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.
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 2026-01-23T17:32:50 (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
18F-H1817018-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2019-01-09
Administrative Law Judge
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$1,500.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Scott Servilla & Heidi H Servilla
Counsel
—
Respondent
Village of Oakcreek Association
Counsel
Mark K. Sahl
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the entire petition, finding that the Petitioner waived the right to challenge the outcome of the November 10, 2016 vote concerning the faulty ballot (Issue 2) because he failed to object before the vote proceeded. Petitioner also failed to prove his claims regarding the required vote count (Issue 1) and unauthorized fines (Issue 3).
Why this result: Petitioner waived the right to object to the ballot defect (Issue 2) by allowing the vote to proceed without objection after receiving the ballot, and failed to prove the claims for issues 1 and 3.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to provide separate voting opportunity for each proposed action in absentee ballot
Petitioner alleged the November 10, 2016 vote was invalid because the absentee ballot combined two distinct proposed amendments (Leasing restrictions and Schedule of Fines) into a single vote, contravening the requirement that ballots set forth and provide an opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action.
Orders: Claim failed because Petitioner waived the right to object to the faulty ballot by allowing the vote to proceed without objection.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, 209 Ariz. 357, 102 P.3d 297
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA elections, absentee ballots, waiver doctrine, amendment procedure, fines
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)
A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)
Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, 209 Ariz. 357, 102 P.3d 297
Allen v. State, 14 Ariz. 458, 130 P. 1114
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
18F-H1817018-REL-RHG Decision – 673729.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:15 (40.8 KB)
18F-H1817018-REL-RHG Decision – 673828.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:15 (48.5 KB)
18F-H1817018-REL-RHG Decision – 680738.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:15 (103.5 KB)
Briefing Doc – 18F-H1817018-REL-RHG
Briefing Document: Servilla v. Village of Oakcreek Association (Case No. 18F-H1817018-REL-RHG)
Executive Summary
This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in the case of Scott S. Servilla versus the Village of Oakcreek Association. The final order, issued on January 9, 2019, following a rehearing, denied the petitioner’s claims. The central issue revolved around a homeowners association vote held on November 10, 2016, where two distinct amendments—one concerning property leasing and another a schedule of fines—were combined into a single item on the ballot.
The petitioner argued this ballot format violated Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1812(A), which requires a separate opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action. However, the ALJ’s decision did not rule on the merits of this statutory violation. Instead, the petition was denied based on the legal doctrine of waiver. The ALJ concluded that the petitioner, having received the allegedly defective ballot more than a month before the vote, had forfeited his right to challenge the procedure by failing to raise any objection until after the vote was completed and the unfavorable outcome was known. The decision heavily relies on the precedent set by the Arizona Supreme Court in Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, which established that a party cannot knowingly allow a flawed election to proceed and then protest only after receiving an undesirable result. The ALJ’s decision is binding, with any appeal required to be filed in superior court.
——————————————————————————–
I. Case Overview
This matter was a dispute brought before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings between a homeowner and a homeowners association regarding the validity of an amendment to the association’s governing documents.
Case Detail
Information
Case Number
18F-H1817018-REL-RHG
Petitioner
Scott Servilla & Heidi H Servilla
Respondent
Village of Oakcreek Association
Administrative Law Judge
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Hearing Date
November 29, 2018
Record Held Open Until
December 20, 2018
Decision Issued
January 9, 2019
II. Procedural History
1. Initial Petition: On or about November 13, 2017, Scott S. Servilla filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate against the Village of Oakcreek Association, an HOA with 2436 homeowners.
2. Expansion of Claims: The petitioner initially filed a single-issue petition with a $500 fee but was ordered by the ALJ to either specify the single issue or pay for a multi-issue hearing. The petitioner paid an additional $1,000 and proceeded with three distinct claims.
3. First ALJ Decision: Following an initial hearing, the ALJ found that the petitioner failed to prove two of his three claims. On the second claim—the improper ballot format—the judge found a statutory violation had occurred but concluded that “because the statute did not provide an enforcement mechanism to the Administrative Law Judge, no remedy could be ordered.”
4. Request for Rehearing: The petitioner filed a Request for Reconsideration, arguing that the conclusion of “no remedy” was contrary to law.
5. Rehearing Granted: On or about September 21, 2018, the Commissioner for the Arizona Department of Real Estate granted the request for a rehearing, which was held on November 29, 2018.
III. The Central Dispute: The November 10, 2016 Vote
The core of the dispute was the validity of a vote taken during a Special Meeting of Members on November 10, 2016.
• Bundled Amendments: The vote’s stated purpose was to approve the “Leasing and Schedule of Fines Assessment.” This single proposal combined two separate and substantive changes to the Master Declaration:
1. Addition of Section 4.23:Leasing of Lots and Units; Restrictions and Limitations, which established a minimum lease term of 30 days and prohibited leasing less than an entire unit.
2. Replacement of Section 5.08:Schedule of Fines, which permitted the association’s committee to adopt a new schedule specifying fines for violations.
• Ballot Format: The absentee ballot provided members with only a single voting choice: “FOR THE LEASING AND SCHEDULE OF FINES AMENDMENT” or “AGAINST THE LEASING AND SCHEDULE OF FINES AMENDMENT.”
• Statutory Violation Alleged: The petitioner contended this format violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A), which requires that a ballot “shall set forth each proposed action” and “shall provide an opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action.”
• Vote Outcome: A total of 1,067 ballots were received (approximately 44% of members). Of those, 564 voted in favor of the amendment, constituting approximately 53% of the votes cast.
IV. Key Arguments at Rehearing
• Statutory Violation: The ballot was legally defective because it combined two distinct proposed actions into one vote, denying members the right to vote on each separately as required by statute.
• Evidence of Dissent: The petitioner argued that a subsequent vote in April 2017, in which members rejected a proposal to eliminate the By-Laws’ $50 fine limit, demonstrated that “had the proposed amendment been broken into two parts, the part of the proposed amendment dealing with the fines most likely would have failed.”
• Requested Remedy: The petitioner argued that based on case law, the ALJ was authorized to declare the entire amendment void and unenforceable.
• Waiver of Objection: The respondent’s primary argument was that the petitioner had waived any right to object to the ballot format. The petitioner received the absentee ballot on or about October 4, 2016, but did not raise an objection until April 2017, long after the November 10, 2016 vote was completed.
• Lack of Enforcement Provision: The respondent also maintained its earlier position that even if a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(2) occurred, the statute itself provides no enforcement mechanism or remedy.
V. Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ’s final decision denied the petitioner’s petition in its entirety, based solely on the legal principle of waiver.
The ALJ found that the petitioner’s failure to object to the ballot’s format in a timely manner was fatal to his claim.
• Awareness of Defect: The petitioner received the absentee ballot on October 4, 2016, over a month before the November 10, 2016 vote. This provided sufficient time to identify the procedural issue and raise an objection.
• Failure to Act: By not objecting before the vote, the petitioner allowed the flawed process to proceed. He only lodged a complaint after the results were not in his favor.
• Forfeiture of Rights: The ALJ concluded, “As Petitioner was or should have been aware of the alleged issues with the ballot, he waived his right to bring forth a complaint about the ballot when he allowed the vote to proceed on November 10, 2016.”
The decision rested on the Arizona Supreme Court case Zajac v. City of Casa Grande (2004), which itself relied on Allen v. State (1913). This precedent establishes that a party cannot remain silent about a known procedural defect in an election process and then challenge the process only after an unfavorable outcome.
• Key Principle: The ALJ articulated the principle from Zajac: “one cannot knowingly let a defective vote proceed only to complain and seek redress if the results are not to the individual’s liking.”
• Direct Quotation: The decision directly quotes the ruling in Zajac to finalize its point: “He cannot have it both ways; that is, he cannot allow the [vote] to proceed without objection, and then be permitted thereafter to assert his protest.”
• Petition Denied: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is denied.”
• Binding Decision: As the decision was issued as a result of a rehearing, it is legally binding on the parties.
• Appeal Process: Any party wishing to appeal the order must file for judicial review with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served (January 9, 2019).
Study Guide – 18F-H1817018-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Servilla v. Village of Oakcreek Association (Case No. 18F-H1817018-REL-RHG)
This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal case involving Petitioner Scott Servilla and Respondent Village of Oakcreek Association, as detailed in the Administrative Law Judge Decision of January 9, 2019. It includes a short-answer quiz to test factual recall, a corresponding answer key, suggested essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.
——————————————————————————–
Short Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following ten questions in 2-3 sentences each, based entirely on the information provided in the source documents.
1. Who were the primary parties in this case, and what roles did they play?
2. What were the two distinct proposed changes that were combined into a single voting item on the November 10, 2016 absentee ballot?
3. Which specific Arizona Revised Statute did the Petitioner allege was violated by the format of the ballot, and what does that statute require?
4. What was the numerical outcome of the November 10, 2016 vote on the proposed amendment?
5. What was the Respondent’s primary legal argument for why the Petitioner’s complaint about the faulty ballot should be dismissed?
6. What key legal precedent, specifically the case of Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rely upon in the final decision?
7. According to the decision, when did the Petitioner receive the ballot, and why was this date critical to the ALJ’s final ruling?
8. What was the finding in the initial Administrative Law Judge Decision regarding the ballot issue, and why did it lead to a request for a rehearing?
9. Describe the separate vote that occurred in April 2017 and explain how the Petitioner used it to support his argument regarding the 2016 vote.
10. What was the final order issued by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer on January 9, 2019, and what was the legal basis for this order?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Scott S. Servilla (who appeared on his own behalf), and the Respondent, the Village of Oakcreek Association (a homeowners association represented by Mark Sahl). The Petitioner filed a complaint against the Respondent with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
2. The two proposed changes were the addition of a new section, 4.23, concerning “Leasing of Lots and Units; Restrictions and Limitations,” and the complete replacement of an existing section, 5.08, titled “Schedule of Fines.” The ballot presented these as a single item called the “LEASING AND SCHEDULE OF FINES AMENDMENT.”
3. The Petitioner alleged a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(2) and A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)(2). The statute requires that an absentee ballot “shall set forth each proposed action” and “shall provide an opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action.”
4. A total of 1067 ballots were received, representing approximately 44 percent of the members. Of those who voted, 564 (approximately 53 percent) voted in favor of the proposed amendment.
5. The Respondent’s primary argument was that the Petitioner had waived any right to object to the ballot’s format. The Respondent contended that the Petitioner should have raised his objection before the vote occurred, rather than waiting until after the results were known.
6. The ALJ relied on the precedent set in Zajac v. City of Casa Grande. This Arizona Supreme Court case established the principle that an individual aware of a procedural issue with an election cannot wait to see the results before lodging a complaint.
