions privately, and advised to sign by Counsel for the Association; which they declined as was their right.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(1)

Topic Tags

  • code of conduct
  • executive session
  • board meetings

Case

Docket No
24F-H024-REL
Case Title
Jeffrey Connell & Corey Cox v. Casa Del Monte, Inc.
Decision Date
2024-05-20
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jeffrey Connell (petitioner)
    Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA
    Also served as a board member.
  • Corey Cox (petitioner)
    Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA
    Also served as a board member.
  • Ross Meyer (attorney)
    Meyer & Partners, PLLC; Enara Law PLLC
    Counsel for Petitioners.
  • Jonathan Dessaules (witness)
    The Sol Law Group
    Testified as a subject matter expert/HOA attorney.
  • Matthew Elias (attorney)
    Enara Law PLLC
    Counsel for Petitioners; listed in final decision transmittal.

Respondent Side

  • Lori N. Brown (attorney)
    Gordon Rees Scully Mansukahani, LLP
    Counsel for Respondent.
  • Benjamin Bednarek (attorney)
    Gordon Rees Scully Mansukahani, LLP
    Counsel for Respondent.
  • Curtis Ekmark (HOA attorney)
    Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA
    Association Corporate Counsel/General Counsel.
  • Solomon Krotzer (attorney)
    Gordon Rees Scully Mansukahani, LLP
    Counsel for Respondent; appeared at hearing (referred to as 'Paulo' once).
  • Mary Lou Ehmann (property manager)
    Pride Management
    Former Community Manager for Casa Del Monte; provided testimony.
  • Jonathan Ryder (board president)
    Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA
    Also referred to as John Ryder.
  • Jean Yen (board member)
    Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA
    Also referred to as Jeannie Yen; Treasurer.
  • Bill McMichael (board member)
    Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA
    Vice President.
  • Jim Burton (board member)
    Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA
    Secretary.

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official case transmission.
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official case transmission.
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official case transmission.
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official case transmission.
  • kvanfredenberg (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official case transmission.

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

Jeffrey D Points v. Olive 66 Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121059-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-09-08
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jeffrey D Points Counsel —
Respondent Olive 66 Condominium Association Counsel MacKenzie Hill

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 33-1248

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner’s petition was affirmed in part (violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258 regarding documents) and denied in part (no violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248 regarding open meetings). Respondent was ordered to reimburse $500.00 of the filing fee and comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248 because evidence of improper notice was lacking and the topic discussed in executive session was likely covered by a statutory exemption.

Key Issues & Findings

Access to Association Records

Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by failing to provide certain requested 2021 invoices that were in existence at the time of the request within the statutory 10-day period.

Orders: Respondent must comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258 going forward. Petitioner reimbursed $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805

Open Board Meetings

Petitioner failed to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248 regarding the March 25, 2021, board meeting, as the issue regarding notice was not established and the topic discussed (Landscaping Bid Review) likely fell under a statutory exemption.

Orders: Petitioner failed to establish the alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1248
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium association, document request, open meeting, executive session, invoices, filing fee refund
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1248
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121059-REL Decision – 909631.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:38:43 (47.7 KB)

21F-H2121059-REL Decision – 909633.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:38:48 (117.7 KB)

Questions

Question

Can I demand to inspect every single HOA document in person at the management office?

Short Answer

No. While records must be reasonably available, you do not have the right to peruse all documents at will.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the statute requiring records be 'reasonably available' does not grant an unlimited right to inspect all documents in person. The HOA can withhold certain confidential documents, and sorting through everything to remove them may be considered unduly burdensome.

Alj Quote

Nothing in the statute however, grants a condominium unit owner the right to peruse all of the association’s documents at will as some documents may properly be withheld.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Inspection Rights

Question

Is it a violation if the HOA fails to provide requested invoices within 10 days?

Short Answer

Yes. If the documents exist and are not provided within the statutory timeframe, it is a violation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found the Association in violation of the law because they acknowledged that requested invoices existed at the time of the request but were not provided to the homeowner.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s witness acknowledged that certain invoices requested by Petitioner were in existence at the time of the request, but were not provided to Petitioner. Such a failure to provide the documents requested was a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Invoices
  • Timeliness

Question

Can the HOA Board discuss vendor contracts or issues in a closed executive session?

Short Answer

Yes, if the discussion involves specific complaints or performance issues regarding an individual employee of the contractor.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that a 'Landscaping Bid Review' was properly held in executive session because the testimony indicated it involved specific performance issues with an employee of the landscaping company.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s witness asserted that the issue regarding the landscaping bid review was a specific performance issue with an employee of the landscaping company. As that topic falls under the exception listed in A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(4), Respondent properly considered the issue in an executive session closed to its members.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(4)

Topic Tags

  • Open Meetings
  • Executive Session
  • Vendors

Question

Will the HOA be fined if they are found to have violated records request laws?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. The ALJ has discretion regarding civil penalties.

Detailed Answer

In this case, even though a violation was found regarding the failure to provide invoices, the judge decided that no civil penalty was appropriate based on the facts presented.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion

Topic Tags

  • Penalties
  • Enforcement

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a dispute with the HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner is responsible for providing evidence that outweighs the evidence offered by the HOA. If the homeowner fails to provide sufficient evidence (such as proof of when a meeting agenda was issued), the claim will likely fail.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1248 and A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Burden of Proof

Question

Can I get my filing fee reimbursed if I win?

Short Answer

Yes, typically for the portion of the case on which you prevail.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ordered the Association to reimburse the homeowner $500.00, which represented the filing fee for the specific issue (records request) where the homeowner won.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner their $500.00 filing fee for the issue on which they prevailed.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Fees

Question

What if I suspect the HOA altered a document they sent me?

Short Answer

You must provide proof. Mere assertion is not enough.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner claimed a landscaping contract was altered but provided no evidence. The ALJ ruled that an assertion without merit cannot be the basis for finding a violation.

Alj Quote

Petitioner’s assertion that the landscaping contract was altered in some way is completely without merit and cannot be the basis for a finding that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Legal Basis

Evidence

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Fraud Allegations

Question

Do Open Meeting laws apply to Condominium Associations?

Short Answer

Yes, under A.R.S. § 33-1248.

Detailed Answer

Although the homeowner originally cited the Planned Community statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1804), the hearing proceeded under the correct Condominium statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1248), which contain similar open meeting requirements.

Alj Quote

After discussion, the hearing proceeded with the understanding that the statutes applicable to the instant matter were A.R.S. § 33-1248… and A.R.S. § 33-1258…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248

Topic Tags

  • Jurisdiction
  • Condos vs HOAs

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121059-REL
Case Title
Jeffrey D Points vs. Olive 66 Condominium Association
Decision Date
2021-09-08
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can I demand to inspect every single HOA document in person at the management office?

Short Answer

No. While records must be reasonably available, you do not have the right to peruse all documents at will.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the statute requiring records be 'reasonably available' does not grant an unlimited right to inspect all documents in person. The HOA can withhold certain confidential documents, and sorting through everything to remove them may be considered unduly burdensome.

Alj Quote

Nothing in the statute however, grants a condominium unit owner the right to peruse all of the association’s documents at will as some documents may properly be withheld.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Inspection Rights

Question

Is it a violation if the HOA fails to provide requested invoices within 10 days?

Short Answer

Yes. If the documents exist and are not provided within the statutory timeframe, it is a violation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found the Association in violation of the law because they acknowledged that requested invoices existed at the time of the request but were not provided to the homeowner.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s witness acknowledged that certain invoices requested by Petitioner were in existence at the time of the request, but were not provided to Petitioner. Such a failure to provide the documents requested was a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Invoices
  • Timeliness

Question

Can the HOA Board discuss vendor contracts or issues in a closed executive session?

Short Answer

Yes, if the discussion involves specific complaints or performance issues regarding an individual employee of the contractor.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that a 'Landscaping Bid Review' was properly held in executive session because the testimony indicated it involved specific performance issues with an employee of the landscaping company.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s witness asserted that the issue regarding the landscaping bid review was a specific performance issue with an employee of the landscaping company. As that topic falls under the exception listed in A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(4), Respondent properly considered the issue in an executive session closed to its members.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(4)

Topic Tags

  • Open Meetings
  • Executive Session
  • Vendors

Question

Will the HOA be fined if they are found to have violated records request laws?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. The ALJ has discretion regarding civil penalties.

