The petition was granted in part and denied in part. Petitioner won the claim regarding the unauthorized certified letter charges, resulting in removal of the charges and a $500.00 fee refund. Petitioner lost the claims regarding the animal restriction (chickens are banned fowl) and the failure to engage in mediation (ADR provision 9.15 was inapplicable).
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove violations of CC&Rs § 9.1.1 and CC&Rs § 9.15. Chickens are banned as birds/fowl under CC&Rs § 3.3, and the mediation clause only applies to disputes involving Declarant Parties, not general homeowner disputes.
Key Issues & Findings
Wrongfully charging costs of certified letters/appeal response as a balance forward
Petitioner alleged Respondent wrongfully forwarded the cost of sending certified letters (categorized as a 'balance forward') onto her account without authority in the CC&Rs, violating rules for imposing fines.
Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $500.00 of her filing fee and remove the balance forward associated with certified letter costs from her assessment.
Filing fee: $1,500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
CC&Rs § 5.1
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
Analytics Highlights
Topics: animal restriction, HOA enforcement, certified mail fee, dispute resolution, fines
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
CC&Rs § 9.1.1
CC&Rs § 3.3
CC&Rs § 9.15
CC&Rs § 5.1
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
24F-H007-REL Decision – 1095892.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:15 (55.6 KB)
24F-H007-REL Decision – 1111192.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:18 (104.5 KB)
Questions
Question
Can my HOA ban chickens even if I consider them household pets?
Short Answer
Yes. If the CC&Rs explicitly ban 'fowl' or 'poultry,' your subjective belief that they are pets does not override the objective ban.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that even if a homeowner views chickens as pets akin to parakeets, if the CC&Rs explicitly ban 'fowl' or 'poultry,' that ban is enforceable. The specific classification of the animal in the documents overrides the owner's usage of the animal as a pet.
Alj Quote
Petitioner subjectively believes her chickens are pets and therefore qualify for the pet exception of the animal policy; however the CC&Rs plain language objectively bans not only birds but fowl. Chickens are both birds and fowl therefore, homeowners may not have live chickens on their property.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs § 3.3
Topic Tags
animals
chickens
CC&Rs interpretation
violations
Question
Can my HOA charge me for the cost of sending certified letters regarding a violation?
Short Answer
Not unless the CC&Rs explicitly authorize passing those specific administrative costs to the homeowner.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that an HOA cannot arbitrarily pass on administrative costs, such as certified mail fees for violation notices, unless the governing documents specifically empower them to do so. In this case, the HOA was ordered to remove the charge.
Alj Quote
Respondent failed to establish their CC&Rs empower them to forward the cost of litigation onto Petitioner prior to the completion of hearing. Therefore, Petitioner established Respondent violated CC&Rs § 5.1 and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
Legal Basis
CC&Rs § 5.1; A.R.S. § 33-1803
Topic Tags
fines
fees
administrative costs
certified mail
Question
Is my HOA required to go to mediation before enforcing a rule violation?
Short Answer
It depends on the specific language of the dispute resolution clause. Some clauses only apply to disputes with the developer (Declarant), not general homeowner enforcement.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner argued that a 'Dispute Notification and Resolution Procedure' required mediation. However, the ALJ found that the specific section cited applied only to 'Declarant Parties' (the developer/builders) regarding construction or design defects, not to standard enforcement actions between the HOA and a homeowner.
Alj Quote
The CC&Rs § 9.15 restricts its application to disputes involving the Declarant Parties, particularly those arising from or related to construction defects or conditions of the Project and not homeowner disputes. Because Petitioner is not a Declarant Party CC&Rs § 9.15 does not apply.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs § 9.15
Topic Tags
mediation
dispute resolution
procedure
declarant
Question
Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner challenges an HOA violation?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proving the HOA violated the governing documents or statutes.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing where the homeowner files the petition, the homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning their evidence must be more convincing than the HOA's.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&Rs § 3.3, CC&Rs § 9.15, CC&Rs § 5.1 and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.
Legal Basis
Standard of Proof
Topic Tags
legal standards
burden of proof
hearings
Question
If I win part of my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fees reimbursed?