7. The Petitioner acknowledged receiving the absentee ballot on or about October 4, 2016, more than a month before the November 10, 2016 vote. This date was critical because it demonstrated that the Petitioner had ample time to object to the ballot’s format before the vote took place, supporting the ALJ’s waiver finding.
8. In the initial decision, the ALJ found that a violation of the statute had occurred regarding the ballot but concluded that no remedy could be ordered because the statute lacked an enforcement mechanism. The Petitioner requested a rehearing, alleging that this conclusion was contrary to the law and that the ALJ did have the authority to declare the amendment void.
9. In April 2017, a separate proposed amendment to eliminate the By-Laws’ $50 fine limitation was voted down by the members. The Petitioner argued this subsequent vote demonstrated that the fines portion of the November 2016 amendment would likely have failed if members had been given a separate opportunity to vote on it.
10. The final order, issued January 9, 2019, denied the Petitioner’s petition. The legal basis was the doctrine of waiver; the ALJ ruled that because the Petitioner was aware of the alleged issues with the ballot before the vote and failed to object, he waived his right to complain about it after the results were announced.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Formulate comprehensive essay responses based on the details and legal reasoning presented in the source documents.
1. Explain the legal doctrine of waiver as applied in this case. How did the timeline of events, from the receipt of the ballot to the filing of the petition, support the Administrative Law Judge’s application of the principles from Zajac v. City of Casa Grande?
2. Analyze the conflicting interpretations of “proposed action” under A.R.S. § 33-1812(A) as presented by the Petitioner and the Respondent. Although the Judge ultimately ruled on procedural grounds, which party’s interpretation of the statute appears more consistent with the law’s text and intent?
3. Discuss the procedural history of this case, from the initial filing with the Arizona Department of Real Estate through the first decision, the request for reconsideration, and the final ruling on rehearing. What does this progression reveal about the administrative hearing process and the remedies available to petitioners?
4. The Petitioner attempted to use the results of an April 2017 vote to argue that the fines portion of the November 2016 amendment would likely have failed if voted on separately. Evaluate the strength and relevance of this argument within the legal context of the case.
5. Imagine the Petitioner had raised his objection to the ballot format before the November 10, 2016 vote. Based on the information in the decision, how might the proceedings and the ultimate outcome have been different?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official who presides over administrative hearings, hears evidence, and issues decisions and orders. In this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer.
A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)
The collection of laws enacted by the Arizona state legislature. The Petitioner alleged violations of A.R.S. § 33-1817 and § 33-1812.
Absentee Ballot
A ballot that allows a member to vote without being physically present at a meeting. The format of this ballot was the central issue of the rehearing.
By-Laws
The rules that govern the internal operations of an association. The Petitioner cited a violation of By-Laws Section 8, Article VIII concerning a $50 fine limit.
Department (The Department)
The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency where the Petitioner first filed his petition against the homeowners association.
Master Declaration
A core governing document for a homeowners association that establishes rules, restrictions, and obligations for homeowners. The November 10, 2016 vote was to amend this document.
A formal, binding decision issued by a judge. The final document in this case was an order denying the Petitioner’s petition.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Scott Servilla & Heidi H. Servilla.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this proceeding. It means the evidence presented is more convincing and likely to be true than the evidence offered in opposition.
Rehearing
A second hearing of a case granted to reconsider the initial decision. A rehearing was granted after the Petitioner argued that the initial finding of “no remedy” was contrary to law.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed and who must respond to the allegations. In this case, the Village of Oakcreek Association.
Waiver
A legal doctrine where a party intentionally or through inaction gives up a known right or claim. The ALJ ruled the Petitioner waived his right to object to the ballot by not raising the issue before the vote.
Zajac v. City of Casa Grande
An Arizona Supreme Court case that established a key legal precedent used in this decision. It holds that a party cannot knowingly allow a defective vote to proceed and then complain only if the results are unfavorable.
Blog Post – 18F-H1817018-REL-RHG
{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “18F-H1817018-REL-RHG”,
“case_title”: “Scott Servilla & Heidi H Servilla, vs. Village of Oakcreek Association”,
“decision_date”: “2019-01-09”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Scott Servilla”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Also listed as Scott S. Servilla; appeared on his own behalf”
},
{
“name”: “Heidi H Servilla”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Tammy L. Eigenheer”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Office of Administrative Hearings”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Mark K. Sahl”,
“role”: “respondent attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP”,
“notes”: “Represented Village of Oakcreek Association”
},
{
“name”: “Judy Lowe”,
“role”: “ADRE Commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “L. Dettorre”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Name derived from email address [email protected]”
},
{
“name”: “A. Hansen”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Name derived from email address [email protected]”
},
{
“name”: “D. Jones”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Name derived from email address [email protected]”
},
{
“name”: “D. Gardner”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Name derived from email address [email protected]”
},
{
“name”: “N. Cano”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Name derived from email address [email protected]”
},
{
“name”: “c. serrano”,
“role”: “transmission clerk”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Signed document transmission for November 29, 2018 order”
},
{
“name”: “Felicia Del Sol”,
“role”: “transmission clerk”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Signed document transmission for January 9, 2019 order”
}
]
}
{ “case”: { “agency”: “ADRE”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “docket_no”: “18F-H1817018-REL-RHG”, “case_title”: “Scott Servilla & Heidi H Servilla vs. Village of Oakcreek Association”, “decision_date”: “2019-01-09”, “alj_name”: “Tammy L. Eigenheer” }, “parties”: [ { “party_id”: “P1”, “role”: “petitioner”, “name”: “Scott Servilla & Heidi H Servilla”, “party_type”: “homeowner”, “email”: null, “phone”: null, “attorney_name”: null, “attorney_firm”: null, “attorney_email”: null, “attorney_phone”: null }, { “party_id”: “R1”, “role”: “respondent”, “name”: “Village of Oakcreek Association”, “party_type”: “HOA”, “email”: null, “phone”: null, “attorney_name”: “Mark K. Sahl”, “attorney_firm”: “CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP”, “attorney_email”: null, “attorney_phone”: null } ], “issues”: [ { “issue_id”: “ISS-001”, “type”: “statute”, “citation”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)”, “caption”: “Failure to provide separate voting opportunity for each proposed action in absentee ballot”, “violation(s)”: “Written ballot used did not provide a separate opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action, violating A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)(2) and the Declaration12.”, “summary”: “Petitioner alleged the November 10, 2016 vote was invalid because the absentee ballot combined two distinct proposed amendments (Leasing restrictions and Schedule of Fines) into a single vote, contravening the requirement that ballots set forth and provide an opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action1….”, “outcome”: “respondent_win”, “filing_fee_paid”: 500.0, “filing_fee_refunded”: false, “civil_penalty_amount”: 0.0, “orders_summary”: “Claim failed because Petitioner waived the right to object to the faulty ballot by allowing the vote to proceed without objection45.”, “why_the_loss”: “Petitioner was aware of the alleged issue with the ballot prior to the November 10, 2016 vote but failed to raise an objection, thus waiving the right to complain thereafter46.”, “cited”: [ “Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, 209 Ariz. 357, 102 P.3d 297” ] } ], “money_summary”: { “issues_count”: 3, “total_filing_fees_paid”: 1500.0, “total_filing_fees_refunded”: 0.0, “total_civil_penalties”: 0.0 }, “outcomes”: { “petitioner_is_hoa”: false, “petitioner_win”: “loss”, “summarize_judgement”: “The Administrative Law Judge denied the entire petition, finding that the Petitioner waived the right to challenge the outcome of the November 10, 2016 vote concerning the faulty ballot (Issue 2) because he failed to object before the vote proceeded. Petitioner also failed to prove his claims regarding the required vote count (Issue 1) and unauthorized fines (Issue 3)4….”, “why_the_loss”: “Petitioner waived the right to object to the ballot defect (Issue 2) by allowing the vote to proceed without objection after receiving the ballot, and failed to prove the claims for issues 1 and 34….” }, “analytics”: { “cited”: [ “A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”, “A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)(2)”, “A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)”, “Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, 209 Ariz. 357, 102 P.3d 297”, “Allen v. State, 14 Ariz. 458, 130 P. 1114” ], “tags”: [ “HOA elections”, “absentee ballots”, “waiver doctrine”, “amendment procedure”, “fines” ] } }
{ “rehearing”: { “is_rehearing”: true, “base_case_id”: “18F-H1817018-REL”, “original_decision_status”: “affirmed”, “original_decision_summary”: “In the original decision, the Administrative Law Judge found that the Petitioner failed to prove claims regarding issues one and three1. For issue two (faulty ballot), the ALJ established a statutory violation of A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)(2), but concluded that no remedy could be ordered because the statute did not provide an enforcement mechanism1.”, “rehearing_decision_summary”: “The Commissioner granted the rehearing to address the legal conclusion that no remedy could be ordered for the violation found in Issue 22. Following the rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge denied the entire petition3, concluding that Petitioner waived the right to complain about the faulty ballot because he was aware of the alleged issues but allowed the November 10, 2016 vote to proceed without objection4….”, “issues_challenged”: [ { “issue_number”: 2, “description”: “Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)(2) because the written ballot used did not provide a separate opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action7.”, “challenge”: “Petitioner challenged the original conclusion that no remedy could be ordered, alleging this was contrary to the law and arguing that the Administrative Law Judge was authorized to declare the amendment void and unenforceable28.”, “rehearing_outcome”: “Denied/Failed. The claim failed because the ALJ ruled that Petitioner waived his right to bring forth a complaint about the ballot by allowing the vote to proceed without objection36.” } ] } }
{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “18F-H1817018-REL-RHG”,
“case_title”: “Scott Servilla & Heidi H Servilla, Petitioner, vs. Village of Oakcreek Association, Respondent.”,
“decision_date”: “January 9, 2019”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Scott Servilla”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Also referred to as Scott S. Servilla”
},
{
“name”: “Heidi H Servilla”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Tammy L. Eigenheer”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Office of Administrative Hearings”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Mark K. Sahl”,
“role”: “attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Judy Lowe”,
“role”: “commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “c. serrano”,
“role”: “staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Transmitted documents”
},
{
“name”: “Felicia Del Sol”,
“role”: “staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Transmitted documents”
}
]
}
This document summarizes the administrative law judge decision in the rehearing case of Scott Servilla & Heidi H Servilla v. Village of Oakcreek Association, Case No. 18F-H1817018-REL-RHG1. This matter was heard by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer on November 29, 2018, with the record held open until December 20, 20181.
