Tag Archives: Filing Fee

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

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H024-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-05-20
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioners' petition, concluding they failed to meet their burden of proving a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248 regarding the May 19, 2023, Executive Board Meeting.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

Orders: Petitioners' petition was denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)(1)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1138580.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:16:59 (54.3 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1144884.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:17:06 (50.1 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1146526.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:17:17 (61.9 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1161533.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:17:22 (48.9 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1179547.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:17:27 (132.9 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1138580.pdf

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

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1144884.pdf

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

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1146526.pdf

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

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1161533.pdf

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

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1179547.pdf

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

This matter, heard before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark in the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), concerned a dispute between Jeffrey Connell and Corey Cox (Petitioners) and the homeowners' association, Casa Del Monte, Inc. (Respondent).

Key Facts and Issues:

The core issue referred for the evidentiary hearing was whether the Association "repeatedly violated" Arizona Revised Statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1248 (the condominium open meeting law) at an Executive Board Meeting on May 19, 2023. Petitioners, newly elected board members, alleged two specific violations: 1) failing to provide 48-hour notice of the meeting, and 2) voting on a topic in closed session.

The central factual dispute revolved around the closed session discussion of a proposed Code of Conduct. Petitioners asserted that the discussion was an attempt to coerce them into signing the Code outside of an open meeting and that Counsel for the Association did not offer genuine legal advice regarding the Code of Conduct. Petitioners ran on a platform of transparency and argued the Code, a non-confidential general document, should not have been discussed in a closed session.

Respondent maintained that the Executive Session was proper because its primary purpose was receiving legal advice from the Association’s general counsel, Curtis Ekmark, which is permitted under ARS § 33-1248(A)(1). The counsel provided guidance regarding board conduct, fiduciary responsibilities, and the legal implications of adopting the Code, even though the Code itself was a draft and ultimately rejected by the Board. Testimony confirmed the Code was "strongly encouraged" by counsel.

Legal Points and Outcome:

The ALJ noted that ARS § 33-1248(A)(1) permits closing a meeting portion only if it is limited to the consideration of "legal advice from an attorney for the board or the association". Legal advice is defined as "guidance given by lawyers to their clients".

Crucially, the ALJ narrowed the scope of the decision: because Petitioners only paid for the adjudication of one issue, the Tribunal would not address the tangential issue of whether the Association properly provided 48-hour notice of the meeting.

The Petitioners bore the burden of proving the alleged statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The ALJ concluded that Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof.

The ALJ found that the Board had advanced notice of the session to discuss the Code of Conduct and had the opportunity to ask questions, noting that incumbent members had already signed the document. The ALJ held that the quantity or quality of the legal advice given was irrelevant. Since the record reflected that the meeting's closure was not solely for non-legal purposes (like reviewing non-privileged documents from a public website), the motion to enter Executive Session based on receiving legal advice was found permissible.

The Final Order dictated that Petitioners' petition was denied. The hearing concluded with a stipulation to submit written closing briefs by April 29, 2024 (after an extension was granted).

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Preponderance of the Evidence

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • procedure

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(1)

Topic Tags

  • executive session
  • legal advice
  • open meeting laws

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Procedural Scope

Topic Tags

  • hearing procedure
  • filing fees
  • scope of hearing

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

N/A

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • board documents
  • voting

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248

Topic Tags

  • executive session
  • public records
  • violations

Question

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

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Standard of Proof

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • evidence

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(1)

Topic Tags

  • code of conduct
  • executive session
  • board meetings

Case

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Preponderance of the Evidence

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • procedure

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(1)

Topic Tags

  • executive session
  • legal advice
  • open meeting laws

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Procedural Scope

Topic Tags

  • hearing procedure
  • filing fees
  • scope of hearing

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

N/A

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • board documents
  • voting

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248

Topic Tags

  • executive session
  • public records
  • violations

Question

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

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Standard of Proof

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • evidence

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(1)

Topic Tags

  • code of conduct
  • executive session
  • board meetings

Case

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Ronald Borruso v. Sunland Village East Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121062-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-09-21
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition filed by Ronald Borruso, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence) regarding the alleged violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 concerning meeting procedures and unauthorized board actions.
Filing Fees Refunded $1,500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Ronald Borruso Counsel —
Respondent Sunland Village East Association Counsel Nicholas Nogami, Esq. and Nikolas Eicher, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition filed by Ronald Borruso, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence) regarding the alleged violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 concerning meeting procedures and unauthorized board actions.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to carry the burden of proof to show that the alleged violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 occurred.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violations regarding member speaking rights at May 27, 2021 meeting and unauthorized board meetings concerning Operations Manager job qualifications

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting laws by restricting member speaking rights during deliberations at a special meeting on May 27, 2021, and by holding improperly noticed meetings to approve job qualifications for an Operations Manager.

