Tag Archives: Filing Fee Reimbursement

Laura R. Braglia V. Palo Verde Estates Homeowners Association, INC.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H032-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-04-17
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome 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.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Laura R. Braglia Counsel —
Respondent Palo Verde Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel Jacqueline Zipprich

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258

Outcome Summary

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 2026-04-24T12:19:41 (51.3 KB)

24F-H032-REL Decision – 1167907.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:19:45 (184.7 KB)

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)

The hearing summarized below concerns the administrative law matter of Laura R. Braglia, Petitioner, versus Palo Verde Estates Homeowners Association, Inc., Respondent (No. 24F-H032-REL), held before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Concise Summary of Legal Case Hearing

Key Facts and Underlying Dispute

The Petitioner, Laura R. Braglia, is a homeowner within the Palo Verde Estates Homeowners Association (HOA). The dispute arose after she discovered severe termite damage to interior beams of a common wall in her unit in October 2023. To determine whether the repairs were the HOA's responsibility under the CC&Rs (covenants and restrictions), Petitioner, advised by an attorney, sought records from the Respondent.

Main Issue and Applicable Statute

The sole issue for the hearing was to determine whether the Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1258 by failing to comply with a formal records request. This statute requires associations to provide records within ten business days of a request.

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments

  1. Petitioner’s Case: Petitioner Braglia testified that she submitted a formal written records request to the HOA and its management (Desert Realty Association Management, represented by Jacqueline Zipprich) on November 28, 2023. The request sought termite service records, the HOA termite warranty, and HOA Insurance Policy Information. The statutory deadline for compliance was December 12, 2023. Petitioner filed a complaint with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (DRE) around January 10, 2024, because she had not received the records. Partial records were finally provided on February 13, 2024, nearly two months late. Petitioner requested the remaining documents—the full insurance policy and termite warranty—on February 23, 2024, but received no reply.
  2. Respondent’s Case: Respondent, represented by Community Property Manager Jacqueline Zipprich, conceded providing the documents late. Ms. Zipprich explained that the Association does not have a "termite warranty," but rather a pest control treatment plan, which was explained to Petitioner. She also contended that the request for "HOA Insurance Policy Information" was ambiguous, leading them to provide only the Certificate of Insurance and exclusion pages. Ms. Zipprich cited communication issues and claimed DRE staff advised her against direct communication with the Petitioner after providing the initial response.
  3. Waiver: Both parties declined to provide closing arguments.

Legal Points and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Petitioner sustained her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The ALJ concluded that the Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258.

The violation was based on the fact that the Respondent delayed compliance for nearly two months after the deadline (December 12, 2023, to February 13, 2024). The ALJ noted that while the HOA could not provide a termite warranty because one did not exist, and the insurance policy request was vague, these facts did not establish a viable justification or excuse for the HOA's overall inaction during the applicable statutory period.

The petition was granted. The OAH issued an ORDER requiring the Respondent to:

  1. Reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds.
  2. Henceforth comply with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258.

Crucially, the ALJ did not assess a civil penalty against the Respondent. The recommended decision was issued on April 17, 2024.

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]).

Michael Holland v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowner’s Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H039-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-10-20
Administrative Law Judge Kay Abramsohn
Outcome 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.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michael Holland Counsel —
Respondent Tonto Forest Estates Homeowner's Association Counsel John A. Buric

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Outcome Summary

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
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(C)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H039-REL Decision – 1040495.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:05:26 (47.4 KB)

23F-H039-REL Decision – 1044744.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:05:31 (51.9 KB)

23F-H039-REL Decision – 1059207.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:05:34 (49.0 KB)

23F-H039-REL Decision – 1059214.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:05:38 (5.8 KB)

23F-H039-REL Decision – 1087229.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:05:42 (98.4 KB)

23F-H039-REL Decision – 1087233.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:05:46 (18.7 KB)

23F-H039-REL Decision – 1095655.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:05:50 (70.2 KB)

23F-H039-REL Decision – 1095796.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:05:55 (13.5 KB)

23F-H039-REL Decision – 1101606.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:05:58 (39.6 KB)

23F-H039-REL Decision – 1102499.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:06:06 (41.2 KB)

23F-H039-REL Decision – 1104514.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:06:14 (138.2 KB)

23F-H039-REL Decision – 1104862.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:06:23 (6.1 KB)

23F-H039-REL Decision – 1040495.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:51 (47.4 KB)

23F-H039-REL Decision – 1044744.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:54 (51.9 KB)

23F-H039-REL Decision – 1059207.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:57 (49.0 KB)

23F-H039-REL Decision – 1059214.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:55:01 (5.8 KB)

23F-H039-REL Decision – 1087229.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:55:05 (98.4 KB)

23F-H039-REL Decision – 1087233.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:55:09 (18.7 KB)

23F-H039-REL Decision – 1095655.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:55:13 (70.2 KB)

23F-H039-REL Decision – 1095796.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:55:17 (13.5 KB)

23F-H039-REL Decision – 1101606.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:55:20 (39.6 KB)

23F-H039-REL Decision – 1102499.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:55:26 (41.2 KB)

23F-H039-REL Decision – 1104514.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:55:31 (138.2 KB)

23F-H039-REL Decision – 1104862.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:55:36 (6.1 KB)

This case, *Michael Holland v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowner's Association* (No. 23F-H039-REL), centered on a dispute over the Petitioner's right to record a homeowners association board meeting in accordance with Arizona law. The matter was heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), presided over by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Kay Abramsohn.

Key Facts and Legal Issue

The core dispute arose from a Tonto Forest Estates (TFE) board meeting held on September 28, 2022, which was noticed as an open meeting.

Petitioner Michael Holland alleged that the HOA board violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1804(A) by prohibiting homeowners from recording the meeting and forcing those recording to stop. A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) grants attendees the right to audiotape or videotape portions of board meetings that are open.

The Respondent, Tonto Forest Estates Homeowner's Association (HOA), asserted that although the meeting was open, a portion was or should have been closed to recording because the association's attorney was present to provide legal advice regarding pending or contemplated litigation. The HOA argued that they merely requested members stop recording the attorney's presentation and did not use force or threats.

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments

The ALJ denied the HOA's initial Motion to Dismiss, determining the Petition raised a valid and justiciable legal issue regarding the alleged improper recording prohibition.

  1. Petitioner's Argument: Holland argued that the HOA violated the statute because the board failed to properly declare and execute a closed session. Since the HOA did not record the meeting itself, they had no statutory basis to preclude members from recording the open session. Furthermore, Petitioner cited A.R.S. § 33-1804(C), arguing that the board did not identify the specific statutory exception authorizing closure prior to entering the alleged closed portion.
  2. Respondent's Argument: The HOA argued the issue was moot since a member successfully recorded the meeting anyway. Counsel argued that the mere presence of the attorney discussing a legal claim satisfied the exception allowing the portion to be closed to recording, and no special process or "magic language" was required to close a portion of a meeting "on the fly".

Legal Conclusion and Outcome

The ALJ found that A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) only permits recording restrictions during a *closed* portion of a meeting.

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the September 28, 2022 meeting cannot be considered to have been "closed". This conclusion was based on the fact that the HOA President, Kurt Meister, acknowledged that no members present, or anyone attending online, had to leave the meeting for the portion that included the attorney's advice.

Because no portion of the meeting was effectively closed, the HOA had no authority under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) to prevent members from recording the meeting.

The ALJ issued a decision concluding that the Petitioner had met the burden of proof, establishing that the HOA was in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).

Final Decision:

The Petition was granted, and Petitioner Michael Holland was deemed the prevailing party. The HOA was ordered to reimburse Petitioner his $500.00 filing fee. The decision noted that a written determination would be issued and sent to the Director's Office at Real Estate for finalization.

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

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

Respondent Side

  • Tonto Forest Estates Homeowner's Association (respondent)
  • John A. Buric (HOA attorney)
    Warner Angle Hallam Jackson & Formanek PLC
    Represented Respondent HOA
  • Kurt Meister (board member)
    Tonto Forest Estates Homeowner's Association
    President of the Board of Directors; Testified as witness for Respondent
  • Clint Goodman (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Law
    Attorney who provided legal advice at the September 28, 2022 meeting
  • Steve Dower (board member)
    Tonto Forest Estates Homeowner's Association
    Mentioned in testimony by Petitioner
  • Melissa Jordan (property manager)
    Ogden
    Monitored the phone line during the meeting
  • Carrie Chu (board member)
    Tonto Forest Estates Homeowner's Association
    Spoke during meeting minutes discussion

Neutral Parties

  • Kay Abramsohn (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge for hearing and final decision
  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge on earlier orders
  • Susan Nicolson (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official transmissions
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official transmissions
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official transmissions
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official transmissions
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official transmissions

Other Participants

  • Mary Gura (community member)
    Attendee of the virtual hearing
  • John Cron (community member)
    Attendee of the virtual hearing; identified in relation to litigation/claim discussed by attorney Goodman
  • Janet Cron (witness)
    Listed on Petitioner's witness list; John Cron's wife
  • Chris Chopat (community member)
    Attendee of the meeting; asked for statute citation regarding recording

Felicia Woodward v. The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H054-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-07-28
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome 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.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Felicia Woodward Counsel —
Respondent The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association Counsel Jonathan D. Ebertshauser

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

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 2026-04-24T12:09:44 (54.7 KB)

23F-H054-REL Decision – 1078258.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:09:47 (113.6 KB)

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)

This summary addresses the legal case hearing held on July 14, 2023, concerning the matter of Felicia Woodward (Petitioner) versus The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association (Respondent). The hearing was conducted before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Adam D. Stone at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Key Facts and Main Issues

The central issue was whether the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by failing to properly notice a community event—the Courthome Improvement Workshop—held on March 14, 2023. Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1804(D) mandates that notice for board meetings must be given at least 48 hours in advance by newsletter, conspicuous posting, or other reasonable means, and must state the date, time, and place of the meeting.