Short Answer
The ALJ may order partial reimbursement of filing fees if the petition is granted in part.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the homeowner lost the argument regarding chickens but won the argument regarding improper fees for certified letters. Consequently, the ALJ ordered the HOA to reimburse $500 of the $1500 filing fee.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioner $500.00 of her $1500.00 filing fee within 30 days of the mailing date of the Administrative Law Judge Decision entered in this matter.
Legal Basis
ALJ Order
Topic Tags
remedies
filing fees
penalties
Question
Does an exception for 'household birds' in the CC&Rs allow me to keep chickens?
Short Answer
Likely not, if chickens are also defined as 'fowl' which are otherwise banned.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ rejected the argument that chickens fell under the exception for 'parakeets or similar household birds,' finding instead that they fell under the explicit ban on 'fowl.'
Alj Quote
Notwithstanding Petitioner’s argument that her chickens are akin to parakeets, an exception to the no animal rule in the CC&Rs, birds and fowl are explicitly banned.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs § 3.3
Topic Tags
animals
CC&Rs interpretation
exceptions
Case
Docket No
24F-H007-REL
Case Title
Virginia Guest v Bella Tierra Community Association
Decision Date
2023-11-08
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can my HOA ban chickens even if I consider them household pets?
Short Answer
Yes. If the CC&Rs explicitly ban 'fowl' or 'poultry,' your subjective belief that they are pets does not override the objective ban.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that even if a homeowner views chickens as pets akin to parakeets, if the CC&Rs explicitly ban 'fowl' or 'poultry,' that ban is enforceable. The specific classification of the animal in the documents overrides the owner's usage of the animal as a pet.
Alj Quote
Petitioner subjectively believes her chickens are pets and therefore qualify for the pet exception of the animal policy; however the CC&Rs plain language objectively bans not only birds but fowl. Chickens are both birds and fowl therefore, homeowners may not have live chickens on their property.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs § 3.3
Topic Tags
animals
chickens
CC&Rs interpretation
violations
Question
Can my HOA charge me for the cost of sending certified letters regarding a violation?
Short Answer
Not unless the CC&Rs explicitly authorize passing those specific administrative costs to the homeowner.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that an HOA cannot arbitrarily pass on administrative costs, such as certified mail fees for violation notices, unless the governing documents specifically empower them to do so. In this case, the HOA was ordered to remove the charge.
Alj Quote
Respondent failed to establish their CC&Rs empower them to forward the cost of litigation onto Petitioner prior to the completion of hearing. Therefore, Petitioner established Respondent violated CC&Rs § 5.1 and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
Legal Basis
CC&Rs § 5.1; A.R.S. § 33-1803
Topic Tags
fines
fees
administrative costs
certified mail
Question
Is my HOA required to go to mediation before enforcing a rule violation?
Short Answer
It depends on the specific language of the dispute resolution clause. Some clauses only apply to disputes with the developer (Declarant), not general homeowner enforcement.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner argued that a 'Dispute Notification and Resolution Procedure' required mediation. However, the ALJ found that the specific section cited applied only to 'Declarant Parties' (the developer/builders) regarding construction or design defects, not to standard enforcement actions between the HOA and a homeowner.
Alj Quote
The CC&Rs § 9.15 restricts its application to disputes involving the Declarant Parties, particularly those arising from or related to construction defects or conditions of the Project and not homeowner disputes. Because Petitioner is not a Declarant Party CC&Rs § 9.15 does not apply.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs § 9.15
Topic Tags
mediation
dispute resolution
procedure
declarant
Question
Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner challenges an HOA violation?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proving the HOA violated the governing documents or statutes.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing where the homeowner files the petition, the homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning their evidence must be more convincing than the HOA's.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&Rs § 3.3, CC&Rs § 9.15, CC&Rs § 5.1 and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.
Legal Basis
Standard of Proof
Topic Tags
legal standards
burden of proof
hearings
Question
If I win part of my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fees reimbursed?