Detailed Answer

In this case, even though a violation was found regarding the failure to provide invoices, the judge decided that no civil penalty was appropriate based on the facts presented.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion

Topic Tags

  • Penalties
  • Enforcement

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a dispute with the HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner is responsible for providing evidence that outweighs the evidence offered by the HOA. If the homeowner fails to provide sufficient evidence (such as proof of when a meeting agenda was issued), the claim will likely fail.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1248 and A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Burden of Proof

Question

Can I get my filing fee reimbursed if I win?

Short Answer

Yes, typically for the portion of the case on which you prevail.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ordered the Association to reimburse the homeowner $500.00, which represented the filing fee for the specific issue (records request) where the homeowner won.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner their $500.00 filing fee for the issue on which they prevailed.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Fees

Question

What if I suspect the HOA altered a document they sent me?

Short Answer

You must provide proof. Mere assertion is not enough.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner claimed a landscaping contract was altered but provided no evidence. The ALJ ruled that an assertion without merit cannot be the basis for finding a violation.

Alj Quote

Petitioner’s assertion that the landscaping contract was altered in some way is completely without merit and cannot be the basis for a finding that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Legal Basis

Evidence

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Fraud Allegations

Question

Do Open Meeting laws apply to Condominium Associations?

Short Answer

Yes, under A.R.S. § 33-1248.

Detailed Answer

Although the homeowner originally cited the Planned Community statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1804), the hearing proceeded under the correct Condominium statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1248), which contain similar open meeting requirements.

Alj Quote

After discussion, the hearing proceeded with the understanding that the statutes applicable to the instant matter were A.R.S. § 33-1248… and A.R.S. § 33-1258…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248

Topic Tags

  • Jurisdiction
  • Condos vs HOAs

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121059-REL
Case Title
Jeffrey D Points vs. Olive 66 Condominium Association
Decision Date
2021-09-08
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jeffrey D Points (petitioner)
    Appeared on their own behalf

Respondent Side

  • MacKenzie Hill (respondent attorney)
    The Brown Law Group, PLLC
    Represented Olive 66 Condominium Association
  • Nathan Tennyson (respondent attorney)
    Represented Olive 66 Condominium Association
  • Cathy Hacker (association manager)
    Olive 66 Condominium Association
    Provided testimony as Association Manager,
  • Musa (individual/contractor)
    Mentioned regarding 1099s and invoices; referred to as 'Musa', and 'M. Sayegh'
  • Lorinda Brown (individual/contractor)
    Mentioned regarding 1099s and invoices

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

  • Tim (individual)
    Mentioned regarding 1099s/invoices; reportedly 'has not done any work on the property',

Debra K Morin v. Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc.

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 21F-H2120001-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-03-17
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Debra K. Morin Counsel —
Respondent Solera Chandler Homeowners' Association, Inc. Counsel Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's petition was affirmed in part and denied in part. Petitioner prevailed on Complaint #1 (improper use of email/unanimous written consent for non-privileged business), but lost on Complaint #2 (alleged improper emergency executive session). Respondent was ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1804 and reimburse the $500 filing fee.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the violation related to the emergency executive session (Complaint #2).

Key Issues & Findings

Non-privileged Association Business Conducted in Closed Session (Complaint #1)

The HOA used unanimous written consents obtained via individual emails from board members to approve association business (such as approving repairs, replacement of equipment, and pruning) outside of open meetings, violating the requirement that all meetings of the board of directors must be open to members.

Orders: Respondent ordered to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee and comply with A.R.S. § 33-1804 going forward. No civil penalty assessed due to the COVID-19 pandemic circumstances.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 10-3821

Association Business Conducted in an Emergency Executive Session (Complaint #2)

Petitioner alleged misuse of emergency executive sessions. Respondent represented that the sessions only addressed issues under statutory exceptions. Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that this violation occurred.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Open Meeting Law, Unanimous Written Consent, Executive Session, COVID-19
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 10-3821
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120001-REL-RHG Decision – 864802.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:34:10 (101.9 KB)

21F-H2120001-REL-RHG Decision – ../21F-H2120001-REL/838004.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:34:13 (125.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 21F-H2120001-REL-RHG


Administrative Hearing Brief: Morin vs. Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the findings and rulings from an administrative case (No. 21F-H2120001-REL) involving homeowner Debra K. Morin (Petitioner) and the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (Respondent). The core issue revolved around the association’s adherence to Arizona’s open meeting laws for planned communities, as stipulated in A.R.S. § 33-1804.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately found that the Solera Chandler HOA violated this statute by conducting non-privileged association business without an open meeting. The Board of Directors made numerous decisions between March and July 2020—including approving contracts for repairs, appointing committee members, and changing design guidelines—through a process of “unanimous written consent” executed via individual emails. This method circumvented statutory requirements for 48-hour notice to members, published agendas, and the opportunity for homeowners to speak before a vote.

The HOA defended its actions by citing the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic and a separate statute, A.R.S. § 10-3821, which permits non-profit corporations to act without a meeting. However, the Judge ruled that the specific requirements of the HOA open meeting law (A.R.S. § 33-1804) take precedence, emphasizing the state’s explicit policy in favor of transparency and open meetings for homeowners’ associations.

While the petitioner’s primary complaint was affirmed, a second allegation regarding the misuse of emergency executive sessions was denied due to insufficient evidence. The final order directed the HOA to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1804 in the future and to reimburse the petitioner’s $500 filing fee. No civil penalty was assessed, with the judge acknowledging the “unprecedented global pandemic” as a mitigating circumstance.

Case Overview

Case Number

21F-H2120001-REL

Petitioner

Debra K. Morin

Respondent

Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc.

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

Jurisdiction

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Timeline of Adjudication

• July 10, 2020: Debra Morin files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• October 29, 2020: The initial administrative hearing is held.

• November 18, 2020: The first Administrative Law Judge Decision is issued.

• February 25, 2021: A rehearing is held at the Respondent’s request to clarify a finding of fact.

• March 17, 2021: The final Administrative Law Judge Decision is issued, affirming the original conclusion with a factual correction.

Petitioner’s Allegations

The petitioner, Debra K. Morin, focused her case on two specific complaints alleging violations of Arizona’s open meeting law for HOAs (A.R.S. § 33-1804).

Complaint #1: Improper Use of Closed Sessions and Unanimous Written Consent

The petitioner alleged that the Solera HOA Board of Directors conducted non-privileged association business in closed sessions without proper procedure. Specifically, the Board was accused of:

• Failing to provide members with 48-hour notice of meetings.

• Failing to provide agendas for the business being conducted.

• Denying members the opportunity to speak prior to the Board taking action on key issues.

• Using “unanimous written consent” to bypass open meeting requirements.

Complaint #2: Misuse of “Emergency Executive Sessions”

The petitioner further alleged that the Board conducted privileged association business under the guise of “emergency executive sessions” improperly by:

• Failing to identify the specific statutory exception to the open meeting law that permitted the closed session.

• Failing to provide an agenda and 48-hour notice where possible.

• Failing to produce minutes stating the reason for the emergency and submitting them at the next board meeting.

Respondent’s Actions and Defense

The Solera Chandler HOA acknowledged using unanimous written consents but argued its actions were a necessary response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which prevented in-person meetings. The Board asserted its actions were legally authorized under A.R.S. § 10-3821, a statute governing non-profit corporations.

Use of Unanimous Written Consent

Evidence presented at the rehearing established the Board’s procedure. For each action, an individual from the community management company would email each Board member individually to solicit a “yes” or “no” vote. If all members voted “yes,” the action was considered passed by unanimous consent, and the Board President would sign the formal consent document. The HOA stated it had not used this method before the pandemic and did not intend to continue its use.

The following actions were taken by the Board using this method and were later ratified at the August 5, 2020, open Board meeting:

Action Taken via Unanimous Written Consent

March 30, 2020

Approve repair and replacement of sidewalk and community center entrance.

March 30, 2020

Approve repair and replacement of cool decking around both pools.

April 30, 2020

Approve Kirk Sandquist as a member of the Architectural Review Committee.

April 30, 2020

Approve Tom Dusbabek as a member of the Architectural Review Committee.

May 5, 2020

Approve Gilbert Road retention basin project, related irrigation replacement, and addition of 420 tons of granite.

May 8, 2020

Approve replacement of a Carrier 6-ton heat pump.

May 8, 2020

Approve replacement of two Carrier 5-ton heat pumps.

May 27, 2020

Approve hiring Ken Eller to draft architectural drawings.