Hearing Arguments

Petitioner’s Case:

Petitioner Felicia Woodward argued that the notice was improper because the Association failed to follow customary notice methods (community-wide email, portal calendar, and sandwich boards). Although she received an email survey more than 48 hours prior to the meeting, she alleged that the link provided the date and time, but did not include the location (the Zoom link). She presented evidence suggesting the meeting was not listed on the community calendar 24 hours prior. Woodward also noted that a board member questioned the adequacy of the notice at the meeting.

Respondent’s Case:

The Association, represented by Jonathan D. Ebertshauser and Marcus R. Martinez, argued that the Association complied with A.R.S. § 33-1804, noting that the statute does not require consistent notice methods. The General Manager, Erin Busey, testified that the March 14th event was a workshop, not a regular monthly board meeting, explaining why costly sandwich boards were not used. Busey stated that the meeting information, including the date, time, and location (the Zoom link), was entered into the system and sent via email survey on March 7, 2023, exceeding the 48-hour requirement. Furthermore, evidence showed the Petitioner actually opened the survey email and clicked the link. Counsel emphasized the legal point that the failure of any member to receive *actual* notice does not affect the validity of actions taken, provided notice was issued.

Final Decision and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Petitioner did not meet her burden of proving a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(D) by a preponderance of the evidence.

  1. Nature of the Meeting: The tribunal was not convinced the workshop was a formal “meeting of the board of directors” under the statute, as it was intended for discussion and review of survey results, with no expectation of voting or decisions.
  2. Sufficiency of Notice: Even if the event were considered a board meeting, the Petitioner was found to have had sufficient notice, having opened the email containing the survey and link on March 7, 2023, a week before the workshop.

The ALJ issued an Order denying the Petitioner’s petition. Furthermore, the Association was not required to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee.

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.

Deanna Smith v. Moondance Townhomes Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H049-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-06-06
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome 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.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Deanna Smith Counsel —
Respondent Moondance Townhomes Homeowners Association Counsel Christina Morgan

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

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 2026-04-29T11:20:11 (149.9 KB)

23F-H049-REL Decision – 1062328.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:27 (149.9 KB)

This summary details the administrative hearing held on May 17, 2023, regarding *Deanna Smith v Moondance Town Home Association* (Docket No. 23F-H049-RE).

Key Facts and Parties

The Petitioner, Deanna Smith, is a property owner, member, and board member of the Moondance Townhomes Homeowners Association (HOA), the Respondent. The HOA was represented by Christina Morgan, Esq., with George Minter (President) appearing as a witness. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Brian Del Vecchio at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Main Issues and Legal Points

The central issue was whether the Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1805, which requires associations to make financial and other records reasonably available to members, typically within ten business days of a request.

Petitioner Smith filed a petition on March 6, 2023, alleging the HOA failed to comply with her December 15, 2022, request for the Association's financial statements for September, October, and November 2022. Smith, who has an accounting background, argued that the financial statements she requested encompassed a balance sheet, statement of cash flows, and statement of income, in addition to the Profit & Loss (P&L) statement. This definition aligns with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701, which defines "Financial Statement" broadly to include these comprehensive reports.

The Respondent’s defense focused on miscommunication and substantial compliance. The Respondent acknowledged internal "dysfunction" and delays caused by the transition from their prior accounting firm to self-management using QuickBooks. While the Respondent emailed P&L statements on January 12, 2023, they failed to provide other requisite documents. Furthermore, the Association’s President Minter initially directed Smith to search a Google Drive, claiming the records were available there, but the Treasurer later admitted the financial reports were never available on the drive. The ALJ noted that even after receiving the P&L statements, Smith’s subsequent request on January 18, 2023, went unfulfilled.

Outcome and Final Decision

The ALJ found that Petitioner Smith sustained her burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

The ALJ issued a decision on June 6, 2023, concluding that the Respondent’s failure to supply the requisite documents—such as balance sheets and statements of cash flows—constituted a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

The ALJ issued the following order:

  1. The Petitioner’s petition is affirmed.
  2. The request to levy a civil penalty against the Respondent is denied.
  3. The Respondent shall reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.
  4. The Respondent shall provide financial statements (as defined by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701) for the months of August 2022 through December 2022.

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.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701; ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • financial records
  • definitions
  • HOA obligations

Question

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.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701; ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • financial records
  • definitions
  • HOA obligations

Question

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

Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by

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)).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $500.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, HOA Violation, Civil Penalty, Filing Fee Reimbursement
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-243
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-107
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918037-REL Decision – 737525.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-28T10:46:18 (176.7 KB)

19F-H1918037-REL Decision – 700566.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-28T10:46:31 (149.3 KB)

19F-H1918037-REL Decision – 737525.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:18:19 (176.7 KB)

19F-H1918037-REL Decision – 700566.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:18:22 (149.3 KB)

Briefing Document: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Case No. 19F-H1918037-REL)

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes two Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decisions concerning a records request dispute between homeowner Tom Barrs (Petitioner) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute was the Association’s failure to fully comply with a request for records under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805.

The case is notable for its complete reversal upon rehearing. An initial ruling on April 10, 2019, favored the Association, finding that the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request by not emailing all Board members. However, this decision was overturned in a final, binding order on September 12, 2019. In the rehearing, the Petitioner presented new evidence demonstrating he was following the Association’s own prior written instructions for submitting such requests.

The ALJ ultimately concluded that the Association did violate A.R.S. § 33-1805 by providing only a summary document instead of making the full records available for examination. Consequently, the final order granted the Petitioner’s petition, mandated the full reimbursement of his $500 filing fee, and levied an additional $500 civil penalty against the Association. The case underscores the critical importance of procedural compliance and the weight of documented instructions in governing interactions between homeowners and their associations.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Tom Barrs, a property owner and member of the Association.

◦ Respondent: Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (“the Association”).

• Venue: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark.

• Core Allegation: Whether the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner.

• Case Numbers:

◦ 19F-H1918037-REL (Initial Decision)

◦ 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG (Rehearing Decision)

II. Chronology of the Dispute

Jul. 19, 2017

Association President Catherine Overby appoints Environmental Design Committee (EDC) Director Brian Schoeffler as the Petitioner’s primary contact for records requests.

Jul. 18, 2018

Ms. Overby instructs the Petitioner to direct all requests to the Association’s management company, Associated Asset Management (AAM), specifically to Lori Lock-Lee.

Nov. 1, 2018

Petitioner submits the records request at issue via email to Catherine Overby, Brian Schoeffler, and Lori Loch-Lee.

Nov. 2, 2018

Ms. Loch-Lee acknowledges the request, states she will forward it to all Board members, and clarifies that AAM is only the Association’s accounting firm.

Nov. 18, 2018

Mr. Schoeffler responds on behalf of the Association, providing a summary table of EDC actions but not the full records. He also advises the Petitioner that all Board members must be copied on future requests.

Dec. 17, 2018

Petitioner files a single-issue petition against the Association with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, paying a $500 fee.

Mar. 6, 2019

Petitioner sends a follow-up email specifying the exact documents he is seeking, referencing items listed in the summary table he received.

Mar. 11, 2019

Mr. Schoeffler replies, asserting the request was already fulfilled and instructing the Petitioner to submit a new request for the additional items.

Mar. 17, 2019

Mr. Schoeffler emails again, claiming the original request was improperly submitted to only two of four Board members and that providing more documents could be seen as an “admission of guilt.”

Mar. 21, 2019

The first evidentiary hearing is held at the OAH.

Apr. 10, 2019

The initial ALJ Decision is issued, denying the Petitioner’s petition.

Jun. 10, 2019

Petitioner submits an appeal to the Department, which is granted.

Aug. 27, 2019

A rehearing is held at the OAH.

Sep. 12, 2019

The final ALJ Decision is issued, reversing the initial ruling and granting the Petitioner’s petition.

III. The Records Request and Response

Petitioner’s Request (November 1, 2018)

The Petitioner submitted a clear and direct request for specific records via email, citing the relevant statute:

“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.”