Short Answer
The ALJ may order partial reimbursement of filing fees if the petition is granted in part.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the homeowner lost the argument regarding chickens but won the argument regarding improper fees for certified letters. Consequently, the ALJ ordered the HOA to reimburse $500 of the $1500 filing fee.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioner $500.00 of her $1500.00 filing fee within 30 days of the mailing date of the Administrative Law Judge Decision entered in this matter.
Legal Basis
ALJ Order
Topic Tags
remedies
filing fees
penalties
Question
Does an exception for 'household birds' in the CC&Rs allow me to keep chickens?
Short Answer
Likely not, if chickens are also defined as 'fowl' which are otherwise banned.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ rejected the argument that chickens fell under the exception for 'parakeets or similar household birds,' finding instead that they fell under the explicit ban on 'fowl.'
Alj Quote
Notwithstanding Petitioner’s argument that her chickens are akin to parakeets, an exception to the no animal rule in the CC&Rs, birds and fowl are explicitly banned.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs § 3.3
Topic Tags
animals
CC&Rs interpretation
exceptions
Case
Docket No
24F-H007-REL
Case Title
Virginia Guest v Bella Tierra Community Association
Decision Date
2023-11-08
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Virginia Guest(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf
Respondent Side
Nicholas C. S. Nogami(HOA attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
Marcus R. Martinez(HOA attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
Jamie Petty(association manager / witness) Platinum Management Association manager for Bella Tierra Community Association; also referenced as Jamie Teddy/Miss Teddy
Sean Moynihan(HOA attorney) Senology General counsel for Respondent; referenced in Petitioner's claims; also referred to as John Moahan
Neutral Parties
Brian Del Vecchio(ALJ) OAH Administrative Law Judge for the hearing and decision
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH Administrative Law Judge who issued the September 22, 2023 Order
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Email recipient of decisions/orders
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Email recipient of decisions/orders
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Email recipient of decisions/orders
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Email recipient of decisions/orders
CC&Rs Section 4.3 Storage, Section 4.17 Motor Vehicles, Community Guidelines 2007
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the North Canyon Ranch Owners Association violated its governing documents regarding the storage of a truck camper.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner's 'truck camper' falls within the scope of prohibited items, specifically as 'other similar equipment' under the CC&Rs and rules, making her argument one of semantics.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether the HOA violated its governing documents by issuing a fine for parking a mounted truck camper, based on the Petitioner's claimed 'legal loophole'.
Petitioner claimed a 'legal loophole' existed because the governing documents prohibited 'unmounted pickup camper units' or 'detached campers,' but not her currently mounted/attached truck camper. The ALJ found the truck camper was unequivocally prohibited as 'other similar equipment' under the CC&Rs and Rules, dismissing the petition.
Orders: Petition dismissed. No action is required of Respondent in this matter.
This legal transcript and subsequent judicial decision detail a dispute between homeowner Shawna Townsend and the North Canyon Ranch Owners Association regarding a fine for storing a truck camper in public view. Townsend argued that her equipment fell into a legal loophole because the association’s rules specifically prohibited “unmounted” or “detached” campers, while hers remained attached to her vehicle. In contrast, the Homeowners Association maintained that the camper violated multiple regulations prohibiting the storage of recreational type vehicles and similar equipment in driveways. During the administrative hearing, testimony was provided regarding the enforcement consistency of the community’s governing documents and the specific definitions of recreational vehicles under Arizona law. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, determining that the truck camper was clearly prohibited as “similar equipment” regardless of its attachment status. The petition was dismissed, confirming that the association acted within its authority when issuing the violation notices and fines.
What are the core legal arguments regarding the truck camper loophole?
How did the Administrative Law Judge rule on the association’s enforcement?
How do North Canyon Ranch guidelines define recreational vehicles and storage?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 2:12 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 23F-H018-REL
Select all sources
1027023.aac
1031834.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
23F-H018-REL
2 sources
This legal transcript and subsequent judicial decision detail a dispute between homeowner Shawna Townsend and the North Canyon Ranch Owners Association regarding a fine for storing a truck camper in public view. Townsend argued that her equipment fell into a legal loophole because the association’s rules specifically prohibited “unmounted” or “detached” campers, while hers remained attached to her vehicle. In contrast, the Homeowners Association maintained that the camper violated multiple regulations prohibiting the storage of recreational type vehicles and similar equipment in driveways. During the administrative hearing, testimony was provided regarding the enforcement consistency of the community’s governing documents and the specific definitions of recreational vehicles under Arizona law. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, determining that the truck camper was clearly prohibited as “similar equipment” regardless of its attachment status. The petition was dismissed, confirming that the association acted within its authority when issuing the violation notices and fines.