June 4, 2020

Approve a change to the Design Guidelines at the request of the Architectural Review Committee.

July 1, 2020

Approve the 2020 summer hardwood pruning and removal of trees.

Chronology of Executive Sessions

In addition to the actions taken by written consent, the Board held numerous executive (closed) sessions between March and August 2020, citing specific exceptions in A.R.S. § 33-1804(A). Minutes for these meetings were approved at the August 5, 2020 executive session but were redacted to conceal the substance of the discussions.

Date of Session

Cited Statutory Exceptions for Closed Session (A.R.S. § 33-1804(A))

March 13, 2020

(1) Legal advice, (2) Pending litigation, (4) Employee matters

March 16, 2020

(1) Legal advice, (2) Pending litigation

March 19, 2020

(1) Legal advice

March 24, 2020

(4) Employee matters

April 6, 2020

(4) Employee matters

April 10, 2020

(4) Employee matters

May 4, 2020

(4) Employee matters

May 12, 2020*

(1) Legal advice, (2) Pending litigation, (4) Employee matters

May 15, 2020

(1) Legal advice, (2) Pending litigation

May 27, 2020

(2) Pending litigation, (4) Employee matters

June 24, 2020

(2) Pending litigation, (3) Personal/health/financial information

August 5, 2020

(1) Legal advice, (2) Pending litigation, (3) Personal/health/financial information

*Designated an “emergency executive session.”

Adjudication and Legal Rulings

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision rested on the interpretation and primacy of Arizona’s statutes governing homeowners’ associations.

Statutory Conflict and Interpretation

The central legal question was the conflict between two state laws:

• A.R.S. § 33-1804: Specifically requires all HOA Board meetings to be open to all members, with limited exceptions for closed executive sessions. It explicitly states a policy that statutes should be construed “in favor of open meetings.”

• A.R.S. § 10-3821: A general corporate law that allows boards of non-profit corporations to take action “without a meeting” if there is unanimous written consent from all directors.

The Judge concluded that while A.R.S. § 10-3821 may apply to non-profits generally, the more specific statute, A.R.S. § 33-1804, governs the conduct of HOA boards. The requirement for open meetings in the HOA statute overrides the provision allowing for action without a meeting in the general non-profit statute.

Ruling on Complaint #1 (Improper Closed Business)

Finding: In favor of the Petitioner.

• The Judge ruled that the Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent committed the violation.

• The decision states, “Respondent improperly conducted association business in closed sessions via email rather than in meetings open to the members.”

• An initial finding that the business was conducted via “conference calls” was corrected after the rehearing to specify the method was individual emails, but this did not change the outcome.

• The Judge gave “consideration to the fact that Respondent was faced with an unprecedented global pandemic” and found that no civil penalty was appropriate under the circumstances.

Ruling on Complaint #2 (Misuse of Executive Sessions)

Finding: In favor of the Respondent.

• The Judge found that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof for this allegation.

• The decision notes, “Nothing in the record suggested the Board discussed other issues that did not fall under the exceptions listed and/or that the May 12, 2020 executive session was not an emergency.”

Final Order and Directives

The Administrative Law Judge’s final, binding order issued on March 17, 2021, included the following directives:

1. Petition Affirmed in Part: The petitioner’s petition was affirmed on the issue of Complaint #1 and denied on the issue of Complaint #2.

2. Reimbursement of Filing Fee: Respondent (Solera Chandler HOA) was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner (Debra Morin) her $500.00 filing fee for the issue on which she prevailed.

3. Compliance Mandate: Respondent was directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 going forward.






Study Guide – 21F-H2120001-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Morin v. Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc.

This study guide provides a review of the administrative law case involving Debra K. Morin and the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc. It includes short-answer questions with an answer key, essay questions for further analysis, and a comprehensive glossary of key terms based on the provided legal decisions.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences, using only information from the source documents.

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

2. What were the two main complaints filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent’s Board of Directors?

3. Which specific Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) did the Petitioner allege the Respondent violated, and what is the general policy purpose of this statute?

4. How did the Respondent justify its use of unanimous written consents and its decision to forgo open meetings from March to July 2020?

5. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final ruling on Complaint #1, which concerned conducting non-privileged association business?

6. What was the ruling on Complaint #2, which concerned the use of emergency executive sessions, and what was the reason for this outcome?

7. A rehearing was granted after the initial decision. What specific factual conclusion from the first decision was the focus of this rehearing?

8. How did the evidence presented at the rehearing clarify the method used by the Board of Directors to pass unanimous written consents?

9. Despite finding the Respondent in violation of state law, why did the Administrative Law Judge decide not to impose a civil penalty?

10. What two actions was the Respondent ordered to take as a result of the final ruling?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Debra K. Morin, the Petitioner, and Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc., the Respondent. The Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging statutory violations by the Respondent homeowners’ association.

2. The Petitioner’s first complaint alleged that the Respondent conducted non-privileged business in closed sessions using unanimous written consent, without providing proper notice, agendas, or an opportunity for members to speak. The second complaint alleged the Respondent conducted privileged business under the guise of “emergency executive sessions” without proper justification or documentation.

3. The Petitioner alleged a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804. The stated policy of this statute is that all meetings of a planned community should be conducted openly, with notices and agendas provided to reasonably inform members and ensure they have the ability to speak before a vote is taken.

4. The Respondent argued that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, its Board of Directors was unable to meet in person to protect the health of its members and directors. The Respondent asserted that taking action via unanimous written consents was authorized under a different statute, A.R.S. § 10-3821, which applies to non-profit corporations.

5. The Judge affirmed the Petitioner’s first complaint, finding that she had established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent improperly conducted association business. The Judge ruled that while A.R.S. § 10-3821 allows for action without a meeting, A.R.S. § 33-1804 specifically requires that HOA board meetings be open to members.

6. The Judge denied the Petitioner’s second complaint. The ruling stated that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the executive sessions were improper, as nothing in the record suggested the Board discussed issues outside of the legally permitted exceptions or that the May 12, 2020 session was not a true emergency.

7. The rehearing focused on Conclusion of Law 8 from the initial decision, which stated that the “Respondent improperly conducted association business in closed sessions via conference calls.” The Respondent disputed that the business related to the unanimous written consents was conducted via conference call.

8. Evidence at the rehearing established that an individual from the community management company would email each Board member individually to request a “yes” or “no” vote on a proposal. If all members voted “yes,” the action was considered passed by unanimous consent, which the Judge still found to be a violation of the open meeting law.

9. The Judge gave consideration to the fact that the Respondent was “faced with an unprecedented global pandemic while balancing the need to comply with the applicable statutes.” Because of these unique circumstances, the Judge found that no civil penalty was appropriate.

10. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner her $500.00 filing fee for the complaint on which she prevailed. The Respondent was also directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 going forward.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for deeper analysis and discussion. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the statutory conflict between A.R.S. § 33-1804 (HOA open meetings) and A.R.S. § 10-3821 (non-profit action without a meeting) as presented in this case. Explain the legal reasoning the Administrative Law Judge used to determine that the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 took precedence for a homeowners’ association.

2. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence.” How did the Petitioner successfully meet this evidentiary burden for Complaint #1 but fail to meet it for Complaint #2?

3. Evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the actions of the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association and the final judgment of the Administrative Law Judge. How did this external event influence both the violation itself and the penalty phase of the ruling?

4. According to A.R.S. § 33-1804(F), what is the stated public policy of Arizona regarding meetings of planned communities? How did this explicit policy statement likely influence the judge’s interpretation of the law and the final decision regarding Complaint #1?

5. Describe the full procedural history of this case, from the initial petition through the rehearing and final order. What does the granting of a rehearing to correct a factual finding demonstrate about the legal process and the importance of accuracy in judicial decisions?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A judge who presides over administrative hearings, in this case within the Office of Administrative Hearings. The ALJ hears evidence and issues a decision based on the applicable laws and facts.

A.R.S. § 10-3821

An Arizona Revised Statute pertaining to non-profit corporations. It allows a corporation’s board of directors to take action without a meeting if the action is approved by a unanimous written consent signed by every director.

A.R.S. § 33-1804

An Arizona Revised Statute specifically governing planned communities (homeowners’ associations). It mandates that all board of directors meetings be open to association members, requires 48-hour notice and an agenda, and allows members to speak.

Executive Session

A portion of a board meeting that is closed to association members. A.R.S. § 33-1804 strictly limits these sessions to specific topics, such as receiving legal advice, discussing pending litigation, or reviewing confidential personal, health, or financial information of an individual.