Association’s Response (November 18, 2018)

The Association did not provide the requested documents (e.g., letters, emails, applications). Instead, it provided a “summary table listing of some, not all, EDC actions.” As of the August 27, 2019, rehearing, the Petitioner had still not received the full documentation he originally requested.

Petitioner’s Clarification (March 6, 2019)

In an attempt to resolve the issue, the Petitioner sent a detailed follow-up email outlining the specific missing records by referencing the line items in the Association’s own summary table. This demonstrated that his request was not for a vague “list of actions” but for the underlying correspondence. This included requests for:

• Copies of violation notices and “Full Compliance” correspondence.

• Complaint correspondence from homeowners regarding shrubs and subsequent citations.

• Submittal correspondence for a project from Mr. Schoeffler himself, along with approvals.

• Original submittals and approvals for a garage remodel and septic install.

IV. Analysis of the Two Administrative Rulings

The opposite outcomes of the two hearings hinged entirely on the validity of the Petitioner’s original email submission.

A. Initial ALJ Decision (April 10, 2019) – In Favor of Respondent (HOA)

• Central Finding: The Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request because he sent it to only two Board members, not the entire Board.

• Reasoning: The ALJ concluded that because the request was improperly submitted, the Association was not obligated to fulfill it under A.R.S. § 33-1805. Therefore, its failure to provide the full records did not constitute a violation. The decision noted, “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…”

• Outcome: The petition was denied. The Association was not required to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee, and his request for a civil penalty was denied.

B. Rehearing ALJ Decision (September 12, 2019) – In Favor of Petitioner (Barrs)

• Central Finding: The Petitioner did properly submit his records request by emailing the designated contacts.

• Key New Evidence: The Petitioner introduced two exhibits proving he had received explicit instructions from the Association President on where to direct his requests:

1. A July 19, 2017 communication appointing EDC Chairman Brian Schoeffler as his primary records request contact.

2. A July 18, 2018 communication instructing him to direct requests to the management company (AAM).

• Reasoning: The ALJ found this evidence dispositive, stating, “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.” With the submission deemed proper, the focus shifted to the response. The ALJ concluded that providing a summary table was not compliant with the statute’s requirement to make records “reasonably available for examination.”

• Outcome: The initial decision was reversed, and the Petitioner’s petition was granted.

V. Key Arguments and Testimonies

• Petitioner (Tom Barrs):

◦ Argued his dispute was with the adequacy of the Association’s response, not its timeliness.

◦ Alleged the Association acted in bad faith and willfully withheld records, citing a previous OAH adjudication over a similar request.

◦ Successfully demonstrated he had followed the Association’s own prior instructions for submitting requests.

• Respondent (via Brian Schoeffler):

◦ Maintained that the request was invalid because it was not sent to all four Board members, an argument that collapsed during the rehearing.

◦ Admitted the Association’s governing documents do not contain a requirement that all Board members be copied on records requests.

◦ Justified the incomplete response by stating that providing additional documents after the petition was filed could be “interpreted as an admission of guilt.”

◦ Reasoned that the Association acted as it did because a previous, similar dispute had been decided in its favor.

VI. Final Order and Penalties

The binding order issued on September 12, 2019, following the rehearing, mandated the following:

1. Petition Granted: The Petitioner’s petition was granted in its entirety.

2. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee.

3. Civil Penalty: The Association was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $500 to the Arizona Department of Real Estate for its violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Study Guide: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal case between petitioner Tom Barrs and respondent Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, covering the initial hearing and the subsequent rehearing. It includes a quiz to test factual recall, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences based on the provided source documents.

1. Who are the primary parties in this legal dispute, and what are their respective roles?

2. What specific Arizona Revised Statute was the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association accused of violating, and what does this statute generally require?

3. What was the exact nature of the records request Tom Barrs submitted on November 1, 2018?

4. In the initial hearing, what was the key reason the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Association?

5. What was the Association’s initial response to Barrs’ records request, and why did Barrs consider it incomplete?

6. Upon what grounds was a rehearing of the case granted?

7. What crucial new evidence presented at the rehearing changed the outcome of the case?

8. How did the Association’s own bylaws and concessions during the rehearing weaken its defense?

9. What was the final ruling in the Administrative Law Judge’s decision after the rehearing?

10. What financial penalties were imposed on the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association in the final order?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Tom Barrs, the Petitioner, and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, the Respondent. Barrs, a homeowner and member of the Association, filed a petition alleging the Association failed to comply with a records request. The Association, represented in the hearings by Brian Schoeffler, defended its actions against this claim.

2. The Association was accused of violating A.R.S. § 33-1805. This statute requires a homeowners’ association to make its financial and other records reasonably available for examination by a member within ten business days of a request. It also allows the association to charge a fee of not more than fifteen cents per page for copies.

3. On November 1, 2018, Tom Barrs requested “a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018.” He specified that electronic copies were preferable but that he was also willing to pick up hard copies.

4. In the initial hearing, the judge ruled for the Association because the evidence indicated Barrs had failed to properly submit his request to all members of the Association’s Board. This procedural error meant Barrs failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation of the statute.

5. The Association responded on November 18, 2018, by providing Barrs with a summary table of Environmental Design Committee (EDC) actions. Barrs considered this incomplete because his request was for the underlying communications, including all written requests and approvals, not just a summary list of actions.

6. A rehearing was granted after Petitioner Tom Barrs submitted an appeal to the Arizona Department of Real Estate on June 10, 2019. The Department granted the appeal and referred the matter back to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a new evidentiary hearing.

7. The crucial new evidence showed that the Association’s President had previously appointed Brian Schoeffler as Barrs’ primary contact for records requests. This evidence demonstrated that Barrs had, in fact, followed the specific instructions given to him and was not required to send his request to all board members, directly contradicting the basis for the initial ruling.

8. The Association conceded that its governing documents do not require members to copy all Board members on records requests. It also admitted that its own bylaws regarding the submission of forms for such requests were not adhered to or enforced, which undermined its argument that Barrs had failed to follow proper procedure.

9. The final ruling, issued September 12, 2019, granted the Petitioner’s petition. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Association’s conduct violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 because it did not fully comply with Barrs’ specific and properly submitted request.

10. The Association was ordered to reimburse Petitioner Tom Barrs’ $500.00 filing fee. Additionally, a civil penalty of $500.00 was levied against the Association, payable to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-format answers that require critical thinking and synthesis of information from the case documents. Answers are not provided.

1. Compare and contrast the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the initial decision (April 10, 2019) with those in the rehearing decision (September 12, 2019). Analyze how specific factual clarifications led to a complete reversal of the legal conclusion.

2. Explain the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the decisions. Detail why the petitioner initially failed to meet this burden and what specific evidence allowed him to successfully meet it in the rehearing.

3. Analyze the testimony and arguments presented by Brian Schoeffler on behalf of the Association across both hearings. Discuss the consistency of his defense, his reasoning based on prior OAH decisions, and his stated fear that providing more documents could be interpreted as an “admission of guilt.”

4. Trace the complete procedural timeline of case No. 19F-H1918037-REL, from the filing of the initial petition on December 17, 2018, to the final, binding order on September 12, 2019. Highlight the roles of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

5. Using the details of this case, write an analysis of the function and importance of A.R.S. § 33-1805 in regulating the relationship between a homeowner and a homeowners’ association. Discuss the statute’s requirements for both parties and the consequences of non-compliance.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent, impartial judge who presides over administrative hearings at government agencies like the Office of Administrative Hearings. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.

A.R.S. § 33-1805

The section of the Arizona Revised Statutes that governs a homeowner’s right to access the records of a homeowners’ association. It mandates that an association must make records available for examination within ten business days of a request.

Associated Asset Management (AAM)

The management company that served as the accounting firm for the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. Petitioner was instructed at one point to direct requests to Lori Lock-Lee at AAM.

Board of Directors (the Board)

The governing body that oversees the operations of the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community or subdivision. The Desert Ranch HOA is governed by its CC&Rs.

Environmental Design Committee (EDC)

A committee within the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association responsible for reviewing and approving architectural and landscaping changes. Brian Schoeffler was the Chairman of the EDC.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, Tom Barrs is the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof in this civil administrative case. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and has superior weight, inclining a fair mind to one side of the issue over the other.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case, granted upon appeal, to re-examine the issues and evidence. The rehearing in this case took place on August 27, 2019, and resulted in the reversal of the initial decision.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association is the Respondent.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, providing a neutral forum for resolving disputes like the one between Barrs and the Association.

Briefing Document: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Case No. 19F-H1918037-REL)

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes two Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decisions concerning a records request dispute between homeowner Tom Barrs (Petitioner) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute was the Association’s failure to fully comply with a request for records under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805.