Orders: Ronald Borruso’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $1,500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)
  • State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Open Meetings, Right to Speak, Statute Violation, Burden of Proof, Dismissal, Filing Fee
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)
  • State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121062-REL Decision – 912276.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:38:53 (114.4 KB)

This summary details the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in the case of Ronald Borruso, Petitioner, vs. Sunland Village East Association, Respondent (No. 21F-H2121062-REL), heard on September 3, 2021. The Petitioner, Ronald Borruso, alleged that the Association violated its Bylaws and specific provisions of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804.

Key Facts and Legal Standard

The Department of Real Estate had jurisdiction over the matter. The Petitioner bore the burden of proving the alleged violations occurred by a preponderance of the evidence. Borruso refined his allegations to two main issues, both centering on the violation of association meeting requirements under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A) and (C).

Main Issues and Arguments

Issue 1: Member Participation at the May 27, 2021 Special Meeting

  • Petitioner's Claim: Borruso alleged that during a special meeting concerning a recall petition, the Board denied members the right to speak at an appropriate time during proceedings, violating § 33-1804(A). He argued the meeting was improperly divided into a "closed" session where members could not offer substantive comments, followed by an "Open Session Q & A" after adjournment.
  • Association's Argument: The Association maintained there was only one meeting, and it was not a violation to restrict members’ comments until after the Board provided its statements. They argued they used the term "closed" inartfully, noting that members were allowed to attend the entire 3-hour meeting, and ample opportunity was provided for comments during the Q & A session (lasting about 90 minutes).
  • Legal Point: ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(A) permits members to attend and speak at an appropriate time during deliberations, and mandates they speak once after the Board discusses an agenda item but before formal action. The ALJ noted that legally, a "closed" meeting refers to an executive session, which the Board did not conduct.

Issue 2: Unnoticed Meeting to Approve Operations Manager Qualifications

  • Petitioner's Claim: Borruso alleged the Board held un-noticed meetings to write and approve job qualifications for an Operations Manager, violating sections 33-1804(A) and (C). His primary evidence was a former Board President, Ms. Haynie, confirming in a May 6, 2021 meeting that the Board had written and approved the job description.
  • Association's Argument: Current Board members testified credibly that Ms. Haynie was wrong and that the Board had never met or voted on the job description. The description posted was similar to a previous one, and Ms. Haynie had allegedly prepared and posted it without Board approval.

Outcome and Final Decision

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Mr. Borruso failed to meet the required standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence) on both issues.

  1. Regarding the May 27th Meeting: The Petitioner did not prove a violation of § 33-1804(A). Although the Board was not precise in its terminology, members were allowed to attend the entire meeting, and the evidence showed it was a single meeting where members spoke after the Board's presentation.
  2. Regarding the Job Qualifications: The Petitioner failed to prove that an un-noticed meeting occurred, as the credible testimony indicated that the former President had been mistaken about the Board’s approval. Therefore, there was no violation of sections 33-1804(A) and (C).

The petition was dismissed.

Questions

Question

Can the HOA Board restrict when homeowners are allowed to speak during a meeting?

Short Answer

Yes, the Board is allowed to place reasonable time restrictions on speakers and determine the appropriate time for comments.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ cited Arizona law stating that while members have a right to speak, the Board may impose reasonable time restrictions. In this case, requiring members to wait until after the Board's presentation to speak was not a violation.

Alj Quote

The board may place reasonable time restrictions on those persons speaking during the meeting but shall permit a member or member's designated representative to speak once after the board has discussed a specific agenda item but before the board takes formal action on that item

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • homeowner rights
  • speaking limits

Question

If the Board calls part of a meeting 'closed', is it automatically an illegal executive session?

Short Answer

No, not if members are still allowed to attend and observe.

Detailed Answer

Even if the Board uses the term 'closed' inartfully to mean 'no comments allowed yet,' it is not an illegal meeting if members are physically permitted to attend. A true 'closed' meeting (executive session) is one members cannot attend.

Alj Quote

Consequently, although the Board referred to the initial part of the meeting as being 'closed' because it would not take members’ comments in that portion of the meeting, it was using that word in a different sense than it is used in section 33-1804.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) and (C)

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • executive session
  • definitions

Question

What standard of proof do I need to meet to win a case against my HOA?