Hearing

A formal proceeding before an Administrative Law Judge where parties present evidence and arguments related to a legal dispute. In this case, hearings were held on October 29, 2020, and February 25, 2021.

Jurisdiction

The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. In this matter, the Arizona Department of Real Estate had jurisdiction to hear disputes between a property owner and a homeowners’ association.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Debra K. Morin was the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative case. It means the evidence presented must be more convincing and probable than the evidence offered in opposition, showing the fact sought to be proved is “more probable than not.”

Rehearing

A second hearing granted to re-examine an issue from an initial hearing. In this case, a rehearing was granted at the Respondent’s request to address the factual finding of how it conducted business (conference calls vs. email).

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc., was the Respondent.

Statutory Construction

The process of interpreting and applying legislation. The primary goal is to ascertain the legislature’s intent, beginning with the plain text of the statute.

Unanimous Written Consent

A procedure, authorized by A.R.S. § 10-3821, where an action is approved in writing by all members of a board of directors without a formal meeting. The Respondent used this method for actions such as approving repairs, appointing committee members, and changing design guidelines.






Blog Post – 21F-H2120001-REL-RHG


4 Surprising Lessons from One Homeowner’s Legal Battle with Her HOA

Introduction: When Your HOA Goes Dark

In the chaos of early 2020, as the world shut down, many Homeowners’ Association boards faced a critical challenge: how to govern when gathering in person was impossible? For residents of the Solera Chandler community, the answer was alarming—their board went dark. Citing the global crisis, the board began making major community decisions in secret, bypassing open meetings entirely. This raised a crucial legal question for every homeowner in the state: can an HOA board use a pandemic as justification to govern by private email? The legal battle launched by one determined resident, Debra K. Morin, provides a fascinating and unexpected answer.

1. Your HOA Board Can’t Govern by Email—Even in a Pandemic

At first glance, the Solera Chandler HOA board’s actions seemed like a practical response to an unprecedented crisis. To keep community business moving, the board began approving actions through a series of votes conducted via email. Using this process, the board made several significant decisions, including:

• Approving repairs for sidewalks and the community center entrance.

• Approving the replacement of cool decking around both pools.

• Appointing two new members to the Architectural Review Committee.

• Approving a major retention basin project, including irrigation replacement and the addition of 420 tons of granite.

• Hiring an architect to draft drawings.

The board’s defense rested on a clever, but ultimately flawed, legal argument. They cited Arizona statute A.R.S. § 10-3821, which allows general non-profit corporations to take action via “unanimous written consent” without a formal meeting. It was a reasonable assumption. However, an Administrative Law Judge ruled their actions were a clear violation of state law.

The legal reasoning is a vital lesson in statutory interpretation. The judge affirmed that when two laws conflict, the more specific statute prevails. In this case, the highly specific HOA Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 33-1804), which explicitly requires board meetings to be open to all members, overrides the more general rule for non-profits. The ruling provided a clear interpretation of the law: even a global pandemic does not grant an HOA board the power to circumvent its duty of transparency. In fact, a rehearing in the case clarified the board was making decisions through a series of individual emails—a method that completely prevented any form of an open meeting.

2. The Law Prioritizes Transparency Above All Else

The judge’s decision was not a mere technicality. It was a firm defense of the core policy undergirding Arizona’s HOA laws. The statute itself contains a powerful mission statement that leaves no room for ambiguity. A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) declares:

It is the policy of this state as reflected in this section that all meetings of a planned community, whether meetings of the members’ association or meetings of the board of directors of the association, be conducted openly and that notices and agendas be provided for those meetings that contain the information that is reasonably necessary to inform the members of the matters to be discussed or decided and to ensure that members have the ability to speak after discussion of agenda items, but before a vote of the board of directors or members is taken.

This principle is the bedrock of community governance. It ensures that homeowners can observe deliberations and have their say before a final decision is made. This right to be heard is lost when a board approves a costly pool deck repair or appoints a new committee member through a series of private emails, with homeowners only finding out after the fact. The court affirmed that this right is not a suggestion; it is a non-negotiable legal requirement.

3. A Legal “Win” Doesn’t Always Mean Punishment

After proving a clear violation of state law, the homeowner won… but the HOA received no punishment. Here’s why that isn’t a contradiction. Although Debra K. Morin successfully demonstrated that the board had broken the law, the Administrative Law Judge decided against imposing any civil penalty.

The judge’s reasoning highlights the law’s capacity for context. “Consideration is given to the fact that Respondent was faced with an unprecedented global pandemic while balancing the need to comply with the applicable statutes and conduct association business,” the decision stated.

Instead of a punitive fine, the consequences were corrective. The board was formally ordered to comply with the open meeting law (A.R.S. § 33-1804) going forward, and the association was required to reimburse Ms. Morin for her $500 filing fee. This outcome reveals a surprising nuance in administrative law: a judgment can simultaneously vindicate a petitioner and uphold the law while acknowledging mitigating circumstances, focusing on future compliance rather than past punishment.

4. One Determined Homeowner Can Make a Difference

This entire legal challenge was initiated by a single resident: Debra K. Morin. Her story, however, is a realistic and therefore more empowering example of homeowner advocacy. Ms. Morin actually filed two separate complaints. While she won her landmark case regarding secret email voting, she did not prevail on a second, unrelated claim concerning the board’s use of “emergency executive sessions.”

This partial victory makes her success on the transparency issue even more significant. It shows that the legal system carefully parsed her arguments, affirming the one with the broadest implications for community governance. By filing her petition, she secured a formal order compelling her HOA to follow the law and was refunded the costs she incurred.

Morin’s petition demonstrates that community governance is not a spectator sport. It proves that one homeowner with a grasp of the rules and the determination to see them enforced can successfully realign a board with its fundamental duty of transparency.

Conclusion: Is Your HOA Playing by the Rules?

The case of Morin vs. Solera Chandler HOA delivers a sharp, unambiguous message: the legal requirement for transparency is absolute, even in the face of extraordinary circumstances. While the board’s pandemic-related pressures earned it leniency from fines, the foundational principle of open governance was decisively upheld. This case serves as a powerful reminder of the rights of homeowners and the duties of their elected boards. It sets a clear standard for openness—does your own HOA’s process for making decisions live up to it?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Debra K. Morin (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf,

Respondent Side

  • Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
    Also cited as Lydia Linsmeier,,,
  • Joshua M. Bolen (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
  • Gail Ryan (board member (President))
    Solera Chandler Homeowners' Association, Inc.
    Resigned August 5, 2020

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • f. del sol (clerk/staff)
    Signed transmission notice,
  • LDettorre (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient
  • ncano (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient

Other Participants

  • Kirk Sandquist (committee member (ARC))
    Approved to Architectural Review Committee
  • Tom Dusbabek (committee member (ARC))
    Approved to Architectural Review Committee
  • Ken Eller (consultant)
    Approved to draft architectural drawings

Debra K Morin v. Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120001-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-03-17
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Debra K. Morin Counsel —
Respondent Solera Chandler Homeowners' Association, Inc. Counsel Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The petition was affirmed in part (Complaint #1) and denied in part (Complaint #2). The Respondent HOA was found to have improperly conducted non-privileged business via email/unanimous written consent in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the $500 filing fee and comply with the statute, but no civil penalty was imposed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the alleged violation concerning the improper use of emergency executive sessions (Complaint #2).

Key Issues & Findings

Non-privileged Association Business Conducted in Closed Session

The HOA improperly conducted association business, which should have been open to members, through unanimous written consent solicited via individual emails during the COVID-19 shutdown, violating the open meeting requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Orders: Respondent was ordered to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 going forward and to reimburse Petitioner her $500.00 filing fee for the issue on which she prevailed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. 33-1804
  • A.R.S. 10-3821

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Open Meetings, HOA Governance, Unanimous Written Consent, COVID-19, Executive Session
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. 33-1804
  • A.R.S. 10-3821
  • A.R.S. 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120001-REL Decision – 838004.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:34:04 (125.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 21F-H2120001-REL


Administrative Law Decision Briefing: Morin vs. Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association

Executive Summary

This briefing synthesizes the findings and rulings from an administrative law case involving a homeowner, Debra K. Morin, and the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (HOA). The central issue was whether the HOA Board of Directors violated Arizona’s open meeting law (A.R.S. § 33-1804) by conducting association business and making decisions without open meetings accessible to its members.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of the petitioner on her primary complaint. The investigation and subsequent hearings revealed that the HOA Board, citing the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, utilized a process of “unanimous written consent” to approve numerous actions. This process, facilitated through individual emails to board members, was found to be an improper substitute for the open meetings required by law. The ALJ concluded that the specific transparency requirements for homeowners’ associations in A.R.S. § 33-1804 supersede the more general provisions for non-profit corporations in A.R.S. § 10-3821, which the HOA had cited as justification.

