John R. Krahn Living Trust/Janet Krahn Living Trust
Counsel
—
Respondent
Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
Counsel
—
Alleged Violations
CC&R 5.3
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge granted the Petitioner’s single-issue petition because the HOA Board had not appointed a third member to the Architectural Committee (ARC) to comply with CC&R 5.3 until March 17, 2025. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee, but no civil penalty was awarded.
Key Issues & Findings
Architectural Committee Composition Requirement
Petitioner alleged violation of CC&R Article 5.3, which mandates the Architectural Committee (ARC) shall consist of three regular members, because the HOA only had two members on the ARC as of the petition date (February 5, 2025). The Tribunal found the HOA failed to appoint a third member to the ARC until March 17, 2025, granting the petition.
Orders: Petition granted; Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was awarded.
Briefing Document: Krahn Living Trust v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (Case No. 25F-H036-REL)
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case John R Krahn Living Trust/Janet Krahn Living Trust v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association, Case No. 25F-H036-REL, held before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The central dispute involved an allegation by the Petitioner that the Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (HOA) violated Article 5.3 of its Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which mandates that its Architectural Committee (ARC) “shall consist of three (3) regular members.”
The Petitioner, John R. Krahn, filed a single-issue petition on February 5, 2025, asserting that the ARC was operating with only two members, thereby violating the governing documents. The Petitioner argued that this violation had persisted for an extended period and that the HOA Board had ignored his own application to fill the vacancy, constituting punitive behavior that warranted civil penalties.
The Respondent, represented by Board President Dwight Jolivette, contended that the governing documents allow for flexibility and that no violation occurred while the Board was actively recruiting a third member. The HOA argued that its interpretation was practical, in the best interest of the homeowners, and consistent with the practices of previous boards.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Kay A. Abramsohn, ruled in favor of the Petitioner. The decision, issued on June 8, 2025, found that the HOA was in violation of CC&R 5.3 at the time the petition was filed. The ruling was narrowly focused on the number of ARC members and explicitly declined to address secondary arguments about the validity of member appointments, as those were outside the scope of the single-issue petition. Consequently, the HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee. The Petitioner’s request for a civil penalty was denied.
——————————————————————————–
Case Overview
Case Number
25F-H036-REL
Petitioner
John R Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust (Represented by John R. Krahn)
Respondent
Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (Represented by Dwight Jolivette, Board President)
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Hearing Date
May 14, 2025
Decision Date
June 8, 2025
Central Dispute: Violation of CC&R Article 5.3
The core of the dispute was the interpretation and application of CC&R Article 5.3 concerning the composition of the Architectural Committee (ARC).
Relevant Text of CC&R 5.3:
“After such time as the rights of Declarant to appoint the members of the Architectural Committee expire or are relinquished by the Declarant, the Architectural Committee shall consist of three (3) regular members, each of whom shall be appointed by the Board. In the event the Board does not appoint an Architectural Committee for any reason, the Board shall exercise the authority granted to the Architectural Committee under this Declaration…”
The Petitioner filed a single-issue petition on February 5, 2025, alleging the HOA was in violation of this article by operating the ARC with only two members.
Petitioner’s Position and Key Arguments
The Petitioner, John R. Krahn, who previously served as ARC Chairman (2019-2021) and Board Secretary (2019-2021), presented the following arguments:
• Mandatory Requirement: The term “shall” in CC&R 5.3 creates a mandatory, non-discretionary obligation for the ARC to have exactly three members.
• Prolonged Non-Compliance: The ARC operated with only two members for approximately 17 months, from at least October 2023 until March 17, 2025. Krahn further argued the period of non-compliance was potentially 42 months, claiming ARC member Mike Ackerly was never lawfully appointed by a formal Board vote in an open meeting.
• Failure to Correct: The HOA Board acknowledged the vacancy at a November 19, 2024 meeting and called for volunteers. Krahn submitted his resume the next day but his application was never discussed or voted upon. He contended this was a missed opportunity to bring the ARC into compliance.
• Punitive Behavior: The Board’s failure to consider his candidacy was described as “personal retaliation” and “punitive governance,” for which a civil penalty was warranted.
• Corrective Action as Admission: The Board’s appointment of a third member on March 17, 2025—after the complaint was filed—was presented as proof of the underlying violation.
Key Testimony (Krahn):“This is not a matter of opinion or interpretation. It’s a binary question of fact and by respondent’s own admission are operating for many months with other than three members.”
Respondent’s Position and Key Arguments
The HOA, represented by Board President Dwight Jolivette, countered with the following arguments:
• Reasonable Interpretation: No board has ever interpreted CC&R 5.3 to mean the ARC is non-viable or must be dissolved if it temporarily falls below three members.
• Active Recruitment: The Board was actively recruiting for the vacant position, as evidenced by the public call for volunteers. During this recruitment period, the two-member committee’s continued function was reasonable and in the community’s best interest.
• Board Authority: The Board has the authority under CC&R 12.5 to interpret the governing documents. Its interpretation that the committee could function with two members during a vacancy was a valid exercise of that authority.
• Appointment Process: The governing documents require members to be “appointed by the Board” but do not explicitly mandate a formal vote.
• Past Precedent: Jolivette argued that the ARC had operated with fewer than three members under prior boards, including one on which Krahn himself served.
Key Testimony (Jolivette):“Our position is that two members is not not necessarily a violation of 5.3 if and when you’re actively recruiting for another member… Nothing in the governing document states that an appointment is equivalent to a vote.”
Hearing and Procedural Timeline
Nov 19, 2024
The HOA Board acknowledges an ARC vacancy and calls for volunteers.
Nov 20, 2024
Petitioner John Krahn submits his resume for the ARC position.
Jan 22, 2025
The HOA’s Community Manager confirms in an email that the ARC has two members: Steve Gauer and Mike Ackerly.
Feb 5, 2025
The Petitioner files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Mar 17, 2025
The HOA Board formally appoints Alan Damon to the ARC via motion and vote, bringing its membership to three.
May 14, 2025
An evidentiary administrative hearing is held virtually before ALJ Kay Abramsohn.
June 8, 2025
The Administrative Law Judge Decision is issued.
June 29, 2025
An Order Nunc Pro Tunc is issued to correct the number of admitted petitioner exhibits in the original decision.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order
The ALJ’s decision, issued on June 8, 2025, resolved the dispute by granting the petition but denying the request for a civil penalty.
• Violation Confirmed: The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner met the burden of proof to demonstrate that as of the petition’s filing date (February 5, 2025), the HOA Board had not appointed a third member to the ARC. This constituted a violation of CC&R 5.3.
• Corrective Action Timing: The decision noted that a third member was not appointed until March 17, 2025, more than a month after the petition was filed.
• Limitation of Scope: The ALJ explicitly stated that the Petitioner’s arguments regarding the validity of Mike Ackerly’s appointment process were not addressed. The ruling was confined to the single issue presented in the original petition: whether the ARC had the required number of members. The decision stated, “Petitioner’s arguments regarding the appointment process are not addressed.”
The ALJ issued a three-part order:
1. Petition Granted: The Petitioner’s petition in case 25F-H036-REL was granted on the grounds that the HOA had not appointed a third member to the ARC to comply with CC&R 5.3 until March 17, 2025.
2. Filing Fee Reimbursed: The Respondent (HOA) was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.
3. Civil Penalty Denied: No civil penalty was awarded.
An Order Nunc Pro Tunc was later issued on June 29, 2025, to correct a clerical error in the original decision, changing the record of admitted evidence from “Petitioner’s Exhibits 1 through 22” to “Petitioner’s Exhibits 1 through 26.” This correction was retroactive to the date of the original decision.
Study Guide – 25F-H036-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H036-REL”, “case_title”: “John R. Krahn Living Trust/Janet Krahn Living Trust v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-06-08”, “alj_name”: “Kay A. Abramsohn”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If the CC&Rs state a committee ‘shall’ have a specific number of members, is the HOA in violation if they operate with fewer?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. If the governing documents mandate a specific number of members (e.g., three), failing to appoint that number is a violation.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that the HOA violated the CC&Rs because the documents required the Architectural Committee to consist of three members, but the Board had failed to appoint a third member for a period of time. The use of ‘shall consist’ in the CC&Rs created a mandatory requirement.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition in 25F-H036-REL be granted because the newly elected HOA Board had yet appointed a third member to the ARC in order to comply with CC&R 5.3 until March 17, 2025.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R 5.3”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&Rs”, “Committee Requirements”, “Governance” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA fixes the violation after I file my complaint, do I still win the hearing?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Correcting the issue after the petition is filed does not erase the fact that the violation existed at the time of filing.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner filed the petition in February. The HOA appointed the missing committee member in March (before the May hearing). The ALJ still granted the petition because the HOA was not in compliance at the time the dispute arose and the petition was filed.”, “alj_quote”: “The Tribunal concludes that that Petitioner has met his burden to demonstrate that, as of February 5, 2025, the newly elected HOA Board had not yet appointed a third member to the ARC… IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition… be granted because the newly elected HOA Board had yet appointed a third member to the ARC… until March 17, 2025.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Law Standards”, “topic_tags”: [ “Procedural”, “Compliance”, “Dispute Resolution” ] }, { “question”: “Will the HOA have to pay me back for the filing fee if I win?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The ALJ typically orders the HOA to reimburse the filing fee if the homeowner prevails.”, “detailed_answer”: “Upon granting the petition and finding the HOA in violation, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the homeowner’s $500 filing fee as required by Arizona statute.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “Filing Fees”, “Remedies”, “Costs” ] }, { “question”: “Does the law require a Board member to serve on the Architectural Committee?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Arizona statute mandates that at least one board member serve as the chairperson of the design review or architectural committee.”, “detailed_answer”: “Regardless of what the specific community documents say, Arizona state law (A.R.S. § 33-1817) overrides them to require that a board member serve as the chairperson of the architectural committee.”, “alj_quote”: “Membership on a design review committee, an architectural committee or a committee that performs similar functions, however denominated, for the planned community shall include at least one member of the board of directors who shall serve as chairperson of the committee.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Architectural Committee”, “Board of Directors”, “Statutory Requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Will I automatically be awarded civil penalties (fines against the HOA) if I prove a violation?”, “short_answer”: “No. Proving a violation does not guarantee that the judge will impose a civil penalty.”, “detailed_answer”: “Although the homeowner successfully proved the HOA violated the CC&Rs regarding committee membership, the ALJ explicitly declined to award any civil penalties.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no civil penalty is awarded.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Discretion”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Remedies”, “Civil Penalty” ] }, { “question”: “What is the standard of proof for a homeowner in an HOA administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must prove that their claim is ‘more probably true than not.’ It is based on the convincing force and superior weight of the evidence, not just the number of witnesses.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&R 5.3… ‘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”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Standards”, “Evidence” ] }, { “question”: “How long do I have to request a rehearing if I am unhappy with the decision?”, “short_answer”: “30 days.”, “detailed_answer”: “Any party wishing to request a rehearing must file the request with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.”, “alj_quote”: “Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09”, “topic_tags”: [ “Appeals”, “Rehearing”, “Procedure” ] } ] }
Blog Post – 25F-H036-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H036-REL”, “case_title”: “John R. Krahn Living Trust/Janet Krahn Living Trust v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-06-08”, “alj_name”: “Kay A. Abramsohn”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If the CC&Rs state a committee ‘shall’ have a specific number of members, is the HOA in violation if they operate with fewer?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. If the governing documents mandate a specific number of members (e.g., three), failing to appoint that number is a violation.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that the HOA violated the CC&Rs because the documents required the Architectural Committee to consist of three members, but the Board had failed to appoint a third member for a period of time. The use of ‘shall consist’ in the CC&Rs created a mandatory requirement.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition in 25F-H036-REL be granted because the newly elected HOA Board had yet appointed a third member to the ARC in order to comply with CC&R 5.3 until March 17, 2025.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R 5.3”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&Rs”, “Committee Requirements”, “Governance” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA fixes the violation after I file my complaint, do I still win the hearing?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Correcting the issue after the petition is filed does not erase the fact that the violation existed at the time of filing.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner filed the petition in February. The HOA appointed the missing committee member in March (before the May hearing). The ALJ still granted the petition because the HOA was not in compliance at the time the dispute arose and the petition was filed.”, “alj_quote”: “The Tribunal concludes that that Petitioner has met his burden to demonstrate that, as of February 5, 2025, the newly elected HOA Board had not yet appointed a third member to the ARC… IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition… be granted because the newly elected HOA Board had yet appointed a third member to the ARC… until March 17, 2025.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Law Standards”, “topic_tags”: [ “Procedural”, “Compliance”, “Dispute Resolution” ] }, { “question”: “Will the HOA have to pay me back for the filing fee if I win?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The ALJ typically orders the HOA to reimburse the filing fee if the homeowner prevails.”, “detailed_answer”: “Upon granting the petition and finding the HOA in violation, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the homeowner’s $500 filing fee as required by Arizona statute.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “Filing Fees”, “Remedies”, “Costs” ] }, { “question”: “Does the law require a Board member to serve on the Architectural Committee?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Arizona statute mandates that at least one board member serve as the chairperson of the design review or architectural committee.”, “detailed_answer”: “Regardless of what the specific community documents say, Arizona state law (A.R.S. § 33-1817) overrides them to require that a board member serve as the chairperson of the architectural committee.”, “alj_quote”: “Membership on a design review committee, an architectural committee or a committee that performs similar functions, however denominated, for the planned community shall include at least one member of the board of directors who shall serve as chairperson of the committee.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Architectural Committee”, “Board of Directors”, “Statutory Requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Will I automatically be awarded civil penalties (fines against the HOA) if I prove a violation?”, “short_answer”: “No. Proving a violation does not guarantee that the judge will impose a civil penalty.”, “detailed_answer”: “Although the homeowner successfully proved the HOA violated the CC&Rs regarding committee membership, the ALJ explicitly declined to award any civil penalties.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no civil penalty is awarded.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Discretion”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Remedies”, “Civil Penalty” ] }, { “question”: “What is the standard of proof for a homeowner in an HOA administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must prove that their claim is ‘more probably true than not.’ It is based on the convincing force and superior weight of the evidence, not just the number of witnesses.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&R 5.3… ‘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”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Standards”, “Evidence” ] }, { “question”: “How long do I have to request a rehearing if I am unhappy with the decision?”, “short_answer”: “30 days.”, “detailed_answer”: “Any party wishing to request a rehearing must file the request with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.”, “alj_quote”: “Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09”, “topic_tags”: [ “Appeals”, “Rehearing”, “Procedure” ] } ] }
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
John R. Krahn(petitioner/representative) John R Krahn Living Trust Appeared on Petitioners’ behalf; former ARC Chairman and Board Secretary.
Janet Krahn(petitioner) Janet Krahn Living Trust Named party in the case title.
Respondent Side
Dwight Jolivette(board president/HOA representative) Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association Appeared on Respondent's behalf.
Barbara Bonilla(property manager) Ogden & Company Community Manager for the HOA.
Steve Gauer(board treasurer/ARC member) Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association Became Board Treasurer in November 2024; served on ARC.
Mike Ackerly(ARC member) Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association Joined the ARC in February 2022.