Short Answer

You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proof. This means showing that the allegations are more likely true than not—having the 'greater weight' of evidence.

Alj Quote

The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. § R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • procedure

Question

Is a Board President's verbal admission enough to prove an illegal meeting occurred?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, especially if other testimony contradicts it and there are no records.

Detailed Answer

In this case, a Board President said 'yes' when asked if the Board met to approve a job description. However, the ALJ found this insufficient because other Board members testified credibly that she was wrong and no such meeting took place.

Alj Quote

Although Ms. Haynie did answer 'yes' when asked, Messrs. Thurn and Fretwell provided credible testimony that she was wrong. … Consequently, the preponderance of the evidence shows that there is no violation

Legal Basis

Preponderance of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • board meetings
  • testimony

Question

Can I file a single petition for multiple different complaints against my HOA?

Short Answer

Yes, but you must pay the appropriate fee for a multi-issue hearing.

Detailed Answer

When filing a petition, you must either identify a single issue or pay the Department the fee required for a multi-issue hearing.

Alj Quote

Mr. Borruso that he was required either to identify a single issue for hearing or to pay to the Department the appropriate fee for a multi-issue hearing.

Legal Basis

Administrative Procedure

Topic Tags

  • filing fees
  • procedure
  • petitions

Question

Does the Board have to let me speak before they take a formal vote?

Short Answer

Yes, homeowners must be allowed to speak after discussion but before the vote.

Detailed Answer

The statute explicitly states that a member must be permitted to speak once after the board has discussed a specific item but before formal action is taken.

Alj Quote

[S]hall permit a member or member's designated representative to speak once after the board has discussed a specific agenda item but before the board takes formal action on that item

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • meetings
  • homeowner rights

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121062-REL
Case Title
Ronald Borruso vs. Sunland Village East Association
Decision Date
2021-09-21
Alj Name
Thomas Shedden
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can the HOA Board restrict when homeowners are allowed to speak during a meeting?

Short Answer

Yes, the Board is allowed to place reasonable time restrictions on speakers and determine the appropriate time for comments.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ cited Arizona law stating that while members have a right to speak, the Board may impose reasonable time restrictions. In this case, requiring members to wait until after the Board's presentation to speak was not a violation.

Alj Quote

The board may place reasonable time restrictions on those persons speaking during the meeting but shall permit a member or member's designated representative to speak once after the board has discussed a specific agenda item but before the board takes formal action on that item

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • homeowner rights
  • speaking limits

Question

If the Board calls part of a meeting 'closed', is it automatically an illegal executive session?

Short Answer

No, not if members are still allowed to attend and observe.

Detailed Answer

Even if the Board uses the term 'closed' inartfully to mean 'no comments allowed yet,' it is not an illegal meeting if members are physically permitted to attend. A true 'closed' meeting (executive session) is one members cannot attend.

Alj Quote

Consequently, although the Board referred to the initial part of the meeting as being 'closed' because it would not take members’ comments in that portion of the meeting, it was using that word in a different sense than it is used in section 33-1804.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) and (C)

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • executive session
  • definitions

Question

What standard of proof do I need to meet to win a case against my HOA?

Short Answer

You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proof. This means showing that the allegations are more likely true than not—having the 'greater weight' of evidence.

Alj Quote

The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. § R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • procedure

Question

Is a Board President's verbal admission enough to prove an illegal meeting occurred?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, especially if other testimony contradicts it and there are no records.

Detailed Answer

In this case, a Board President said 'yes' when asked if the Board met to approve a job description. However, the ALJ found this insufficient because other Board members testified credibly that she was wrong and no such meeting took place.

Alj Quote

Although Ms. Haynie did answer 'yes' when asked, Messrs. Thurn and Fretwell provided credible testimony that she was wrong. … Consequently, the preponderance of the evidence shows that there is no violation

Legal Basis

Preponderance of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • board meetings
  • testimony

Question

Can I file a single petition for multiple different complaints against my HOA?

Short Answer

Yes, but you must pay the appropriate fee for a multi-issue hearing.

Detailed Answer

When filing a petition, you must either identify a single issue or pay the Department the fee required for a multi-issue hearing.

Alj Quote

Mr. Borruso that he was required either to identify a single issue for hearing or to pay to the Department the appropriate fee for a multi-issue hearing.

Legal Basis

Administrative Procedure

Topic Tags

  • filing fees
  • procedure
  • petitions

Question

Does the Board have to let me speak before they take a formal vote?