While the violation was established, no civil penalty was assessed due to the “unprecedented global pandemic.” The HOA was ordered to comply with the open meeting law moving forward and to reimburse the petitioner’s $500 filing fee. A second complaint from the petitioner, alleging the improper use of emergency executive sessions, was not proven and was therefore denied. A rehearing clarified the precise method of the violation—email voting rather than conference calls—but did not alter the final judgment.

Case Background and Allegations

This matter was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings following a petition filed on July 10, 2020. The case centered on the actions of the Solera Chandler HOA’s Board of Directors between March and August 2020.

• Petitioner: Debra K. Morin

• Respondent: Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc.

• Case Number: 21F-H2120001-REL

• Key Dates:

◦ Initial Hearing: October 29, 2020

◦ Initial Decision: November 18, 2020

◦ Rehearing: February 25, 2021

◦ Final Decision After Rehearing: March 17, 2021

Petitioner’s Formal Complaints

After being ordered to clarify her initial filing, the petitioner proceeded with two specific alleged violations of A.R.S. § 33-1804:

1. Complaint #1: Non-Privileged Business in Closed Sessions: The petitioner alleged that the HOA Board conducted non-privileged association business in closed sessions by using unanimous written consent. This practice circumvented statutory requirements for providing members with agendas, giving 48-hour notice, and allowing them an opportunity to speak on key issues before the Board took action.

2. Complaint #2: Improper Emergency Executive Sessions: The petitioner alleged that the HOA Board conducted privileged business under the guise of “emergency executive sessions.” This was done without properly identifying the legal exception to the open meeting law, providing an agenda or 48-hour notice, or submitting minutes at the next board meeting that stated the reason for the emergency.

Key Evidence and Factual Findings

The evidence presented centered on the HOA’s governance practices during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Respondent’s Justification

The HOA’s defense rested on two main arguments:

• The COVID-19 pandemic made it impossible for the Board to meet in person, necessitating alternative methods to conduct business while protecting the health of directors and members.

• The use of unanimous written consents was authorized under A.R.S. § 10-3821, a statute that permits non-profit corporations to take action without a formal meeting if all directors consent in writing. The HOA acknowledged it had not used this method before the pandemic and did not intend to continue its use.

Unanimous Written Consents

At an open Board of Directors meeting on August 5, 2020, the Board formally ratified a series of actions taken via unanimous written consent during the “Covid 19 Shutdown.” A rehearing clarified the precise mechanism: a community management company would email each board member individually to solicit a “yes” or “no” vote on a proposal. If all votes were “yes,” the Board President would sign the written consent on behalf of the Board.

The actions taken through this process included:

Action Taken by Unanimous Written Consent

March 30, 2020

Approve repair and replacement of the sidewalk and community center entrance.

March 30, 2020

Approve repair and replacement of cool decking surrounding both pools.

April 30, 2020

Approve Kirk Sandquist as a member of the Architectural Review Committee.

April 30, 2020

Approve Tom Dusbabek as a member of the Architectural Review Committee.

May 5, 2020

Approve the Gilbert Road retention basin project, related irrigation replacement, and the addition of 420 tons of granite.

May 8, 2020

Approve replacement of a Carrier 6-ton heat pump.

May 8, 2020

Approve replacement of two Carrier 5-ton heat pumps.

May 27, 2020

Approve hiring Ken Eller to draft architectural drawings.

June 4, 2020

Approve a change to the Design Guidelines at the request of the Architectural Review Committee.

July 1, 2020

Approve the 2020 summer hardwood pruning and removal of trees.

Executive Sessions

The Board held numerous executive (closed) sessions during this period, including on March 13, March 16, March 19, March 24, April 6, April 10, May 4, May 15, May 27, June 24, and August 5, 2020. An “emergency executive session” was held on May 12, 2020. The agendas for these meetings cited specific legal exceptions under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) as justification for the closure.

Legal Analysis and Rulings

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision hinged on the interpretation and primacy of two competing Arizona statutes.

The Core Statutory Conflict

• A.R.S. § 33-1804 (HOA Open Meeting Law): This statute establishes a strong state policy that all HOA board and member meetings “be conducted openly.” It mandates that members receive at least 48-hours’ notice, be provided with agendas, and be permitted to “attend and speak at an appropriate time.” The statute explicitly directs that any interpretation of its provisions must be construed “in favor of open meetings.”

• A.R.S. § 10-3821 (Action Without Meeting for Non-Profits): This statute, which applies more broadly to non-profit corporations, allows a board of directors to take action without a meeting if the action is approved by one or more written consents signed by all directors.

Ruling on Complaint #1 (Violation Established)

The ALJ concluded that the petitioner had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the open meeting law. The core of the ruling is that the specific requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 for homeowners’ associations must be followed, even if A.R.S. § 10-3821 provides a different mechanism for general non-profits.

The final decision states: “Respondent improperly conducted association business in closed sessions via email rather than in meetings open to the members.” The use of email voting to achieve unanimous consent was deemed a violation because it denied members the notice, agenda, and opportunity to speak that are guaranteed by the HOA open meeting law.

However, the ALJ gave “consideration to the fact that Respondent was faced with an unprecedented global pandemic” and found that “no civil penalty is appropriate given the circumstances.”

Ruling on Complaint #2 (Violation Not Established)

The ALJ found that the petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Board conducted improper emergency executive sessions. The decision notes that there was “nothing in the record” to suggest the Board discussed topics outside the legally permitted exceptions for closed sessions, nor was there evidence to suggest the May 12, 2020, meeting was not a genuine emergency.

Final Order and Disposition

The final judgment, issued after the rehearing, is binding on both parties.

• Outcome: The petitioner’s petition was affirmed in part (regarding Complaint #1) and denied in part (regarding Complaint #2).

• Directives to Respondent (HOA):

1. The HOA is ordered to reimburse the petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.

2. The HOA is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 going forward.

• Appeal: Any appeal of the final order must be filed for judicial review with the superior court within 35 days from the date of service.






Study Guide – 21F-H2120001-REL


Study Guide: Morin v. Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc.

This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case between Debra K. Morin (Petitioner) and the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (Respondent), as detailed in Administrative Law Judge Decisions No. 21F-H2120001-REL and No. 21F-H2120001-REL-RHG. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a comprehensive understanding of the case’s facts, legal arguments, and outcomes.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

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

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

2. What was the central accusation in the Petitioner’s first complaint against the Respondent?

3. What two primary justifications did the Respondent provide for its actions during the COVID-19 pandemic?

4. According to the findings of the rehearing, what specific procedure did the Respondent use to obtain “unanimous written consents”?

5. Identify the two main Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) that were central to the legal dispute and briefly describe the function of each.

6. What was the final ruling on Complaint #1, and what was the judge’s reasoning?

7. Why did the Petitioner fail to prove the allegations in Complaint #2?

8. What specific factual error in the first Administrative Law Judge Decision prompted the Respondent to request a rehearing?

9. What two orders were issued against the Respondent in the final decision?

10. What specific circumstance did the Administrative Law Judge cite as a reason for not imposing a civil penalty on the Respondent?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Debra K. Morin, the Petitioner and homeowner, and the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc., the Respondent. The Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging the Respondent violated state law, while the Respondent defended its actions before an Administrative Law Judge.

2. The Petitioner’s first complaint accused the Solera Homeowners’ Association Board of Directors of conducting non-privileged association business in closed sessions. Specifically, she alleged they used unanimous written consent to take action without providing agendas, giving 48-hour notice, or allowing members an opportunity to speak on key issues.

3. The Respondent argued that the COVID-19 pandemic prevented the Board of Directors from meeting in person to protect the health of members and directors. The Respondent also asserted that its use of unanimous written consents was legally authorized for non-profit corporations under A.R.S. § 10-3821.

4. The rehearing established that an individual from the community management company would email each Board member individually to request a “yes” or “no” vote on a proposal. If all members replied “yes,” the item was considered passed by unanimous consent, and the Board President would sign the formal consent document.