Procedural History (Original Decision vs. Rehearing)
Petitioner Scott Servilla filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) against the Village of Oakcreek Association (Respondent) alleging multiple violations of statute and the community’s Master Declaration2,3.
Original Decision: The Administrative Law Judge initially ruled on three issues4. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to prove two claims5. However, the ALJ found that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)(2) regarding the written ballot, but concluded that because the statute did not provide an enforcement mechanism, no remedy could be ordered5.
Rehearing Grant: Following this initial decision, Petitioner filed a Request for Reconsideration, arguing the conclusion that no remedy existed was contrary to law6. The ADRE Commissioner granted the request for rehearing6.
Key Facts and Issue for Rehearing
The central issue during the rehearing concerned the statutory violation found in the original decision: whether the November 10, 2016 vote to amend the Master Declaration was invalid because the absentee ballot failed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)4,7.
The Ballot Violation: A.R.S. § 33-1812(A) requires that absentee ballots set forth “each proposed action” and provide an opportunity to vote for or against “each proposed action”7. The Respondent’s proposed amendment bundled two distinct actions: the addition of leasing restrictions and the complete replacement of the Schedule of Fines8,9,10. The ballot only allowed members to vote “FOR” or “AGAINST THE LEASING AND SCHEDULE OF FINES AMENDMENT” as a single package9.
Key Legal Argument and Decision
At the rehearing, the core legal debate shifted from whether a violation occurred to whether the Petitioner was entitled to relief, specifically whether the ALJ could declare the amendment void and unenforceable6,11.
Respondent’s Defense and the Doctrine of Waiver: Respondent argued that Petitioner had waived the right to object because he did not raise any complaint about the defective ballot prior to the vote12. Petitioner received the ballot more than one month before the November 10, 2016 vote13.
ALJ Legal Conclusion: Drawing on Arizona Supreme Court precedent (Zajac v. City of Casa Grande)10,14, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that an individual cannot allow a known defective vote to proceed and only complain afterward if dissatisfied with the results15,16. Because Petitioner failed to raise an objection to the faulty ballot prior to the scheduled vote, he waived his right to bring a subsequent complaint about the ballot16.
Based on the application of the waiver doctrine, the ALJ found that Petitioner’s claim as to the ballot must fail16. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that Petitioner’s petition is denied17. This order, resulting from the rehearing, is binding on the parties17.
{
“case”: {
“agency”: “ADRE”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“docket_no”: “18F-H1817018-REL-RHG”,
“case_title”: “Scott Servilla & Heidi H Servilla vs. Village of Oakcreek Association”,
“decision_date”: “2019-01-09”,
“alj_name”: “Tammy L. Eigenheer”
},
“parties”: [
{
“party_id”: “P1”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“name”: “Scott Servilla & Heidi H Servilla”,
“party_type”: “homeowner”,
“email”: null,
“phone”: null,
“attorney_name”: null,
“attorney_firm”: null,
“attorney_email”: null,
“attorney_phone”: null
},
{
“party_id”: “R1”,
“role”: “respondent”,
“name”: “Village of Oakcreek Association”,
“party_type”: “HOA”,
“email”: null,
“phone”: null,
“attorney_name”: “Mark K. Sahl”,
“attorney_firm”: “CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP”,
“attorney_email”: null,
“attorney_phone”: null
}
],
“issues”: [
{
“issue_id”: “ISS-001”,
“type”: “statute”,
“citation”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”,
“caption”: “Vote count required to amend declaration”,
“violation(s)”: “Alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1) and Declaration regarding the required majority vote (1173 votes) for the November 10, 2016 amendment.”,
“summary”: “Petitioner requested an order declaring the amendment invalid due to insufficient vote count.”,
“outcome”: “respondent_win”,
“filing_fee_paid”: 500.0,
“filing_fee_refunded”: false,
“civil_penalty_amount”: 0.0,
“orders_summary”: “Claim failed.”,
“why_the_loss”: “Petitioner failed to prove the claim.”,
“cited”: []
},
{
“issue_id”: “ISS-002”,
“type”: “statute”,
“citation”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)”,
“caption”: “Absence of separate voting opportunity for proposed actions”,
“violation(s)”: “The written ballot used for the November 10, 2016 amendment violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A) and (B)(2) because it bundled two distinct proposed actions (Leasing Restrictions and Schedule of Fines) into a single vote.”,
“summary”: “Petitioner sought an order declaring the amendment invalid because the ballot improperly required a single vote on two separate actions.”,
“outcome”: “respondent_win”,
“filing_fee_paid”: 500.0,
“filing_fee_refunded”: false,
“civil_penalty_amount”: 0.0,
“orders_summary”: “Claim denied on rehearing. Petition denied.”,
“why_the_loss”: “Petitioner waived the right to object to the faulty ballot by receiving it over a month prior and allowing the vote to proceed on November 10, 2016, without raising a complaint.”,
“cited”: [
“A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)”,
“Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, 209 Ariz. 357, 102 P.3d 297”,
“Allen v. State, 14 Ariz. 458, 130 P. 1114”
]
},
{
“issue_id”: “ISS-003”,
“type”: “governing_document”,
“citation”: “By-Laws Section 8, Article VIII”,
“caption”: “Unauthorized fines in excess of $50”,
“violation(s)”: “Respondent allegedly violated By-Laws by imposing fines in excess of $50 per violation, especially after a proposed amendment to raise the fines was voted down.”,
“summary”: “Petitioner requested an order that the Association cannot levy fines in excess of $50 per violation.”,
“outcome”: “respondent_win”,
“filing_fee_paid”: 500.0,
“filing_fee_refunded”: false,
“civil_penalty_amount”: 0.0,
“orders_summary”: “Claim failed.”,
“why_the_loss”: “Petitioner failed to prove the claim.”,
“cited”: []
}
],
“money_summary”: {
“issues_count”: 3,
“total_filing_fees_paid”: 1500.0,
“total_filing_fees_refunded”: 0.0,
“total_civil_penalties”: 0.0
},
“outcomes”: {
“petitioner_is_hoa”: false,
“petitioner_win”: “loss”,
“summarize_judgement”: “The Administrative Law Judge denied the entire petition. Although the Respondent used a faulty ballot (Issue 2), the Petitioner waived the right to object by failing to raise a complaint prior to the vote. Petitioner also failed to prove his claims for issues 1 and 3.”,
“why_the_loss”: “Petitioner waived the right to object to the ballot defect (Issue 2) by allowing the vote to proceed without objection, and failed to prove the claims for Issues 1 and 3.”,
“cited”: [
“A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)”,
“Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, 209 Ariz. 357, 102 P.3d 297”
]
},
“analytics”: {
“cited”: [
“A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”,
“A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)”,
“A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)(2)”,
“Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, 209 Ariz. 357, 102 P.3d 297”,
“Allen v. State, 14 Ariz. 458, 130 P. 1114”
],
“tags”: [
“HOA elections”,
“absentee ballots”,
“waiver doctrine”,
“amendment procedure”,
“fines”
]
}
}
{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “18F-H1817018-REL-RHG”,
“case_title”: “Scott Servilla & Heidi H Servilla, vs. Village of Oakcreek Association”,
“decision_date”: “2019-01-09”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Scott Servilla”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Appeared on his own behalf at the hearing; also listed as Scott S. Servilla [1], [2]”
},
{
“name”: “Heidi H Servilla”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Tammy L. Eigenheer”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Office of Administrative Hearings”,
“notes”: “Administrative Law Judge [3], [4], [1], [2]”
},
{
“name”: “Mark K. Sahl”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP”,
“notes”: “Represented Village of Oakcreek Association [2]”
},
{
“name”: “Judy Lowe”,
“role”: “commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Granted the request for rehearing [5]”
},
{
“name”: “c. serrano”,
“role”: “staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Transmitted documents on November 29, 2018 [6], [7]”
},
{
“name”: “Felicia Del Sol”,
“role”: “staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Transmitted documents on January 9, 2019 [8]”
},
{
“name”: “LDettorre”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmittal [3], [4]”
},
{
“name”: “AHansen”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmittal [3], [4]”
},
{
“name”: “djones”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmittal [3], [4]”
},
{
“name”: “DGardner”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmittal [3], [4]”
},
{
“name”: “ncano”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmittal [3], [4]”
}
]
}
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Scott Servilla(petitioner) Also referred to as Scott S. Servilla
Heidi H Servilla(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Mark K. Sahl(attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
Neutral Parties
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
The Administrative Law Judge denied the entire petition. Although the Respondent used a faulty ballot (Issue 2), the Petitioner waived the right to object by failing to raise a complaint prior to the vote. Petitioner also failed to prove his claims for issues 1 and 3.
Why this result: Petitioner waived the right to object to the ballot defect (Issue 2) by allowing the vote to proceed without objection, and failed to prove the claims for Issues 1 and 3.
Key Issues & Findings
Vote count required to amend declaration
Petitioner requested an order declaring the amendment invalid due to insufficient vote count.
Orders: Claim failed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Absence of separate voting opportunity for proposed actions
Petitioner sought an order declaring the amendment invalid because the ballot improperly required a single vote on two separate actions.
Orders: Claim denied on rehearing. Petition denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)
Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, 209 Ariz. 357, 102 P.3d 297
Allen v. State, 14 Ariz. 458, 130 P. 1114
Unauthorized fines in excess of $50
Petitioner requested an order that the Association cannot levy fines in excess of $50 per violation.
Orders: Claim failed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA elections, absentee ballots, waiver doctrine, amendment procedure, fines
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)(2)
Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, 209 Ariz. 357, 102 P.3d 297
Allen v. State, 14 Ariz. 458, 130 P. 1114
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
18F-H1817018-REL-RHG Decision – 673729.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:22:28 (40.8 KB)
18F-H1817018-REL-RHG Decision – 673828.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:22:31 (48.5 KB)
18F-H1817018-REL-RHG Decision – 680738.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:22:34 (103.5 KB)
Briefing Doc – 18F-H1817018-REL-RHG
Briefing Document: Servilla v. Village of Oakcreek Association (Case No. 18F-H1817018-REL-RHG)
Executive Summary
This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in the case of Scott S. Servilla versus the Village of Oakcreek Association. The final order, issued on January 9, 2019, following a rehearing, denied the petitioner’s claims. The central issue revolved around a homeowners association vote held on November 10, 2016, where two distinct amendments—one concerning property leasing and another a schedule of fines—were combined into a single item on the ballot.