Short Answer

Yes, homeowners must be allowed to speak after discussion but before the vote.

Detailed Answer

The statute explicitly states that a member must be permitted to speak once after the board has discussed a specific item but before formal action is taken.

Alj Quote

[S]hall permit a member or member's designated representative to speak once after the board has discussed a specific agenda item but before the board takes formal action on that item

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • meetings
  • homeowner rights

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121062-REL
Case Title
Ronald Borruso vs. Sunland Village East Association
Decision Date
2021-09-21
Alj Name
Thomas Shedden
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Ronald Borruso (petitioner)
  • Thomas Huston (witness)
    Testified for Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas Nogami (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Nikolas Eicher (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Mark Thurn (board member)
    Sunland Village East Association
    Current Board President, testified for Respondent
  • Marvin Fretwell (board member)
    Sunland Village East Association
    Testified for Respondent
  • Joyce Haynie (board member)
    Sunland Village East Association
    Former President, subject of recall petition
  • Kim Shallue (board member)
    Sunland Village East Association
    Presided over May 27th meeting

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision transmission
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision transmission
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision transmission

Gregory L Smith v. Mountain Bridge Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121037-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-06-11
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The Petitioner prevailed on the claim of violating CC&R Article 11.3.2 (failure to negotiate in good faith) but was denied relief on the claim of violating A.R.S. § 33-1811 (conflict of interest). Petitioner was ordered reimbursed $500.00 for the filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded $1,500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Gregory L. Smith Counsel —
Respondent Mountain Bridge Community Association Counsel Nicole Payne, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1811
CC&R Article 11.3.2

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner prevailed on the claim of violating CC&R Article 11.3.2 (failure to negotiate in good faith) but was denied relief on the claim of violating A.R.S. § 33-1811 (conflict of interest). Petitioner was ordered reimbursed $500.00 for the filing fee.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the A.R.S. § 33-1811 violation because the statute was interpreted by the Tribunal to require the action to involve compensation.

Key Issues & Findings

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1811 because the HOA President failed to disclose a conflict of interest during the approval of his own flagpole. The Tribunal found the statute requires the decision to involve compensation, and Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof.

Orders: Petition denied as to a violation of A.R.S. 33-1811. Tribunal declined to award a civil penalty.

Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811

Failure to Negotiate Claim Resolution in Good Faith

Petitioner claimed Mountain Bridge failed to negotiate a resolution in good faith after he filed a claim notice. Mountain Bridge failed to communicate until approximately 35 days after the claim was noticed. The Tribunal found Respondent failed to negotiate in good faith.

Orders: Petitioner is deemed the prevailing party as to his claim of an Article 11 violation. Respondent must reimburse the $500.00 filing fee within 30 days. Tribunal declined to award a civil penalty.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&R Article 11.3.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Conflict of Interest, Failure to Negotiate, Flagpole, Filing Fee
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121037-REL Decision – 887461.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:33:55 (121.4 KB)

21F-H2121037-REL Decision – 887461.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:47 (121.4 KB)

This is a summary of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of *Gregory L. Smith v. Mountain Bridge Community Association*.

Key Facts and Proceedings

Petitioner Gregory L. Smith, a homeowner and member of the Mountain Bridge Community Association (HOA/Respondent), filed a petition alleging the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R’s) and Arizona statute. The core dispute centered on the HOA’s failure to take enforcement action against Smith’s backyard neighbor—who was also the HOA President (Mr. Riggs)—for installing a flagpole that impacted Smith’s property view. Smith believed the HOA’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) had an obligation to consider the view from his property when approving the flagpole. The hearings occurred on April 22, 2021, and June 2, 2021.

Main Issues and Arguments

The Tribunal focused on two primary issues after addressing a moot point regarding attorney’s fees:

  1. Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811 (Conflict of Interest): Smith argued that the HOA violated the statute because the Board President failed to make proper disclosures regarding the flagpole approval, as it was a board decision.
  2. Violation of CC&R Article 11.3.2 (Good Faith Negotiation): Smith argued that the HOA violated the requirement to negotiate in good faith after he filed a formal claim notice on September 8, 2020. The credible evidence showed the HOA or its attorneys failed to communicate with Smith until October 13, 2020, approximately 35 days after the claim notice.