5. The central statutes were A.R.S. § 33-1804 and A.R.S. § 10-3821. A.R.S. § 33-1804 is the state’s open meeting law for homeowners’ associations, requiring meetings to be open to members with proper notice, while A.R.S. § 10-3821 allows the board of a non-profit corporation to take action without a meeting if all directors provide written consent.

6. The judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner on Complaint #1, affirming the violation. The judge reasoned that while A.R.S. § 10-3821 allows for action without a meeting, the more specific requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 mandate that all HOA board meetings be open to members, a requirement the Respondent violated by conducting business via email.

7. The Petitioner failed to prove Complaint #2 because she did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent’s executive sessions were improper. The judge found nothing in the record to suggest the Board discussed issues outside the legal exceptions listed in A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) or that the May 12, 2020, session was not a genuine emergency.

8. The Respondent requested a rehearing to correct a finding in Conclusion of Law 8 of the initial decision, which incorrectly stated that the association business at issue was conducted in closed sessions via “conference calls.” The Respondent acknowledged using conference calls for executive sessions but denied using them for the actions taken by unanimous written consent.

9. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee for the issue on which she prevailed. Additionally, the Respondent was directed to comply with all requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 in the future.

10. The Administrative Law Judge gave consideration to the fact that the Respondent was “faced with an unprecedented global pandemic while balancing the need to comply with the applicable statutes and conduct association business.” Because of these unique circumstances, the judge found that no civil penalty was appropriate.

——————————————————————————–

Suggested Essay Questions

1. Discuss the conflict between A.R.S. § 33-1804 and A.R.S. § 10-3821 as it relates to the actions of the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association. How did the Administrative Law Judge resolve this conflict, and what does this imply about the hierarchy of state laws governing specific entities versus general corporations?

2. Analyze the Respondent’s argument that the COVID-19 pandemic justified their actions. To what extent did the Administrative Law Judge accept this argument, and how did it influence the final order?

3. Explain the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” and detail how it was applied to both Complaint #1 and Complaint #2. Why did the Petitioner meet this burden for the first complaint but not the second?

4. Trace the evolution of the case from the initial hearing to the rehearing. What specific finding of fact was corrected, and why was this correction significant for the legal record, even though it did not change the ultimate outcome for either complaint?

5. Based on the text of A.R.S. § 33-1804(F), discuss the stated policy of the state of Arizona regarding homeowner association meetings. How did the Respondent’s actions, specifically the use of email for unanimous consents, contravene this policy?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions and orders. In this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer served as the ALJ.

A.R.S. § 10-3821

An Arizona Revised Statute that allows the board of directors of a non-profit corporation to take action without a formal meeting, provided the action is taken by all directors and evidenced by one or more written consents.

A.R.S. § 33-1804

An Arizona Revised Statute, also known as the open meeting law for planned communities, which mandates that all meetings of an HOA board of directors must be open to all members. It requires 48-hour notice and allows for closed “executive sessions” only for specific, limited purposes.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this proceeding, the Petitioner bore the burden of proving her claims.

Executive Session

A portion of a meeting that is closed to association members. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), executive sessions are only permitted for specific reasons, such as receiving legal advice, discussing pending litigation, or addressing confidential personal or financial information.

Open Meeting

A meeting of an HOA’s board of directors that, according to A.R.S. § 33-1804, must be open to all members of the association, who must be permitted to attend and speak.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or petition. In this case, the Petitioner was homeowner Debra K. Morin.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is defined as evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than opposing evidence, showing that the fact sought to be proved is “more probable than not.”

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case to re-examine specific issues or correct errors from an initial decision. A rehearing was granted in this case to clarify how the unanimous written consents were executed.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent was the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc.

Statutory Construction

The process of interpreting and applying legislation. The judge noted that the primary goal is to ascertain the legislature’s intent, first by looking at the statute’s plain language.

Unanimous Written Consent

A procedure, authorized by A.R.S. § 10-3821, where a board takes action without a meeting through written consents signed by all directors. The HOA used this method via individual emails to approve business, which was found to be a violation of HOA open meeting laws.






Blog Post – 21F-H2120001-REL


She Sued Her HOA Over Secret Pandemic Votes—And Won. Here’s What Every Homeowner Needs to Know.

Introduction: The Closed Doors of Your HOA

For many homeowners, it can feel like their Homeowners’ Association (HOA) board makes its most important decisions behind closed doors. You see the results—a new rule, a major repair project, a change in vendors—but the discussion and the vote happen out of sight. While the COVID-19 pandemic forced many organizations to find new ways to operate, for one Arizona HOA, their adaptation to remote work crossed a legal line, sparking a legal challenge from a resident.

The central conflict was straightforward: a homeowner, Debra K. Morin, filed a petition against the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association. She alleged they were making official decisions in secret through email, violating state law that guarantees homeowners the right to open meetings. While not all of her claims were affirmed, her primary complaint—that the board was conducting business in secret—led to a landmark decision for homeowner rights. The outcome of her case reveals several surprising and crucial lessons for every person living in an HOA community.

Takeaway 1: An HOA’s Open Meeting Law Trumps General Non-Profit Rules

1. Even a Pandemic Doesn’t Suspend a Homeowner’s Right to an Open Meeting

The Solera Chandler HOA board believed it was acting within the law. They argued that because they were a non-profit corporation, they could make decisions using “unanimous written consents” without a formal meeting. This practice is allowed for many non-profits under a general Arizona statute (A.R.S. § 10-3821). During the pandemic, this seemed like a practical way to conduct business without meeting in person.

However, the Administrative Law Judge ruled against the HOA. The judge’s key finding was that a more specific law takes precedence. The statute governing planned communities, A.R.S. § 33-1804, explicitly requires that all meetings of the board must be open to all members of the association. This is a critical legal lesson: when a specific law exists to govern a specific entity (like the Open Meeting Law for HOAs), it almost always overrides a more general law (like the one for all non-profits).

While the judge acknowledged the challenges of the “unprecedented global pandemic,” this did not excuse the violation, though it was cited as a reason not to issue a civil penalty.

Takeaway 2: “Meeting” by Email Is Still a Secret Meeting

2. A String of Individual Emails Can Constitute an Illegal Meeting

In the initial ruling, the judge found the board conducted business improperly, believing it was done via conference calls. Seizing on this factual error, the HOA challenged the decision and requested a rehearing, arguing their method was different and therefore permissible. In the rehearing, they clarified their actual process: the community management company would email each board member individually to request a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote. The HOA argued that because there was no simultaneous group discussion, this process wasn’t technically a “meeting.”

The challenge backfired. The judge’s final decision made it clear that this distinction didn’t matter. Whether by conference call or a series of individual emails, the result was the same: an illegal secret meeting. The method effectively prevented homeowners from observing the board’s process and speaking on agenda items before a vote was taken, as required by law. The HOA won their technical correction but lost the war, as the judge affirmed that the principle of transparency is more important than the specific technology used to circumvent it.

These weren’t minor housekeeping issues. The board was making substantial financial and operational decisions entirely out of public view, including:

• Repair and replacement of the sidewalk and community center entrance.

• Repair and replacement of the cool decking around both pools.

• Appointing new members to the Architectural Review Committee.

• Approving a retention basin project and the purchase of 420 tons of granite.

• Approving the 2020 summer hardwood pruning and removal of trees.

Takeaway 3: The Law Is Built to Favor Transparency

3. The Law Itself Has a Built-in Bias for Openness

The judge’s decision wasn’t just a narrow interpretation; it was guided by a powerful policy statement built directly into the Arizona statute for planned communities. The law itself tells judges, board members, and community managers exactly how it should be interpreted.

The text of A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) leaves no room for doubt:

It is the policy of this state as reflected in this section that all meetings of a planned community, whether meetings of the members’ association or meetings of the board of directors of the association, be conducted openly and that notices and agendas be provided for those meetings that contain the information that is reasonably necessary to inform the members of the matters to be discussed or decided and to ensure that members have the ability to speak after discussion of agenda items, but before a vote of the board of directors or members is taken. Toward this end, any person or entity that is charged with the interpretation of these provisions…shall construe any provision of this section in favor of open meetings.

This is a critical point. The law explicitly directs anyone interpreting it—including an HOA board—to resolve any ambiguity in favor of transparency and homeowner access. The default position is openness.

Takeaway 4: A Single Homeowner Can Force a Change

4. One Determined Homeowner Can Win

This case serves as an empowering lesson for homeowners who feel their board is operating in the shadows. Morin’s persistence paid off, proving that a single homeowner can successfully force a board to follow the law.