The petitioner argued this ballot format violated Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1812(A), which requires a separate opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action. However, the ALJ’s decision did not rule on the merits of this statutory violation. Instead, the petition was denied based on the legal doctrine of waiver. The ALJ concluded that the petitioner, having received the allegedly defective ballot more than a month before the vote, had forfeited his right to challenge the procedure by failing to raise any objection until after the vote was completed and the unfavorable outcome was known. The decision heavily relies on the precedent set by the Arizona Supreme Court in Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, which established that a party cannot knowingly allow a flawed election to proceed and then protest only after receiving an undesirable result. The ALJ’s decision is binding, with any appeal required to be filed in superior court.
——————————————————————————–
I. Case Overview
This matter was a dispute brought before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings between a homeowner and a homeowners association regarding the validity of an amendment to the association’s governing documents.
Case Detail
Information
Case Number
18F-H1817018-REL-RHG
Petitioner
Scott Servilla & Heidi H Servilla
Respondent
Village of Oakcreek Association
Administrative Law Judge
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Hearing Date
November 29, 2018
Record Held Open Until
December 20, 2018
Decision Issued
January 9, 2019
II. Procedural History
1. Initial Petition: On or about November 13, 2017, Scott S. Servilla filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate against the Village of Oakcreek Association, an HOA with 2436 homeowners.
2. Expansion of Claims: The petitioner initially filed a single-issue petition with a $500 fee but was ordered by the ALJ to either specify the single issue or pay for a multi-issue hearing. The petitioner paid an additional $1,000 and proceeded with three distinct claims.
3. First ALJ Decision: Following an initial hearing, the ALJ found that the petitioner failed to prove two of his three claims. On the second claim—the improper ballot format—the judge found a statutory violation had occurred but concluded that “because the statute did not provide an enforcement mechanism to the Administrative Law Judge, no remedy could be ordered.”
4. Request for Rehearing: The petitioner filed a Request for Reconsideration, arguing that the conclusion of “no remedy” was contrary to law.
5. Rehearing Granted: On or about September 21, 2018, the Commissioner for the Arizona Department of Real Estate granted the request for a rehearing, which was held on November 29, 2018.
III. The Central Dispute: The November 10, 2016 Vote
The core of the dispute was the validity of a vote taken during a Special Meeting of Members on November 10, 2016.
• Bundled Amendments: The vote’s stated purpose was to approve the “Leasing and Schedule of Fines Assessment.” This single proposal combined two separate and substantive changes to the Master Declaration:
1. Addition of Section 4.23:Leasing of Lots and Units; Restrictions and Limitations, which established a minimum lease term of 30 days and prohibited leasing less than an entire unit.
2. Replacement of Section 5.08:Schedule of Fines, which permitted the association’s committee to adopt a new schedule specifying fines for violations.
• Ballot Format: The absentee ballot provided members with only a single voting choice: “FOR THE LEASING AND SCHEDULE OF FINES AMENDMENT” or “AGAINST THE LEASING AND SCHEDULE OF FINES AMENDMENT.”
• Statutory Violation Alleged: The petitioner contended this format violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A), which requires that a ballot “shall set forth each proposed action” and “shall provide an opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action.”
• Vote Outcome: A total of 1,067 ballots were received (approximately 44% of members). Of those, 564 voted in favor of the amendment, constituting approximately 53% of the votes cast.
IV. Key Arguments at Rehearing
• Statutory Violation: The ballot was legally defective because it combined two distinct proposed actions into one vote, denying members the right to vote on each separately as required by statute.
• Evidence of Dissent: The petitioner argued that a subsequent vote in April 2017, in which members rejected a proposal to eliminate the By-Laws’ $50 fine limit, demonstrated that “had the proposed amendment been broken into two parts, the part of the proposed amendment dealing with the fines most likely would have failed.”
• Requested Remedy: The petitioner argued that based on case law, the ALJ was authorized to declare the entire amendment void and unenforceable.
• Waiver of Objection: The respondent’s primary argument was that the petitioner had waived any right to object to the ballot format. The petitioner received the absentee ballot on or about October 4, 2016, but did not raise an objection until April 2017, long after the November 10, 2016 vote was completed.
• Lack of Enforcement Provision: The respondent also maintained its earlier position that even if a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(2) occurred, the statute itself provides no enforcement mechanism or remedy.
V. Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ’s final decision denied the petitioner’s petition in its entirety, based solely on the legal principle of waiver.
The ALJ found that the petitioner’s failure to object to the ballot’s format in a timely manner was fatal to his claim.
• Awareness of Defect: The petitioner received the absentee ballot on October 4, 2016, over a month before the November 10, 2016 vote. This provided sufficient time to identify the procedural issue and raise an objection.
• Failure to Act: By not objecting before the vote, the petitioner allowed the flawed process to proceed. He only lodged a complaint after the results were not in his favor.
• Forfeiture of Rights: The ALJ concluded, “As Petitioner was or should have been aware of the alleged issues with the ballot, he waived his right to bring forth a complaint about the ballot when he allowed the vote to proceed on November 10, 2016.”
The decision rested on the Arizona Supreme Court case Zajac v. City of Casa Grande (2004), which itself relied on Allen v. State (1913). This precedent establishes that a party cannot remain silent about a known procedural defect in an election process and then challenge the process only after an unfavorable outcome.
• Key Principle: The ALJ articulated the principle from Zajac: “one cannot knowingly let a defective vote proceed only to complain and seek redress if the results are not to the individual’s liking.”
• Direct Quotation: The decision directly quotes the ruling in Zajac to finalize its point: “He cannot have it both ways; that is, he cannot allow the [vote] to proceed without objection, and then be permitted thereafter to assert his protest.”
• Petition Denied: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is denied.”
• Binding Decision: As the decision was issued as a result of a rehearing, it is legally binding on the parties.
• Appeal Process: Any party wishing to appeal the order must file for judicial review with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served (January 9, 2019).
Study Guide – 18F-H1817018-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Servilla v. Village of Oakcreek Association (Case No. 18F-H1817018-REL-RHG)
This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal case involving Petitioner Scott Servilla and Respondent Village of Oakcreek Association, as detailed in the Administrative Law Judge Decision of January 9, 2019. It includes a short-answer quiz to test factual recall, a corresponding answer key, suggested essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.
——————————————————————————–
Short Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following ten questions in 2-3 sentences each, based entirely on the information provided in the source documents.
1. Who were the primary parties in this case, and what roles did they play?
2. What were the two distinct proposed changes that were combined into a single voting item on the November 10, 2016 absentee ballot?
3. Which specific Arizona Revised Statute did the Petitioner allege was violated by the format of the ballot, and what does that statute require?
4. What was the numerical outcome of the November 10, 2016 vote on the proposed amendment?
5. What was the Respondent’s primary legal argument for why the Petitioner’s complaint about the faulty ballot should be dismissed?
6. What key legal precedent, specifically the case of Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rely upon in the final decision?
7. According to the decision, when did the Petitioner receive the ballot, and why was this date critical to the ALJ’s final ruling?
8. What was the finding in the initial Administrative Law Judge Decision regarding the ballot issue, and why did it lead to a request for a rehearing?
9. Describe the separate vote that occurred in April 2017 and explain how the Petitioner used it to support his argument regarding the 2016 vote.
10. What was the final order issued by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer on January 9, 2019, and what was the legal basis for this order?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Scott S. Servilla (who appeared on his own behalf), and the Respondent, the Village of Oakcreek Association (a homeowners association represented by Mark Sahl). The Petitioner filed a complaint against the Respondent with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
2. The two proposed changes were the addition of a new section, 4.23, concerning “Leasing of Lots and Units; Restrictions and Limitations,” and the complete replacement of an existing section, 5.08, titled “Schedule of Fines.” The ballot presented these as a single item called the “LEASING AND SCHEDULE OF FINES AMENDMENT.”
3. The Petitioner alleged a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(2) and A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)(2). The statute requires that an absentee ballot “shall set forth each proposed action” and “shall provide an opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action.”
4. A total of 1067 ballots were received, representing approximately 44 percent of the members. Of those who voted, 564 (approximately 53 percent) voted in favor of the proposed amendment.
5. The Respondent’s primary argument was that the Petitioner had waived any right to object to the ballot’s format. The Respondent contended that the Petitioner should have raised his objection before the vote occurred, rather than waiting until after the results were known.
6. The ALJ relied on the precedent set in Zajac v. City of Casa Grande. This Arizona Supreme Court case established the principle that an individual aware of a procedural issue with an election cannot wait to see the results before lodging a complaint.
7. The Petitioner acknowledged receiving the absentee ballot on or about October 4, 2016, more than a month before the November 10, 2016 vote. This date was critical because it demonstrated that the Petitioner had ample time to object to the ballot’s format before the vote took place, supporting the ALJ’s waiver finding.
8. In the initial decision, the ALJ found that a violation of the statute had occurred regarding the ballot but concluded that no remedy could be ordered because the statute lacked an enforcement mechanism. The Petitioner requested a rehearing, alleging that this conclusion was contrary to the law and that the ALJ did have the authority to declare the amendment void.
9. In April 2017, a separate proposed amendment to eliminate the By-Laws’ $50 fine limitation was voted down by the members. The Petitioner argued this subsequent vote demonstrated that the fines portion of the November 2016 amendment would likely have failed if members had been given a separate opportunity to vote on it.
10. The final order, issued January 9, 2019, denied the Petitioner’s petition. The legal basis was the doctrine of waiver; the ALJ ruled that because the Petitioner was aware of the alleged issues with the ballot before the vote and failed to object, he waived his right to complain about it after the results were announced.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Formulate comprehensive essay responses based on the details and legal reasoning presented in the source documents.
1. Explain the legal doctrine of waiver as applied in this case. How did the timeline of events, from the receipt of the ballot to the filing of the petition, support the Administrative Law Judge’s application of the principles from Zajac v. City of Casa Grande?
2. Analyze the conflicting interpretations of “proposed action” under A.R.S. § 33-1812(A) as presented by the Petitioner and the Respondent. Although the Judge ultimately ruled on procedural grounds, which party’s interpretation of the statute appears more consistent with the law’s text and intent?
3. Discuss the procedural history of this case, from the initial filing with the Arizona Department of Real Estate through the first decision, the request for reconsideration, and the final ruling on rehearing. What does this progression reveal about the administrative hearing process and the remedies available to petitioners?
4. The Petitioner attempted to use the results of an April 2017 vote to argue that the fines portion of the November 2016 amendment would likely have failed if voted on separately. Evaluate the strength and relevance of this argument within the legal context of the case.
5. Imagine the Petitioner had raised his objection to the ballot format before the November 10, 2016 vote. Based on the information in the decision, how might the proceedings and the ultimate outcome have been different?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official who presides over administrative hearings, hears evidence, and issues decisions and orders. In this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer.
A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)
The collection of laws enacted by the Arizona state legislature. The Petitioner alleged violations of A.R.S. § 33-1817 and § 33-1812.