Alan Damon(ARC member) Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association Appointed to the ARC on March 17, 2025.
Kenneth Riley(ARC member (former)) Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association Indicated as an ARC member between July and November 2024.
Neutral Parties
Kay A. Abramsohn(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
Susan Nicolson(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
Other Participants
Joe Burns(attendee) Attended the hearing virtually; did not give testimony.
John Fris(ARC member (former)) Mentioned as a former ARC member appointed in February 2021.
Brett(ARC member (former)) Mentioned as a former ARC member whom John (Fris) replaced.
John R. Krahn Living Trust/Janet Krahn Living Trust
Counsel
—
Respondent
Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
Counsel
—
Alleged Violations
CC&R 5.3
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge granted the Petitioner’s single-issue petition because the HOA Board had not appointed a third member to the Architectural Committee (ARC) to comply with CC&R 5.3 until March 17, 2025. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee, but no civil penalty was awarded.
Key Issues & Findings
Architectural Committee Composition Requirement
Petitioner alleged violation of CC&R Article 5.3, which mandates the Architectural Committee (ARC) shall consist of three regular members, because the HOA only had two members on the ARC as of the petition date (February 5, 2025). The Tribunal found the HOA failed to appoint a third member to the ARC until March 17, 2025, granting the petition.
Orders: Petition granted; Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was awarded.
Briefing Document: Krahn Living Trust v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (Case No. 25F-H036-REL)
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case John R Krahn Living Trust/Janet Krahn Living Trust v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association, Case No. 25F-H036-REL, held before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The central dispute involved an allegation by the Petitioner that the Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (HOA) violated Article 5.3 of its Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which mandates that its Architectural Committee (ARC) “shall consist of three (3) regular members.”
The Petitioner, John R. Krahn, filed a single-issue petition on February 5, 2025, asserting that the ARC was operating with only two members, thereby violating the governing documents. The Petitioner argued that this violation had persisted for an extended period and that the HOA Board had ignored his own application to fill the vacancy, constituting punitive behavior that warranted civil penalties.
The Respondent, represented by Board President Dwight Jolivette, contended that the governing documents allow for flexibility and that no violation occurred while the Board was actively recruiting a third member. The HOA argued that its interpretation was practical, in the best interest of the homeowners, and consistent with the practices of previous boards.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Kay A. Abramsohn, ruled in favor of the Petitioner. The decision, issued on June 8, 2025, found that the HOA was in violation of CC&R 5.3 at the time the petition was filed. The ruling was narrowly focused on the number of ARC members and explicitly declined to address secondary arguments about the validity of member appointments, as those were outside the scope of the single-issue petition. Consequently, the HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee. The Petitioner’s request for a civil penalty was denied.
——————————————————————————–
Case Overview
Case Number
25F-H036-REL
Petitioner
John R Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust (Represented by John R. Krahn)
Respondent
Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (Represented by Dwight Jolivette, Board President)
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Hearing Date
May 14, 2025
Decision Date
June 8, 2025
Central Dispute: Violation of CC&R Article 5.3
The core of the dispute was the interpretation and application of CC&R Article 5.3 concerning the composition of the Architectural Committee (ARC).
Relevant Text of CC&R 5.3:
“After such time as the rights of Declarant to appoint the members of the Architectural Committee expire or are relinquished by the Declarant, the Architectural Committee shall consist of three (3) regular members, each of whom shall be appointed by the Board. In the event the Board does not appoint an Architectural Committee for any reason, the Board shall exercise the authority granted to the Architectural Committee under this Declaration…”
The Petitioner filed a single-issue petition on February 5, 2025, alleging the HOA was in violation of this article by operating the ARC with only two members.
Petitioner’s Position and Key Arguments
The Petitioner, John R. Krahn, who previously served as ARC Chairman (2019-2021) and Board Secretary (2019-2021), presented the following arguments:
• Mandatory Requirement: The term “shall” in CC&R 5.3 creates a mandatory, non-discretionary obligation for the ARC to have exactly three members.
• Prolonged Non-Compliance: The ARC operated with only two members for approximately 17 months, from at least October 2023 until March 17, 2025. Krahn further argued the period of non-compliance was potentially 42 months, claiming ARC member Mike Ackerly was never lawfully appointed by a formal Board vote in an open meeting.
• Failure to Correct: The HOA Board acknowledged the vacancy at a November 19, 2024 meeting and called for volunteers. Krahn submitted his resume the next day but his application was never discussed or voted upon. He contended this was a missed opportunity to bring the ARC into compliance.
• Punitive Behavior: The Board’s failure to consider his candidacy was described as “personal retaliation” and “punitive governance,” for which a civil penalty was warranted.
• Corrective Action as Admission: The Board’s appointment of a third member on March 17, 2025—after the complaint was filed—was presented as proof of the underlying violation.
Key Testimony (Krahn):“This is not a matter of opinion or interpretation. It’s a binary question of fact and by respondent’s own admission are operating for many months with other than three members.”
Respondent’s Position and Key Arguments
The HOA, represented by Board President Dwight Jolivette, countered with the following arguments:
• Reasonable Interpretation: No board has ever interpreted CC&R 5.3 to mean the ARC is non-viable or must be dissolved if it temporarily falls below three members.
• Active Recruitment: The Board was actively recruiting for the vacant position, as evidenced by the public call for volunteers. During this recruitment period, the two-member committee’s continued function was reasonable and in the community’s best interest.
• Board Authority: The Board has the authority under CC&R 12.5 to interpret the governing documents. Its interpretation that the committee could function with two members during a vacancy was a valid exercise of that authority.
• Appointment Process: The governing documents require members to be “appointed by the Board” but do not explicitly mandate a formal vote.
• Past Precedent: Jolivette argued that the ARC had operated with fewer than three members under prior boards, including one on which Krahn himself served.
Key Testimony (Jolivette):“Our position is that two members is not not necessarily a violation of 5.3 if and when you’re actively recruiting for another member… Nothing in the governing document states that an appointment is equivalent to a vote.”
Hearing and Procedural Timeline
Nov 19, 2024
The HOA Board acknowledges an ARC vacancy and calls for volunteers.
Nov 20, 2024
Petitioner John Krahn submits his resume for the ARC position.
Jan 22, 2025
The HOA’s Community Manager confirms in an email that the ARC has two members: Steve Gauer and Mike Ackerly.
Feb 5, 2025
The Petitioner files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Mar 17, 2025
The HOA Board formally appoints Alan Damon to the ARC via motion and vote, bringing its membership to three.
May 14, 2025
An evidentiary administrative hearing is held virtually before ALJ Kay Abramsohn.
June 8, 2025
The Administrative Law Judge Decision is issued.
June 29, 2025
An Order Nunc Pro Tunc is issued to correct the number of admitted petitioner exhibits in the original decision.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order
The ALJ’s decision, issued on June 8, 2025, resolved the dispute by granting the petition but denying the request for a civil penalty.
• Violation Confirmed: The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner met the burden of proof to demonstrate that as of the petition’s filing date (February 5, 2025), the HOA Board had not appointed a third member to the ARC. This constituted a violation of CC&R 5.3.
• Corrective Action Timing: The decision noted that a third member was not appointed until March 17, 2025, more than a month after the petition was filed.
• Limitation of Scope: The ALJ explicitly stated that the Petitioner’s arguments regarding the validity of Mike Ackerly’s appointment process were not addressed. The ruling was confined to the single issue presented in the original petition: whether the ARC had the required number of members. The decision stated, “Petitioner’s arguments regarding the appointment process are not addressed.”
The ALJ issued a three-part order:
1. Petition Granted: The Petitioner’s petition in case 25F-H036-REL was granted on the grounds that the HOA had not appointed a third member to the ARC to comply with CC&R 5.3 until March 17, 2025.
2. Filing Fee Reimbursed: The Respondent (HOA) was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.
3. Civil Penalty Denied: No civil penalty was awarded.
An Order Nunc Pro Tunc was later issued on June 29, 2025, to correct a clerical error in the original decision, changing the record of admitted evidence from “Petitioner’s Exhibits 1 through 22” to “Petitioner’s Exhibits 1 through 26.” This correction was retroactive to the date of the original decision.
Questions
Question
If the CC&Rs state a committee 'shall' have a specific number of members, is the HOA in violation if they operate with fewer?
Short Answer
Yes. If the governing documents mandate a specific number of members (e.g., three), failing to appoint that number is a violation.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that the HOA violated the CC&Rs because the documents required the Architectural Committee to consist of three members, but the Board had failed to appoint a third member for a period of time. The use of 'shall consist' in the CC&Rs created a mandatory requirement.
Alj Quote
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition in 25F-H036-REL be granted because the newly elected HOA Board had yet appointed a third member to the ARC in order to comply with CC&R 5.3 until March 17, 2025.
Legal Basis
CC&R 5.3
Topic Tags
CC&Rs
Committee Requirements
Governance
Question
If the HOA fixes the violation after I file my complaint, do I still win the hearing?
Short Answer
Yes. Correcting the issue after the petition is filed does not erase the fact that the violation existed at the time of filing.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner filed the petition in February. The HOA appointed the missing committee member in March (before the May hearing). The ALJ still granted the petition because the HOA was not in compliance at the time the dispute arose and the petition was filed.
Alj Quote
The Tribunal concludes that that Petitioner has met his burden to demonstrate that, as of February 5, 2025, the newly elected HOA Board had not yet appointed a third member to the ARC… IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition… be granted because the newly elected HOA Board had yet appointed a third member to the ARC… until March 17, 2025.
Legal Basis
Administrative Law Standards
Topic Tags
Procedural
Compliance
Dispute Resolution
Question
Will the HOA have to pay me back for the filing fee if I win?
Short Answer
Yes. The ALJ typically orders the HOA to reimburse the filing fee if the homeowner prevails.
Detailed Answer
Upon granting the petition and finding the HOA in violation, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the homeowner's $500 filing fee as required by Arizona statute.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
Topic Tags
Filing Fees
Remedies
Costs
Question
Does the law require a Board member to serve on the Architectural Committee?
Short Answer
Yes. Arizona statute mandates that at least one board member serve as the chairperson of the design review or architectural committee.
Detailed Answer
Regardless of what the specific community documents say, Arizona state law (A.R.S. § 33-1817) overrides them to require that a board member serve as the chairperson of the architectural committee.
Alj Quote
Membership on a design review committee, an architectural committee or a committee that performs similar functions, however denominated, for the planned community shall include at least one member of the board of directors who shall serve as chairperson of the committee.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(1)
Topic Tags
Architectural Committee
Board of Directors
Statutory Requirements
Question
Will I automatically be awarded civil penalties (fines against the HOA) if I prove a violation?
Short Answer
No. Proving a violation does not guarantee that the judge will impose a civil penalty.
Detailed Answer
Although the homeowner successfully proved the HOA violated the CC&Rs regarding committee membership, the ALJ explicitly declined to award any civil penalties.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no civil penalty is awarded.
Legal Basis
Administrative Discretion
Topic Tags
Penalties
Remedies
Civil Penalty
Question
What is the standard of proof for a homeowner in an HOA administrative hearing?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must prove that their claim is 'more probably true than not.' It is based on the convincing force and superior weight of the evidence, not just the number of witnesses.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&R 5.3… '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
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
Burden of Proof
Legal Standards
Evidence
Question
How long do I have to request a rehearing if I am unhappy with the decision?
Short Answer
30 days.
Detailed Answer
Any party wishing to request a rehearing must file the request with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
Topic Tags
Appeals
Rehearing
Procedure
Case
Docket No
25F-H036-REL
Case Title
John R. Krahn Living Trust/Janet Krahn Living Trust v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2025-06-08
Alj Name
Kay A. Abramsohn
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
If the CC&Rs state a committee 'shall' have a specific number of members, is the HOA in violation if they operate with fewer?
Short Answer
Yes. If the governing documents mandate a specific number of members (e.g., three), failing to appoint that number is a violation.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that the HOA violated the CC&Rs because the documents required the Architectural Committee to consist of three members, but the Board had failed to appoint a third member for a period of time. The use of 'shall consist' in the CC&Rs created a mandatory requirement.
Alj Quote
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition in 25F-H036-REL be granted because the newly elected HOA Board had yet appointed a third member to the ARC in order to comply with CC&R 5.3 until March 17, 2025.
Legal Basis
CC&R 5.3
Topic Tags
CC&Rs
Committee Requirements
Governance
Question
If the HOA fixes the violation after I file my complaint, do I still win the hearing?
Short Answer
Yes. Correcting the issue after the petition is filed does not erase the fact that the violation existed at the time of filing.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner filed the petition in February. The HOA appointed the missing committee member in March (before the May hearing). The ALJ still granted the petition because the HOA was not in compliance at the time the dispute arose and the petition was filed.
Alj Quote
The Tribunal concludes that that Petitioner has met his burden to demonstrate that, as of February 5, 2025, the newly elected HOA Board had not yet appointed a third member to the ARC… IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition… be granted because the newly elected HOA Board had yet appointed a third member to the ARC… until March 17, 2025.
Legal Basis
Administrative Law Standards
Topic Tags
Procedural
Compliance
Dispute Resolution
Question
Will the HOA have to pay me back for the filing fee if I win?
Short Answer
Yes. The ALJ typically orders the HOA to reimburse the filing fee if the homeowner prevails.
Detailed Answer
Upon granting the petition and finding the HOA in violation, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the homeowner's $500 filing fee as required by Arizona statute.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
Topic Tags
Filing Fees
Remedies
Costs
Question
Does the law require a Board member to serve on the Architectural Committee?
Short Answer
Yes. Arizona statute mandates that at least one board member serve as the chairperson of the design review or architectural committee.
Detailed Answer
Regardless of what the specific community documents say, Arizona state law (A.R.S. § 33-1817) overrides them to require that a board member serve as the chairperson of the architectural committee.
Alj Quote
Membership on a design review committee, an architectural committee or a committee that performs similar functions, however denominated, for the planned community shall include at least one member of the board of directors who shall serve as chairperson of the committee.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(1)
Topic Tags
Architectural Committee
Board of Directors
Statutory Requirements
Question
Will I automatically be awarded civil penalties (fines against the HOA) if I prove a violation?
Short Answer
No. Proving a violation does not guarantee that the judge will impose a civil penalty.
Detailed Answer
Although the homeowner successfully proved the HOA violated the CC&Rs regarding committee membership, the ALJ explicitly declined to award any civil penalties.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no civil penalty is awarded.
Legal Basis
Administrative Discretion
Topic Tags
Penalties
Remedies
Civil Penalty
Question
What is the standard of proof for a homeowner in an HOA administrative hearing?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must prove that their claim is 'more probably true than not.' It is based on the convincing force and superior weight of the evidence, not just the number of witnesses.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&R 5.3… '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
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
Burden of Proof
Legal Standards
Evidence
Question
How long do I have to request a rehearing if I am unhappy with the decision?
Short Answer
30 days.
Detailed Answer
Any party wishing to request a rehearing must file the request with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
Topic Tags
Appeals
Rehearing
Procedure
Case
Docket No
25F-H036-REL
Case Title
John R. Krahn Living Trust/Janet Krahn Living Trust v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
The Administrative Law Judge granted the petition filed by the Cross Creek Ranch Community Association, finding that Turquoise Textures, LLC violated CC&Rs Article 3, Section 3.1.3 and Article 7, Section 7.5 by clear cutting old growth trees and vegetation in violation of approved plans. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500 filing fee and comply with governing documents.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by clear cutting old growth trees and vegetation contrary to approved plans.