Her victory was clear and decisive. The court orders resulted in three key outcomes:

• The judge affirmed her petition, officially recognizing that the HOA had violated the law.

• The HOA was formally ordered to comply with the open meeting requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 going forward.

• The HOA was ordered to reimburse Ms. Morin her $500.00 filing fee.

This outcome demonstrates that the system can work. An individual homeowner with a valid complaint can navigate the process and achieve a binding legal victory that forces their HOA board to operate correctly.

Conclusion: Is Your Board Operating in the Open?

The lesson from the Solera Chandler HOA case is simple: transparency in HOA governance is not optional. It is a legal requirement designed to protect the rights of every homeowner to observe and participate in the governance of their community. The convenience of an email vote cannot replace the legal mandate for an open meeting.

Don’t assume your board is operating correctly. Review your meeting minutes. Ask questions about decisions that seem to appear without public discussion. Remember, the law explicitly favors openness, and as Debra Morin proved, it’s an enforceable right.

This case was about secret votes via email, but it highlights a larger principle of transparency. Does your HOA board make it easy for you to know what is being decided and to have your voice heard?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Debra K. Morin (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
    Also cited as Lydia Linsmeier
  • Joshua M. Bolen (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
  • Gail Ryan (board member)
    Solera Chandler Homeowners' Association, Inc.
    President of Board, resigned August 5, 2020
  • Kirk Sandquist (ARC member)
    Solera Chandler Homeowners' Association, Inc.
    Appointment approved April 30, 2020
  • Tom Dusbabek (ARC member)
    Solera Chandler Homeowners' Association, Inc.
    Appointment approved April 30, 2020
  • Ken Eller (contractor)
    Approved to be hired to draft architectural drawings

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Granted Request for Rehearing
  • f. del sol (Admin staff)
    Transmitted decisions

Susan L Alandar v. Ventana Lakes Property Owners’ Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020046-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-07-23
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Susan L. Alandar Counsel —
Respondent Ventana Lakes Property Owners' Association Counsel Nicholas Nogami

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804
CC&R’s Article V Section C; Bylaws Article IV.E.8; Ventana Lakes Rule 8.4.A
CC&R’s Article III Section A; CC&R’s Article IV Section C.23; Bylaws Article IV.E.8; Ventana Lakes Rule 8.4.A
Ventana Lakes Rule 8.3.B.1.b

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition alleging violations of statute and community documents was denied in its entirety. Two issues were found moot because the prohibited action had already concluded, and the other two issues failed because the Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof to establish a violation.

Why this result: Issues 2 and 3 were moot. Issues 1 and 4 failed on the merits because the evidence did not prove the HOA violated the cited statute or rule.

Key Issues & Findings

Board conducted interviews of candidates in closed executive session.

Petitioner alleged the Board improperly conducted interviews for Board vacancies in closed sessions. The Board admitted to the practice but asserted they did so to elicit personal, health, or financial information, which is a statutory exception to the open meeting law.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804

Discriminately penalized homeowners/members (Italian American Club).

Petitioner alleged the HOA wrongfully penalized and denied use of facilities to the Italian American Club (IAC). This issue was based on a specific one-year prohibition on facility use imposed after the IAC violated rules regarding moving furniture.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Article V, Section C of the CC&Rs
  • Article IV.E.8 of the Bylaws
  • Ventana Lakes Rules 8.4.A

Refusal of homeowners' use of facilities without authorization by rule.

Petitioner alleged the HOA wrongfully denied the Italian American Club use of facilities following an incident where club members moved tables against HOA rules, resulting in a one-year ban on facility use.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Article III, Section A of the CC&Rs
  • Article IV, Section C.23 of the CC&Rs
  • Article IV.E.8 of the Bylaws
  • Ventana Lakes Rules 8.4.A

Refusal to place written requests for Board action on the agenda.

Petitioner argued that Ventana Lakes Rule 8.3.B.1.b required the Board president to include every single written request from members on the next upcoming Board meeting agenda, which the Board had failed to do.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Ventana Lakes Rule 8.3.B.1.b

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Open Meetings, Executive Session, Mootness, Facility Use Suspension, Agenda Setting
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • Article IV, Section E of the Bylaws
  • Article 5, Section C of the CC&Rs
  • Article IV, Section C(23) of the CC&Rs
  • Article XII, Section B of the CC&Rs
  • Article III, Section A of the CC&Rs
  • Ventana Lake Rules 8.3.B
  • Ventana Lake Rules 8.4.A
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020046-REL Decision – 809207.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:31:55 (157.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020046-REL


Administrative Law Judge Decision: Alandar vs. Ventana Lakes POA

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision in case number 20F-H2020046-REL, involving a dispute between Petitioner Susan L. Alandar and the Ventana Lakes Property Owners’ Association (the “Respondent” or “Board”). The petition, filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleged multiple violations of state statutes and the Association’s governing documents. The ALJ ultimately denied the petition in its entirety, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence for any of her claims.

The key takeaways from the decision are as follows:

• Board Candidate Interviews: The Board’s practice of interviewing candidates for board vacancies in closed executive sessions was deemed permissible. The ALJ found that these sessions were appropriately used to elicit personal, health, or financial information relevant to a candidate’s ability to serve, which is an exception to Arizona’s open meeting law (A.R.S. § 33-1804).

• Sanctions Against a Club: The Petitioner’s challenge to a one-year ban on facility use imposed upon the Italian American Club (IAC) was dismissed as moot. Because the one-year penalty had expired before the hearing date, the ALJ concluded there was no active issue to rule on or remedy to order.

• Agenda Setting Authority: The ALJ determined that the Board president possesses broad, inherent authority in setting the agenda for Board meetings. The governing rules do not require the president to place every written request from an Association member onto the agenda for the next meeting.

• Burden of Proof: Across all issues, the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to convince the judge that her contentions were “more probably true than not.” The decision repeatedly highlights the lack of evidence to support the claims of improper conduct.

Case Overview

On February 3, 2020, Petitioner Susan L. Alandar filed a petition alleging that the Ventana Lakes Property Owners’ Association violated Arizona state law and several provisions of its own Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs), Bylaws, and Rules. After paying an additional filing fee, the Petitioner presented four distinct issues for the hearing held on June 11, 2020. The final decision was issued on July 23, 2020.

Case Detail

Information

Case Number

20F-H2020046-REL

Petitioner

Susan L. Alandar

Respondent

Ventana Lakes Property Owners’ Association

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

Hearing Date

June 11, 2020

Decision Date

July 23, 2020

Final Disposition

Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Detailed Analysis of Allegations and Rulings

Issue 1: Board Candidate Interviews in Executive Session

• Allegation: The Petitioner contended that the Board of Directors violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Arizona’s open meeting law for HOAs) by interviewing candidates for Board appointments in closed executive sessions.

• Factual Background: The Respondent acknowledged that prior to June 2019, its practice was to conduct interviews, discussions, and votes to fill Board vacancies entirely within executive session, announcing the result in an open meeting. After this practice was questioned, the Board changed its procedure. Since June 2019, the Board has conducted candidate interviews in executive session specifically to “elicit private information that may impact the candidate’s ability to perform the duties of a Board member.” An example provided was a candidate who revealed his wife’s dementia diagnosis, which would take priority over Board duties. Under this revised process, the final vote on candidates is cast in an open session, and candidates also participate in an open forum where members can ask questions.

• Conclusion of Law: The ALJ found that the uncontroverted evidence showed the executive sessions were used for the purpose of discussing “personal, health, or financial information,” which is a specific exception allowed under A.R.S. § 33-1804. The decision states, “While Petitioner may believe the interviews were being conducted in executive session for nefarious purposes, no evidence was presented to establish such motives existed.” Consequently, the Petitioner failed to establish a violation.

Issues 2 & 3: Penalties and Facility Use Denial for the Italian American Club

• Allegation: The Petitioner argued that the Respondent wrongfully penalized the Italian American Club (IAC) and denied its members use of facilities, asserting that this action was discriminatory and not authorized by rule, in violation of CC&R’s Article V Section C and other community documents.

• Factual Background:

◦ In January 2018, the Board met with the IAC regarding non-compliance with rules and warned that failure to comply could result in the loss of privileges to use the Yacht Club.

◦ On April 4, 2019, an incident occurred where IAC members, after their last-minute request for more tables and chairs was denied, were observed on security cameras moving furniture from a storage area themselves. This was against Association rules, reportedly due to insurance policy limitations on volunteers moving tables.