What are the core legal arguments regarding the truck camper loophole?
How did the Administrative Law Judge rule on the association’s enforcement?
How do North Canyon Ranch guidelines define recreational vehicles and storage?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 2:12 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Shawna Townsend(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf; also referred to as Shauna Townsen or Miss Townsen
Michael Townsen(co-owner) Co-owner and recipient of violation notices with Petitioner
Respondent Side
Haidyn DiLorenzo(HOA attorney) Represented Respondent North Canyon Ranch Owners Association
Justin DeLuca(HOA attorney) Represented Respondent North Canyon Ranch Owners Association
Josey Perkins(community manager/witness) North Canyon Ranch Owners Association Community Manager for the association, testified as a witness (also referred to as Joy Perkins)
Riner(board member) North Canyon Ranch Owners Association Board of Directors Made motion to deny petitioner's appeal
Robera Holler(board member) North Canyon Ranch Owners Association Board of Directors Seconded motion to deny petitioner's appeal
Petra Paul(Executive VP of Management Services) Management Services Vice President of management services, communicated with Petitioner about the appeal
Beth Mulcahy(HOA attorney) Mulcahy Law Firm, PC Listed as contact for transmission of the decision
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) OAH Administrative Law Judge (also referred to as Sandra Vanella)
James Knupp(Acting Commissioner, ADRE) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of the decision
The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a violation by the Association, conceding that the Association was not in violation of the cited CC&R section.
Why this result: Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not in violation of CC&R section 2.7, the single issue raised in the petition.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of CC&R section 2.7 by the Association (later asserted as estoppel regarding enforcement)
Petitioner alleged the Respondent Association violated CC&R section 2.7. At the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not actually in violation of section 2.7, but argued the Association was estopped from enforcing the provision requiring a six-foot gate for RV storage. Petitioner sought invalidation of outstanding fines.
Orders: Don France's petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09
Analytics Highlights
Topics: CC&R, RV storage, Estoppel, Fines
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
20F-H2020056-REL Decision – 823714.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:18 (96.1 KB)
Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020056-REL
Administrative Hearing Briefing: France v. Mesa East Property Owners Association
Executive Summary
This document provides a detailed analysis of the administrative hearing decision in case number 20F-H2020056-REL, involving petitioner Don France and respondent Mesa East Property Owners Association (the “Association”). The core of the dispute was the Association’s enforcement of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), specifically section 2.7, which requires a six-foot-high gate for Recreational Vehicles (RVs) stored on a property.
The petitioner, Mr. France, was fined by the Association in 2019 for not having the required gate on an RV structure that the Association itself had approved in 2014. Mr. France initially filed a petition alleging the Association was in violation of its own CC&Rs. However, at the September 1, 2020 hearing, he conceded this was not the case and instead argued the Association was “estopped”—or legally prevented—from enforcing the rule due to its prior approval.
The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed Mr. France’s petition on procedural grounds. The judge determined that since Mr. France acknowledged his petition’s central claim was incorrect, he had failed to meet his burden of proof. The new arguments concerning estoppel and the legality of the fines were deemed not properly before the tribunal because they were not included in the original petition. The decision underscores the critical importance of aligning claims made in a formal petition with the arguments presented at a hearing.
Case Overview
Case Number
No. 20F-H2020056-REL
In the Office of Administrative Hearings
Petitioner
Don France
Respondent
Mesa East Property Owners Association
Respondent’s Counsel
B. Austin Bailio, Esq.
Administrative Law Judge
Thomas Shedden
Hearing Date
September 1, 2020
Decision Date
September 21, 2020
The central issue of the case revolves around the enforcement of CC&R section 2.7, which mandates that RVs stored on a property must be screened behind a structure with a six-foot-high gate. This requirement is mirrored by a City of Mesa municipal code.