Petitioner alleged Respondent clear cut approximately 30 old growth trees and native vegetation, violating approved plans and governing documents, and presenting a nuisance. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner sustained its burden of proof that Respondent violated the Association’s governing documents, regardless of whether Respondent directed the general contractor, and granted the petition.
Orders: Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds and henceforth comply with the provisions of the governing documents.
Briefing Document: Cross Creek Ranch Community Association vs. Turquoise Textures, LLC
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the case Cross Creek Ranch Community Association vs. Turquoise Textures, LLC (No. 25F-H005-REL), heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The central dispute involved the unauthorized clear-cutting of approximately 30 old-growth trees and native vegetation from a lot owned by William D. Durham, principal of Turquoise Textures, LLC.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Nicole Robinson, ultimately ruled in favor of the Petitioner, the Cross Creek Ranch Community Association (HOA). The decision found that Mr. Durham violated the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Design Guidelines. While Mr. Durham’s primary defense was to blame his general contractor, the ALJ’s decision was based on credible testimony from the contractor implicating Mr. Durham, a documented pattern of non-compliance by Mr. Durham, and his own admission that the lot was cleared in violation of his approved plans.
The HOA sought a court order compelling Mr. Durham to plant 30 trees, 10-12 feet in height, by March 15, 2025. The final OAH order granted the HOA’s petition, requiring Mr. Durham to comply with the governing documents and reimburse the association’s $500 filing fee.
Case Overview
Parties Involved
Name / Entity
Key Role/Witness For
Petitioner
Cross Creek Ranch Community Association
Homeowners’ Association alleging violation of governing documents.
Respondent
Turquoise Textures, LLC (William D. Durham)
Property owner accused of violating governing documents.
Adjudicator
Nicole Robinson
Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings.
Witness
Greg Chambers
Petitioner; HOA Board Member.
Witness
Steve Germaine
Petitioner; Member of Architectural Review Committee (ARC), former ARC Chair.
Witness
Daniel Donahghue
Petitioner; Current ARC Chair and Board Member.
Witness
Jeffrey Penchina
Petitioner; Member of the ARC.
Witness
Timothy Smith
Petitioner; General Contractor hired by William Durham.
Core Allegation and Relief Sought
The HOA filed a petition on July 16, 2024, alleging that in September 2023, the Respondent clear-cut his lot of 20-30 old-growth trees (Junipers and Pinions) and native vegetation. This action was in direct violation of his ARC-approved plans, which were contingent on those plantings remaining in place. The HOA contended this violated:
• CC&Rs Article 3, Section 3.1.3: Pertaining to architectural approval and control.
• CC&Rs Article 7, Section 7.5: Pertaining to improper maintenance and use of lots.
The HOA argued that the clear-cutting was done to improve Mr. Durham’s view and detrimentally affected the community’s appearance and value. The specific relief requested was an order compelling Mr. Durham to plant 30 trees (10 to 12 feet in size) and replace additional vegetation by March 15, 2025.
Chronology of Key Events
• April 18, 2021: Prior to purchasing the lot, William Durham meets with ARC member Steve Germaine and is informed via a follow-up email that “The ARC does not approve the removal of trees… solely for the purpose of preserving or improving a view.”
• May 3, 2021: William Durham purchases Lot 62 in Cross Creek Ranch.
• July 7, 2022: Mr. Durham receives permission from the ARC to remove four specific dead trees.
• July 9, 2022: Mr. Germaine observes Mr. Durham removing more than the four approved dead trees and instructs him to stop.
• June 7, 2023: The ARC approves Mr. Durham’s residential and landscape plans, which show the preservation of existing trees and vegetation in the “transitional area.”
• August 29, 2023: A pre-construction meeting is held with Mr. Durham, his General Contractor (GC) Timothy Smith, and ARC members. ARC member Jeffrey Penchina testified that Mr. Durham personally assured him no trees outside the construction envelope would be removed.
• September 2023: Over approximately three days, Mr. Smith’s company clear-cuts the lot of 30+ old-growth trees and shrubs.
• October 2023: Following the discovery of the clearing, the ARC sends a letter to Mr. Durham to cease construction.
• October 6, 2023: Mr. Durham files a complaint with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (ROC) against Tim Smith, blaming him for the tree removal.
• February 9, 2024: Mr. Durham transfers the property title to Turquoise Textures, LLC.
• July 16, 2024: The HOA files its petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• October 15, 2024: Mr. Durham submits a revised landscape plan to the HOA.
• November 4, 2024: The HOA responds to the plan, requiring 10-12 foot trees for remediation.
• November 11, 2024: Mr. Durham sends a detailed email responding to the HOA’s requirements.
• November 26, 2024: The OAH hearing is conducted virtually.
• December 16, 2024: The ALJ issues a final decision granting the HOA’s petition. A separate minute entry notes that documents filed by Mr. Durham after the hearing record closed would not be considered.
Key Testimony and Arguments
Petitioner’s Case (Cross Creek Ranch HOA)
The HOA presented a case built on documented warnings, contractual obligations, and direct eyewitness testimony.
• Established Pattern of Non-Compliance: Witness Steve Germaine testified that he warned Mr. Durham about the rules regarding tree removal for views even before the lot was purchased in April 2021. He further testified to the incident on July 9, 2022, where he witnessed Mr. Durham cutting down live trees without authorization, beyond the four dead trees he had permission for.
• Violation of Approved Plans: Daniel Donahghue and Jeffrey Penchina testified that during the pre-construction meeting on August 29, 2023, the rules were clearly explained. Mr. Penchina stated, “he assured me that nothing outside of the construction envelope would be removed.” The approved plans, entered as evidence, explicitly showed the preservation of the natural landscape in the transitional area.
• Direct Culpability via GC Testimony: The general contractor, Timothy Smith, provided critical testimony directly contradicting Mr. Durham’s defense.
◦ Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Durham directed the clear-cutting: “he started to point out at trees that were in disturbing the… surrounding views… I let him know, well, now we’re going outside of the construction envelope. And he said he doesn’t really care.”
◦ He testified that Mr. Durham was on-site during the three-day clearing process and that the business relationship fractured later over non-payment for subsequent work, not over the tree removal.
Respondent’s Defense (William D. Durham)
Mr. Durham admitted the plans were violated but placed all blame on his general contractor and portrayed the HOA as a hostile and unresponsive entity.
• Blame Assigned to General Contractor: Mr. Durham’s central argument was that his GC acted against instructions. He stated, “I was forced to have a GC that I didn’t need, and the GC insisted on doing all the initial work… He ignored all the directives from Mark and from me.” He testified that he “absolutely not” directed Mr. Smith to clear the land and claimed to be out of town for most of the clearing.
• Allegations of HOA Harassment and Inefficiency: Mr. Durham repeatedly described the HOA as slow, uncooperative, and corrupt.
◦ He claimed he was trying to remediate the issue but the HOA was “very very very slow to ever get back to me.”
◦ He accused the HOA of “moving the goalposts” by demanding 10-12 foot trees, a requirement he said was never mentioned until the hearing.
◦ He testified he was facing over “$40,000 in fines” and was being harassed by specific members. He stated, “There’s a degree of corruption and cronyism in this HOA that is deeply disturbing.”
• Proactive Remediation Efforts: Mr. Durham asserted he had been proactive, submitting a new landscape plan with 32 plants. He testified, “all I need is their input back that’s helpful to resolve everything.” He repeatedly requested a single liaison from the ARC to facilitate faster solutions.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision
The ALJ’s decision, issued December 16, 2024, was a conclusive victory for the Petitioner.
Findings of Fact
The ALJ established a clear factual record that supported the HOA’s position, highlighting:
• The pre-purchase warning to Mr. Durham in April 2021 regarding tree removal.
• The unauthorized removal of viable trees in July 2022.
• The September 2023 clear-cutting incident, which the judge factually concluded occurred at Mr. Durham’s direction. Finding #15 states: “Mr. Smith, the general contractor, cleared Lot 64 of approximately 30 plus trees and shrubs that were not included in the approved plans per Respondent’s instruction.”
Conclusions of Law
Based on the evidence, the ALJ made the following legal conclusions:
• The Petitioner (HOA) successfully met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the governing documents.
• The ALJ identified a clear “pattern” of behavior, noting Mr. Durham began “failing to heed the ARC’s directions in July 2022.”
• Critically, the judge determined that even without the GC’s testimony, Mr. Durham’s own admission was sufficient for a finding of violation: “Respondent admitted what happened to his Lot was not a part of the approved plan and, hence, was a violation of Petitioner’s CC&Rs and Design Guidelines.”
Final Order
The OAH issued the following orders:
1. IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition be granted.
2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00.
3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall henceforth comply with the provisions of the governing documents.
Study Guide – 25F-H005-REL
Select all sources
1246254.pdf
1246768.aac
1246769.aac
1252576.pdf
1252586.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
25F-H005-REL
5 sources
These sources document a legal dispute and administrative hearing between the Cross Creek Ranch Community Association and homeowner William Durham, operating as Turquoise Textures LLC. The association alleged that Durham violated community governing documents by clear-cutting approximately 30 protected old-growth trees to improve his property’s view, contradicting his approved landscape plans. While Durham blamed his general contractor for the unauthorized removal, testimony from the contractor and association members suggested Durham directed the clearing personally. The Office of Administrative Hearings ultimately ruled in favor of the association, finding Durham in violation of the CC&Rs and Design Guidelines. Consequently, the court ordered Durham to reimburse filing fees and mandated future compliance with community standards, which included a demand for the replanting of mature trees by March 2025.
What are the specific landscaping violations alleged by the Association?
How did the dispute over clear-cutting trees affect the build?
What final ruling did the Administrative Law Judge issue?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 5:13 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 25F-H005-REL
Select all sources
1246254.pdf
1246768.aac
1246769.aac
1252576.pdf
1252586.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
25F-H005-REL
5 sources
These sources document a legal dispute and administrative hearing between the Cross Creek Ranch Community Association and homeowner William Durham, operating as Turquoise Textures LLC. The association alleged that Durham violated community governing documents by clear-cutting approximately 30 protected old-growth trees to improve his property’s view, contradicting his approved landscape plans. While Durham blamed his general contractor for the unauthorized removal, testimony from the contractor and association members suggested Durham directed the clearing personally. The Office of Administrative Hearings ultimately ruled in favor of the association, finding Durham in violation of the CC&Rs and Design Guidelines. Consequently, the court ordered Durham to reimburse filing fees and mandated future compliance with community standards, which included a demand for the replanting of mature trees by March 2025.
What are the specific landscaping violations alleged by the Association?
How did the dispute over clear-cutting trees affect the build?
What final ruling did the Administrative Law Judge issue?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 5:13 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
John Kalinich(representative) Cross Creek Ranch Community Association
Greg Chambers(board member / witness) Cross Creek Ranch Community Association
Daniel K. Donahghue(board member / witness) Cross Creek Ranch Community Association ARC Chair
Steven M. Germaine(ARC member / witness) Cross Creek Ranch Community Association
Jeffrey Panchina(ARC member / witness) Cross Creek Ranch Community Association
Timothy C. Smith(witness (GC)) Former General Contractor for Respondent
Respondent Side
William D. Durham(respondent (principal)) Turquoise Textures, LLC
A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) A.R.S. § 33-1248 (A), (D), (E), and (F); and Tara CC&Rs Section 9(E)
Outcome Summary
Petitioner prevailed on the 'Records' issue (A.R.S. § 33-1258), resulting in a $500.00 filing fee reimbursement. Respondent prevailed on the 'Example 13' issue (A.R.S. § 33-1248 and CC&Rs § 9(E)).
Why this result: The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to sustain her burden regarding the Open Meeting Law allegations, finding that TARA conducted meetings in compliance and the specific volunteer work referenced was not statutorily or contractually required to be placed on an agenda for formal action.
Key Issues & Findings
Records Access Violation
TARA failed to timely provide access to TARA HOA records it possessed, violating the ten business day fulfillment requirement for examination requests.
Orders: TARA was ordered to reimburse Petitioner $500.00.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
Open Meeting Law Violation (Example 13)
Petitioner alleged open meeting violations concerning volunteer work and projects not placed on agendas or formally voted upon by the board (Example 13).
Orders: Petitioner's Petition was dismissed as to alleged violations of A.R.S. § 33-1248(A), (D), (E), and (F) and/or Tara CC&Rs Section 9(E).
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1248(D)
A.R.S. § 33-1248(E)
A.R.S. § 33-1248(F)
Tara CC&Rs Section 9(E)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Records, Open Meeting Law, Partial Victory, Filing Fee Reimbursement, Condominium Association
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
A.R.S. § 33-1248
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 33-1801 et seq.
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Tara CC&Rs Section 9(E)
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
24F-H054-REL Decision – 1212274.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:11:34 (70.4 KB)
24F-H054-REL Decision – 1212281.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:11:41 (12.4 KB)
24F-H054-REL Decision – 1216809.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:11:49 (50.9 KB)
24F-H054-REL Decision – 1225818.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:11:58 (168.1 KB)
24F-H054-REL Decision – 1226250.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:12:08 (41.9 KB)
Briefing Doc – 24F-H054-REL
Briefing Document: Marx v. Tara Condominium Association
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative case Lisa Marx v. Tara Condominium Association (No. 24F-H054-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The dispute centers on two primary allegations brought by homeowner and former board member Lisa Marx against the Tara Condominium Association (TARA): (1) violations of Arizona state law regarding access to association records, and (2) violations of the state’s Open Meeting Law.
The case culminated in a split decision by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). TARA was found to have violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by failing to provide timely access to its financial and other records as requested by the petitioner. However, the petitioner failed to prove her second claim that TARA violated the open meeting provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1248 when board members and volunteers performed maintenance and repair projects on common areas without formal agenda items and board votes.
Consequently, the ALJ sustained the petition on the records violation and dismissed it on the open meeting violation. TARA was ordered to reimburse Ms. Marx $500, representing the filing fee for the single issue on which she prevailed. A subsequent request for rehearing filed by Ms. Marx was procedurally rejected for being submitted to the incorrect agency.
Case Background and Procedural History
Parties and Context
• Petitioner: Lisa Marx, a homeowner in the Tara Condominium Association and a former board member who served in various capacities, including Secretary, Chairperson, and Vice-Chairperson, from 2021 until her resignation in January 2024.
• Respondent: Tara Condominium Association (TARA), a 50-unit nonprofit management association, represented at the hearing by its Chairman, Mark Gottmann.
The dispute arose following a change in board leadership in early 2024, with Ms. Marx alleging the new board was operating without transparency and in violation of state statutes and the association’s governing documents.
Chronology of Key Events
Jan 2024
Lisa Marx resigns from the TARA board two weeks after being elected for a fourth term.
Feb 1, 2024
Mark Gottmann assumes the role of Chairman of the Board.
Feb–Apr 2024
Marx makes a series of five requests for association records, which are either partially or fully denied by the TARA board.