The case is notable for its complete reversal upon rehearing. An initial ruling on April 10, 2019, favored the Association, finding that the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request by not emailing all Board members. However, this decision was overturned in a final, binding order on September 12, 2019. In the rehearing, the Petitioner presented new evidence demonstrating he was following the Association’s own prior written instructions for submitting such requests.

The ALJ ultimately concluded that the Association did violate A.R.S. § 33-1805 by providing only a summary document instead of making the full records available for examination. Consequently, the final order granted the Petitioner’s petition, mandated the full reimbursement of his $500 filing fee, and levied an additional $500 civil penalty against the Association. The case underscores the critical importance of procedural compliance and the weight of documented instructions in governing interactions between homeowners and their associations.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Tom Barrs, a property owner and member of the Association.

◦ Respondent: Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (“the Association”).

• Venue: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark.

• Core Allegation: Whether the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner.

• Case Numbers:

◦ 19F-H1918037-REL (Initial Decision)

◦ 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG (Rehearing Decision)

II. Chronology of the Dispute

Jul. 19, 2017

Association President Catherine Overby appoints Environmental Design Committee (EDC) Director Brian Schoeffler as the Petitioner’s primary contact for records requests.

Jul. 18, 2018

Ms. Overby instructs the Petitioner to direct all requests to the Association’s management company, Associated Asset Management (AAM), specifically to Lori Lock-Lee.

Nov. 1, 2018

Petitioner submits the records request at issue via email to Catherine Overby, Brian Schoeffler, and Lori Loch-Lee.

Nov. 2, 2018

Ms. Loch-Lee acknowledges the request, states she will forward it to all Board members, and clarifies that AAM is only the Association’s accounting firm.

Nov. 18, 2018

Mr. Schoeffler responds on behalf of the Association, providing a summary table of EDC actions but not the full records. He also advises the Petitioner that all Board members must be copied on future requests.

Dec. 17, 2018

Petitioner files a single-issue petition against the Association with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, paying a $500 fee.

Mar. 6, 2019

Petitioner sends a follow-up email specifying the exact documents he is seeking, referencing items listed in the summary table he received.

Mar. 11, 2019

Mr. Schoeffler replies, asserting the request was already fulfilled and instructing the Petitioner to submit a new request for the additional items.

Mar. 17, 2019

Mr. Schoeffler emails again, claiming the original request was improperly submitted to only two of four Board members and that providing more documents could be seen as an “admission of guilt.”

Mar. 21, 2019

The first evidentiary hearing is held at the OAH.

Apr. 10, 2019

The initial ALJ Decision is issued, denying the Petitioner’s petition.

Jun. 10, 2019

Petitioner submits an appeal to the Department, which is granted.

Aug. 27, 2019

A rehearing is held at the OAH.

Sep. 12, 2019

The final ALJ Decision is issued, reversing the initial ruling and granting the Petitioner’s petition.

III. The Records Request and Response

Petitioner’s Request (November 1, 2018)

The Petitioner submitted a clear and direct request for specific records via email, citing the relevant statute:

“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.”

Association’s Response (November 18, 2018)

The Association did not provide the requested documents (e.g., letters, emails, applications). Instead, it provided a “summary table listing of some, not all, EDC actions.” As of the August 27, 2019, rehearing, the Petitioner had still not received the full documentation he originally requested.

Petitioner’s Clarification (March 6, 2019)

In an attempt to resolve the issue, the Petitioner sent a detailed follow-up email outlining the specific missing records by referencing the line items in the Association’s own summary table. This demonstrated that his request was not for a vague “list of actions” but for the underlying correspondence. This included requests for:

• Copies of violation notices and “Full Compliance” correspondence.

• Complaint correspondence from homeowners regarding shrubs and subsequent citations.

• Submittal correspondence for a project from Mr. Schoeffler himself, along with approvals.

• Original submittals and approvals for a garage remodel and septic install.

IV. Analysis of the Two Administrative Rulings

The opposite outcomes of the two hearings hinged entirely on the validity of the Petitioner’s original email submission.

A. Initial ALJ Decision (April 10, 2019) – In Favor of Respondent (HOA)

• Central Finding: The Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request because he sent it to only two Board members, not the entire Board.

• Reasoning: The ALJ concluded that because the request was improperly submitted, the Association was not obligated to fulfill it under A.R.S. § 33-1805. Therefore, its failure to provide the full records did not constitute a violation. The decision noted, “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…”

• Outcome: The petition was denied. The Association was not required to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee, and his request for a civil penalty was denied.

B. Rehearing ALJ Decision (September 12, 2019) – In Favor of Petitioner (Barrs)

• Central Finding: The Petitioner did properly submit his records request by emailing the designated contacts.

• Key New Evidence: The Petitioner introduced two exhibits proving he had received explicit instructions from the Association President on where to direct his requests:

1. A July 19, 2017 communication appointing EDC Chairman Brian Schoeffler as his primary records request contact.

2. A July 18, 2018 communication instructing him to direct requests to the management company (AAM).

• Reasoning: The ALJ found this evidence dispositive, stating, “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.” With the submission deemed proper, the focus shifted to the response. The ALJ concluded that providing a summary table was not compliant with the statute’s requirement to make records “reasonably available for examination.”

• Outcome: The initial decision was reversed, and the Petitioner’s petition was granted.

V. Key Arguments and Testimonies

• Petitioner (Tom Barrs):

◦ Argued his dispute was with the adequacy of the Association’s response, not its timeliness.

◦ Alleged the Association acted in bad faith and willfully withheld records, citing a previous OAH adjudication over a similar request.

◦ Successfully demonstrated he had followed the Association’s own prior instructions for submitting requests.

• Respondent (via Brian Schoeffler):

◦ Maintained that the request was invalid because it was not sent to all four Board members, an argument that collapsed during the rehearing.

◦ Admitted the Association’s governing documents do not contain a requirement that all Board members be copied on records requests.

◦ Justified the incomplete response by stating that providing additional documents after the petition was filed could be “interpreted as an admission of guilt.”

◦ Reasoned that the Association acted as it did because a previous, similar dispute had been decided in its favor.

VI. Final Order and Penalties

The binding order issued on September 12, 2019, following the rehearing, mandated the following:

1. Petition Granted: The Petitioner’s petition was granted in its entirety.

2. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee.

3. Civil Penalty: The Association was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $500 to the Arizona Department of Real Estate for its violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Tom Barrs (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf in the initial hearing; appeared as a witness in the rehearing.
  • Jonathan Dessaules (petitioner attorney)
    Dessaules Law Group
    Appeared on behalf of Petitioner in the rehearing.

Respondent Side

  • Brian Schoeffler (respondent representative / EDC chairman / witness)
    Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
    Also identified as a Board Director.
  • Catherine Overby (HOA president / board member)
    Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
    Appointed Mr. Schoeffler as Petitioner’s primary records request contact.
  • Lori Loch-Lee (property manager)
    Associated Asset Management (AAM)
    Vice President of Client Services.
  • Amanda Shaw (property manager)
    AAM LLC
    Contact for Respondent.
  • B. Austin Baillio (HOA attorney)
    Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
    Received electronic transmission of the rehearing decision.

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • Dan Gardner (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    HOA Coordinator.

Other Participants

  • Gerard Manieri (observer)
    Listed as 'G. Mangiero' in initial hearing source.
  • Peter Ashkin (observer)
    Observed initial hearing.
  • Stephen Banks (observer)
    Observed initial hearing.
  • Noah Banks (observer)
    Observed initial hearing.
  • Stephen Barrs (observer)
    Observed rehearing.
  • Abraham Barrs (observer)
    Observed rehearing.

Linda Curtin vs. The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918034-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-03-05
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome Petitioner established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide access to requested association records within the statutory ten-day period. The petition was granted and Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Linda Curtin Counsel —
Respondent The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide access to requested association records within the statutory ten-day period. The petition was granted and Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide timely access to association financial records

Petitioner filed a single-issue petition alleging Respondent violated CC&Rs § 4.8 and A.R.S. § 33-1805 by refusing to make available association records or to produce a receipt identifying a contractor and the amount paid for a cinderblock wall built by the community’s clubhouse.

Orders: The petition was granted because Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide access to records within ten days of Petitioner’s September 12, 2018 request. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
  • CC&R § 4.8

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Records, Record Inspection, Timely Disclosure, Statutory Violation, Filing Fee Reimbursement
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
  • CC&R § 4.8
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918034-REL Decision – 692859.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:18:05 (151.9 KB)

19F-H1918034-REL Decision – 692859.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:28:04 (151.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Curtin v. The Ridge at Diamante del Lago HOA

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case number 19F-H1918034-REL, a dispute between homeowner Linda Curtin and The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc. (HOA). The central conflict arose from the HOA’s failure to provide financial records related to a small construction project within the timeframe mandated by Arizona law.

The petitioner, Ms. Curtin, alleged that the HOA violated its own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 by not producing an invoice for a $1,000 cinderblock wall project at the community clubhouse. While the HOA did eventually provide the requested records, the ALJ found that it failed to do so within the legally required ten-day period following Ms. Curtin’s formal written request on September 12, 2018.