Chronology of Key Events
• 2014: Mr. France applies for and receives approval from the Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to build an RV port. In his application, he acknowledges he will abide by deed restrictions and City of Mesa codes.
• October 21, 2014: The Association issues its final approval for the structure, which is built without a gate.
• Circa 2018: Following threats of litigation from other residents over non-enforcement of the CC&Rs, the Association begins a new enforcement campaign for the six-foot gate rule. The City of Mesa denies the Association’s request to “grandfather in” non-compliant homes.
• 2019: The deadline for residents to come into compliance passes.
• March 11, 2019: The Association issues a Notice of Violation (NOV) to Mr. France for lacking the required gate.
• April 5, 2019: Through an attorney, Mr. France asserts that the Association is estopped from enforcing the rule due to its 2014 approval.
• May 15, 2019: The Association’s attorney rejects the estoppel claim and informs Mr. France’s attorney that fines of $500 per week will be assessed.
• May 31, 2019: The Association assesses a $500 fine against Mr. France, with additional fines assessed later.
• July 24, 2019: The City of Mesa issues its own NOV to Mr. France, citing a violation of city code 11-34-5(B), which also requires a six-foot screening fence for RVs.
• April 16, 2020: Mr. France files a petition alleging the Association is in violation of CC&R section 2.7.
• Prior to Hearing: To comply with the City of Mesa’s NOV, Mr. France installs a temporary gate at a cost of approximately $800.
• September 1, 2020: The administrative hearing is conducted.
Analysis of Arguments and Testimonies
Petitioner’s Position (Don France)
• Initial Petition: The formal petition, filed on April 16, 2020, was based on the single issue that the Mesa East Property Owners Association had violated its own CC&R section 2.7.
• Revised Argument at Hearing: During the hearing, Mr. France acknowledged that the Association was not, in fact, violating section 2.7. His argument shifted to a claim of estoppel, asserting that the Association could not enforce the rule against him because its own ARC had approved his gateless structure in 2014.
• Requested Relief: Mr. France asked the judge to rule that the Association could not require him to install a gate and to invalidate any outstanding fines levied against him.
• Supporting Testimony: Joann Van Kirk, the chairperson of the ARC in 2014, testified on Mr. France’s behalf. She stated that she had been informed by a past chair that no gate was required for structures like Mr. France’s, citing other properties that had RV shelters without gates. She also testified that she called the City of Mesa at the time and was told a gate was not required if the structure was attached to the house.
Respondent’s Position (Mesa East POA)
• Basis for Enforcement: The Association began strictly enforcing the gate requirement around 2018 after being threatened with lawsuits by other members for failing to enforce the CC&Rs.
• Enforcement Actions: After an unsuccessful attempt to have the City of Mesa grandfather in non-compliant properties, the Association notified members of the requirement via its newsletter and online, setting a compliance deadline of 2019. When Mr. France did not comply, the Association issued an NOV and subsequently began assessing fines.
• Legal Stance: The Association’s counsel formally rejected Mr. France’s estoppel argument in May 2019.
• Supporting Testimony: Donald Smith testified that at the time the NOV was issued to Mr. France, eleven other residents were also non-compliant. By the hearing date, six remained in violation, five of whom had agreed to comply. This testimony was intended to show that the enforcement was not targeted solely at Mr. France.
Independent Municipal Action
The City of Mesa’s regulations played a significant and independent role in the matter.
• City Code: The City of Mesa has its own ordinance, Code section 11-34-5(B), which requires RVs taller than six feet to be screened by a six-foot-tall fence.
• Notice of Violation: On July 24, 2019, the City issued its own NOV to Mr. France for violating this code.
• Consequence: This municipal enforcement action compelled Mr. France to install a temporary gate to avoid penalties from the City, regardless of the outcome of his dispute with the Property Owners Association.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
Final Order: IT IS ORDERED that Don France’s petition is dismissed.
The judge’s decision to dismiss the case was based on a precise legal and procedural rationale, rather than the merits of the estoppel argument.