May 29, 2024
Marx files an HOA Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging two categories of violations and paying a 1,000filingfee(500 per issue).
Aug 8, 2024
TARA files an Amended Response, admitting to several of the alleged violations, offering to reimburse Marx’s $1,000 filing fee, and requesting that the hearing be vacated.
Aug 8, 2024
Marx files a reply rejecting the offer, stating that the “numerous” issues required “a ruling that is binding and definite” to “hopefully prevent further violations.”
Aug 16, 2024
The ALJ issues an order requiring Marx to narrow her petition to two specific issues, categorizing the five records-request instances as one “records” issue and requiring her to select one of the thirteen alleged open-meeting violations.
Aug 19, 2024
Marx selects “Example 13” from her petition as her second issue.
Aug 29, 2024
An administrative hearing is held before ALJ Kay A. Abramsohn.
Sep 20, 2024
The ALJ issues a final decision.
Sep 23, 2024
The ALJ issues a Minute Entry rejecting a request for rehearing filed by Marx, as it was sent to the Office of Administrative Hearings instead of the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Analysis of Disputed Issues and Testimony
The hearing focused on two central issues as narrowed by the ALJ’s order.
Issue 1: Access to Association Records (A.R.S. § 33-1258)
This issue consolidated five instances across multiple dates where Marx alleged she was improperly denied access to or provision of TARA’s records.
Petitioner’s Position (Lisa Marx):
• Marx testified that she made multiple written requests for documents including vouchers, contracts, financial reports (General Ledger, AP Distribution), architectural change forms, and violation letters.
• The board’s responses were statutorily invalid. For example, a February 22, 2024 response stated: “A member of the Association is entitled to see reasonable financial information only. A member does not have a right to see contracts entered into by the Board nor information concerning specific members. We respectfully refuse your request…” Another denial was based on her being “no longer a board member.”
• Marx argued this refusal to provide records blocks transparency, creates distrust, and prevents homeowners from ensuring the governing documents are being enforced impartially. She asserted that all requested documents, such as financial records and contracts related to common areas, are records homeowners are entitled to examine.
Respondent’s Position (Tara Condominium Association):
• Mark Gottmann testified that the board was new and that any mistakes were made out of “enthusiasm” and a desire to better the community, not malicious intent.
• He stated the board acted on advice from outside sources, including a trade association, which led them to believe they were “over-providing” documents compared to their CC&Rs, which only mandate semi-annual financial statements.
• TARA experienced delays in receiving financial reports from its management company, Colby, after it was acquired by another entity, which in turn delayed distribution to homeowners.
• Gottmann argued that some requested documents did not exist (e.g., contracts for volunteer work), while others were justifiably withheld because they contained private information about individual homeowners (e.g., violation letters, architectural change forms).
Issue 2: Open Meeting Law Violations (A.R.S. § 33-1248)
This issue centered on “Example 13” of the petition, which alleged the board undertook several projects without adhering to open meeting requirements.
Petitioner’s Position (Lisa Marx):
• Marx alleged that several projects were performed on common property without being included on a meeting agenda and without a formal vote by the board in an open meeting. These projects included:
◦ Board members spraying weeds.
◦ Board members digging up grass around trees and laying mulch.
◦ A board member refinishing wood shutters.
• She argued these actions violated A.R.S. § 33-1248 and TARA’s own CC&Rs (Section 9(E)), which states, “A majority vote of the Managers shall entitle the Board to carry out action on behalf of the owners of the units.”
• The failure to discuss these items in an open meeting denied members the right to provide input before the board took action on community property.
Respondent’s Position (Tara Condominium Association):
• Gottmann characterized the projects as ongoing operational responsibilities and good-faith efforts by volunteers to save the association money.
• The weed spraying was described as an “experiment” at no cost to TARA. The mulching was done with donated materials in response to a homeowner’s suggestion. The shutter repair was done by volunteers for a nominal cost of less than $150 for materials, which was within the monthly maintenance budget.
• He argued these were not formal actions requiring a board vote but were undertaken with an “enthusiasm and desire to make our community a better place.” TARA’s CC&Rs (Section 12, Part D) grant the board the power “to use and expend the assessments collected to maintain, care for, and preserve the common elements.”
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order
The ALJ’s decision, issued on September 20, 2024, delivered a split verdict, finding for each party on one of the two core issues.
Finding on Records Violation (A.R.S. § 33-1258):
• Verdict: TARA violated the statute.
• Reasoning: The ALJ concluded that TARA failed to provide access to records it possessed within the statutorily required ten-day timeframe. While TARA had a potential defense for delays related to its management company and a valid reason to withhold records containing personal information of other members, the overall evidence demonstrated a failure to comply with the law.
• Outcome: The petitioner was deemed the prevailing party on this issue.
Finding on Open Meeting Violation (A.R.S. § 33-1248):
• Verdict: TARA did not violate the statute.
• Reasoning: The ALJ found that the petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof. The evidence showed that TARA conducted its formal meetings in compliance with open meeting laws, providing notice and agendas. The ALJ concluded there was “no evidence in the hearing record that… those work circumstances… were required by statute or the CC&Rs to be placed on a TARA agenda for discussion and/or for ‘formal action’ by the Board.”
• Outcome: The respondent was deemed the prevailing party on this issue.
Final Order
Based on the findings, the ALJ issued the following orders:
1. Petitioner’s Petition is sustained as to the TARA violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258 (Records).
2. Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed as to the alleged violations by TARA of A.R.S. § 33-1248 (Open Meetings).
3. TARA is ordered to reimburse Petitioner in the amount of $500.00, representing the filing fee for the single successful claim.
Study Guide – 24F-H054-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H054-REL”, “case_title”: “Lisa Marx v. Tara Condominium Association”, “decision_date”: “2024-09-20”, “alj_name”: “Kay A. Abramsohn”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA refuse to provide financial records because they are waiting to receive them from their third-party management company?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA is responsible for providing access to records within the statutory 10-day timeframe, regardless of management company delays.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that waiting for a management company to provide monthly reports does not excuse the association from its statutory obligation to make records reasonably available within 10 business days. Even if the HOA acts in good faith while waiting for a vendor, failure to provide existing records violates the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “TARA has a defense, although unsupported, regarding the time frame only as to the financial documents for which TARA was waiting from its management company. … Overall, as to A.R.S. § 33-1258, there is no evidence that, within the ten day time frame, TARA provided access to the TARA HOA records it did have and which were required to have been provided to Petitioner; therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that TARA violated A.R.S. § 33-1258.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “financial records”, “management company” ] }, { “question”: “Does a group of board members or volunteers doing unpaid maintenance work require an open meeting and a formal vote?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. If the work is volunteer-based and doesn’t require a specific contract or expenditure necessitating a vote under the CC&Rs or statutes, it may not trigger open meeting requirements.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ determined that volunteer work performed by board members (like weeding or painting) to save money did not constitute ‘formal action’ that required placement on an agenda or a formal vote in an open meeting, provided no statute or governing document specifically required it.”, “alj_quote”: “There is no evidence in the hearing record that, prior to the volunteer work described in Example 13, that those work circumstances, or any projected volunteer work circumstances, were required by statute or the CC&Rs to be placed on a TARA agenda for discussion and/or for ‘formal action’ by the Board at the TARA monthly meetings.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1248”, “topic_tags”: [ “open meetings”, “volunteer work”, “board authority” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA withhold violation letters or architectural change forms concerning other homeowners?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if those documents contain personal information about specific members.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision affirms that HOAs can refuse to provide records related to specific units, such as violation notices or contracts containing personal data, under the statutory exception for personal, health, or financial records of individual members.”, “alj_quote”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4) provides an exception to the requirement to provide records for ‘personal, health or financial records of an individual member’ … In this case, because some of the requested ‘repair’ contract information for repairs at certain addresses may have contained personal information of another member, TARA was likely within its statutory authority to refuse to provide that particular information.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “privacy”, “violation letters”, “records request” ] }, { “question”: “Can the board deny my records request because I am no longer a board member?”, “short_answer”: “No. The right to examine records belongs to all members of the association.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found the HOA in violation when it declined to provide information on the grounds that the requester was ‘no longer a Board member.’ The statute requires records be made available to ‘any member.'”, “alj_quote”: “TARA declined to provide such, stating that Petitioner was no longer a Board member. … TARA failed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258 regarding provision of access to TARA HOA records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “homeowner rights”, “records access”, “board membership” ] }, { “question”: “If I file a petition with two issues and only win one, do I get my filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “You may receive a partial reimbursement. The tribunal may order the HOA to reimburse the portion of the fee related to the successful claim.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the petitioner paid 1,000fortwoissues(500 per issue). Since the petitioner prevailed on the records issue but failed on the open meeting issue, the ALJ ordered the HOA to reimburse only $500.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS ORDERED that TARA reimburse Petitioner in the amount of $500.00. … The Administrative Law Judge concludes TARA is the prevailing party regarding the ‘Example 13’ issue and Petitioner bears the filing fee on this issue.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “filing fees”, “dispute resolution”, “penalties” ] }, { “question”: “Does being a ‘new board’ or ‘learning the ropes’ excuse the HOA from following state laws?”, “short_answer”: “No. Ignorance of the law or being a new board is not a valid defense for violating statutes.”, “detailed_answer”: “The HOA argued they were a new board acting in the best interest of the community and learning better governing practices. The ALJ acknowledged this explanation but still ruled that the failure to provide records was a violation of state statute.”, “alj_quote”: “TARA explained that the Board was a new Board and, believing it was acting in the Board’s best interest, was in the process of learning the procedures for better governing practices. … the Administrative Law Judge concludes that TARA violated A.R.S. § 33-1258.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258”, “topic_tags”: [ “board duties”, “legal compliance”, “defenses” ] } ] }
Blog Post – 24F-H054-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H054-REL”, “case_title”: “Lisa Marx v. Tara Condominium Association”, “decision_date”: “2024-09-20”, “alj_name”: “Kay A. Abramsohn”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA refuse to provide financial records because they are waiting to receive them from their third-party management company?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA is responsible for providing access to records within the statutory 10-day timeframe, regardless of management company delays.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that waiting for a management company to provide monthly reports does not excuse the association from its statutory obligation to make records reasonably available within 10 business days. Even if the HOA acts in good faith while waiting for a vendor, failure to provide existing records violates the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “TARA has a defense, although unsupported, regarding the time frame only as to the financial documents for which TARA was waiting from its management company. … Overall, as to A.R.S. § 33-1258, there is no evidence that, within the ten day time frame, TARA provided access to the TARA HOA records it did have and which were required to have been provided to Petitioner; therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that TARA violated A.R.S. § 33-1258.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “financial records”, “management company” ] }, { “question”: “Does a group of board members or volunteers doing unpaid maintenance work require an open meeting and a formal vote?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. If the work is volunteer-based and doesn’t require a specific contract or expenditure necessitating a vote under the CC&Rs or statutes, it may not trigger open meeting requirements.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ determined that volunteer work performed by board members (like weeding or painting) to save money did not constitute ‘formal action’ that required placement on an agenda or a formal vote in an open meeting, provided no statute or governing document specifically required it.”, “alj_quote”: “There is no evidence in the hearing record that, prior to the volunteer work described in Example 13, that those work circumstances, or any projected volunteer work circumstances, were required by statute or the CC&Rs to be placed on a TARA agenda for discussion and/or for ‘formal action’ by the Board at the TARA monthly meetings.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1248”, “topic_tags”: [ “open meetings”, “volunteer work”, “board authority” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA withhold violation letters or architectural change forms concerning other homeowners?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if those documents contain personal information about specific members.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision affirms that HOAs can refuse to provide records related to specific units, such as violation notices or contracts containing personal data, under the statutory exception for personal, health, or financial records of individual members.”, “alj_quote”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4) provides an exception to the requirement to provide records for ‘personal, health or financial records of an individual member’ … In this case, because some of the requested ‘repair’ contract information for repairs at certain addresses may have contained personal information of another member, TARA was likely within its statutory authority to refuse to provide that particular information.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “privacy”, “violation letters”, “records request” ] }, { “question”: “Can the board deny my records request because I am no longer a board member?”, “short_answer”: “No. The right to examine records belongs to all members of the association.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found the HOA in violation when it declined to provide information on the grounds that the requester was ‘no longer a Board member.’ The statute requires records be made available to ‘any member.'”, “alj_quote”: “TARA declined to provide such, stating that Petitioner was no longer a Board member. … TARA failed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258 regarding provision of access to TARA HOA records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “homeowner rights”, “records access”, “board membership” ] }, { “question”: “If I file a petition with two issues and only win one, do I get my filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “You may receive a partial reimbursement. The tribunal may order the HOA to reimburse the portion of the fee related to the successful claim.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the petitioner paid 1,000fortwoissues(500 per issue). Since the petitioner prevailed on the records issue but failed on the open meeting issue, the ALJ ordered the HOA to reimburse only $500.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS ORDERED that TARA reimburse Petitioner in the amount of $500.00. … The Administrative Law Judge concludes TARA is the prevailing party regarding the ‘Example 13’ issue and Petitioner bears the filing fee on this issue.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “filing fees”, “dispute resolution”, “penalties” ] }, { “question”: “Does being a ‘new board’ or ‘learning the ropes’ excuse the HOA from following state laws?”, “short_answer”: “No. Ignorance of the law or being a new board is not a valid defense for violating statutes.”, “detailed_answer”: “The HOA argued they were a new board acting in the best interest of the community and learning better governing practices. The ALJ acknowledged this explanation but still ruled that the failure to provide records was a violation of state statute.”, “alj_quote”: “TARA explained that the Board was a new Board and, believing it was acting in the Board’s best interest, was in the process of learning the procedures for better governing practices. … the Administrative Law Judge concludes that TARA violated A.R.S. § 33-1258.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258”, “topic_tags”: [ “board duties”, “legal compliance”, “defenses” ] } ] }
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Lisa Marx(petitioner) Tara Condominium Association (Homeowner) Also former HOA Secretary, Vice-Chairperson, and Chairperson.
Brenda Spielder(observer) Tara Condominium Association (Member) Attended hearing with Petitioner.
Cynthia Poland(observer) Tara Condominium Association (Member) Attended hearing with Petitioner.
Respondent Side
Mark Gottmann(board member) Tara Condominium Association Chairman of the Board; represented Tara at the hearing.
Chandler W. Travis(HOA attorney) Travis Law Firm PLC Counsel for Tara Condominium Association until August 27, 2024.
Stephanie Bushart(board member) Tara Condominium Association
Tina Marie Shepherd(board member) Tara Condominium Association Resigned as Chairperson on January 31, 2024.
Dennis Anderson(board member) Tara Condominium Association Involved in volunteer work (weed spraying, trench digging, shutter refinishing).
Judy Rice(board member) Tara Condominium Association Treasurer and CPA.
Ted(board member) Tara Condominium Association Involved in volunteer trench work.
Nikki(volunteer) Tara Condominium Association Involved in volunteer shutter repair.
Neutral Parties
Kay A. Abramsohn(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Other Participants
Renee Snow(volunteer) Tara Condominium Association Volunteered for landscaping committee.