Absentee Ballot
A ballot that allows a member to vote without being physically present at a meeting. The format of this ballot was the central issue of the rehearing.
By-Laws
The rules that govern the internal operations of an association. The Petitioner cited a violation of By-Laws Section 8, Article VIII concerning a $50 fine limit.
Department (The Department)
The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency where the Petitioner first filed his petition against the homeowners association.
Master Declaration
A core governing document for a homeowners association that establishes rules, restrictions, and obligations for homeowners. The November 10, 2016 vote was to amend this document.
A formal, binding decision issued by a judge. The final document in this case was an order denying the Petitioner’s petition.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Scott Servilla & Heidi H. Servilla.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this proceeding. It means the evidence presented is more convincing and likely to be true than the evidence offered in opposition.
Rehearing
A second hearing of a case granted to reconsider the initial decision. A rehearing was granted after the Petitioner argued that the initial finding of “no remedy” was contrary to law.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed and who must respond to the allegations. In this case, the Village of Oakcreek Association.
Waiver
A legal doctrine where a party intentionally or through inaction gives up a known right or claim. The ALJ ruled the Petitioner waived his right to object to the ballot by not raising the issue before the vote.
Zajac v. City of Casa Grande
An Arizona Supreme Court case that established a key legal precedent used in this decision. It holds that a party cannot knowingly allow a defective vote to proceed and then complain only if the results are unfavorable.
Blog Post – 18F-H1817018-REL-RHG
{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “18F-H1817018-REL-RHG”,
“case_title”: “Scott Servilla & Heidi H Servilla, vs. Village of Oakcreek Association”,
“decision_date”: “2019-01-09”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Scott Servilla”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Also listed as Scott S. Servilla; appeared on his own behalf”
},
{
“name”: “Heidi H Servilla”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Tammy L. Eigenheer”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Office of Administrative Hearings”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Mark K. Sahl”,
“role”: “respondent attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP”,
“notes”: “Represented Village of Oakcreek Association”
},
{
“name”: “Judy Lowe”,
“role”: “ADRE Commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “L. Dettorre”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Name derived from email address [email protected]”
},
{
“name”: “A. Hansen”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Name derived from email address [email protected]”
},
{
“name”: “D. Jones”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Name derived from email address [email protected]”
},
{
“name”: “D. Gardner”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Name derived from email address [email protected]”
},
{
“name”: “N. Cano”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Name derived from email address [email protected]”
},
{
“name”: “c. serrano”,
“role”: “transmission clerk”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Signed document transmission for November 29, 2018 order”
},
{
“name”: “Felicia Del Sol”,
“role”: “transmission clerk”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Signed document transmission for January 9, 2019 order”
}
]
}
{ “case”: { “agency”: “ADRE”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “docket_no”: “18F-H1817018-REL-RHG”, “case_title”: “Scott Servilla & Heidi H Servilla vs. Village of Oakcreek Association”, “decision_date”: “2019-01-09”, “alj_name”: “Tammy L. Eigenheer” }, “parties”: [ { “party_id”: “P1”, “role”: “petitioner”, “name”: “Scott Servilla & Heidi H Servilla”, “party_type”: “homeowner”, “email”: null, “phone”: null, “attorney_name”: null, “attorney_firm”: null, “attorney_email”: null, “attorney_phone”: null }, { “party_id”: “R1”, “role”: “respondent”, “name”: “Village of Oakcreek Association”, “party_type”: “HOA”, “email”: null, “phone”: null, “attorney_name”: “Mark K. Sahl”, “attorney_firm”: “CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP”, “attorney_email”: null, “attorney_phone”: null } ], “issues”: [ { “issue_id”: “ISS-001”, “type”: “statute”, “citation”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)”, “caption”: “Failure to provide separate voting opportunity for each proposed action in absentee ballot”, “violation(s)”: “Written ballot used did not provide a separate opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action, violating A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)(2) and the Declaration12.”, “summary”: “Petitioner alleged the November 10, 2016 vote was invalid because the absentee ballot combined two distinct proposed amendments (Leasing restrictions and Schedule of Fines) into a single vote, contravening the requirement that ballots set forth and provide an opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action1….”, “outcome”: “respondent_win”, “filing_fee_paid”: 500.0, “filing_fee_refunded”: false, “civil_penalty_amount”: 0.0, “orders_summary”: “Claim failed because Petitioner waived the right to object to the faulty ballot by allowing the vote to proceed without objection45.”, “why_the_loss”: “Petitioner was aware of the alleged issue with the ballot prior to the November 10, 2016 vote but failed to raise an objection, thus waiving the right to complain thereafter46.”, “cited”: [ “Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, 209 Ariz. 357, 102 P.3d 297” ] } ], “money_summary”: { “issues_count”: 3, “total_filing_fees_paid”: 1500.0, “total_filing_fees_refunded”: 0.0, “total_civil_penalties”: 0.0 }, “outcomes”: { “petitioner_is_hoa”: false, “petitioner_win”: “loss”, “summarize_judgement”: “The Administrative Law Judge denied the entire petition, finding that the Petitioner waived the right to challenge the outcome of the November 10, 2016 vote concerning the faulty ballot (Issue 2) because he failed to object before the vote proceeded. Petitioner also failed to prove his claims regarding the required vote count (Issue 1) and unauthorized fines (Issue 3)4….”, “why_the_loss”: “Petitioner waived the right to object to the ballot defect (Issue 2) by allowing the vote to proceed without objection after receiving the ballot, and failed to prove the claims for issues 1 and 34….” }, “analytics”: { “cited”: [ “A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”, “A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)(2)”, “A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)”, “Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, 209 Ariz. 357, 102 P.3d 297”, “Allen v. State, 14 Ariz. 458, 130 P. 1114” ], “tags”: [ “HOA elections”, “absentee ballots”, “waiver doctrine”, “amendment procedure”, “fines” ] } }
{ “rehearing”: { “is_rehearing”: true, “base_case_id”: “18F-H1817018-REL”, “original_decision_status”: “affirmed”, “original_decision_summary”: “In the original decision, the Administrative Law Judge found that the Petitioner failed to prove claims regarding issues one and three1. For issue two (faulty ballot), the ALJ established a statutory violation of A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)(2), but concluded that no remedy could be ordered because the statute did not provide an enforcement mechanism1.”, “rehearing_decision_summary”: “The Commissioner granted the rehearing to address the legal conclusion that no remedy could be ordered for the violation found in Issue 22. Following the rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge denied the entire petition3, concluding that Petitioner waived the right to complain about the faulty ballot because he was aware of the alleged issues but allowed the November 10, 2016 vote to proceed without objection4….”, “issues_challenged”: [ { “issue_number”: 2, “description”: “Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)(2) because the written ballot used did not provide a separate opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action7.”, “challenge”: “Petitioner challenged the original conclusion that no remedy could be ordered, alleging this was contrary to the law and arguing that the Administrative Law Judge was authorized to declare the amendment void and unenforceable28.”, “rehearing_outcome”: “Denied/Failed. The claim failed because the ALJ ruled that Petitioner waived his right to bring forth a complaint about the ballot by allowing the vote to proceed without objection36.” } ] } }
{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “18F-H1817018-REL-RHG”,
“case_title”: “Scott Servilla & Heidi H Servilla, Petitioner, vs. Village of Oakcreek Association, Respondent.”,
“decision_date”: “January 9, 2019”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Scott Servilla”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Also referred to as Scott S. Servilla”
},
{
“name”: “Heidi H Servilla”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Tammy L. Eigenheer”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Office of Administrative Hearings”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Mark K. Sahl”,
“role”: “attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Judy Lowe”,
“role”: “commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “c. serrano”,
“role”: “staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Transmitted documents”
},
{
“name”: “Felicia Del Sol”,
“role”: “staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Transmitted documents”
}
]
}
This document summarizes the administrative law judge decision in the rehearing case of Scott Servilla & Heidi H Servilla v. Village of Oakcreek Association, Case No. 18F-H1817018-REL-RHG1. This matter was heard by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer on November 29, 2018, with the record held open until December 20, 20181.
Procedural History (Original Decision vs. Rehearing)
Petitioner Scott Servilla filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) against the Village of Oakcreek Association (Respondent) alleging multiple violations of statute and the community’s Master Declaration2,3.
Original Decision: The Administrative Law Judge initially ruled on three issues4. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to prove two claims5. However, the ALJ found that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)(2) regarding the written ballot, but concluded that because the statute did not provide an enforcement mechanism, no remedy could be ordered5.
Rehearing Grant: Following this initial decision, Petitioner filed a Request for Reconsideration, arguing the conclusion that no remedy existed was contrary to law6. The ADRE Commissioner granted the request for rehearing6.
Key Facts and Issue for Rehearing
The central issue during the rehearing concerned the statutory violation found in the original decision: whether the November 10, 2016 vote to amend the Master Declaration was invalid because the absentee ballot failed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)4,7.
The Ballot Violation: A.R.S. § 33-1812(A) requires that absentee ballots set forth “each proposed action” and provide an opportunity to vote for or against “each proposed action”7. The Respondent’s proposed amendment bundled two distinct actions: the addition of leasing restrictions and the complete replacement of the Schedule of Fines8,9,10. The ballot only allowed members to vote “FOR” or “AGAINST THE LEASING AND SCHEDULE OF FINES AMENDMENT” as a single package9.
Key Legal Argument and Decision
At the rehearing, the core legal debate shifted from whether a violation occurred to whether the Petitioner was entitled to relief, specifically whether the ALJ could declare the amendment void and unenforceable6,11.
Respondent’s Defense and the Doctrine of Waiver: Respondent argued that Petitioner had waived the right to object because he did not raise any complaint about the defective ballot prior to the vote12. Petitioner received the ballot more than one month before the November 10, 2016 vote13.
ALJ Legal Conclusion: Drawing on Arizona Supreme Court precedent (Zajac v. City of Casa Grande)10,14, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that an individual cannot allow a known defective vote to proceed and only complain afterward if dissatisfied with the results15,16. Because Petitioner failed to raise an objection to the faulty ballot prior to the scheduled vote, he waived his right to bring a subsequent complaint about the ballot16.
Based on the application of the waiver doctrine, the ALJ found that Petitioner’s claim as to the ballot must fail16. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that Petitioner’s petition is denied17. This order, resulting from the rehearing, is binding on the parties17.