• Failure of the Core Claim: The judge noted that Mr. France’s petition was limited to the single claim that the Association had violated CC&R section 2.7. At the hearing, Mr. France himself admitted this was not the case. As the petitioner, Mr. France bore the burden of proof, and his own testimony demonstrated that the “preponderance of the evidence shows that there is no violation.”
• Jurisdictional Limitation: The new issues raised by Mr. France at the hearing—namely the estoppel argument and the legality of the fines—were declared “not properly before the tribunal.” The judge reasoned that these claims were not included in the original petition, a separate filing fee was not paid for a second issue, and the claims were not listed in the official Notice of Hearing. This procedural failure prevented the judge from ruling on the substance of these arguments.
Conclusion and Post-Decision Protocol
The dismissal of Mr. France’s petition represents a conclusive finding in favor of the respondent based on the specific claims filed. The decision illustrates that the scope of an administrative hearing is strictly defined by the issues raised in the initial petition.
According to the decision document, the order is binding on both parties unless a rehearing is granted. A request for a rehearing must be filed with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes.
Study Guide – 20F-H2020056-REL
Study Guide: France v. Mesa East Property Owners Association (No. 20F-H2020056-REL)
This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative hearing decision in the case between Don France (Petitioner) and the Mesa East Property Owners Association (Respondent), as decided by Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Questions
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing all information directly from the provided legal decision.
1. Who are the primary parties in this case, and what was the single issue alleged in the Petitioner’s original petition filed on April 16, 2020?
2. According to CC&R section 2.7 and the City of Mesa’s code, what is the specific requirement for storing a recreational vehicle (RV) on a property?
3. What enforcement actions did the Mesa East Property Owners Association take against Don France in the spring of 2019?
4. What was Don France’s primary legal argument against the Association’s enforcement, which he revealed at the September 1, 2020 hearing?
5. What was the state of compliance on Mr. France’s property regarding the RV gate as of the hearing date, and what prompted this action?
6. According to the testimony of Donald Smith, what prompted the Association to begin enforcing the six-foot gate requirement around 2018?
7. What key information did Joann Van Kirk, the 2014 chairperson of the Architectural Review Committee, provide in her testimony?
8. How did the Petitioner’s argument at the hearing differ from the allegation in his initial petition, and why was this difference critical to the case’s outcome?
9. Why did the Administrative Law Judge decline to rule on the legality of the fines the Association had levied against Mr. France?
10. What was the ultimate order issued by the Administrative Law Judge, and what was the legal reasoning behind this decision?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key for Short-Answer Questions
1. The primary parties are Don France, the Petitioner, and the Mesa East Property Owners Association, the Respondent. The single issue alleged in Mr. France’s petition was that the Association was in violation of its own CC&R section 2.7.
2. Both CC&R section 2.7 (the 1994 version) and the City of Mesa’s code (section 11-34-5(B)) require that RVs stored on a property must be screened behind a structure with a gate that is at least six feet high. The CC&Rs also specified the fence and gate must be tall enough to prevent a person from seeing the RV.
3. On March 11, 2019, the Association issued a Notice of Violation to Mr. France because his RV structure lacked a six-foot gate. Subsequently, on May 31, 2019, the Association fined him $500 for the same violation.
4. At the hearing, Mr. France’s primary argument was that the Association was “estopped” from finding him in violation of section 2.7. He argued this because the Association’s Architectural Review Committee had approved his RV structure in 2014 without the gate.
5. As of the hearing date, Mr. France had installed a temporary six-foot gate at a cost of about $800. This action was taken to comply with a Notice of Violation issued to him by the City of Mesa on July 24, 2019.
6. Donald Smith testified that around 2018, people were threatening to sue the Association if it did not enforce the CC&Rs. After meeting with the City of Mesa, which would not allow non-compliant homes to be grandfathered in, the Association began enforcing the gate requirement.
7. Joann Van Kirk testified that in 2014, she had learned from the past ARC chair that no gate was required because other owners had shelters without gates. She also testified that she called the City of Mesa and was told no gate was required if the structure was attached to the house.
8. While his petition alleged the Association had violated section 2.7, at the hearing Mr. France acknowledged this was not the case and argued instead that the Association was estopped from enforcing that section against him. This was critical because the judge could only rule on the single issue raised in the petition, which Mr. France conceded had no merit.