◦ The situation escalated into a verbal altercation. Even after staff agreed to set up the requested tables, IAC members were again seen moving more furniture.

◦ On April 17, 2019, after reviewing video and audio recordings of the incident, the Board revoked the IAC’s right to use all Association facilities for a one-year period, from May 1, 2019, to April 30, 2020.

• Conclusion of Law: The ALJ found that the one-year prohibition on the IAC’s use of facilities had expired on April 30, 2020, prior to the June 11, 2020 hearing. As no evidence was presented that the revocation was still in effect, the matter was declared moot. The decision notes that even if the judge had found the revocation improper, she could not order any action because the penalty was no longer active. The ALJ did not rule on the merits of whether the Board’s action was initially justified.

Issue 4: Refusal to Place Member Items on Board Meeting Agenda

• Allegation: The Petitioner claimed the Board violated Ventana Lakes Rule 8.3.B.1.b by refusing to place homeowners’ written requests for Board action on the agenda for upcoming Board meetings. The Petitioner’s position was that the rule required the Board president to place any such item on the agenda.

• Factual Background: Both parties agreed that the Board president had received written requests from members that were not subsequently included on a meeting agenda. The Petitioner herself acknowledged during the hearing that it would be impractical for the president to include every single request if, for example, hundreds were received for a single meeting.

• Conclusion of Law: The ALJ determined that the “plain language” of the rule does not mandate that all requests must be placed on the agenda. The judge used the Petitioner’s own hypothetical concession to demonstrate that the Board president must have “inherent authority to limit the number of items to be included.” The ruling concluded that the president’s authority in setting the agenda is “broad” and that the Petitioner failed to prove a violation of the rule.

Key Referenced Authority

The decision was based on an interpretation of the following Arizona statutes and Ventana Lakes governing documents:

Document

Provision

Relevance to the Case

Arizona Revised Statutes

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Open Meetings: Allows meetings to be closed for specific reasons, including discussion of “Personal, health or financial information about an individual member.”

Article III, Section A

Easements of Enjoyment: Gives the Board the right to suspend any Resident from using Common Areas and to regulate their use through rules.

Article IV, Section C

Health, Safety and Welfare: Allows the Board to make rules restricting activities deemed a nuisance or to adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of residents.

Article V, Section C

Ventana Lakes Rules: Grants the Association power to adopt and repeal rules governing the use of Common Areas, provided they are not discriminatory or inconsistent.

Bylaws

Article IV.E.8

Board Powers: Grants the Board the power to adopt, amend, and enforce rules covering the operation and use of all property.

Ventana Lakes Rules

Rule 8.3.B

Board President Duties: States the president shall prepare agendas and “ensure that written requests for Board action…are placed on the agenda.” (Interpreted by ALJ).

Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge concluded the hearing with a definitive ruling:

“IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is denied.”

This order is binding unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.






Study Guide – 20F-H2020046-REL


Study Guide: Alandar v. Ventana Lakes Property Owners’ Association

This study guide provides a review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 20F-H2020046-REL, concerning a dispute between Petitioner Susan L. Alandar and Respondent Ventana Lakes Property Owners’ Association. The guide includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a comprehensive understanding of the case’s facts, arguments, and legal conclusions.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. What were the initial steps Susan L. Alandar took to begin the HOA dispute process, and when did she file her petition?

2. What was the Ventana Lakes Board’s practice regarding interviewing candidates for Board vacancies both before and after June 2019?

3. What was the core of the dispute regarding the Italian American Club (IAC), and what specific action by the club led to the conflict on April 4, 2019?

4. What penalty did the Board of Directors impose on the Italian American Club, and for what duration?

5. Why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismiss Issues 2 and 3 (concerning the IAC) as moot?

6. What was the Petitioner’s argument regarding the Board President’s responsibility for setting the meeting agenda under Ventana Lakes Rule 8.3.B.1.b?

7. How did the Administrative Law Judge interpret the Board President’s authority and discretion in setting the agenda?

8. Which party bears the “burden of proof” in this type of hearing, and what is the standard of proof required?

9. According to Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1804, when is it permissible for a Board of Directors to hold a closed or executive session?

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

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. On or about February 3, 2020, Susan L. Alandar filed a Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. She initially indicated two issues would be presented and paid a $1000.00 filing fee.

2. Prior to June 2019, the Board conducted candidate interviews, discussions, and votes in closed executive sessions. After June 2019, the Board conducted interviews in executive session to elicit private information but held the final vote in an open session.

3. The dispute centered on the IAC’s non-compliance with association rules. The conflict on April 4, 2019, was triggered when IAC members were observed on security cameras moving tables and chairs from a storage area against the instructions of the facilities manager.

4. In an executive session on April 17, 2019, the Board revoked the Italian American Club’s ability to use all of the association’s facilities. The penalty was for a period of one year, from May 1, 2019, to April 30, 2020.

5. The Judge dismissed these issues as moot because the one-year prohibition on the IAC’s use of facilities had already expired at the time of the hearing. Since the penalty was no longer in effect, the Judge could not order the Respondent to take any corrective action.

6. The Petitioner argued that Rule 8.3.B.1.b required the Board president to place any written request for Board action from an association member onto the agenda for the next meeting. She contended this was a mandatory duty, regardless of the nature or number of requests.

7. The Judge concluded that the rule’s plain language does not require every request to be placed on the agenda. Citing the impracticality of including hundreds of hypothetical requests, the Judge found that the Board President has broad, inherent authority to limit the items on the agenda.

8. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent committed the alleged violations. The required standard of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence.”

9. A.R.S. § 33-1804 allows a portion of a meeting to be closed to consider specific matters, including personal, health, or financial information about an individual member or employee of the association. The Board used this exception to justify holding candidate interviews in executive session.

10. The final order issued on July 23, 2020, was that the Petitioner’s petition is denied.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for deeper analysis and discussion. Formulate comprehensive answers based on the facts and legal reasoning presented in the decision.

1. Analyze the Board of Directors’ evolving practice for interviewing candidates for board vacancies (Issue 1). Discuss how their pre- and post-June 2019 methods relate to the specific language and exceptions outlined in A.R.S. § 33-1804.

2. Explain the legal concept of “mootness” as it was applied to the sanctions against the Italian American Club (Issues 2 and 3). Why was the Administrative Law Judge unable to rule on the propriety of the Board’s actions, and what does this imply about the timing of legal challenges in HOA disputes?

3. Compare and contrast the Petitioner’s interpretation of Ventana Lakes Rule 8.3.B.1.b with the Administrative Law Judge’s final interpretation (Issue 4). Discuss the Judge’s reasoning for concluding that the Board President has “inherent authority” to limit agenda items.

4. Define the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Using examples from at least two of the four issues raised in the petition, explain how the Petitioner failed to meet this burden of proof.

5. Based on the referenced community documents (CC&Rs and Bylaws), describe the scope of the Ventana Lakes Board of Directors’ power to regulate Common Areas, suspend resident privileges, and enforce rules. How do these documents grant authority that was relevant to the Board’s actions against the Italian American Club?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact, and issues decisions based on the evidence and applicable law. In this case, the ALJ was Tammy L. Eigenheer.

A.R.S.

Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona.

Bylaws

A set of rules adopted by an organization, such as an HOA, to govern its internal management and operations. Article IV, Section E of the Bylaws addresses the Board’s powers and duties.

Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions. These are legally binding rules recorded with the property deeds in a planned community, governing property use and the rights and obligations of the homeowners and the HOA.

Common Areas

Property within a planned community owned by the HOA for the common use and enjoyment of all residents, such as the Yacht Club and recreational facilities mentioned in the case.

Executive Session

A closed portion of a meeting of a deliberative body, such as an HOA board, which is not open to the general membership. A.R.S. § 33-1804 specifies the limited circumstances under which such a session can be held.

HOA (Homeowners Association)

An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. In this case, the Ventana Lakes Property Owners’ Association.

A legal term for a matter that is no longer in controversy or has become irrelevant. The ALJ declared the issues regarding the Italian American Club moot because the one-year penalty had already expired.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action or administrative proceeding. In this case, Susan L. Alandar.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases, which requires the trier of fact (the judge) to be convinced that a contention is more probably true than not. The Petitioner had the burden to meet this standard.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed or an appeal is brought. In this case, the Ventana Lakes Property Owners’ Association.






Blog Post – 20F-H2020046-REL



Select all sources