Consequently, the ALJ granted the petition in favor of Ms. Curtin, ruling that the HOA was in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The HOA was ordered to reimburse Ms. Curtin for her $500 petition filing fee. However, the ALJ dismissed all of the petitioner’s ancillary complaints, including suspicions of forgery, concerns about the contractor’s licensing status, and other issues of HOA governance, deeming them either unsubstantiated or outside the narrow scope of the single-issue petition. The ruling underscores the strict procedural compliance required of HOAs regarding member record requests while limiting the scope of such legal challenges to the specific violations alleged.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview

• Case Number: 19F-H1918034-REL

• Forum: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

• Petitioner: Linda Curtin (“Complainant”), a homeowner and HOA member.

• Respondent: The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc. (“HOA”), represented by Community Manager Tracy Schofield.

• Administrative Law Judge: Diane Mihalsky

• Core Allegation: The HOA violated its governing documents and state law by failing to make association records available to a member upon request. Specifically, the petitioner sought a receipt and contractor details for a cinderblock wall built at the community clubhouse.

II. Governing Rules and Statutes

The case centered on the interpretation and enforcement of the HOA’s internal rules and a specific Arizona statute governing planned communities.

Rule/Statute

Key Provision

CC&R § 4.8

Requires the HOA Board to keep “true and correct records of account in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles” and to make such books and records available for inspection by all owners upon request during normal business hours.

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Mandates that all financial and other association records be made “reasonably available for examination” by any member. The statute explicitly requires the association to fulfill a request for examination within ten business days. A similar ten-day deadline applies for providing copies of records.

The respondent did not claim any legal privilege under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) that would permit it to withhold the requested documents.

III. Chronology of the Dispute

The conflict unfolded over several months, beginning with an informal inquiry and escalating to a formal legal petition.

• August 1, 2018: Petitioner Linda Curtin first emails Community Manager Tracy Schofield for a contractor recommendation.

• August 2 – September 11, 2018: In a subsequent email exchange, Ms. Curtin asks who built the garbage can walls at the clubhouse. Ms. Schofield provides the name “Roberto” but is unable to provide a contact number, stating that the Board’s Treasurer, Jim Mackiewicz, had arranged the work. The petitioner later characterized this exchange as “evasive.”

• September 12, 2018: Ms. Curtin sends a formal written letter requesting “a copy of the invoice submitted to The Ridge HOA” for the wall construction. This action officially started the ten-day clock under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

• September 24, 2018: Ms. Schofield responds, stating that she does not have the invoices at her office as records are retained “in the community.” She provides a printout of payments made to contractor Gualberto Castro, which includes a $1,000 check dated November 1, 2017, for “Block work – clubhouse.”

• November 5, 2018: Ms. Curtin requests that the invoice be brought to that day’s HOA board meeting. The document is not provided.

• November 28, 2018: After making an additional 15 phone calls regarding related meeting minutes without a satisfactory response, Ms. Curtin files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• December 10, 2018: The HOA files its answer, claiming the issue has been resolved. On the same day, Ms. Schofield emails the contractor’s invoice to Ms. Curtin. The invoice, from ValleyWide Custom Painting Inc. and dated November 2, 2017, details the $1,000 job.

• December 11, 2018: Ms. Curtin requests additional documents, including a copy of the cashed check and the Architectural Control Committee (ACC) application for the project. Ms. Schofield is reported to have stated that ACC approval was not applicable to work on common areas.

• Post-December 11, 2018: Ms. Schofield eventually provides a copy of the cancelled check for $1,000 made payable to Mr. Castro.

• February 20, 2019: An evidentiary hearing is held before the ALJ.

IV. Analysis of Evidence and Arguments

A. Petitioner’s Position

Ms. Curtin’s case was built on the initial failure to produce records and expanded to include broader suspicions about the HOA’s conduct.

• Primary Claim: The HOA violated state law by failing to fulfill her September 12, 2018 request for records within the ten-day statutory period.

• Suspicions about Documentation: The petitioner expressed dissatisfaction with the documents eventually provided. She opined that the November 2, 2017 receipt “appeared to have two different kinds of handwriting and might be a forgery.” She also pointed to the fact that the check for payment was dated one day before the invoice date.

• Ancillary Governance Concerns: Ms. Curtin raised several issues beyond the scope of her petition, including:

◦ The contractor, Mr. Castro, was not licensed as required by the Registrar of Contractors.

◦ The Board meeting minutes did not show authorization for the $1,000 expenditure.

◦ The HOA’s ACC approval process was not followed for the wall.

◦ A separate, unrelated $125,000 pool remodel project was approved improperly (this was refuted by Ms. Schofield’s testimony that it required a membership vote).

B. Respondent’s Position

The HOA, through Ms. Schofield, acknowledged the delay but argued it had ultimately complied and faced logistical constraints.

• Eventual Compliance: The HOA’s primary defense was that it eventually provided all the documents in its possession related to the expenditure, thereby resolving the complaint.

• Logistical Challenges: Ms. Schofield testified that she is an off-site community manager for numerous associations and does not keep records in her office. She stated that the HOA’s records are stored “in the community” at a separate depository.

• Commitment to Future Compliance: Ms. Schofield testified that for any future requests, she would schedule a time for the petitioner to review records at the depository within the ten-day window.

• Communication: Ms. Schofield maintained that she “communicated with Petitioner on every issue” and provided what information she had available.

V. Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s decision was narrowly focused on the statutory violation, setting aside the petitioner’s other grievances.

A. Conclusions of Law

1. Violation Confirmed: The judge concluded that the petitioner successfully established by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The HOA “acknowledged that it did not provide the documents or provide access to Petitioner to view the documents within ten days of Petitioner’s September 12, 2018 request.”

2. Scope of Relief Limited: The ALJ determined that the statute only requires that records be kept and made available in a timely manner. The law “has not authorized the Department… that HOAs produce records that satisfy all of a members’ stated concerns.”

3. Ancillary Claims Dismissed: The judge explicitly rejected the petitioner’s broader concerns, stating: “Petitioner’s concern with ‘transparency’ and dissatisfaction and suspicions about the records that were eventually provided do not entitle her to any additional relief in this forum.” The forgery claim was dismissed for lack of evidence, as Ms. Curtin did not present the opinion of a handwriting expert. The issues related to contractor licensing and internal HOA procedures were deemed outside the jurisdiction of the hearing for an HOA petition.

B. Recommended Order

Based on the findings, the ALJ issued a two-part order:

1. Petition Granted: The petition was granted on the grounds that Ms. Curtin had proven the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

2. Reimbursement of Filing Fee: The HOA was ordered to reimburse the petitioner the $500.00 she paid to file the single-issue petition.

The order, issued on March 5, 2019, was declared binding on both parties unless a request for rehearing was filed within 30 days.

Study Guide: Curtin v. The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc.

This guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1918034-REL, involving Petitioner Linda Curtin and Respondent The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc. It includes a quiz with an answer key to test comprehension, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

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

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

2. What was the central allegation in the single-issue petition filed by Linda Curtin on November 28, 2018?

3. Which specific Arizona Revised Statute and CC&R section did the Petitioner claim the Respondent violated?

4. How did the HOA, through its community manager, initially attempt to resolve the records request that led to the petition?

5. What additional documents did Ms. Curtin request after receiving the contractor’s invoice on December 10, 2018?

6. What were Ms. Curtin’s specific suspicions and complaints regarding the quality and validity of the documents she eventually received?

7. What was Community Manager Tracy Schofield’s testimony regarding her role and the location of the association’s records?

8. According to the “Conclusions of Law,” what is the primary requirement of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) regarding member requests for records?

9. On what specific point did the Administrative Law Judge find that the Respondent had violated the statute?

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

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Linda Curtin, the Petitioner and a homeowner, and The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc., the Respondent. Tracy Schofield appeared for the HOA as its Community Manager, and Diane Mihalsky served as the Administrative Law Judge.

2. The central allegation was that the HOA violated its own rules and state law by refusing to make association records available. Specifically, Ms. Curtin sought a receipt identifying the contractor and the amount paid for a cinderblock wall built by the community clubhouse.

3. The Petitioner claimed the Respondent violated CC&R § 4.8, concerning the keeping and availability of accounting records, and A.R.S. § 33-1805, which governs the examination of association records by members.

4. On September 24, 2018, Ms. Schofield responded to Ms. Curtin’s written request by stating she did not have invoices at her office. She did, however, provide a printout of payments made to the contractor, Gaulberto Castro, which included a $1,000.00 payment for “Block work – clubhouse.”

5. After receiving the invoice, Ms. Curtin requested a copy of the cashed check (front and back), the payee’s mailing address, and the completed Architectural Control Committee Application for the project, including the contractor’s address, license number, and insurance company.

6. Ms. Curtin complained that the contractor, Mr. Castro, was not licensed and that the job did not meet the exemption requirements for the Registrar of Contractors. She also opined that the receipt from November 2, 2017, appeared to be a forgery with two different kinds of handwriting.