9. The judge declined to rule on the legality of the fines because the issue was not raised in Mr. France’s original petition. Therefore, it was not properly before the tribunal as a filing fee had not been paid for a second issue and it was not included in the Notice of Hearing.
10. The judge ordered that Don France’s petition be dismissed. The reasoning was that the petition was limited to the single issue of whether the Association had violated CC&R section 2.7, and Mr. France himself acknowledged at the hearing that no such violation by the Association had occurred.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive essay-format response for each, citing specific facts from the case decision to support your arguments.
1. Analyze the concept of estoppel as it applies to this case. Explain why Don France believed the Association was estopped from enforcing the gate requirement, referencing the 2014 approvals, and discuss why the Association disagreed and proceeded with enforcement actions.
2. Discuss the procedural limitations that shaped the outcome of this hearing. How did the specific wording of Mr. France’s initial petition and the rules governing administrative hearings ultimately prevent the judge from considering the central issues of estoppel and the validity of the fines?
3. Examine the conflict between a property owner’s reliance on past approvals and a Property Owners Association’s duty to enforce its CC&Rs. Use the testimony of Joann Van Kirk and Donald Smith to illustrate the differing perspectives and pressures that led to this dispute.
4. Trace the timeline of events from Mr. France’s 2014 application to the 2020 hearing. Detail the key actions taken by Mr. France, the Association’s Architectural Review Committee, the Association’s Board, and the City of Mesa, and explain how their interactions created the legal conflict.
5. Evaluate the standard of proof required in this case, the “preponderance of the evidence.” Although the case was dismissed on a procedural issue, discuss which party presented a more convincing case regarding the underlying dispute over the RV gate, and why.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official (Thomas Shedden in this case) who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions and orders.
Architectural Review Committee (ARC)
A committee within the Property Owners Association responsible for reviewing and approving applications for property improvements, such as Mr. France’s RV port in 2014.
Burden of Proof
The responsibility of a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this matter, Mr. France bore the burden of proof to show the Association violated its CC&Rs.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing community documents that set rules for property use, such as section 2.7 which requires a six-foot gate for RV storage.
Conclusions of Law
The section of the judge’s decision that applies legal principles and statutes to the established facts of the case to reach a final ruling.
Estoppel
A legal principle asserted by Mr. France arguing that the Association should be prevented from enforcing a rule (the gate requirement) against him because of its prior action (approving his structure without a gate in 2014).
Findings of Fact
A formal, numbered list of facts in the judge’s decision that are established by the evidence and testimony presented during the hearing.
Notice of Violation (NOV)
A formal notice issued by the Association or the City of Mesa to a property owner informing them that they are in violation of a specific rule or code.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Don France is the Petitioner.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this hearing. It is defined as evidence with “the most convincing force” that is sufficient to incline an impartial mind to one side of an issue over the other.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Mesa East Property Owners Association is the Respondent.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020056-REL
Select all sources
823714.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
20F-H2020056-REL
1 source
The provided text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings concerning the case of Don France versus the Mesa East Property Owners Association. The document details a dispute where Petitioner Don France alleged that the Respondent Association violated a community covenant regarding the storage of recreational vehicles (RVs), specifically CC&R section 2.7, which requires RVs to be stored behind a six-foot gate. Although Mr. France initially brought the petition alleging the Association violated the rule, he ultimately argued that the Association was estopped from enforcing the rule against him due to past approval of his RV structure without a gate. The decision includes a summary of the Findings of Fact related to Mr. France’s structure, the Association’s attempts to enforce the gate requirement against him and other residents, and the resulting fines he incurred before installing a gate to comply with a separate City of Mesa Notice of Violation. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge determined that Mr. France failed to meet the burden of proof to show the Association violated the CC&Rs, and his petition was dismissed because he acknowledged the Association was not actually in violation of section 2.7.
What were the legal and factual grounds for the case’s dismissal?
How did the Association’s past actions relate to the estoppel claim?
What was the core conflict between the homeowner, HOA, and city codes?