{
“case”: {
“agency”: “ADRE”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“docket_no”: “18F-H1817018-REL-RHG”,
“case_title”: “Scott Servilla & Heidi H Servilla vs. Village of Oakcreek Association”,
“decision_date”: “2019-01-09”,
“alj_name”: “Tammy L. Eigenheer”
},
“parties”: [
{
“party_id”: “P1”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“name”: “Scott Servilla & Heidi H Servilla”,
“party_type”: “homeowner”,
“email”: null,
“phone”: null,
“attorney_name”: null,
“attorney_firm”: null,
“attorney_email”: null,
“attorney_phone”: null
},
{
“party_id”: “R1”,
“role”: “respondent”,
“name”: “Village of Oakcreek Association”,
“party_type”: “HOA”,
“email”: null,
“phone”: null,
“attorney_name”: “Mark K. Sahl”,
“attorney_firm”: “CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP”,
“attorney_email”: null,
“attorney_phone”: null
}
],
“issues”: [
{
“issue_id”: “ISS-001”,
“type”: “statute”,
“citation”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”,
“caption”: “Vote count required to amend declaration”,
“violation(s)”: “Alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1) and Declaration regarding the required majority vote (1173 votes) for the November 10, 2016 amendment.”,
“summary”: “Petitioner requested an order declaring the amendment invalid due to insufficient vote count.”,
“outcome”: “respondent_win”,
“filing_fee_paid”: 500.0,
“filing_fee_refunded”: false,
“civil_penalty_amount”: 0.0,
“orders_summary”: “Claim failed.”,
“why_the_loss”: “Petitioner failed to prove the claim.”,
“cited”: []
},
{
“issue_id”: “ISS-002”,
“type”: “statute”,
“citation”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)”,
“caption”: “Absence of separate voting opportunity for proposed actions”,
“violation(s)”: “The written ballot used for the November 10, 2016 amendment violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A) and (B)(2) because it bundled two distinct proposed actions (Leasing Restrictions and Schedule of Fines) into a single vote.”,
“summary”: “Petitioner sought an order declaring the amendment invalid because the ballot improperly required a single vote on two separate actions.”,
“outcome”: “respondent_win”,
“filing_fee_paid”: 500.0,
“filing_fee_refunded”: false,
“civil_penalty_amount”: 0.0,
“orders_summary”: “Claim denied on rehearing. Petition denied.”,
“why_the_loss”: “Petitioner waived the right to object to the faulty ballot by receiving it over a month prior and allowing the vote to proceed on November 10, 2016, without raising a complaint.”,
“cited”: [
“A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)”,
“Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, 209 Ariz. 357, 102 P.3d 297”,
“Allen v. State, 14 Ariz. 458, 130 P. 1114”
]
},
{
“issue_id”: “ISS-003”,
“type”: “governing_document”,
“citation”: “By-Laws Section 8, Article VIII”,
“caption”: “Unauthorized fines in excess of $50”,
“violation(s)”: “Respondent allegedly violated By-Laws by imposing fines in excess of $50 per violation, especially after a proposed amendment to raise the fines was voted down.”,
“summary”: “Petitioner requested an order that the Association cannot levy fines in excess of $50 per violation.”,
“outcome”: “respondent_win”,
“filing_fee_paid”: 500.0,
“filing_fee_refunded”: false,
“civil_penalty_amount”: 0.0,
“orders_summary”: “Claim failed.”,
“why_the_loss”: “Petitioner failed to prove the claim.”,
“cited”: []
}
],
“money_summary”: {
“issues_count”: 3,
“total_filing_fees_paid”: 1500.0,
“total_filing_fees_refunded”: 0.0,
“total_civil_penalties”: 0.0
},
“outcomes”: {
“petitioner_is_hoa”: false,
“petitioner_win”: “loss”,
“summarize_judgement”: “The Administrative Law Judge denied the entire petition. Although the Respondent used a faulty ballot (Issue 2), the Petitioner waived the right to object by failing to raise a complaint prior to the vote. Petitioner also failed to prove his claims for issues 1 and 3.”,
“why_the_loss”: “Petitioner waived the right to object to the ballot defect (Issue 2) by allowing the vote to proceed without objection, and failed to prove the claims for Issues 1 and 3.”,
“cited”: [
“A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)”,
“Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, 209 Ariz. 357, 102 P.3d 297”
]
},
“analytics”: {
“cited”: [
“A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”,
“A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)”,
“A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)(2)”,
“Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, 209 Ariz. 357, 102 P.3d 297”,
“Allen v. State, 14 Ariz. 458, 130 P. 1114”
],
“tags”: [
“HOA elections”,
“absentee ballots”,
“waiver doctrine”,
“amendment procedure”,
“fines”
]
}
}
{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “18F-H1817018-REL-RHG”,
“case_title”: “Scott Servilla & Heidi H Servilla, vs. Village of Oakcreek Association”,
“decision_date”: “2019-01-09”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Scott Servilla”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Appeared on his own behalf at the hearing; also listed as Scott S. Servilla [1], [2]”
},
{
“name”: “Heidi H Servilla”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Tammy L. Eigenheer”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Office of Administrative Hearings”,
“notes”: “Administrative Law Judge [3], [4], [1], [2]”
},
{
“name”: “Mark K. Sahl”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP”,
“notes”: “Represented Village of Oakcreek Association [2]”
},
{
“name”: “Judy Lowe”,
“role”: “commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Granted the request for rehearing [5]”
},
{
“name”: “c. serrano”,
“role”: “staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Transmitted documents on November 29, 2018 [6], [7]”
},
{
“name”: “Felicia Del Sol”,
“role”: “staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Transmitted documents on January 9, 2019 [8]”
},
{
“name”: “LDettorre”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmittal [3], [4]”
},
{
“name”: “AHansen”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmittal [3], [4]”
},
{
“name”: “djones”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmittal [3], [4]”
},
{
“name”: “DGardner”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmittal [3], [4]”
},
{
“name”: “ncano”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmittal [3], [4]”
}
]
}
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Scott Servilla(petitioner) Also referred to as Scott S. Servilla
Heidi H Servilla(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Mark K. Sahl(attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
Neutral Parties
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
The Administrative Law Judge denied the entire petition. Although the Respondent used a faulty ballot (Issue 2), the Petitioner waived the right to object by failing to raise a complaint prior to the vote. Petitioner also failed to prove his claims for issues 1 and 3.
Why this result: Petitioner waived the right to object to the ballot defect (Issue 2) by allowing the vote to proceed without objection, and failed to prove the claims for Issues 1 and 3.
Key Issues & Findings
Vote count required to amend declaration
Petitioner requested an order declaring the amendment invalid due to insufficient vote count.
Orders: Claim failed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Absence of separate voting opportunity for proposed actions
Petitioner sought an order declaring the amendment invalid because the ballot improperly required a single vote on two separate actions.
Orders: Claim denied on rehearing. Petition denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)
Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, 209 Ariz. 357, 102 P.3d 297
Allen v. State, 14 Ariz. 458, 130 P. 1114
Unauthorized fines in excess of $50
Petitioner requested an order that the Association cannot levy fines in excess of $50 per violation.
Orders: Claim failed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA elections, absentee ballots, waiver doctrine, amendment procedure, fines
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)(2)
Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, 209 Ariz. 357, 102 P.3d 297
Allen v. State, 14 Ariz. 458, 130 P. 1114
Decision Documents
18F-H1817018-REL Decision – 673729.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-17T18:16:08 (40.8 KB)
18F-H1817018-REL Decision – 673828.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-17T18:16:08 (48.5 KB)
18F-H1817018-REL Decision – 680738.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-17T18:16:08 (103.5 KB)
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Scott Servilla(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf at the hearing; also listed as Scott S. Servilla,
Heidi H Servilla(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Mark K. Sahl(HOA attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP Represented Village of Oakcreek Association
Neutral Parties
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Administrative Law Judge,,,
Judy Lowe(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Granted the request for rehearing
LDettorre(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmittal,
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmittal,
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmittal,
DGardner(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmittal,
ncano(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmittal,
Other Participants
c. serrano(staff) Transmitted documents on November 29, 2018,
Felicia Del Sol(staff) Transmitted documents on January 9, 2019
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated the governing documents or relevant statutes in assessing fines for unauthorized parking.
Why this result: Petitioner continually violated CC&R § 4.7 and failed to prove Respondent violated any CC&R or statute, particularly as A.R.S. § 33-1242 did not apply to disputes concerning the use of limited common elements.
Key Issues & Findings
HOA violation of CC&Rs and Statutes by imposing parking fines
Petitioner challenged the HOA's decision to assess continuous fines against her account totaling $2,544.00 for repeatedly parking in spaces that were not assigned to her unit 52, arguing the fines and enforcement lacked proper statutory process and violated CC&Rs. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof and that the statute cited (A.R.S. § 33-1242) concerning property condition notices did not apply to this dispute regarding limited common elements (parking spaces).
Orders: Petitioner Michelle Ruffo’s petition against Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association is denied.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1242
A.R.S. § 33-1803
CC&R § 4.7
CC&R § 2.8.3
Analytics Highlights
Topics: parking violation, fines, HOA enforcement, limited common elements, due process, Arizona Department of Real Estate
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 33-1242
A.R.S. § 33-1248
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 12-349
CC&R § 4.7
CC&R § 2.8.3
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
18F-H1818044-REL Decision – 663567.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:52 (270.9 KB)
Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818044-REL
Briefing Document: Ruffo v. Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case number 18F-H1818044-REL, involving Petitioner Michelle Ruffo and Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association. The core of the dispute centers on a series of fines levied by the Association against Ms. Ruffo for repeatedly parking in condominium parking spaces not assigned to her unit.
The Petitioner argued that she had informal written permission from other residents to use their spaces, that the Association’s notices of violation were procedurally flawed, that she was the victim of retaliatory harassment, and that her own assigned space was frequently occupied by others. The Respondent maintained that its actions were in strict accordance with the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which unambiguously require owners to use only their assigned parking spaces and outline a formal process for reallocating them, a process the Petitioner did not follow.
The ALJ ultimately denied the petition, finding that Ms. Ruffo failed to meet her burden of proof. The decision concluded that the Association acted within its rights, that its enforcement actions were consistent with its governing documents, and that the Petitioner’s reliance on informal agreements represented the very “evils that the CC&Rs were designed to prevent.” As of the hearing date, the outstanding balance of fines, interest, and fees on the Petitioner’s account totaled $2,544.00.
Case Background
Parties Involved
Name / Entity
Representation / Key Details
Petitioner
Michelle Ruffo
Owner of unit 52, assigned parking space #131. Appeared on her own behalf.
Respondent
Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Assoc.
The condominium unit owners’ association. Represented by Nathan Tennyson, Esq. of Brown Olcott, PLLC.
Adjudicator
Diane Mihalsky
Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings.
Witnesses
Carol Lundberg
Testified for the Petitioner.