7. Ms. Schofield testified that she is not an onsite manager, works for numerous associations, and does not keep any association records in her office. She stated that for future requests, she would schedule a time for Ms. Curtin to view the records at the Respondent’s records depository.

8. The primary requirement of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) is that all financial and other records of an association must be made reasonably available for examination by any member. The statute mandates that the association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies.

9. The Judge found that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) because, while it eventually provided all documents in its possession, it failed to provide the documents or access to them within the statutorily required ten-day period following Ms. Curtin’s September 12, 2018 request.

10. The Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be granted because she established the violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The Judge further ordered that the Respondent reimburse Ms. Curtin the $500.00 she paid to file her single-issue petition.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage a deeper analysis of the case. Formulate comprehensive responses using only the evidence and legal reasoning presented in the source document.

1. Analyze the timeline of communication between Linda Curtin and Tracy Schofield, from the initial informal inquiry on August 1, 2018, to the formal petition. How did the nature of the requests and the quality of the responses contribute to the escalation of the dispute?

2. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined and applied in this case. Explain how the Administrative Law Judge used this standard to find the Respondent in violation of the ten-day rule while simultaneously dismissing the Petitioner’s other concerns about transparency and forgery.

3. The Petitioner raised several issues during the hearing that were not part of her original single-issue petition, such as the contractor’s licensing status, the lack of Board meeting minutes authorizing the project, and a proposed $125,000 pool remodel. Why did the Administrative Law Judge deem these points irrelevant to the final decision?

4. Evaluate the responsibilities of a Homeowners Association regarding record-keeping and member access as outlined in CC&R § 4.8 and A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). Based on the testimony and evidence, describe the specific procedural failures of The Ridge at Diamante del Lago HOA in this matter.

5. The Judge’s decision explicitly states that the Petitioner’s “dissatisfaction and suspicions about the records that were eventually provided do not entitle her to any additional relief in this forum.” Explore the distinction the ruling makes between a procedural violation (timeliness of access) and the substantive content or perceived legitimacy of the records themselves.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Diane Mihalsky of the Office of Administrative Hearings served as the ALJ.

A.R.S. § 33-1805

An Arizona Revised Statute requiring that all financial and other records of a homeowners association be made reasonably available for examination by any member within ten business days of a request.

Complainant

An alternative term used in the document to refer to the Petitioner, Linda Curtin.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The governing documents that create and define the rules for a planned community. In this case, CC&R § 4.8, which deals with accounting records, was cited.

Department (The)

Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings from HOA members and HOAs.

Evidentiary Hearing

A formal proceeding where evidence is presented and testimony is given before an administrative law judge to resolve a factual dispute. The hearing in this case took place on February 20, 2019.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

An organization in a planned community that creates and enforces rules for the properties and its members. The Respondent is The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

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

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, the Petitioner is Linda Curtin, a homeowner and member of the Respondent HOA.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case, defined as evidence that is more convincing and has greater weight, inclining an impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other. The Petitioner bears this burden of proof.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent is The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc.

Restrictive Covenants

Legal obligations imposed in a deed upon the buyer of real estate. The document notes that if unambiguous, they are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties.

Transparency as a Requirement: A $500 Lesson for Arizona HOAs

1. Introduction: The Price of Delay and the Statutory Hammer

In the realm of Arizona homeowners’ associations, transparency is often treated by boards as a courtesy rather than a mandate. However, the case of Linda Curtin vs. The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc. serves as a stark reminder that the law provides homeowners with a powerful "statutory hammer" to compel accountability.

What began as a simple request for a contractor’s receipt for a small masonry project—a $1,000 cinderblock garbage enclosure—escalated into a formal administrative hearing. Despite the HOA’s eventual production of the documents and their claim that the matter was "resolved," the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) delivered a $500 lesson in the importance of deadlines. This case proves that the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) is a viable, high-leverage forum for individual owners to level the playing field against well-funded boards.

2. Your Right to Audit the Paper Trail: Understanding A.R.S. § 33-1805

Arizona law provides homeowners with a clear, non-negotiable right to inspect the financial records of their association. Whether it is through state statute or the community’s own governing documents, the "10-day rule" is the gold standard for transparency.

The following table outlines the balance of power established under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) and CC&R § 4.8:

HOA Obligations (The Mandate) Member Rights (The Leverage)
Must maintain true and correct records of account using generally accepted accounting principles. The right to inspect all financial and other records upon request.
Must provide reasonable detail regarding all expenses incurred and funds accumulated. The right to designate a representative in writing to review materials.
Must fulfill requests or provide copies within ten business days. The right to obtain copies for a fee of no more than $0.15 per page.
Must make records available during normal business hours. The right to review records without being charged for the association’s time.

The ten business day deadline is the most critical component. In the eyes of the law, "eventually" is a violation.

3. Case Study: Evasion and the "Day-After" Invoice

The dispute at The Ridge at Diamante del Lago began on August 1, 2018, when Ms. Curtin sought the identity of the contractor responsible for a $1,000 wall project. The ensuing timeline illustrates a pattern of "evasive" communication that frequently plagues HOA-member relations:

  • August – September 2018: The Community Manager initially claimed she did not know the contractor, then provided only a first name ("Roberto"), and finally claimed she could not obtain his phone number, directing the homeowner to the Board Treasurer instead.
  • September 12, 2018: Ms. Curtin sent a formal written request for the invoice.
  • September 24, 2018: The Manager claimed she did not have the records because they were kept "in the community" rather than at her office.
  • The Date Discrepancy: When a payment report was finally provided, Ms. Curtin noticed a glaring red flag: the check to the contractor was dated November 1, 2017, but the invoice was dated November 2, 2017.

This "day-after" invoice fueled the Petitioner’s suspicion of forgery and mismanagement. Seeking clarity, she petitioned the ADRE for:

  • The original contractor invoice.
  • A copy of the cancelled check (front and back).
  • The contractor’s contact info, license number, and insurance details.

4. The Administrative Ruling: The Myth of the "Resolved" Dispute

When the HOA finally produced the documents in December 2018—well past the deadline—they argued the case should be dismissed because the issue was "resolved." The Administrative Law Judge disagreed, focusing on the procedural violation of the 10-day rule.

The Failed "Non-Profit" Defense

In a notable attempt to evade the statute, the HOA argued that Title 33 did not apply to them because they were a non-profit organization. The ALJ flatly rejected this, confirming that the Department of Real Estate has clear jurisdiction over such disputes. HOAs cannot hide behind their corporate status to circumvent state transparency laws.

Findings of Law

The Judge’s logic in Conclusions of Law #6 and #7 was surgical:

  1. Timing is Everything: While the HOA did provide the documents eventually, their failure to do so within the ten business day window starting from the September 12 request constituted a legal violation.
  2. Narrow Scope: The ALJ dismissed the Petitioner’s claims regarding contractor licensing and forgery, noting the ADRE’s role is strictly to enforce HOA statutes, not to adjudicate Registrar of Contractors issues. However, the procedural victory remained.

5. Financial and Legal Consequences

The ADRE, through the Office of Administrative Hearings, serves as an essential forum for homeowners who are being stonewalled by their boards.

The Recommended Order was a definitive win for homeowner rights:

  • The Petitioner’s request was granted due to the statutory violation.
  • The Respondent (the HOA) was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.

This fee-shifting mechanism is vital. It ensures that when an HOA forces a member to file a petition just to see a basic receipt, the HOA—and by extension, the community’s budget—bears the cost of that recalcitrance.

6. Key Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards

For Homeowners: Protecting Your Rights
  1. Start the Clock: Always submit record requests in writing (email and certified mail) to establish the exact start date of the 10-day window.
  2. Be Granular: Specifically request "the invoice and cancelled check (front and back)" rather than general "information."
  3. Leverage the Discrepancies: If dates don't align (like the Nov 1 vs. Nov 2 issue), document it. Even if the Judge cannot rule on "forgery," these facts prove your request was reasonable and necessary.
For HOA Boards & Managers: Avoiding the $500 Penalty
  • The "Knowledge of Agent" Rule: Boards are legally responsible for their managers. A manager claiming "I don't have the records in my office" is not a valid legal excuse.
  • Location Does Not Pause the Clock: Storing records "in the community" or at a Treasurer’s house does not exempt the Board from the 10-day deadline.
  • Stop the Evasion: Providing only a first name or claiming a lack of contact info for a paid contractor is seen by the court as evasive. If you paid a vendor $1,000 of the members' money, you must produce the paper trail immediately.

7. Conclusion: Building a Better Community

Transparency is the bedrock of a healthy association. As the Administrative Law Judge noted, the ultimate goal is for members and boards to move past "concerns and suspicions to cooperatively build a better community."