The ALJ granted the petition after finding that the Respondent HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258 by failing to fulfill a records request within the statutory ten business days. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's $500 filing fee and comply with the statute, but was not assessed a civil penalty.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258 because the “HOA has not complied witha [sic] formal records request … regarding damage to homeowner's unit.”
Respondent received Petitioner's records request on November 28, 2023, but did not comply until February 13, 2024, nearly two months later. The Tribunal found no viable justification for the delay, establishing a violation of the statute.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is granted. Respondent must reimburse the $500 filing fee in certified funds and must henceforth comply with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258. No civil penalty was assessed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258
Analytics Highlights
Topics: records request, statutory violation, HOA transparency, filing fee reimbursement
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
24F-H032-REL Decision – 1162594.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:42 (51.3 KB)
24F-H032-REL Decision – 1167907.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:48 (184.7 KB)
Questions
Question
How long does my HOA have to respond to a formal records request?
Short Answer
The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies.
Detailed Answer
Under Arizona law, an association is strictly required to fulfill a request for examination or provide copies of requested records within ten business days. Failure to meet this deadline without a viable justification constitutes a violation of the statute.
Alj Quote
The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. On request for purchase of copies of records by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative, the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
records request
deadlines
HOA obligations
Question
Can my HOA charge me a fee to simply review or inspect records?
Short Answer
No, the HOA cannot charge a fee for making material available for review.
Detailed Answer
The statute explicitly prohibits the association from charging a member for the act of making materials available for review. However, they may charge a specific fee for making actual copies.
Alj Quote
The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
fees
records request
homeowner rights
Question
How much can the HOA charge if I ask for copies of records?
Short Answer
The HOA may charge a fee for copies, but it cannot exceed fifteen cents per page.
Detailed Answer
While review is free, if a homeowner requests physical copies of the records, the association is permitted by statute to charge a fee, capped at fifteen cents per page.
Alj Quote
An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
fees
records request
copies
Question
What happens if my HOA responds to my records request weeks or months late?
Short Answer
Responding late without a valid excuse is a violation of the statute.
Detailed Answer
If the HOA fails to provide the records within the statutory 10-business-day window without a viable justification, they are in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258. In this case, a response provided nearly two months late was deemed a violation.
Alj Quote
The record also reflects that although Petitioner follow-up with Respondent on December 12, 2023, regarding her request, Respondent did not comply until February 13, 2024, nearly two (2) months late… Nothing in the record establishes a viable justification or excuse for Respondent’s inaction and/or lack of performance on Petitioner’s records request during the applicable time period.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258
Topic Tags
violations
delays
enforcement
Question
Can the HOA be penalized for failing to provide a document that doesn't exist?
Short Answer
No, an HOA cannot be held liable for failing to provide a record that simply does not exist.
Detailed Answer
If a homeowner requests a specific document (like a warranty) and the association does not possess such a document because it never existed, the association is not in violation for failing to provide it.
Alj Quote
Additionally, because the Association never had a “termite warranty,” Respondent was unable to provide Petitioner with something that did not exist.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258
Topic Tags
records request
defense
HOA obligations
Question
Does it matter if my wording in a records request is vague?
Short Answer
Yes, vague requests may lead to incomplete information, and the HOA might not be faulted for misinterpreting ambiguous terms.
Detailed Answer
Homeowners should be specific. In this case, requesting 'Policy Information' rather than the 'entire policy' was considered vague and ambiguous, which explained why the HOA only provided declarations and exclusion pages rather than the full policy.
Alj Quote
While Petitioner contends that she only received some of the documents she requested, the record further reflects that she never asked for the Association’s entire insurance policy, only “HOA Insurance Policy Information,” which was vague and ambiguous.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact
Topic Tags
records request
best practices
homeowner responsibilities
Question
If I win my case against the HOA at a hearing, will I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fee.
Detailed Answer
If the petition is granted and a violation is found, the ALJ has the authority to order the Respondent (HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee in certified funds.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall reimburse Petitioners’ filing fee (e.g. $500.00) in certified funds.
Legal Basis
Order
Topic Tags
remedies
fees
reimbursement
Question
Will the HOA automatically have to pay a civil penalty if they are found in violation?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. The judge may decide not to assess a civil penalty even if a violation is found.
Detailed Answer
Finding a violation does not automatically result in a fine. The ALJ has discretion regarding civil penalties. In this instance, despite finding a violation regarding records, the judge ordered compliance and fee reimbursement but explicitly chose not to assess a civil penalty.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a civil penalty shall not be assessed against Respondent in this matter.
Legal Basis
Order
Topic Tags
penalties
civil penalty
enforcement
Question
Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
The Petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner filing the complaint 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 ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119(B)(2)
Topic Tags
procedure
burden of proof
evidence
Question
Can I designate someone else to inspect the HOA records for me?
Short Answer
Yes, a member can designate a representative in writing.
Detailed Answer
The statute allows records to be examined by the member or any person designated by the member in writing as their representative.
Alj Quote
[A]ll financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
representation
records request
access
Case
Docket No
24F-H032-REL
Case Title
Laura R. Braglia v. Palo Verde Estates Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2024-04-17
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
How long does my HOA have to respond to a formal records request?
Short Answer
The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies.
Detailed Answer
Under Arizona law, an association is strictly required to fulfill a request for examination or provide copies of requested records within ten business days. Failure to meet this deadline without a viable justification constitutes a violation of the statute.
Alj Quote
The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. On request for purchase of copies of records by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative, the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
records request
deadlines
HOA obligations
Question
Can my HOA charge me a fee to simply review or inspect records?
Short Answer
No, the HOA cannot charge a fee for making material available for review.
Detailed Answer
The statute explicitly prohibits the association from charging a member for the act of making materials available for review. However, they may charge a specific fee for making actual copies.
Alj Quote
The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
fees
records request
homeowner rights
Question
How much can the HOA charge if I ask for copies of records?
Short Answer
The HOA may charge a fee for copies, but it cannot exceed fifteen cents per page.
Detailed Answer
While review is free, if a homeowner requests physical copies of the records, the association is permitted by statute to charge a fee, capped at fifteen cents per page.
Alj Quote
An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
fees
records request
copies
Question
What happens if my HOA responds to my records request weeks or months late?
Short Answer
Responding late without a valid excuse is a violation of the statute.
Detailed Answer
If the HOA fails to provide the records within the statutory 10-business-day window without a viable justification, they are in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258. In this case, a response provided nearly two months late was deemed a violation.
Alj Quote
The record also reflects that although Petitioner follow-up with Respondent on December 12, 2023, regarding her request, Respondent did not comply until February 13, 2024, nearly two (2) months late… Nothing in the record establishes a viable justification or excuse for Respondent’s inaction and/or lack of performance on Petitioner’s records request during the applicable time period.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258
Topic Tags
violations
delays
enforcement
Question
Can the HOA be penalized for failing to provide a document that doesn't exist?
Short Answer
No, an HOA cannot be held liable for failing to provide a record that simply does not exist.
Detailed Answer
If a homeowner requests a specific document (like a warranty) and the association does not possess such a document because it never existed, the association is not in violation for failing to provide it.
Alj Quote
Additionally, because the Association never had a “termite warranty,” Respondent was unable to provide Petitioner with something that did not exist.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258
Topic Tags
records request
defense
HOA obligations
Question
Does it matter if my wording in a records request is vague?
Short Answer
Yes, vague requests may lead to incomplete information, and the HOA might not be faulted for misinterpreting ambiguous terms.
Detailed Answer
Homeowners should be specific. In this case, requesting 'Policy Information' rather than the 'entire policy' was considered vague and ambiguous, which explained why the HOA only provided declarations and exclusion pages rather than the full policy.
Alj Quote
While Petitioner contends that she only received some of the documents she requested, the record further reflects that she never asked for the Association’s entire insurance policy, only “HOA Insurance Policy Information,” which was vague and ambiguous.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact
Topic Tags
records request
best practices
homeowner responsibilities
Question
If I win my case against the HOA at a hearing, will I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fee.
Detailed Answer
If the petition is granted and a violation is found, the ALJ has the authority to order the Respondent (HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee in certified funds.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall reimburse Petitioners’ filing fee (e.g. $500.00) in certified funds.
Legal Basis
Order
Topic Tags
remedies
fees
reimbursement
Question
Will the HOA automatically have to pay a civil penalty if they are found in violation?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. The judge may decide not to assess a civil penalty even if a violation is found.
Detailed Answer
Finding a violation does not automatically result in a fine. The ALJ has discretion regarding civil penalties. In this instance, despite finding a violation regarding records, the judge ordered compliance and fee reimbursement but explicitly chose not to assess a civil penalty.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a civil penalty shall not be assessed against Respondent in this matter.
Legal Basis
Order
Topic Tags
penalties
civil penalty
enforcement
Question
Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
The Petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner filing the complaint 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 ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119(B)(2)
Topic Tags
procedure
burden of proof
evidence
Question
Can I designate someone else to inspect the HOA records for me?
Short Answer
Yes, a member can designate a representative in writing.
Detailed Answer
The statute allows records to be examined by the member or any person designated by the member in writing as their representative.
Alj Quote
[A]ll financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
representation
records request
access
Case
Docket No
24F-H032-REL
Case Title
Laura R. Braglia v. Palo Verde Estates Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2024-04-17
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Laura R. Braglia(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf; testified as witness.
Respondent Side
Jacqueline Zipprich(property manager) Desert Realty Association Management Appeared on behalf of Respondent; testified as witness; also served as Statutory Agent for Respondent.
Joe Wolf(HOA president) Palo Verde Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. HOA Board President.
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Susan Nicolson(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of the recommended order.
Vivian Nunes(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of the recommended order ([email protected]).
D. Jones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed as recipient of the recommended order ([email protected]).
L. Abril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed as recipient of the recommended order ([email protected]).
M. Neat(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed as recipient of the recommended order ([email protected]).
A. Kowaleski(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed as recipient of the recommended order ([email protected]).
G. Osborn(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed as recipient of the recommended order ([email protected]).
The Administrative Law Judge granted the Petition, concluding that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) because the portion of the meeting where recording was prohibited was not effectively 'closed' (as members were allowed to remain) and therefore remained 'open' and subject to members' right to record.
Key Issues & Findings
Improperly preventing members from recording an open board meeting
The HOA Board prohibited homeowners participating in an open meeting on September 28, 2022, from recording that meeting. The HOA argued the portion was closed due to receiving legal advice/contemplated litigation, but the ALJ found the portion was not effectively 'closed' because no members were required to leave, thus the HOA lacked authority to prevent recording.
Orders: HOA found in violation; ordered to reimburse Petitioner $500.00 filing fee.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Open Meeting Law, Recording Rights, Attorney-Client Privilege, Filing Fee Reimbursement
Yes, homeowners have the statutory right to audio or video tape open portions of board and member meetings.
Detailed Answer
Under Arizona law, persons attending HOA meetings are permitted to audiotape or videotape any portion of the meeting that is open. The HOA cannot prohibit this for open sessions.
Alj Quote
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) allows a person to record 'those portions of the meetings of the board of directors and meetings of the members that are open.'
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
Topic Tags
recording meetings
homeowner rights
open meetings
Question
Can the HOA board stop me from recording if an attorney is giving legal advice?
Short Answer
Not if the meeting remains open to members. To stop recording, the board must physically close the meeting (exclude members).
Detailed Answer
Even if the board intends to receive legal advice (a valid reason to close a meeting), they cannot simply ask members to stop recording while allowing them to remain in the room. If members are allowed to stay, the meeting is not 'closed,' and the right to record remains.
Alj Quote
Because no portion of the September 28, 2022 meeting was 'closed,' the HOA had no authority under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) to prevent the HOA members from recording the meeting.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
Topic Tags
recording meetings
legal advice
closed sessions
Question
What actually constitutes a 'closed' meeting or executive session?
Short Answer
A meeting is considered closed only if members are required to leave or are excluded from attending.
Detailed Answer
Merely stating that a portion of the meeting is for legal advice or asking members to stop recording is not enough to close a meeting. If members are present and not asked to leave, the meeting is effectively open.
Alj Quote
However, nothing in the record demonstrates that this specific portion of the meeting was effectively 'closed.' In fact, Mr. Meister confirmed that none of the members present, or anyone online, had to leave the meeting or had to leave the meeting for the portion that included the attorney’s advice.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
Topic Tags
closed sessions
definitions
procedural requirements
Question
Who has the burden of proof in an HOA dispute hearing?
Short Answer
The petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the community documents or statutes. This means showing the contention is more probably true than not.
Alj Quote
In these proceedings, a petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a respondent has violated the planned community document(s’) provisions or statutes alleged to have been violated.
Legal Basis
Ariz. Admin. Code R2-19-119
Topic Tags
legal standards
burden of proof
hearing procedures
Question
Can I recover my $500 filing fee if I win the hearing?
Short Answer
Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
If the petitioner prevails in the hearing, the judge has the authority to order the respondent (HOA) to reimburse the statutory filing fee paid to the Department of Real Estate.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner his $500.00 filing fee.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
Topic Tags
remedies
fees
penalties
Question
What authority does the Office of Administrative Hearings have in HOA disputes?
Short Answer
OAH can decide petitions, order compliance with statutes/documents, interpret contracts, and levy civil penalties.
Detailed Answer
The tribunal has broad authority to resolve disputes regarding violations of condominium documents or statutes, including interpreting contracts between the parties and imposing penalties for proven violations.
Alj Quote
OAH has the authority to consider and decide the contested petitions, the authority to order any party to abide by the statute, community documents and contract provisions at issue, the authority to interpret the contract between the parties, and the authority to levy a civil penalty on the basis of each proven violation.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
OAH authority
civil penalties
Case
Docket No
23F-H039-REL
Case Title
Michael Holland v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowner's Association
Decision Date
2023-10-20
Alj Name
Kay Abramsohn
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can I record an open HOA board meeting?
Short Answer
Yes, homeowners have the statutory right to audio or video tape open portions of board and member meetings.
Detailed Answer
Under Arizona law, persons attending HOA meetings are permitted to audiotape or videotape any portion of the meeting that is open. The HOA cannot prohibit this for open sessions.
Alj Quote
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) allows a person to record 'those portions of the meetings of the board of directors and meetings of the members that are open.'
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
Topic Tags
recording meetings
homeowner rights
open meetings
Question
Can the HOA board stop me from recording if an attorney is giving legal advice?
Short Answer
Not if the meeting remains open to members. To stop recording, the board must physically close the meeting (exclude members).
Detailed Answer
Even if the board intends to receive legal advice (a valid reason to close a meeting), they cannot simply ask members to stop recording while allowing them to remain in the room. If members are allowed to stay, the meeting is not 'closed,' and the right to record remains.
Alj Quote
Because no portion of the September 28, 2022 meeting was 'closed,' the HOA had no authority under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) to prevent the HOA members from recording the meeting.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
Topic Tags
recording meetings
legal advice
closed sessions
Question
What actually constitutes a 'closed' meeting or executive session?
Short Answer
A meeting is considered closed only if members are required to leave or are excluded from attending.
Detailed Answer
Merely stating that a portion of the meeting is for legal advice or asking members to stop recording is not enough to close a meeting. If members are present and not asked to leave, the meeting is effectively open.