Based on 1 source
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Don France(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf and testified
Joann Van Kirk(witness) Testified for Petitioner; was chairperson of Architectural Review Committee ('ARC') in 2014
Respondent Side
B. Austin Bailio(HOA attorney) Maxwell & Morgan, P.C. Attorney for Respondent Mesa East Property Owners Association
Michael Estey(witness) Testified for Respondent
Donald Smith(witness) Testified for Respondent
Neutral Parties
Thomas Shedden(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
20F-H2020056-REL
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2020-09-21
Administrative Law Judge
Thomas Shedden
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$500.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Don France
Counsel
—
Respondent
Mesa East Property Owners Association
Counsel
B. Austin Bailio
Alleged Violations
CC&R section 2.7
Outcome Summary
The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a violation by the Association, conceding that the Association was not in violation of the cited CC&R section.
Why this result: Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not in violation of CC&R section 2.7, the single issue raised in the petition.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of CC&R section 2.7 by the Association (later asserted as estoppel regarding enforcement)
Petitioner alleged the Respondent Association violated CC&R section 2.7. At the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not actually in violation of section 2.7, but argued the Association was estopped from enforcing the provision requiring a six-foot gate for RV storage. Petitioner sought invalidation of outstanding fines.
The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a violation by the Association, conceding that the Association was not in violation of the cited CC&R section.
Why this result: Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not in violation of CC&R section 2.7, the single issue raised in the petition.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of CC&R section 2.7 by the Association (later asserted as estoppel regarding enforcement)
Petitioner alleged the Respondent Association violated CC&R section 2.7. At the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not actually in violation of section 2.7, but argued the Association was estopped from enforcing the provision requiring a six-foot gate for RV storage. Petitioner sought invalidation of outstanding fines.
The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a violation by the Association, conceding that the Association was not in violation of the cited CC&R section.
Why this result: Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not in violation of CC&R section 2.7, the single issue raised in the petition.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of CC&R section 2.7 by the Association (later asserted as estoppel regarding enforcement)
Petitioner alleged the Respondent Association violated CC&R section 2.7. At the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not actually in violation of section 2.7, but argued the Association was estopped from enforcing the provision requiring a six-foot gate for RV storage. Petitioner sought invalidation of outstanding fines.
The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a violation by the Association, conceding that the Association was not in violation of the cited CC&R section.
Why this result: Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not in violation of CC&R section 2.7, the single issue raised in the petition.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of CC&R section 2.7 by the Association (later asserted as estoppel regarding enforcement)
Petitioner alleged the Respondent Association violated CC&R section 2.7. At the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not actually in violation of section 2.7, but argued the Association was estopped from enforcing the provision requiring a six-foot gate for RV storage. Petitioner sought invalidation of outstanding fines.
The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a violation by the Association, conceding that the Association was not in violation of the cited CC&R section.
Why this result: Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not in violation of CC&R section 2.7, the single issue raised in the petition.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of CC&R section 2.7 by the Association (later asserted as estoppel regarding enforcement)
Petitioner alleged the Respondent Association violated CC&R section 2.7. At the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not actually in violation of section 2.7, but argued the Association was estopped from enforcing the provision requiring a six-foot gate for RV storage. Petitioner sought invalidation of outstanding fines.
The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a violation by the Association, conceding that the Association was not in violation of the cited CC&R section.
Why this result: Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not in violation of CC&R section 2.7, the single issue raised in the petition.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of CC&R section 2.7 by the Association (later asserted as estoppel regarding enforcement)
Petitioner alleged the Respondent Association violated CC&R section 2.7. At the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not actually in violation of section 2.7, but argued the Association was estopped from enforcing the provision requiring a six-foot gate for RV storage. Petitioner sought invalidation of outstanding fines.
The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a violation by the Association, conceding that the Association was not in violation of the cited CC&R section.
Why this result: Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not in violation of CC&R section 2.7, the single issue raised in the petition.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of CC&R section 2.7 by the Association (later asserted as estoppel regarding enforcement)
Petitioner alleged the Respondent Association violated CC&R section 2.7. At the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not actually in violation of section 2.7, but argued the Association was estopped from enforcing the provision requiring a six-foot gate for RV storage. Petitioner sought invalidation of outstanding fines.