Legal Conclusions and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge rendered a decision based on whether Smith met his burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

  1. A.R.S. § 33-1811 Claim Denied: The Tribunal found that A.R.S. § 33-1811, concerning board conflicts of interest, applies only when the "contract, decision or other action" involves compensation. Since the decision regarding the flagpole was not found to involve compensation, the Tribunal held that Smith had not sustained his burden of proof regarding the statutory violation.
  2. CC&R Article 11.3.2 Claim Upheld: The Tribunal found that Mountain Bridge failed to negotiate in good faith and violated Article 11.3.2 of the CC&R’s. Although the dispute occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, the lack of any communication until 35 days post-notice, thereby exceeding the negotiation period, constituted a violation.

Final Decision

The Petitioner’s request regarding the violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811 was denied. Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party solely on the claim that Mountain Bridge violated CC&R Article 11 (failure to negotiate in good faith). As the prevailing party, the Petitioner is entitled to the reimbursement of his $500.00 filing fee from the Respondent within 30 days. The Tribunal declined to award a civil penalty.

Questions

Question

Does a board member violate conflict of interest laws by voting on their own architectural request if no money is exchanged?

Short Answer

Likely not. The ALJ ruled that the conflict of interest statute (A.R.S. § 33-1811) applies specifically to decisions involving compensation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ interpreted A.R.S. § 33-1811 narrowly. While acknowledging that abstaining from voting on one's own request is 'best practice,' the Judge determined that the phrase 'contract, decision or other action for compensation' implies that the decision must involve compensation to trigger the statutory violation. Since the architectural approval was not for compensation, the statute was not violated.

Alj Quote

However, the word “other” would indicate that the contract or decision would involve compensation. … Therefore, the Tribunal finds that Mr. Smith has not sustained his burden in demonstrating that Mountain Bridge violated A.R.S. § 33-1811.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • Conflict of Interest
  • Board Conduct
  • Architectural Review

Question

If the CC&Rs require the HOA to negotiate a dispute within a certain time, can they simply ignore it?

Short Answer

No. Ignoring a request for negotiation beyond the mandated timeframe can be considered a violation of the duty to negotiate in good faith.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the CC&Rs required the parties to make a reasonable effort to meet and confer. The HOA failed to communicate with the homeowner until 35 days after the claim was noticed (past the 30-day negotiation period). The ALJ found this lack of communication to be a violation of the specific CC&R article requiring good faith negotiation.

Alj Quote

The credible evidence presented demonstrated that Mountain Bridge, or its attorneys, did not communicate with Mr. Smith until October 13, 2020, approximately 35 days after the claim was noticed. … Therefore, the Tribunal finds that Mountain Bridge failed to negotiate in good faith and violated Article 11.3.2 of the CC&R’s.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article 11.3.2

Topic Tags

  • Dispute Resolution
  • Good Faith
  • HOA Obligations

Question

Can the HOA use the COVID-19 pandemic as a valid excuse for failing to communicate with me?

Short Answer

Not if they fail to send any updates. The HOA must at least inform the homeowner of potential delays.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ rejected the HOA's implicit defense that the pandemic justified the delay in communication. The ruling stated that even if the pandemic caused issues, the HOA had an obligation to at least inform the homeowner that delays were occurring. Total silence was not justified.

Alj Quote

While this dispute occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, certainly communications could have been sent to Mr. Smith informing him there may be some delays in communication. However, there were none, and thus no valid justification for the Board not entering into negotiations with the Smiths.

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion / Good Faith

Topic Tags

  • Communication
  • Delays
  • Good Faith

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the rules during a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning they must show it is more likely than not that the violation occurred. The HOA does not have to disprove the claim initially; the burden starts with the homeowner.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated CC&R § 3.1 by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

  • Legal Procedure
  • Burden of Proof
  • Evidence

Question

Can I claim the HOA violated a definition in the CC&Rs, such as 'Visible from Neighboring Property'?

Short Answer

No. You cannot violate a definition; you can only violate the rules that use the definition.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner argued the HOA violated the definition of 'Visible from Neighboring Property.' The ALJ ruled that a definition is descriptive and cannot be violated in and of itself. Violations must be tied to specific covenants or restrictions.

Alj Quote

Further, because “Visible from Neighboring Property” as mentioned in Article 1 is a definition, it is impossible for Mountain Bridge to violate the same.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • CC&R Interpretation
  • Definitions
  • Legal Standards

Question

If I win my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, if you prevail on a claim, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ deemed the homeowner the prevailing party regarding the 'failure to negotiate' claim (even though other claims were denied) and ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee within 30 days.

Alj Quote

Thus, Petitioner is entitled to his filing fee of $500.00 and Respondent must reimburse the same with 30 days.