Vanessa Chapman Lubinsky & Gabino Trejo
Former and current property managers, respectively, who testified for the Respondent.
Core Dispute
The central issue is the Association’s imposition of fines against Ms. Ruffo for violating the community’s parking regulations. On or about April 17, 2018, Ms. Ruffo filed a petition alleging the Association violated its CC&Rs and several Arizona statutes by fining her for parking in spaces #38 and #40, which were not assigned to her unit #52. The Association denied any violation, asserting it was enforcing valid community rules.
Chronology of the Dispute
The conflict escalated over a period of approximately two years, marked by a series of notices, fines, and failed attempts at resolution.
• August 2, 2016: The Association sends a “Friendly Reminder” to Ms. Ruffo to cease parking in space #40 and use her assigned space, #131.
• August 5, 2016: A “Notice of Violation” is sent for the same issue, serving as a second warning.
• March 14, 2017: A “Final Non-Compliance Notice” is issued, noting violations in both space #40 and #38. The notice informs Ms. Ruffo of her right to a hearing with the Board of Directors if requested within 14 days.
• March 30, 2017: The first fine of $50.00 is assessed after Ms. Ruffo’s vehicle is again observed in space #38.
• April 17, 2017: Ms. Ruffo responds in writing, claiming she has permission to use the spaces and requests the fine be waived.
• April 27, 2017: The Association’s Board reviews and denies the waiver request. Ms. Ruffo was invited to address the Board but did not attend.
• June 6, 2017: A $200.00 fine is assessed for two observed violations in space #40.
• June 26, 2017: Another $200.00 fine is assessed for violations in spaces #40 and #38.
• July 11, 2017: The Association warns that access to community amenities (pool, fitness room) will be denied if fines remain unpaid. This action is later taken.
• August 31, 2017: A Board meeting is scheduled for Ms. Ruffo and her attorney, Mark F. Williman, to attend. Neither party attends, and they fail to provide advance notice. The Association incurs a $200 legal fee for its attorney’s attendance.
• September 25, 2017: Fines totaling $1,400.00 are assessed for multiple observed violations.
• September 27, 2017: The Association attempts to tow Ms. Ruffo’s vehicle. The attempt is aborted after she refuses to exit the vehicle and calls the Pima County Sheriff’s Office.
• October 4, 2017: The Association’s attorney informs Ms. Ruffo that another hearing will not be scheduled until she reimburses the Association for the $200 legal fee from the missed August 31 meeting.
• October 2017 – January 2018: A series of additional fines are assessed for ongoing violations, and Ms. Ruffo sends multiple letters requesting a hearing and protesting the fines and the $200 reimbursement requirement.
• April 17, 2018: Ms. Ruffo files the formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• September 18, 2018: The evidentiary hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Analysis of Arguments and Evidence
Petitioner’s Position (Michelle Ruffo)
Ms. Ruffo’s defense was multi-faceted, based on claims of permission, procedural errors by the Association, and alleged harassment.
• Claim of Permission: Ms. Ruffo testified that since 2005, she had been parking in spaces #38 and #40 with written permission. She claimed a 2006 agreement with the Morleys, then owners of unit #56, for space #40. She also submitted a 2018 email from Julie Ruiz, a tenant in unit #53, granting permission to use space #38.
• Allegations of Improper Notices: She argued the Association’s notices violated A.R.S. § 33-1242(C) because they did not always identify the person who observed the violation or provide photographic evidence.
• Allegations of Harassment and Retaliation: Through an attorney, Ms. Ruffo alleged she was being “unlawfully discriminated against and harassed in retaliation for her role related to allegations that HOA President Mitch Treese misappropriated HOA funds.” The ALJ noted that no evidence was submitted at the hearing to support this claim.
• Counter-Evidence: Ms. Ruffo submitted photographs dated from October 2016 to July 2017 showing other vehicles, including those of Associa maintenance and a landscaping contractor, parked in her assigned space #131.
• Dispute over Hearing Preconditions: She argued that the Association’s demand for a $200 reimbursement for its attorney’s fees as a condition for a new hearing was unlawful and not permitted under the CC&Rs.
Respondent’s Position (The Association)
The Association’s case rested on the explicit language of its governing documents and its adherence to established enforcement procedures.
• Primacy of the CC&Rs: The Association argued that its governing documents are unambiguous. Section 4.7 explicitly forbids owners from parking in any space other than the one assigned to their unit as a Limited Common Element.
• Formal Reallocation Process: Per Section 2.8.3, reallocating a Limited Common Element like a parking space requires a formal, written amendment executed by the unit owners involved and submitted to the Board for approval. Ms. Ruffo never followed this procedure.
• Rejection of Informal Agreements: The property manager testified that such private agreements are not legally binding or enforceable by the Association and create confusion, as evidenced by complaints from subsequent owners and tenants who were unable to use their assigned spaces.
• Adherence to Enforcement Policy: The Association followed its documented Violation Enforcement Policy, starting with a friendly reminder and escalating to formal notices and fines for continued non-compliance.
• Opportunity to Be Heard: Ms. Ruffo was provided opportunities to address the Board on April 27, 2017, and August 31, 2017. She failed to attend either meeting, and her failure to provide notice for the latter caused the Association to incur unnecessary legal fees.
• Witness Testimony: The former property manager, Ms. Chapman, testified that she had personally witnessed all the charged violations.
Governing Documents and Statutes
The case hinged on the interpretation of the Association’s CC&Rs and relevant Arizona state law.
Key CC&R Provisions
Section
Provision
Relevance
Motor Vehicles: “no Owner, Lessee or Occupant may park any . . . motor vehicle . . . in any Parking Spaces other than the Parking Space assigned to the Unit as a Limited Common Element.”
The central rule that the Petitioner was found to have repeatedly violated.
§ 2.8.3
Reallocation of Limited Common Elements: A reallocation requires a formal, recorded amendment executed by the owners and submitted to the Board.
The official procedure for changing parking space assignments, which the Petitioner did not follow for her informal agreements.
§ 13.1
Enforcement: Grants the Association the right to impose monetary penalties, suspend an owner’s right to use facilities, and tow vehicles in violation of the rules, after notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Provides the legal authority within the governing documents for the Association’s actions (fines, suspension of amenity access, attempted tow).
§ 1.36
“Parking Space” Definition: Defines a parking space as a portion of the Limited Common Elements.
Legally classifies the disputed parking spaces, making them subject to the rules governing Limited Common Elements.
Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.)
The Petitioner cited A.R.S. § 33-1242(C), which requires an association, upon written request from an owner, to provide details of an alleged violation, including the observer’s name and the date. The ALJ determined this statute was inapplicable to the dispute. The judge’s reasoning was that the statute applies specifically to notices regarding the “condition of the property owned by the unit owner” (i.e., her physical condo unit #52), not her use of Limited Common Elements like parking spaces, which she does not own.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ’s decision was a conclusive denial of the petition, siding entirely with the Association.
Final Order: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Michelle Ruffo’s petition against Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association is denied because Petitioner has not established that Respondent violated the CC&Rs or any statute in assessing fines against her for her repeated violations of CC&R § 4.7 by parking in spaces that were not assigned to her unit #52.”
Key Legal Conclusions
• Burden of Proof: The Petitioner bore the burden of proving her claims by a preponderance of the evidence and failed to do so.
• Unambiguous Covenants: The CC&Rs regarding parking are unambiguous and must be enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties. CC&R § 4.7 clearly requires owners to park in their assigned spaces.
• Invalidity of Informal Agreements: The ALJ found that the Petitioner’s reliance on informal agreements illustrated “the evils that the CC&Rs were designed to prevent.” These undocumented side deals create instability and conflict when properties are sold or new tenants arrive, undermining the security and order of the community’s parking plan.
• Respondent’s Proper Conduct: The Association was found to have followed its own enforcement policy and provided the Petitioner with opportunities to be heard.
• Attorney’s Fee Condition: While the CC&Rs do not explicitly authorize charging an owner for attorney’s fees as a precondition for a hearing, the ALJ noted that A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(18) allows an association to “exercise any . . . powers necessary and proper for the governance and operation.” Furthermore, civil statutes often require a party to pay for fees they cause an opponent to incur unnecessarily.
• Futility of a Board Hearing: The ALJ concluded that, in light of the Petitioner’s arguments and her “continued violation of Respondent’s parking policy over nearly two years,” a hearing before the Association’s Board would not have changed her behavior or the outcome of the matter.
Financial Implications
The conflict resulted in significant financial penalties for the Petitioner. The fines were assessed on an escalating basis for continued violations.
• March 30, 2017: $50.00
• June 6, 2017: $200.00
• June 26, 2017: $200.00
• August 9, 2017: $200.00
• September 25, 2017: $1,400.00
• October 17, 2017: $100.00
• November 6, 2017: $100.00
As of the hearing on September 18, 2018, the total outstanding balance on Ms. Ruffo’s account, including interest and certified letter fees, was $2,544.00.
Study Guide – 18F-H1818044-REL
Study Guide: Ruffo v. Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association
This guide is designed to review and assess understanding of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 18F-H1818044-REL, Michelle Ruffo v. Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing all information directly from the provided legal decision.
1. Who are the primary parties in this case, and what is the central dispute between them?
2. What was the Petitioner’s main justification for parking in spaces that were not assigned to her unit?
3. According to the Association’s CC&Rs, what is the formal procedure required to reallocate a Limited Common Element, such as a parking space?
4. Describe the key enforcement actions the Condo Association took against the Petitioner in response to the ongoing parking violations.
5. Why did the Administrative Law Judge determine that Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1242(B) and (C) did not apply in this case?
6. Summarize the incident involving the tow truck on September 27, 2017.
7. What reason did the Association’s attorney provide for requiring the Petitioner to pay a $200 fee before another hearing would be scheduled?
8. What evidence did the Petitioner submit to demonstrate that her own assigned parking space, #131, was frequently occupied by others?
9. Identify the two property managers who provided telephonic testimony on behalf of the Respondent.
10. What was the final ruling in this case, and what was the judge’s primary reason for this decision?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Michelle Ruffo, the Petitioner and owner of unit 52, and Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association, the Respondent. The central dispute is over fines imposed by the Association against Ms. Ruffo for her repeated violations of parking rules by parking in spaces not assigned to her unit.
2. The Petitioner justified her actions by claiming she had long-standing written permission from other unit owners or tenants to use their spaces. Specifically, she cited a 2006 agreement with the owners of unit #56 to use space #40 and more recent permission from a tenant in unit #53 to use space #38.
3. According to Section 2.8.3 of the CC&Rs, reallocating a Limited Common Element requires an amendment to the Declaration. This amendment must be executed by the owners involved, state how the element is being reallocated, and be submitted to the Board of Directors for approval before it can be recorded.