Alj Quote
However, nothing in the record demonstrates that this specific portion of the meeting was effectively 'closed.' In fact, Mr. Meister confirmed that none of the members present, or anyone online, had to leave the meeting or had to leave the meeting for the portion that included the attorney’s advice.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
Topic Tags
closed sessions
definitions
procedural requirements
Question
Who has the burden of proof in an HOA dispute hearing?
Short Answer
The petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the community documents or statutes. This means showing the contention is more probably true than not.
Alj Quote
In these proceedings, a petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a respondent has violated the planned community document(s’) provisions or statutes alleged to have been violated.
Legal Basis
Ariz. Admin. Code R2-19-119
Topic Tags
legal standards
burden of proof
hearing procedures
Question
Can I recover my $500 filing fee if I win the hearing?
Short Answer
Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
If the petitioner prevails in the hearing, the judge has the authority to order the respondent (HOA) to reimburse the statutory filing fee paid to the Department of Real Estate.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner his $500.00 filing fee.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
Topic Tags
remedies
fees
penalties
Question
What authority does the Office of Administrative Hearings have in HOA disputes?
Short Answer
OAH can decide petitions, order compliance with statutes/documents, interpret contracts, and levy civil penalties.
Detailed Answer
The tribunal has broad authority to resolve disputes regarding violations of condominium documents or statutes, including interpreting contracts between the parties and imposing penalties for proven violations.
Alj Quote
OAH has the authority to consider and decide the contested petitions, the authority to order any party to abide by the statute, community documents and contract provisions at issue, the authority to interpret the contract between the parties, and the authority to levy a civil penalty on the basis of each proven violation.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
OAH authority
civil penalties
Case
Docket No
23F-H039-REL
Case Title
Michael Holland v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowner's Association
Decision Date
2023-10-20
Alj Name
Kay Abramsohn
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michael Holland(petitioner) Represented himself
Jill Burns(witness) Recorded the meeting at issue; former officer of the Board
Linda L. Holland(party affiliate) Co-owner of the property; Michael Holland's mother
The Administrative Law Judge denied the single-issue petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(D). The ALJ found that the gathering was a 'workshop' and not necessarily a formal 'meeting of the board of directors,' and further found that the Petitioner had received sufficient notice regardless.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required by a preponderance of the evidence for the alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(D). The tribunal determined the meeting was advertised as a workshop and not a statutory board meeting, and the Petitioner had timely opened the notice email a week prior.
Key Issues & Findings
Petitioner alleges the Respondent has violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by holding a meeting that 'had not been properly noticed…'
Petitioner alleged that the March 14, 2023 meeting was not properly noticed because customary channels (email, calendar, sandwich boards) were not used, and the notice provided did not include the meeting location. Respondent argued notice was given through email survey and the community calendar, meeting the statutory requirements, and that the event was a workshop.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner's filing fee pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A).
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Notice Requirements, HOA Board Meeting, Workshop, Filing Fee Reimbursement
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H054-REL Decision – 1068018.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:36 (54.7 KB)
23F-H054-REL Decision – 1078258.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:40 (113.6 KB)
Questions
Question
Does an HOA workshop count as a 'board meeting' that requires formal legal notice?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. If no votes are taken or decisions made, it may not be considered a meeting of the board of directors under the statute.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that an event advertised as a 'workshop,' where comments and survey results were discussed but no items were voted on or decisions made, did not qualify as a 'meeting of the board of directors' requiring statutory notice.
Alj Quote
The tribunal was not convinced that this was a 'meeting of the board of directors' under the statute. … There was no expectation that items would be voted on or decisions made.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
meetings
workshops
definitions
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner filing a petition against their HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proving the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the homeowner must convince the trier of fact that their contention is 'more probably true than not.'
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D).
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199
Topic Tags
legal standards
burden of proof
procedure
Question
Does a member's failure to see a meeting notice invalidate the actions taken at that meeting?
Short Answer
No. The validity of actions taken at a meeting is not affected if a member fails to receive actual notice.
Detailed Answer
Arizona statute explicitly states that if a member does not receive actual notice, it does not void the meeting's actions, provided the notice was properly issued.
Alj Quote
The failure of any member to receive actual notice of a meeting of the board of directors does not affect the validity of any action taken at that meeting.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)
Topic Tags
notice
validity
homeowner rights
Question
How far in advance must an HOA provide notice for a board meeting?
Short Answer
Notice must be given at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.
Detailed Answer
Unless emergency circumstances exist, the board must provide notice to members via newsletter, conspicuous posting, or other reasonable means at least 48 hours prior.
Alj Quote
notice to members of meetings of the board of directors shall be given at least forty-eight hours in advance of the meeting
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)
Topic Tags
notice
timelines
HOA obligations
Question
Can a Zoom link be considered the 'location' of a meeting for notice purposes?
Short Answer
Yes, providing a Zoom link can satisfy the requirement for a meeting location.
Detailed Answer
The decision accepted testimony that a reminder notice containing a Zoom link was considered the location of the meeting, contributing to sufficient notice.
Alj Quote
Ms. Busey testified that a reminder notice was sent out the day of the workshop with the Zoom link, which was considered the 'location' of the meeting.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
virtual meetings
notice
technology
Question
If I lose my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
No. If the petition is denied, the filing fee is generally not reimbursed.
Detailed Answer
The order specifically stated that because the petition was denied, the Respondent (HOA) was not required to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
Topic Tags
fees
penalties
outcomes
Question
Can opening an email with a survey link constitute receiving notice of a meeting?
Short Answer
Yes. Evidence that a homeowner opened an email/link about the event in advance can establish sufficient notice.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found that because the Petitioner clicked a survey link related to the workshop a week prior, they had sufficient notice of the event.
Alj Quote
Petitioner opened the email regarding the survey and clicked on the link on March 7, 2023, a week prior to the workshop. Therefore, even if this were considered a 'board meeting' Petitioner would have had sufficient notice.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
notice
email
digital communication
Case
Docket No
23F-H054-REL
Case Title
Felicia Woodward vs The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association
Decision Date
2023-07-28
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Does an HOA workshop count as a 'board meeting' that requires formal legal notice?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. If no votes are taken or decisions made, it may not be considered a meeting of the board of directors under the statute.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that an event advertised as a 'workshop,' where comments and survey results were discussed but no items were voted on or decisions made, did not qualify as a 'meeting of the board of directors' requiring statutory notice.
Alj Quote
The tribunal was not convinced that this was a 'meeting of the board of directors' under the statute. … There was no expectation that items would be voted on or decisions made.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
meetings
workshops
definitions
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner filing a petition against their HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proving the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the homeowner must convince the trier of fact that their contention is 'more probably true than not.'
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D).
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199
Topic Tags
legal standards
burden of proof
procedure
Question
Does a member's failure to see a meeting notice invalidate the actions taken at that meeting?
Short Answer
No. The validity of actions taken at a meeting is not affected if a member fails to receive actual notice.
Detailed Answer
Arizona statute explicitly states that if a member does not receive actual notice, it does not void the meeting's actions, provided the notice was properly issued.
Alj Quote
The failure of any member to receive actual notice of a meeting of the board of directors does not affect the validity of any action taken at that meeting.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)
Topic Tags
notice
validity
homeowner rights
Question
How far in advance must an HOA provide notice for a board meeting?
Short Answer
Notice must be given at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.
Detailed Answer
Unless emergency circumstances exist, the board must provide notice to members via newsletter, conspicuous posting, or other reasonable means at least 48 hours prior.
Alj Quote
notice to members of meetings of the board of directors shall be given at least forty-eight hours in advance of the meeting
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)
Topic Tags
notice
timelines
HOA obligations
Question
Can a Zoom link be considered the 'location' of a meeting for notice purposes?
Short Answer
Yes, providing a Zoom link can satisfy the requirement for a meeting location.
Detailed Answer
The decision accepted testimony that a reminder notice containing a Zoom link was considered the location of the meeting, contributing to sufficient notice.
Alj Quote
Ms. Busey testified that a reminder notice was sent out the day of the workshop with the Zoom link, which was considered the 'location' of the meeting.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
virtual meetings
notice
technology
Question
If I lose my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
No. If the petition is denied, the filing fee is generally not reimbursed.
Detailed Answer
The order specifically stated that because the petition was denied, the Respondent (HOA) was not required to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
Topic Tags
fees
penalties
outcomes
Question
Can opening an email with a survey link constitute receiving notice of a meeting?
Short Answer
Yes. Evidence that a homeowner opened an email/link about the event in advance can establish sufficient notice.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found that because the Petitioner clicked a survey link related to the workshop a week prior, they had sufficient notice of the event.
Alj Quote
Petitioner opened the email regarding the survey and clicked on the link on March 7, 2023, a week prior to the workshop. Therefore, even if this were considered a 'board meeting' Petitioner would have had sufficient notice.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
notice
email
digital communication
Case
Docket No
23F-H054-REL
Case Title
Felicia Woodward vs The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association
Decision Date
2023-07-28
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Felicia Woodward(petitioner) Property owner/Association member Full name is Felicia Anne Woodward; Appeared via Google Meet.
Respondent Side
Jonathan D. Ebertshauser(attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado, & Bolen Represented Respondent.
Marcus R. Martinez(attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado, & Bolen Represented Respondent.
Erin Busey(witness/general manager) First Service Residential (The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association) Called as a witness by Respondent; Identified herself as Aaron Ducy during testimony.
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Susan Nicolson(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmission.
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmission.
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmission.
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmission.
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmission.
Other Participants
Debbie Robinson(witness) Referenced by Petitioner as the person who took a screenshot exhibit; Presence/testimony not confirmed in hearing record.
The ALJ affirmed the petition, finding the HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to provide complete financial statements (including balance sheets and statements of cash flows) to the Petitioner upon request. The HOA was ordered to provide the missing financial statements and reimburse the $500 filing fee. A civil penalty was denied.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to provide association financial records upon member request.
The Petitioner alleged that the Association failed to comply with her request for financial records dated December 15, 2022, pursuant to ARS § 33-1805. The Association provided only Profit & Loss statements on January 12, 2023, but failed to provide other requisite financial documents, such as balance sheets, statements of cash flows, or statements of income, as defined by ARS § 32-701. The failure to fulfill the request for financial statements constituted a violation.
Orders: The petition was affirmed. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00 pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A). Respondent was ordered to provide financial statements, as defined by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701, for the months of August 2022 through December 2022 pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. Petitioner's request for a civil penalty was denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Financial Records, Statutory Compliance, Record Request Delay, Filing Fee Reimbursement, HOA Board Member
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
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
23F-H049-REL Decision – 1062328.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:27 (149.9 KB)
Questions
Question
If I request 'financial statements' from my HOA, is it enough for them to just send a Profit and Loss statement?
Short Answer
No. A request for 'financial statements' implies more than just a Profit and Loss statement, and the HOA must provide the full range of documents defined by law.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that providing only a Profit and Loss statement is insufficient when a homeowner requests 'financial statements.' The term encompasses a broader set of documents, including balance sheets and statements of cash flows, which must be provided to fully satisfy the request.
Alj Quote
Because Petitioner requested financial statements for the same period after receiving the Profit and Loss statements, implicit in her request was the understanding merely providing the Profit and Loss statement was insufficient to satisfy her request for financial statements.
What specific documents does the law include in the definition of 'financial statements'?
Short Answer
The definition includes balance sheets, statements of income, retained earnings, cash flows, changes in equity, and other standard summaries.
Detailed Answer
Arizona law defines 'Financial Statement' broadly. It is not limited to a single report but includes statements and footnotes showing financial position in conformity with accounting principles.
Alj Quote
In Arizona, “Financial Statement… (b) Includes balance sheets, statements of income, statements of retained earnings, statements of cash flows, statements of changes in equity and other commonly used or recognized summaries of financial information.”
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701
Topic Tags
financial records
definitions
accounting
Question
How quickly must my HOA respond to my request to examine records?
Short Answer
The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies.
Detailed Answer
The statute explicitly sets a ten-business-day deadline for the association to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.
Alj Quote
The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies of records… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
deadlines
procedural requirements
homeowner rights
Question
Can the HOA tell me to find the records on a Google Drive or website instead of sending them to me?
Short Answer
Only if the records are actually there and accessible. Directing a homeowner to an empty or incomplete digital folder does not count as providing access.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the HOA President directed the homeowner to a Google Drive, but the Treasurer later admitted the specific documents requested were never uploaded. The ALJ ruled that because the documents were not on the drive, the homeowner was not supplied with access.
Alj Quote
Furthermore, although President directed Petitioner to search the Google Drive for the documents, Treasurer admitted on January 23, 2023, that the documents Petitioner was seeking were never on the drive. Thus, Petitioner was neither supplied nor had access to obtain the requisite financial statements.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
digital access
compliance
records request
Question
Can the HOA charge me a fee for looking at the records?
Short Answer
No. The HOA cannot charge for making material available for review, though they can charge for copies.
Detailed Answer
The law prohibits charging a member for the act of making material available for review. However, if the member requests copies, the association may charge a fee for those copies.
Alj Quote
The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review. … An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
fees
homeowner rights
costs
Question
If I win my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes. If the petitioner prevails, the judge is required to order the respondent to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
The statute mandates that if the homeowner (petitioner) prevails in the hearing, the administrative law judge must order the HOA (respondent) to pay the filing fee back to the homeowner.
Alj Quote
If the petitioner prevails, the administrative law judge shall order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Topic Tags
reimbursement
outcomes
filing fees
Question
Will the judge automatically fine the HOA if they violated the records law?
Short Answer
No. While the judge has the authority to levy a civil penalty, it is not mandatory, and they may choose to deny a request for a penalty.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ has the discretion to levy a civil penalty but is not required to do so. In this case, although a violation was found, the judge explicitly denied the request to levy a civil penalty against the HOA.
Alj Quote
The administrative law judge… may levy a civil penalty on the basis of each violation… IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Topic Tags
penalties
civil penalty
judgement
Case
Docket No
23F-H049-REL
Case Title
Deanna Smith v Moondance Townhomes Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2023-06-06
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
If I request 'financial statements' from my HOA, is it enough for them to just send a Profit and Loss statement?
Short Answer
No. A request for 'financial statements' implies more than just a Profit and Loss statement, and the HOA must provide the full range of documents defined by law.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that providing only a Profit and Loss statement is insufficient when a homeowner requests 'financial statements.' The term encompasses a broader set of documents, including balance sheets and statements of cash flows, which must be provided to fully satisfy the request.
Alj Quote
Because Petitioner requested financial statements for the same period after receiving the Profit and Loss statements, implicit in her request was the understanding merely providing the Profit and Loss statement was insufficient to satisfy her request for financial statements.
What specific documents does the law include in the definition of 'financial statements'?
Short Answer
The definition includes balance sheets, statements of income, retained earnings, cash flows, changes in equity, and other standard summaries.
Detailed Answer
Arizona law defines 'Financial Statement' broadly. It is not limited to a single report but includes statements and footnotes showing financial position in conformity with accounting principles.
Alj Quote
In Arizona, “Financial Statement… (b) Includes balance sheets, statements of income, statements of retained earnings, statements of cash flows, statements of changes in equity and other commonly used or recognized summaries of financial information.”