Legal Basis

Administrative Remedy

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Fees
  • Reimbursement

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121037-REL
Case Title
Gregory L. Smith vs. Mountain Bridge Community Association
Decision Date
2021-06-11
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Does a board member violate conflict of interest laws by voting on their own architectural request if no money is exchanged?

Short Answer

Likely not. The ALJ ruled that the conflict of interest statute (A.R.S. § 33-1811) applies specifically to decisions involving compensation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ interpreted A.R.S. § 33-1811 narrowly. While acknowledging that abstaining from voting on one's own request is 'best practice,' the Judge determined that the phrase 'contract, decision or other action for compensation' implies that the decision must involve compensation to trigger the statutory violation. Since the architectural approval was not for compensation, the statute was not violated.

Alj Quote

However, the word “other” would indicate that the contract or decision would involve compensation. … Therefore, the Tribunal finds that Mr. Smith has not sustained his burden in demonstrating that Mountain Bridge violated A.R.S. § 33-1811.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • Conflict of Interest
  • Board Conduct
  • Architectural Review

Question

If the CC&Rs require the HOA to negotiate a dispute within a certain time, can they simply ignore it?

Short Answer

No. Ignoring a request for negotiation beyond the mandated timeframe can be considered a violation of the duty to negotiate in good faith.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the CC&Rs required the parties to make a reasonable effort to meet and confer. The HOA failed to communicate with the homeowner until 35 days after the claim was noticed (past the 30-day negotiation period). The ALJ found this lack of communication to be a violation of the specific CC&R article requiring good faith negotiation.

Alj Quote

The credible evidence presented demonstrated that Mountain Bridge, or its attorneys, did not communicate with Mr. Smith until October 13, 2020, approximately 35 days after the claim was noticed. … Therefore, the Tribunal finds that Mountain Bridge failed to negotiate in good faith and violated Article 11.3.2 of the CC&R’s.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article 11.3.2

Topic Tags

  • Dispute Resolution
  • Good Faith
  • HOA Obligations

Question

Can the HOA use the COVID-19 pandemic as a valid excuse for failing to communicate with me?

Short Answer

Not if they fail to send any updates. The HOA must at least inform the homeowner of potential delays.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ rejected the HOA's implicit defense that the pandemic justified the delay in communication. The ruling stated that even if the pandemic caused issues, the HOA had an obligation to at least inform the homeowner that delays were occurring. Total silence was not justified.

Alj Quote

While this dispute occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, certainly communications could have been sent to Mr. Smith informing him there may be some delays in communication. However, there were none, and thus no valid justification for the Board not entering into negotiations with the Smiths.

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion / Good Faith

Topic Tags

  • Communication
  • Delays
  • Good Faith

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the rules during a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning they must show it is more likely than not that the violation occurred. The HOA does not have to disprove the claim initially; the burden starts with the homeowner.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated CC&R § 3.1 by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

  • Legal Procedure
  • Burden of Proof
  • Evidence

Question

Can I claim the HOA violated a definition in the CC&Rs, such as 'Visible from Neighboring Property'?

Short Answer

No. You cannot violate a definition; you can only violate the rules that use the definition.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner argued the HOA violated the definition of 'Visible from Neighboring Property.' The ALJ ruled that a definition is descriptive and cannot be violated in and of itself. Violations must be tied to specific covenants or restrictions.

Alj Quote

Further, because “Visible from Neighboring Property” as mentioned in Article 1 is a definition, it is impossible for Mountain Bridge to violate the same.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • CC&R Interpretation
  • Definitions
  • Legal Standards

Question

If I win my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, if you prevail on a claim, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ deemed the homeowner the prevailing party regarding the 'failure to negotiate' claim (even though other claims were denied) and ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee within 30 days.

Alj Quote

Thus, Petitioner is entitled to his filing fee of $500.00 and Respondent must reimburse the same with 30 days.

Legal Basis

Administrative Remedy

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Fees
  • Reimbursement

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121037-REL
Case Title
Gregory L. Smith vs. Mountain Bridge Community Association
Decision Date
2021-06-11
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Gregory L. Smith (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf
  • Christa Smith (witness)
    Called by Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Nicole Payne (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent
  • Amber Martin (community manager)
    Mountain Bridge Community Association
    Also testified as a witness
  • Jim Rayment (ARC Chair)
    Mountain Bridge Community Association
    Approved the flagpole; also testified as a witness
  • Mr. Riggs (HOA President)
    Mountain Bridge Community Association
    Petitioner's backyard neighbor

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision transmission