However, that cooperation can only exist when boards recognize that transparency is not a choice—it is a legal mandate. For Arizona HOAs, the lesson is clear: respect the 10-day rule, or be prepared to pay the price for your delay.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Linda Curtin (petitioner)
    Also referred to as 'Complainant'; testified on her own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Tracy Schofield (community manager)
    The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association
    Appeared for Respondent and testified as Community Manager
  • Jim Mackiewicz (board member)
    The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association
    Board Treasurer
  • Mitch Kellogg (statutory agent)
    The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc.

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Gualberto Castro (contractor)
    Gualberto Stucco & Repairs
    Contractor involved in the disputed work
  • Felicia Del Sol (administrative staff)
    Transmitted decision electronically

Paul Gounder vs. Royal Riviera Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716002-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-06-12
Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Marwil
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Paul Gounder Counsel —
Respondent Royal Riviera Condominium Association Counsel Mark Kristopher Sahl

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge found Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2) by using two substantively different ballots during the 2016 board election,. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee,. The Administrative Law Judge concluded Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4),.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove violation of A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4), which specifies timing requirements for ballots; the ALJ noted that a meeting ballot did not need to contain a received-by date or be mailed seven days in advance if it had been substantively the same as the compliant absentee ballot,,,.

Key Issues & Findings

Ballot must provide an opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action.

The use of two substantively different ballots in the March 2016 election violated A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2) because members who did not attend the meeting were unaware of an additional candidate (Eric Thompson) listed on the meeting ballot, thereby denying those members the opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action contained in the meeting ballot,. This finding does not require ballots to be identical, but substantive changes must be presented to all members,,.

Orders: Petitioner's Petition was granted, and Respondent was ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00,. No other relief was available.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Condominium, Board Election, Absentee Ballot, Statutory Violation, Filing Fee Reimbursement
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • Article VII CC&Rs

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716002-REL Decision – 564851.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:59:29 (44.2 KB)

17F-H1716002-REL Decision – 567887.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:59:37 (79.0 KB)

17F-H1716002-REL Decision – 575055.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:59:43 (689.5 KB)

17F-H1716002-REL Decision – 523915.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:59:47 (103.0 KB)

Briefing Document: Gounder v. Royal Riviera Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the key events, arguments, and legal conclusions from the administrative case of Paul Gounder versus the Royal Riviera Condominium Association (Case No. 17F-H1716002-REL-RHG). The central issue revolved around the Association’s use of two substantively different ballots for its March 14, 2016, board member election.

The Petitioner, Paul Gounder, alleged that the use of a separate mail-in ballot and an in-person meeting ballot, which contained different candidate lists, violated Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2). Specifically, the ballot distributed at the meeting included the name of a seventh candidate, Eric Thompson, who was not listed on the mail-in ballot, thereby denying absentee voters the opportunity to vote for all candidates.

After an initial hearing resulted in a recommended dismissal, a rehearing was granted. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Suzanne Marwil ultimately concluded that the Association’s actions constituted a statutory violation. The Judge found that because members voting by mail were not informed of Mr. Thompson’s candidacy, they were denied their right to vote “for or against each proposed action.” The Respondent’s argument that the matter was moot due to a subsequent election was rejected.

The Department of Real Estate adopted the ALJ’s decision, issuing a Final Order on June 12, 2017. The Order granted the petition and required the Royal Riviera Condominium Association to reimburse Mr. Gounder’s $500.00 filing fee. The ruling establishes that while election ballots are not required to be identical, any substantive changes must be presented to all members to ensure an equal opportunity to vote.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview and Background

This matter was brought before the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings.

• Petitioner: Paul Gounder, a condominium owner and member of the Association.

• Respondent: Royal Riviera Condominium Association, a homeowners’ association for a development of approximately 32 condominiums.

• Initial Petition: Filed on or about June 23, 2016.

• Core Allegation: The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2) and its own CC&Rs by using two substantively different ballots to elect Board members at its March 14, 2016, annual meeting.

II. Procedural History

1. Initial Hearing (October 17, 2016): A hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky.

2. Recommended Dismissal (October 18, 2016): Judge Mihalsky recommended the petition be dismissed, concluding:

3. Rehearing Granted (February 17, 2017): The Petitioner requested a rehearing, which the Department of Real Estate granted. The Department’s order specifically requested a review of A.R.S. § 33-1250, with a focus on subsection (C)(4).

4. Rehearing (May 17, 2017): A rehearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Marwil. At this hearing, the Respondent raised a procedural question regarding the correct statutory subsection for review, leading to a temporary order holding the record open until May 24, 2017, for clarification.

5. ALJ Decision (June 2, 2017): Judge Marwil issued a decision finding that the Respondent had committed a statutory violation.

6. Final Order (June 12, 2017): The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, accepted the ALJ’s decision and issued a Final Order making the decision binding.

III. The Core Dispute: The Two-Ballot System

The parties stipulated that two different ballots were used for the March 14, 2016, board election, which had seven open positions. The key differences are outlined below.

Feature

Mail Ballot (Absentee)

Meeting Ballot (In-Person)

“Mail Ballot”

“Ballot”

Candidates Listed

Six names

Seven names (added Eric Thompson)

Write-in Option

Included a blank line for a write-in candidate

No space provided for write-in candidates

Distribution

Distributed at least seven days before the meeting

Handed out to members attending the meeting

Return Deadline

Specified the date by which it had to be returned

Did not specify when it needed to be returned

IV. Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioner’s Position (Paul Gounder)

• Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2): The addition of Eric Thompson’s name to the meeting ballot deprived members who voted by mail of their right “to vote for or against each proposed action,” as they had no opportunity to vote for Mr. Thompson.

• Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4): The meeting ballot violated this subsection because it was not mailed to all members at least seven days in advance of the meeting and did not provide a date by which it had to be received to be counted.

B. Respondent’s Position (Royal Riviera Condominium Association)

• No Violation: The statutes do not explicitly require the use of identical ballots for an election.

• Common Practice: It is a common practice for homeowners’ associations to use a different absentee ballot and meeting ballot.

• Mootness: The issue is moot because the Association had already held another election in 2017 and seated a new board, which included the Petitioner’s wife as a member.

V. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

In her June 2, 2017 decision, ALJ Suzanne Marwil made the following key legal conclusions:

The ALJ found that the Association’s use of two substantively different ballots did violate this statute.

• Reasoning: Members who did not attend the meeting in person were not notified of Mr. Thompson’s willingness to run for the board. As a result, “these members did not have the opportunity to vote for him and hence were denied their right to vote for or against each proposed action contained in the meeting ballot.”

• Clarification: The ruling explicitly states that this finding does not impose a requirement that all ballots must be identical; however, it establishes that “substantive changes to ballots must be presented to all members.”

The ALJ concluded that no violation of this subsection occurred.

• Reasoning: The Petitioner conceded that the absentee ballot itself complied with the statutory requirements (e.g., being mailed seven days in advance with a return-by date). The judge reasoned that a meeting ballot handed out in person would not need to contain this information if it were “substantively the same as the absentee ballot.” The legal problem arose not from a failure to mail the second ballot, but from the substantive difference between the two.

The ALJ determined that the matter was not rendered moot by the 2017 election and the seating of a new board. The Judge affirmed that the tribunal “can and does find that Respondent committed a statutory violation in the course of holding its 2016 election.”

VI. Final Order and Outcome

• ALJ Recommended Order (June 2, 2017):

◦ The Petitioner’s petition should be granted.

◦ The Respondent must reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee.

◦ No other relief was available to the Petitioner.

• Department of Real Estate Final Order (June 12, 2017):

◦ The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate accepted and adopted the ALJ’s decision.

◦ The Order is a final administrative action, effective immediately.

◦ The Royal Riviera Condominium Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days.

◦ The parties were notified that the Order could be appealed via a complaint for judicial review.

Study Guide: Gounder v. Royal Riviera Condominium Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case Paul Gounder v. Royal Riviera Condominium Association, Case No. 17F-H1716002-REL-RHG. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms based on the provided legal documents.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following ten questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the information in the case documents.

1. What was the central allegation made by the Petitioner, Paul Gounder, in his initial petition?

2. Describe the two different ballots used by the Royal Riviera Condominium Association for its March 14, 2016, board election.

3. What were the two primary legal arguments made by the Respondent, Royal Riviera Condominium Association, to defend its actions?

4. What was the initial outcome of the hearing held on October 17, 2016, before Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky?

5. What was Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Marwil’s final conclusion regarding the alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2)?

6. How did Judge Marwil explain her finding that A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4), which deals with ballot delivery timelines, was not violated?

7. How did the Respondent argue that the case was moot, and why did Judge Marwil reject this argument?

8. According to the Final Order issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, what specific relief was granted to the Petitioner?

9. What is the standard of proof in this matter, and which party has the burden of proof?

10. What specific action did the Department of Real Estate request be reviewed when it granted the request for a rehearing?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner, Paul Gounder, alleged that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2) and its own CC&Rs. The violation occurred by using two substantively different ballots for the election of Board members at the annual meeting on March 14, 2016.