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701
Topic Tags
financial records
definitions
accounting
Question
How quickly must my HOA respond to my request to examine records?
Short Answer
The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies.
Detailed Answer
The statute explicitly sets a ten-business-day deadline for the association to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.
Alj Quote
The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies of records… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
deadlines
procedural requirements
homeowner rights
Question
Can the HOA tell me to find the records on a Google Drive or website instead of sending them to me?
Short Answer
Only if the records are actually there and accessible. Directing a homeowner to an empty or incomplete digital folder does not count as providing access.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the HOA President directed the homeowner to a Google Drive, but the Treasurer later admitted the specific documents requested were never uploaded. The ALJ ruled that because the documents were not on the drive, the homeowner was not supplied with access.
Alj Quote
Furthermore, although President directed Petitioner to search the Google Drive for the documents, Treasurer admitted on January 23, 2023, that the documents Petitioner was seeking were never on the drive. Thus, Petitioner was neither supplied nor had access to obtain the requisite financial statements.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
digital access
compliance
records request
Question
Can the HOA charge me a fee for looking at the records?
Short Answer
No. The HOA cannot charge for making material available for review, though they can charge for copies.
Detailed Answer
The law prohibits charging a member for the act of making material available for review. However, if the member requests copies, the association may charge a fee for those copies.
Alj Quote
The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review. … An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
fees
homeowner rights
costs
Question
If I win my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes. If the petitioner prevails, the judge is required to order the respondent to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
The statute mandates that if the homeowner (petitioner) prevails in the hearing, the administrative law judge must order the HOA (respondent) to pay the filing fee back to the homeowner.
Alj Quote
If the petitioner prevails, the administrative law judge shall order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Topic Tags
reimbursement
outcomes
filing fees
Question
Will the judge automatically fine the HOA if they violated the records law?
Short Answer
No. While the judge has the authority to levy a civil penalty, it is not mandatory, and they may choose to deny a request for a penalty.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ has the discretion to levy a civil penalty but is not required to do so. In this case, although a violation was found, the judge explicitly denied the request to levy a civil penalty against the HOA.
Alj Quote
The administrative law judge… may levy a civil penalty on the basis of each violation… IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Topic Tags
penalties
civil penalty
judgement
Case
Docket No
23F-H049-REL
Case Title
Deanna Smith v Moondance Townhomes Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2023-06-06
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Deanna Smith(petitioner, board member) Moondance Townhomes Homeowners Association
Respondent Side
Christina Morgan(HOA attorney) Vingham
George Minter(President, board member, witness) Moondance Townhomes Homeowners Association
Linda Dieball(Treasurer, board member) Moondance Townhomes Homeowners Association
Neutral Parties
Brian Del Vecchio(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Bylaws Article 4 Section 2, and Article 8 Sections 2 and 3
Outcome Summary
Petitioner's petition was granted in part and denied in part. The ALJ found the Respondent Association violated its Bylaws regarding the election and terms of Board members. Respondent was ordered to comply with the relevant Bylaw sections and reimburse $375.00 of the filing fee. Petitioner's prayer to remove the current Board from office was denied.
Why this result: Petitioner’s prayer to remove the Association’s current Board from office was denied.
Key Issues & Findings
Unlawful transfer of Board positions and Association bank account
Petitioner alleged the Association violated Bylaws when the former President/Treasurer unlawfully transferred his Board positions and the bank account to new individuals without proper election procedures. The ALJ found the Association was in violation of Bylaws requiring a minimum of five directors and regular annual elections for those positions.
Orders: Respondent must henceforth comply with Bylaws Article 4 Section 2, and Article 8 Sections 2 and 3, and reimburse $375.00 of the filing fee.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
Bylaws Article 4 Section 2
Bylaws Article 8 Section 2
Bylaws Article 8 Section 3
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Board Election, Bylaws Violation, Director Appointment, Filing Fee Reimbursement
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2221006-REL Decision – 927006.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:40:02 (152.9 KB)
Study Guide – 22F-H2221006-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2221006-REL”, “case_title”: “Raymond M Uyleman vs. Casita Royale Townhomes Association”, “decision_date”: “2021-11-22”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “Office of Administrative Hearings”, “agency”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can a Board member unilaterally appoint their own successor and transfer HOA assets without an election?”, “short_answer”: “No. Board positions must be filled through elections or selection by remaining Board members as outlined in the Bylaws, not by the departing member alone.”, “detailed_answer”: “A Board member cannot simply ‘bestow’ their position or the HOA’s bank account to a successor upon selling their home. The Bylaws generally require directors to be elected by members at annual meetings. Even in the event of a resignation, the successor usually must be selected by the remaining members of the Board, not the outgoing individual.”, “alj_quote”: “Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the Board positions Mr. Knutson bestowed on Ms. Terry and Ms. Ogle were done in accordance with the community’s governing documents.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws Article 4 Sections 2 and 3; Article 8 Sections 2 and 3”, “topic_tags”: [ “Board Elections”, “Transfer of Power”, “Bylaws Compliance” ] }, { “question”: “Is it a violation if the HOA fails to maintain the minimum number of directors required by the Bylaws?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. If the Bylaws stipulate a minimum number of directors (e.g., five), the HOA must maintain that number through regular elections.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that allowing a single individual to hold all Board positions violated the Bylaws, which explicitly required a Board of not less than five directors. The Association is obligated to hold annual meetings to elect the requisite number of members.”, “alj_quote”: “The Association’s Bylaws clearly indicate that there must be no less than five (5) Board members, and that elections for those positions must be held at annual meetings every 1-3 years.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws Article 4 Section 1”, “topic_tags”: [ “Board Composition”, “Bylaws Compliance”, “Governance” ] }, { “question”: “Can I prevent someone with a criminal record from serving on the HOA Board?”, “short_answer”: “Generally, no, unless the specific governing documents require background checks or prohibit those with criminal records from serving.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ dismissed the homeowner’s complaint regarding the Board members’ criminal backgrounds (felonies) as a ‘red herring.’ Since the petitioner could not provide evidence that the governing documents required background checks for Board candidates, the argument was not grounds for a violation.”, “alj_quote”: “As are Ms. Terry’s and Ms. Ogle’s criminal backgrounds, as no evidence in the record supports Petitioner’s contention that they should have been subjected to background checks.”, “legal_basis”: “Evidentiary Standard / Governing Documents”, “topic_tags”: [ “Board Eligibility”, “Criminal Background”, “Discrimination” ] }, { “question”: “What is the standard of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove their claims by a ‘preponderance of the evidence.'”, “detailed_answer”: “The burden lies with the person bringing the complaint to show that their claims are more likely true than not. This does not require removing all doubt, but the evidence must have ‘superior evidentiary weight’ to incline an impartial mind to one side.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Article 4 sections 2 and 3, and Article 8 sections 2 and 3 of the Association’s Bylaws.”, “legal_basis”: “Arizona Law of Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “Legal Procedure”, “Burden of Proof”, “Hearing Process” ] }, { “question”: “Does the ADRE have jurisdiction to hear disputes about violations of CC&Rs and Bylaws?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The Department has the authority to hear disputes between owners and associations regarding violations of community documents.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ confirmed that the dispute was within the Department’s jurisdiction, citing statutes that allow owners to petition for hearings concerning violations of community documents (like CC&Rs and Bylaws) or statutes regulating planned communities.”, “alj_quote”: “The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities as long as the petitioner has filed a petition with the department and paid a filing fee…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.”, “topic_tags”: [ “Jurisdiction”, “ADRE Authority”, “Dispute Resolution” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ALJ has the discretion to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee, often proportional to the success of the petition.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, because the petitioner’s petition was ‘granted in part,’ the ALJ ordered the HOA to reimburse 3/4 of the 500filingfee(375).”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse ¾ of Petitioner’s filing fee (e.g. $375.00) in certified funds.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Order”, “topic_tags”: [ “Remedies”, “Fees”, “Financial Reimbursement” ] }, { “question”: “Will the ALJ automatically remove Board members from office if they find a violation in how they were appointed?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. The ALJ may find a violation and order future compliance without granting a request to immediately remove the current Board.”, “detailed_answer”: “Although the ALJ found the Board members were not appointed in accordance with the Bylaws, the specific request to remove them from office was denied. The order focused on ensuring the HOA complies with Bylaws moving forward (presumably by holding the required elections).”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s prayer to remove the Association’s current Board from office is denied.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Remedy”, “topic_tags”: [ “Remedies”, “Board Removal”, “Enforcement” ] } ] }
Blog Post – 22F-H2221006-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2221006-REL”, “case_title”: “Raymond M Uyleman vs. Casita Royale Townhomes Association”, “decision_date”: “2021-11-22”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “Office of Administrative Hearings”, “agency”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can a Board member unilaterally appoint their own successor and transfer HOA assets without an election?”, “short_answer”: “No. Board positions must be filled through elections or selection by remaining Board members as outlined in the Bylaws, not by the departing member alone.”, “detailed_answer”: “A Board member cannot simply ‘bestow’ their position or the HOA’s bank account to a successor upon selling their home. The Bylaws generally require directors to be elected by members at annual meetings. Even in the event of a resignation, the successor usually must be selected by the remaining members of the Board, not the outgoing individual.”, “alj_quote”: “Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the Board positions Mr. Knutson bestowed on Ms. Terry and Ms. Ogle were done in accordance with the community’s governing documents.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws Article 4 Sections 2 and 3; Article 8 Sections 2 and 3”, “topic_tags”: [ “Board Elections”, “Transfer of Power”, “Bylaws Compliance” ] }, { “question”: “Is it a violation if the HOA fails to maintain the minimum number of directors required by the Bylaws?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. If the Bylaws stipulate a minimum number of directors (e.g., five), the HOA must maintain that number through regular elections.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that allowing a single individual to hold all Board positions violated the Bylaws, which explicitly required a Board of not less than five directors. The Association is obligated to hold annual meetings to elect the requisite number of members.”, “alj_quote”: “The Association’s Bylaws clearly indicate that there must be no less than five (5) Board members, and that elections for those positions must be held at annual meetings every 1-3 years.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws Article 4 Section 1”, “topic_tags”: [ “Board Composition”, “Bylaws Compliance”, “Governance” ] }, { “question”: “Can I prevent someone with a criminal record from serving on the HOA Board?”, “short_answer”: “Generally, no, unless the specific governing documents require background checks or prohibit those with criminal records from serving.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ dismissed the homeowner’s complaint regarding the Board members’ criminal backgrounds (felonies) as a ‘red herring.’ Since the petitioner could not provide evidence that the governing documents required background checks for Board candidates, the argument was not grounds for a violation.”, “alj_quote”: “As are Ms. Terry’s and Ms. Ogle’s criminal backgrounds, as no evidence in the record supports Petitioner’s contention that they should have been subjected to background checks.”, “legal_basis”: “Evidentiary Standard / Governing Documents”, “topic_tags”: [ “Board Eligibility”, “Criminal Background”, “Discrimination” ] }, { “question”: “What is the standard of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove their claims by a ‘preponderance of the evidence.'”, “detailed_answer”: “The burden lies with the person bringing the complaint to show that their claims are more likely true than not. This does not require removing all doubt, but the evidence must have ‘superior evidentiary weight’ to incline an impartial mind to one side.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Article 4 sections 2 and 3, and Article 8 sections 2 and 3 of the Association’s Bylaws.”, “legal_basis”: “Arizona Law of Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “Legal Procedure”, “Burden of Proof”, “Hearing Process” ] }, { “question”: “Does the ADRE have jurisdiction to hear disputes about violations of CC&Rs and Bylaws?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The Department has the authority to hear disputes between owners and associations regarding violations of community documents.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ confirmed that the dispute was within the Department’s jurisdiction, citing statutes that allow owners to petition for hearings concerning violations of community documents (like CC&Rs and Bylaws) or statutes regulating planned communities.”, “alj_quote”: “The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities as long as the petitioner has filed a petition with the department and paid a filing fee…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.”, “topic_tags”: [ “Jurisdiction”, “ADRE Authority”, “Dispute Resolution” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ALJ has the discretion to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee, often proportional to the success of the petition.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, because the petitioner’s petition was ‘granted in part,’ the ALJ ordered the HOA to reimburse 3/4 of the 500filingfee(375).”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse ¾ of Petitioner’s filing fee (e.g. $375.00) in certified funds.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Order”, “topic_tags”: [ “Remedies”, “Fees”, “Financial Reimbursement” ] }, { “question”: “Will the ALJ automatically remove Board members from office if they find a violation in how they were appointed?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. The ALJ may find a violation and order future compliance without granting a request to immediately remove the current Board.”, “detailed_answer”: “Although the ALJ found the Board members were not appointed in accordance with the Bylaws, the specific request to remove them from office was denied. The order focused on ensuring the HOA complies with Bylaws moving forward (presumably by holding the required elections).”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s prayer to remove the Association’s current Board from office is denied.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Remedy”, “topic_tags”: [ “Remedies”, “Board Removal”, “Enforcement” ] } ] }
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Raymond M Uyleman(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Natalie Terry(respondent representative/HOA president) Casita Royale Townhomes Association Appeared on behalf of Respondent; current HOA President
Carmel Ogle(witness/HOA secretary) Casita Royale Townhomes Association Witness for Respondent; current HOA Secretary
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH
Louis Dettorre(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Other Participants
Gary Knutson(former board member) Casita Royale Townhomes Association Former President/Treasurer who transferred positions leading to dispute
John Paquin(former board member) Casita Royale Townhomes Association Former Vice President (resigned 2014)
Carol Paquin(former board member) Casita Royale Townhomes Association Former Secretary (passed away 2011)
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
19F-H1918037-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2019-09-12
Administrative Law Judge
Jenna Clark
Outcome
full
Filing Fees Refunded
$500.00
Civil Penalties
$500.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Tom Barrs
Counsel
Jonathan A. Dessaules
Respondent
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Counsel
B. Austin Baillio
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to provide the full requested documentation relating to EDC actions and communications. The Petitioner's request for relief was granted, resulting in the reimbursement of the $500 filing fee and the imposition of a $500 civil penalty against the HOA.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request.
The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fully comply with Petitioner's specific request for EDC records (submissions, requests, and approvals) by providing only a summary table instead of the totality of requested communications within the statutory deadline.
Orders: Petitioner's petition granted. Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01) and tender a $500.00 civil penalty to the Department (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)).
Briefing on Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This briefing synthesizes the legal proceedings and outcomes of case number 19F-H1918037-REL, a dispute between homeowner Tom Barrs (“Petitioner”) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (“Respondent”). The core issue was the Association’s alleged violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 for failing to completely fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner on November 1, 2018.
An initial hearing on March 21, 2019, resulted in a decision in favor of the Association. Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark found that the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request to all members of the Association’s Board, and therefore the Association’s provision of a summary table did not constitute a statutory violation.
Following an appeal by the Petitioner, a rehearing was held on August 27, 2019. New evidence was introduced demonstrating that the Petitioner had previously been expressly instructed by the Association’s President to direct records requests specifically to the Environmental Design Committee (EDC) Chairman, Brian Schoeffler, a directive the Petitioner followed. Consequently, Judge Clark reversed the initial decision, concluding that the request was properly submitted and the Association’s failure to provide the full records—offering only a summary table—was a clear violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805. The final order granted the Petitioner’s petition, ordered the reimbursement of his $500 filing fee, and levied a $500 civil penalty against the Association.