2. The first ballot was an absentee “Mail Ballot” with six candidate names and a blank line for a write-in. The second ballot, handed out at the meeting, was titled “Ballot” and included the names of seven candidates (adding Eric Thompson) but had no space for a write-in candidate.

3. The Respondent argued that it committed no violation because the statutes do not explicitly require the use of identical ballots and that using different absentee and meeting ballots is common practice. It also maintained that the matter was moot because a new election had already occurred in 2017.

4. Following the initial hearing, Judge Diane Mihalsky recommended the dismissal of the Petition on October 18, 2016. She concluded that no statute or bylaw prevented the Respondent from adding the names of willing members to the ballot used at the annual election.

5. Judge Suzanne Marwil found that the use of two substantively different ballots did violate A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2). Because members voting by mail were not informed of Eric Thompson’s candidacy, they were denied their right to vote for or against each proposed action.

6. Judge Marwil concluded A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4) was not violated because the absentee ballot itself complied with the statute’s requirements for delivery timelines. She reasoned that a meeting ballot would not need to meet these requirements if it were substantively the same as the compliant absentee ballot; the problem arose only because the ballots were different.

7. The Respondent argued the case was moot because a new board had been seated in a 2017 election. Judge Marwil rejected this, stating that the fact a new board is seated does not prevent an Administrative Law Judge from finding that a statutory violation occurred in a past election.

8. The Final Order, issued by Commissioner Judy Lowe on June 12, 2017, granted the Petitioner’s petition. It ordered the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days.

9. The standard of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence,” as stated in A.A.C. R2-19-119(A). Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-19-119(B), the Petitioner has the burden of proof in the matter.

10. In its February 17, 2017, Order Granting Request for Rehearing, the Department of Real Estate specifically requested a review of A.R.S. § 33-1250, and in particular, A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(4).

——————————————————————————–

Suggested Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses to test a deeper understanding of the case. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the legal distinction Judge Marwil makes between ballots being “identical” versus “substantively different.” How did this distinction become the central point upon which her decision on A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2) turned?

2. Trace the procedural history of this case, from the filing of the initial petition to the issuance of the Final Order. Discuss the role and decisions of each key actor, including Petitioner Gounder, Respondent Royal Riviera, ALJ Mihalsky, ALJ Marwil, and Commissioner Lowe.

3. Evaluate the legal arguments presented by the Respondent. Why was the argument about “common practice” for homeowners’ associations ultimately unpersuasive, and why did the “mootness” doctrine not apply?

4. Discuss the significance of the specific provisions within A.R.S. § 33-1250(C). How do subsections (C)(2) and (C)(4) work together to ensure fair voting rights for all members of a condominium association, including those who vote by absentee ballot?

5. Examine the relationship between the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings as demonstrated in this case. How do they interact to adjudicate disputes between homeowners and their associations?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, hears evidence, and makes legal findings and recommendations. In this case, Diane Mihalsky and Suzanne Marwil served as ALJs.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The codified collection of laws for the state of Arizona. This case centered on the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1250.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (the Department)

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearings from members of homeowners’ associations in Arizona. It granted the rehearing and accepted the final ALJ decision.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community or condominium. The Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated Article VII of its CC&Rs.

Final Order

The concluding and binding decision in an administrative case. In this matter, the Final Order was issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate on June 12, 2017, accepting the ALJ’s decision.

A legal term for a matter that is no longer in controversy or has become irrelevant. The Respondent unsuccessfully argued the case was moot because a subsequent election had been held.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency that conducts administrative hearings for other state agencies. The Department of Real Estate referred this case to the OAH for a hearing.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal or administrative action. In this case, the Petitioner was Paul Gounder.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It means the party with the burden of proof must convince the judge that there is a greater than 50% chance that their claim is true.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case to review the decision made in the first hearing. The Petitioner requested and was granted a rehearing after the initial recommendation to dismiss his petition.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent was the Royal Riviera Condominium Association.

Your HOA’s Election Rules Might Be Unfair. This Court Case Explains Why.

Introduction: The Devil in the Details

Living in a community governed by a Homeowners’ Association (HOA) often means navigating a complex web of rules, regulations, and procedures. While most are designed to maintain property values and community standards, the enforcement of these rules can sometimes feel arbitrary. But what happens when the very process for electing the board that enforces those rules is flawed?

A fascinating legal challenge demonstrates that even a single, seemingly minor discrepancy in an HOA election can have significant consequences. But the victory was anything but certain. In the case of Paul Gounder versus the Royal Riviera Condominium Association, the homeowner’s initial petition was actually recommended for dismissal by the first judge. It was only through persistence—requesting a rehearing—that the homeowner ultimately prevailed. This case serves as a powerful real-world example of why procedural fairness in community governance is not just important—it’s legally required—and reveals several surprising lessons for any homeowner who values a fair and transparent election process.

Takeaway 1: “Common Practice” Isn’t a Legal Defense

When challenged on its election procedures, the Royal Riviera Condominium Association’s defense was simple: it was merely following “common practice.” The board argued that many HOAs use a different absentee and in-person ballot, so they had done nothing wrong. However, the Administrative Law Judge disregarded this argument entirely, focusing instead on the explicit requirements of Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(2). This decision provides a crucial lesson for all homeowners: an association’s internal habits or traditions do not override clear legal statutes. If a state law or the community’s own governing documents dictate a specific procedure, the HOA must follow it, regardless of what other associations might be doing. This empowers homeowners by showing that the law, not just internal tradition, is the ultimate authority governing their association’s actions.

Takeaway 2: A “Small” Change Can Invalidate an Election

The dispute in the March 14, 2016 election centered on two different ballots used for the same board election. The mail-in ballot, sent to members voting absentee, listed six names and included a blank line for a write-in candidate. The in-person ballot, distributed to members at the meeting, listed seven names—adding candidate Eric Thompson—and provided no space for write-ins. This difference was not seen as a minor error but as a “substantive” change that fundamentally altered the election. The judge reasoned that members who voted by mail “did not have the opportunity to vote for him and hence were denied their right to vote for or against each proposed action contained in the meeting ballot.”

The judge made a critical distinction about what constitutes a fair process, clarifying that the issue wasn’t about perfection, but equality of opportunity.

Finding this violation does not impose a requirement that ballots be identical; it simply states that substantive changes to ballots must be presented to all members.

This point is not about minor cosmetic differences like fonts or paper color. It’s about ensuring every single voting member has the exact same set of choices. Adding or removing a candidate on one version of a ballot creates two different elections, disenfranchising one group of voters. This ruling affirms that a fair election requires that all members have an equal opportunity to vote on all candidates and measures.

Takeaway 3: Accountability Matters, Even After the Fact

The association attempted to have the case dismissed by arguing that the issue was “moot.” Because a new election had already been held in 2017 and a new board was in place, the HOA claimed the flawed 2016 election no longer mattered. The Administrative Law Judge explicitly rejected this argument. The decision stated that “the fact that a new board is currently seated does not render the matter moot as the Administrative Law Judge can and does find that Respondent committed a statutory violation in the course of holding its 2016 election.” The final order granted the homeowner’s petition and required the Royal Riviera Condominium Association to reimburse his $500.00 filing fee. This is an impactful takeaway for any homeowner who feels it’s too late to act. It demonstrates that an HOA can be held legally accountable for past procedural violations, establishing an important precedent for the community and putting the board on notice for future conduct.

Conclusion: Knowledge is Power

The case of Gounder v. Royal Riviera Condominium Association is a powerful reminder that procedural fairness, strict adherence to legal statutes, and the vigilance of individual homeowners are essential checks on the power of an HOA board. The core lesson is clear: seemingly small details in an election process can have major legal consequences. Homeowners who take the time to understand the specific laws and bylaws governing their community can successfully challenge their associations. But this case also teaches a deeper lesson about perseverance. Faced with an initial recommendation for dismissal, the homeowner could have given up. Instead, he challenged the ruling and won on rehearing, proving that knowledge combined with conviction is a powerful force for ensuring the principles of fairness and equality are upheld.

Does your own community’s voting process ensure every member has an equal voice, and would it stand up to this kind of scrutiny?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Paul Gounder (petitioner)
  • Frederick C. Zehm (witness)
    Royal Riviera Condominium Association member
    Testified for Petitioner
  • Marlys Kleck (witness)
    Royal Riviera Condominium Association member
    Testified for Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Mark Kristopher Sahl (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen PLC
  • Dan Peterson (property manager)
    Owner of Respondent's management company

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Presided over initial hearing
  • Suzanne Marwil (ALJ)
    Presided over rehearing
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Abby Hansen (ADRE staff/HOA Coordinator)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Also listed as AHansen
  • LDettorre (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • jmarshall (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • ncano (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • M. Aguirre (staff)
    Transmitted order

Other Participants

  • Eric Thompson (member/candidate)
    Candidate added to meeting ballot
  • Al DeFalco (member/candidate)
    Nominated from the floor