——————————————————————————–
Case Overview
Parties Involved
Name/Entity
Key Individuals
Tom Barrs
Petitioner, Homeowner
Represented himself initially; later by Jonathan Dessaules, Esq.
Desert Ranch Homeowners Assoc.
Respondent, HOA
Governed by CC&Rs and a Board of Directors.
Brian Schoeffler
Witness for Respondent
Chairman of the Environmental Design Committee (EDC).
Jenna Clark
Administrative Law Judge
Presided over both the initial hearing and the rehearing.
Catherine Overby
Association President
Appointed Schoeffler as Petitioner’s primary records contact.
Lori Loch-Lee
VP, Associated Asset Management (AAM)
Recipient of records request; AAM acted as the Association’s accounting firm.
Core Legal Issue
The central question adjudicated was whether the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request. This statute requires that an association’s records be made “reasonably available for examination” and that a request for copies be fulfilled within ten business days.
Timeline of Key Events
July 19, 2017
Association President Catherine Overby appoints EDC Director Brian Schoeffler as Petitioner’s primary records contact.
November 1, 2018
Petitioner emails a records request to Schoeffler, Overby, and Lori Loch-Lee.
November 18, 2018
The Association provides a summary table of EDC actions, not the full records requested.
December 17, 2018
Petitioner files a formal petition against the Association with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
March 6, 2019
Petitioner follows up via email, specifying the exact communications and documents he is seeking.
March 11, 2019
Schoeffler responds, asserting the request was fulfilled and directing Petitioner to submit a new one.
March 21, 2019
The first evidentiary hearing is held at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
April 10, 2019
The initial ALJ Decision is issued, denying the petition.
June 10, 2019
Petitioner submits a successful appeal to the Department.
August 27, 2019
A rehearing is held at the OAH.
September 12, 2019
The final ALJ Decision is issued, reversing the prior decision and ruling in favor of the Petitioner.
——————————————————————————–
Initial Hearing and Decision (No. 19F-H1918037-REL)
Petitioner’s Position (Tom Barrs)
• On November 1, 2018, Barrs requested “a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018.”
• The Association’s response on November 18, 2018, was a “summary table listing of some, not all, EDC actions,” which did not include the totality of communications requested.
• Barrs argued the Association willfully failed to comply, citing a similar previous dispute that required OAH adjudication.
• The dispute was clarified to be about the completeness of the response, not its timeliness.
Respondent’s Position (Desert Ranch HOA)
• Represented by Brian Schoeffler, the HOA argued it had fully, though untimelily, complied with the request.
• The core of the defense was that the request was improperly submitted because Barrs only sent it to two of the four Board members.
• Schoeffler reasoned that the Association’s response was guided by a prior OAH decision in a similar case that had been returned in the Association’s favor.
• Schoeffler also stated that fulfilling the more detailed request from March 6, 2019, could be interpreted as an “admission of guilt,” which is why he asked for a new request.
Initial Findings and Order (April 10, 2019)
• Key Finding: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to all members of the Association’s Board.
• Legal Conclusion: “Because the credible evidence of record reflects that Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to the Board, Petitioner has failed established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 for providing him with a summary table on November 18, 2018.”
• Order: The Petitioner’s petition was denied. His request for a civil penalty and reimbursement of his filing fee was also denied.
——————————————————————————–
Rehearing and Final Decision (No. 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG)
Basis for Rehearing
The Petitioner successfully appealed the initial decision, leading the Department of Real Estate to refer the matter back to the OAH for a new evidentiary hearing on the same issue.
New Evidence and Revised Testimony
• Petitioner’s New Evidence: Crucially, the Petitioner introduced evidence (Petitioner Exhibit 11) showing that on July 19, 2017, Association President Catherine Overby had appointed Brian Schoeffler as the Petitioner’s primary records request contact.
• Respondent’s Concession: The Association conceded that its governing documents do not require all Board members to be copied on records requests. It also conceded that its own bylaws regarding the submission of forms for records requests were not adhered to or enforced.
• Persistent Failure to Comply: It was established that as of the date of the rehearing (August 27, 2019), the Petitioner had still not received all of the documentation requested on November 1, 2018.
Final Findings and Order (September 12, 2019)
• Revised Key Finding: The ALJ found that the Petitioner’s request was not required to be sent to all Board members. Instead, the Petitioner had “expressly been instructed to only send his records requests to the Association’s EDC Chairman, Mr. Schoeffler, which he did.”
• Final Legal Conclusion: “Petitioner is correct that the Association did not fully comply with his specific request, and has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the summary table provided by the Association was a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”
• Final Order:
1. The Petitioner’s petition was granted.
2. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.
3. A civil penalty of $500.00 was levied against the Respondent, payable to the Department of Real Estate.
Key Judicial Quotes
On the Improper Submission Argument (First Decision): “Because the credible evidence of record reflects that Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to the Board, Petitioner has failed established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805…”
On the Proper Submission Argument (Final Decision): “Petitioner’s November 01, 2018, records request was not required to be sent to all members of the Association’s Board, as Petitioner had expressly been instructed to only send his records requests to the Association’s EDC Chairman, Mr. Schoeffler, which he did.”
On the Violation (Final Decision): “Petitioner is correct that the Association did not fully comply with his specific request, and has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the summary table provided by the Association was a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”
Study Guide – 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal case Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, Docket No. 19F-H1918037-REL. It covers the initial hearing, the subsequent rehearing, the key arguments, the relevant statutes, and the final outcome of the dispute. The case centers on a homeowner’s records request and the association’s legal obligations under Arizona state law.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing all information from the provided case documents.
1. Who are the Petitioner and Respondent in this case, and what is their relationship?
2. What was the central legal issue presented for adjudication at the Office of Administrative Hearings?
3. What specific records did the Petitioner, Tom Barrs, request from the Association on November 1, 2018?
4. What was the Association’s initial response to the Petitioner’s records request, and when was it provided?
5. What was the outcome of the first hearing on March 21, 2019, as detailed in the decision issued on April 10, 2019?
6. Why did the Administrative Law Judge initially rule in favor of the Respondent?
7. What new evidence presented at the rehearing on August 27, 2019, proved critical to reversing the initial decision?
8. According to Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805, what is the time frame for an association to fulfill a request for examination or copies of records?
9. What was the final outcome of the case after the rehearing, as ordered on September 12, 2019?
10. What specific penalties and reimbursements were levied against the Respondent in the final order?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner is Tom Barrs, a property owner in the Desert Ranch subdivision and a member of its homeowners’ association. The Respondent is the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (“the Association”), the governing body for the subdivision.
2. The central issue was whether the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 by failing to properly and completely fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner.
3. The Petitioner requested a copy of all Environmental Design Committee (EDC) actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018. He later clarified this included communications like letters, emails, and application forms related to specific EDC decisions.
4. On November 18, 2018, the Association provided the Petitioner with a summary table listing some EDC actions. This response did not include the full scope of communications and underlying documents that the Petitioner had requested.
5. Following the first hearing, the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The judge ruled that the Association’s conduct did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1805, denied the request for a civil penalty, and ordered that the Association did not have to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee.
6. The judge initially ruled for the Respondent because the evidence suggested the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request to all members of the Association’s Board. This procedural error was seen as the reason the Association’s response (the summary table) was not a violation of the statute.
7. At the rehearing, evidence was introduced showing that on July 19, 2017, the Association’s President had explicitly appointed Brian Schoeffler, the EDC Chairman, as the Petitioner’s primary records request contact. This demonstrated that the Petitioner was not required to send his request to all Board members and had followed prior instructions correctly.
8. A.R.S. § 33-1805 states that an association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination of records. It also specifies that the association has ten business days to provide copies of requested records upon request.
9. After the rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge granted the Petitioner’s petition. The judge concluded that the Association’s conduct did violate A.R.S. § 33-1805 by providing only a summary table instead of the full records requested.
10. In the final order, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee. Additionally, a civil penalty of $500.00 was levied against the Respondent, payable to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more analytical understanding of the case. Formulate a detailed response for each, synthesizing facts and arguments presented in the source documents.
1. Compare and contrast the findings of fact and conclusions of law from the first hearing (April 10, 2019 decision) with those from the rehearing (September 12, 2019 decision). What specific evidence or legal reasoning led to the reversal of the initial order?
2. Analyze the arguments presented by both the Petitioner, Tom Barrs, and the Respondent’s representative, Brian Schoeffler. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s position across both hearings.
3. Explain the role and significance of Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805 in this case. How did the interpretation of the Association’s obligations under this statute differ between the initial ruling and the final ruling?
4. Trace the timeline of events from the initial records request on November 1, 2018, to the final order on September 12, 2019. Highlight the key communications and procedural steps that influenced the case’s progression and ultimate outcome.
5. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined in the case documents. How did the Petitioner successfully meet this burden of proof in the rehearing after failing to do so in the initial hearing?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, reviews evidence, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues orders. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.
A.R.S. § 33-1805
The section of the Arizona Revised Statutes that governs the rights of homeowners’ association members to access association records. It mandates that records be made “reasonably available for examination” and establishes a ten-business-day deadline for associations to fulfill such requests.
Associated Asset Management (AAM)
The management company that served as the Association’s accounting firm. Petitioner was at one point instructed to direct requests to an AAM representative.
Board of Directors (the Board)
The group that oversees the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. The dispute involved questions about whether a records request needed to be sent to all members of the Board.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing documents for the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association.
Environmental Design Committee (EDC)
A committee within the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, chaired by Brian Schoeffler. The records requested by the Petitioner pertained to the actions and decisions of this committee.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency in Arizona responsible for conducting evidentiary hearings for disputes referred by other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Tom Barrs.
Preponderance of the evidence
The burden of proof in this case. It is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and represents the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG
He Fought His HOA Over Public Records and Lost. Then One Old Email Changed Everything.
1.0 Introduction: The Familiar Frustration of Fighting the System
Almost everyone has a story about the maddening frustration of dealing with a bureaucratic organization. The rules can seem arbitrary, the answers vague, and the entire process engineered to make you give up. For homeowners, that organization is often their Homeowners Association (HOA). This was precisely the situation for Tom Barrs, a homeowner in Scottsdale, Arizona, when he made what seemed like a simple request for records from his HOA, the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. His straightforward request ignited a surprising legal battle, where an initial, demoralizing defeat in court was ultimately overturned by a single, crucial piece of evidence exhumed from the past.
2.0 Takeaway 1: The First Verdict Isn’t Always the Final Word
The dispute began with a formal records request. In November 2018, Tom Barrs asked to see documents related to the HOA’s Environmental Design Committee (EDC). His request was clear, specific, and cited the relevant state law:
“Pursuant to ARS 33-1805, I am requesting a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018. Soft copies via return email are preferable; otherwise, please let me know when hard copies are available for pickup.”
The HOA refused to provide the records, and the case went before Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark on March 21, 2019. The judge denied Mr. Barrs’s petition. The ruling was based on what seemed to be a fatal procedural error: the judge concluded that Mr. Barrs had failed to properly submit his request because he did not email it to all members of the Association’s Board.
Adding a potent dose of irony, the HOA’s representative at the hearing—Brian Schoeffler, the very EDC Chairman to whom Barrs had sent the request—successfully argued that a prior case meant Barrs “knew or should have known the requirements.” For many people, this initial loss, buttressed by the HOA weaponizing their past behavior against them, would have been the end of the road. But for Mr. Barrs, it was only the first chapter.
3.0 Takeaway 2: The Paper Trail is Your Most Powerful Weapon
Unwilling to accept the verdict, Mr. Barrs appealed and was granted a rehearing. The case was heard again before the very same judge, Jenna Clark. This time, however, Mr. Barrs had a new piece of evidence—a single, forgotten email that would force the judge to re-evaluate her own initial conclusion.
The case hinged on a communication from sixteen months prior. In July 2017, the Association’s President, Catherine Overby, had sent an email specifically appointing EDC Chairman Brian Schoeffler as Mr. Barrs’s “primary records request contact.”
This single document completely dismantled the HOA’s central argument. It proved that a specific, documented protocol existed that superseded any unwritten procedure the HOA later tried to enforce. Based on this prior instruction, Judge Clark’s new conclusion was decisive: Mr. Barrs was not required to send his request to the entire board. He had, in fact, followed the HOA’s own explicit directive perfectly. The HOA’s argument, built on chastising Mr. Barrs for not knowing the rules, crumbled under the weight of a rule they themselves had established and forgotten.
4.0 Takeaway 3: A “Summary” Isn’t the Same as “The Records”
Another key issue was the HOA’s attempt to control the information it released. Instead of providing the actual letters, emails, and applications Mr. Barrs had asked for, the HOA sent him a “summary table” of the EDC’s actions.
This defense initially worked. In the first ruling, Judge Clark concluded that because the request itself was improperly submitted, the summary table was not a violation of the statute. The HOA’s failure to provide the actual records was excused on a technicality.
But once the old email proved the request was valid, that technicality vanished and the summary table argument collapsed. In her final ruling, Judge Clark determined that providing a summary was a clear violation of Arizona law (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805). The statute is unambiguous: records must be made “reasonably available for examination,” and copies must be provided upon request. The HOA’s attempt to substitute its interpretation of the records for the records themselves was not just unhelpful—it was illegal.
5.0 Takeaway 4: Resistance Can Be More Costly Than Compliance
The final, reversed decision was issued on September 12, 2019. Mr. Barrs’s petition was granted, and the HOA faced direct financial consequences for its stonewalling. The Desert Ranch HOA was ordered to:
• Reimburse Mr. Barrs’s $500.00 filing fee.
• Pay a separate $500.00 civil penalty to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
For the price of a few photocopies, the HOA chose instead to pay for a protracted legal battle, a public loss, and $1,000 in fees and penalties—a steep cost for refusing transparency. The outcome is a stark reminder that an organization’s attempt to obstruct access to information can be far more damaging to its finances and reputation than simple compliance.
6.0 Conclusion: The Power of a Single Fact
The story of Tom Barrs’s dispute offers powerful, practical lessons for anyone facing a similar challenge. It highlights the importance of persistence, the legal weight of true transparency, and, above all, the critical power of documentation. One old email—one documented fact—was enough to level the playing field, force a judge to reverse her own decision, and ensure the rules were applied fairly. It leaves us with a compelling question to consider.
How might meticulous record-keeping change the outcome of a dispute in your own life?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Tom Barrs(petitioner/witness) Appeared on his own behalf initially; appeared as witness at rehearing
Jonathan Dessaules(attorney) Dessaules Law Group Appeared on behalf of Petitioner at rehearing
Respondent Side
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association(respondent)
Brian Schoeffler(EDC chairman/witness) Desert Ranch Homeowners Association Appeared on behalf of Respondent; Chairman of the Association’s EDC
Catherine Overby(HOA president) Desert Ranch Homeowners Association Association President; records request recipient
Lori Loch-Lee(VP Client Services) Associated Asset Management (AAM) Management company contact; records request recipient