4. The Association’s enforcement actions escalated over time, beginning with a “Friendly Reminder” and moving to a “Notice of Violation” and a “Final Non-Compliance Notice.” Subsequently, the Association assessed escalating monetary fines, suspended the Petitioner’s access to amenities like the pool and fitness room, and attempted to have her vehicle towed.
5. The judge ruled the statute did not apply because it specifically pertains to written notices about the condition of the property owned by the unit owner. The dispute in this case was not about the condition of Ms. Ruffo’s unit (#52) but about her use of Limited Common Elements (parking spaces) that were not assigned to her.
6. On September 27, 2017, the Association attempted to tow the Petitioner’s vehicle from a space not assigned to her. The Petitioner was inside her vehicle and refused to leave, calling the Pima County Sheriff’s Office. The responding officer instructed the tow truck driver to remove the equipment and try again at another time.
7. The Association required the $200 fee to reimburse it for the attorney’s fees it incurred for a Board meeting scheduled on August 31, 2017. The Petitioner and her attorney at the time, Mr. Williman, failed to attend this meeting and did not provide notice of their absence until a few minutes before it was scheduled to begin.
8. The Petitioner submitted a series of dated photographs showing various other vehicles parked in her assigned space, #131. These vehicles included maintenance trucks bearing the Associa logo, a landscaping contractor’s truck and trailer, and several other private cars.
9. The two property managers who testified for the Respondent were Gabino Trejo, the current manager, and Vanessa Chapman Lubinsky (referred to as Ms. Chapman), the former manager.
10. The final ruling was a denial of Michelle Ruffo’s petition. The judge found that the Petitioner had not established that the Respondent violated any CC&Rs or statutes, concluding that the Association was justified in assessing fines for her repeated and clear violations of CC&R § 4.7, which requires owners to park in their assigned spaces.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, structuring your answer in a standard essay format.
1. Analyze the arguments and evidence presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent. Discuss the specific CC&R sections, witness testimonies, and exhibits each side used to support their claims, and explain why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found the Respondent’s position more convincing.
2. The concept of “Limited Common Elements” is central to this case. Using the definitions provided in the CC&Rs (Sections 1.31, 1.36, and 2.8.1(e)), explain the legal significance of this designation in the dispute over parking spaces. How did the specific rules for reallocating these elements (CC&R § 2.8.3) undermine the Petitioner’s primary defense?
3. Trace the timeline of communication and escalating enforcement actions taken by the Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association against Michelle Ruffo, beginning with the “Friendly Reminder” in August 2016. Evaluate whether the Association followed its own Violation Enforcement Policy and the powers granted to it in the CC&Rs throughout this process.
4. Discuss the role of legal representation and the various attorneys involved in this case (Nathan Tennyson, Mark F. Williman, Eric J. Thomae, Jonathan Olcott). How did their actions, communications, and, in one instance, inaction, impact the proceedings and the relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent?
5. The Petitioner argued that her right to due process was violated because the violation notices she received did not contain photographs or identify the person who observed the violation. Explain the Administrative Law Judge’s legal reasoning for rejecting this argument, specifically referencing the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1242 and the distinction made between a violation concerning the “condition of the property owned” versus the use of common elements.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms and Entities
Term / Entity
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Diane Mihalsky presided over the hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings.
A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)
The codified laws of the state of Arizona. Several statutes, including those under Title 33 (Property) and Title 32 (Professions and Occupations), were cited in the case.
Associa Property Management Services
The property management company employed by the Respondent to manage the condominium complex. Both Ms. Chapman and Mr. Trejo were employees of Associa.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The governing legal documents that set out the guidelines for a planned community or condominium. The CC&Rs define the rights and obligations of the homeowners’ association and its members.
Gabino Trejo
The current property manager for the Respondent at the time of the hearing.
Limited Common Elements
As defined in CC&R § 1.31, a portion of the Common Elements allocated for the exclusive use of one or more, but fewer than all, of the Units. Parking spaces are explicitly defined as Limited Common Elements.
Mark F. Williman, Esq.
An attorney and friend of the Petitioner who agreed to help her resolve issues with the Board. He failed to attend a scheduled Board meeting on her behalf on August 31, 2017.
Michelle Ruffo
The Petitioner in the case, owner of condominium unit 52, and member of the Respondent association.
Parking Space
As defined in CC&R § 1.36, a portion of the Limited Common Elements intended for parking a single motor vehicle and allocated to a specific Unit Owner for their exclusive use.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition or brings an action in a legal proceeding. In this case, Michelle Ruffo.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in this case, defined as evidence that is more convincing and has superior weight, inclining an impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.
Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association
The Respondent in the case; the condominium unit owners’ association for the development where the Petitioner resides.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed or an action is brought. In this case, the Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association.
Vanessa Chapman Lubinsky (Ms. Chapman)
The former property manager for the Respondent (from 2012 to early 2018) who handled most of the interactions and sent most of the violation notices to the Petitioner.
Violation Enforcement Policy
The Respondent’s official policy that outlines the procedure for addressing violations, including sending a “Friendly Reminder” and a “Notice of Violation,” and provides for a hearing if requested within 14 days.
Blog Post – 18F-H1818044-REL
How a Parking Spot Deal Led to a Tow Truck Standoff and a $2,544 HOA Bill: 4 Lessons
Introduction: The Handshake Deal That Cost a Fortune
It’s a common scenario in community living: you make a friendly, informal agreement with a neighbor. Maybe you agree to switch parking spots for convenience or let them use your guest pass. These simple handshake deals seem harmless, but what happens when they collide with the ironclad rules of a homeowners’ association (HOA)?
The real-life case of Michelle Ruffo and her condo association serves as a stark cautionary tale. A long-standing, informal parking arrangement escalated into a bitter dispute that culminated in a tow truck standoff, loss of amenities, and a final bill for $2,544 in fines and fees. This case reveals several surprising and critical lessons for anyone living in a community governed by an association.
1. Your Neighbor’s Permission Can Be Legally Worthless
The core of the dispute was Ms. Ruffo’s belief that she had the right to park in spaces other than her own. Since 2006, she had an agreement with another owner to use space #40. Later, she began parking in space #38, believing she had permission from that unit’s tenant. From her perspective, she had done her due diligence. This is the core conflict in community living: the perceived authority of a neighbor’s handshake versus the legal authority of the governing documents.
The association, however, operated under its official Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Those documents told a different story.
• Section 4.7 explicitly required owners to park only in their assigned spaces.
• Section 2.8.3 detailed the only valid procedure for changing parking allocations. Because parking spaces are “Limited Common Elements,” any reallocation required a formal, written amendment executed by the unit owners involved, submitted to the Board for approval, and then officially recorded.
Crucially, the property manager testified that the owner of the unit assigned to space #38 had explicitly denied giving Ms. Ruffo permission and reported that his tenants were complaining. Because Ms. Ruffo never followed the formal procedure, her informal agreements were not recognized or enforceable. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision highlighted the critical importance of these rules:
Because Petitioner never submitted any written agreement with another owner regarding reallocation of parking spaces to Respondent’s Board for its tacit approval, as CC&R § 2.8.3 requires, subsequent tenants and owners have no notice of Petitioner’s alleged agreements with their predecessors regarding parking spaces. If everyone adopted Petitioner’s sense of entitlement as to parking spaces at the Reflections, no one would be able to park their car with any security or plan.
2. Ignoring Official Notices Leads to More Than Just Fines
This conflict didn’t begin with a massive fine. The property management company, Associa, followed a documented escalation process that provided Ms. Ruffo with multiple opportunities to comply. For any homeowner, this documented paper trail should have been a five-alarm fire, signaling a problem that required immediate and formal resolution.
The warnings began on August 2, 2016, with a “Friendly Reminder,” followed by a “Notice of Violation” and a “Final Non-Compliance Notice.” The first fine of just $50 wasn’t assessed until March 30, 2017. But as the violations continued, so did the consequences. After a July 11, 2017 letter, the association shut off Ms. Ruffo’s “electric-key access to the pool and fitness center for the community,” a tangible loss of amenities.
The financial penalties then began to skyrocket. Fines of $200 were assessed in June and August. Then, on September 25, 2017, the association dropped the hammer: a single letter assessing $1,400 for 14 separate observed violations. Just two days later, on September 27, the dispute reached its climax. The association attempted to tow Ms. Ruffo’s vehicle. She was inside the car and refused to leave, prompting her to call the Sheriff’s Office to intervene. The situation had moved from letters and fines to a physical standoff in the parking lot.
3. Skipping a Hearing Can Get You a Bill for the HOA’s Lawyer
After retaining an attorney, Ms. Ruffo was scheduled to have her case heard by the Board on August 31, 2017. The association, anticipating a formal legal discussion, also had its own attorney present. In any formal dispute, failing to appear at your own requested hearing is a critical error. In this case, it not only cost Ruffo credibility but also came with an immediate invoice.
Minutes before the meeting, while the Board and its lawyer were waiting, Ruffo’s attorney sent a message that neither he nor his client would be attending. This last-minute cancellation had a direct financial consequence. The association’s attorney charged it $200 for the time spent on the aborted meeting. The Board then refused to schedule another hearing until Ms. Ruffo reimbursed the association for that $200 fee. This failure to engage was immediately followed by the association’s most severe actions: the $1,400 fine and the attempt to tow her vehicle.
4. “But They Do It Too!” Is Not a Winning Legal Defense
A common response to a violation notice is to point out that others are breaking the rules as well. Ms. Ruffo attempted this strategy, presenting photographic evidence that her own assigned space, #131, was frequently occupied by other vehicles, including maintenance vans bearing the property management company’s logo.
While the property manager testified that she had addressed the issue with the maintenance crew, the Judge ultimately found this argument unpersuasive. The ruling contained a crucial insight: The lesson isn’t just that this defense failed, but why it failed. The Judge noted that Ms. Ruffo “did not present any evidence… that she made any effort to report others parking in her assigned space when there was something that the property manager or Respondent could have done about it.” By failing to formally and properly report her own issue, she undermined her claim that the association was negligent, making it impossible to excuse her own persistent violations.
Conclusion: Read the Fine Print Before You Shake On It
This case serves as a powerful reminder of a fundamental truth of community living: in an HOA, the official, written governing documents are the ultimate authority. Informal “handshake deals,” no matter how reasonable they seem, can lead to serious consequences when they conflict with the rules. This dispute didn’t just involve letters; it led to escalating fines, the loss of amenities, a physical standoff with a tow truck, and ultimately a legal judgment.
This entire conflict, which cost thousands of dollars and countless hours, started with a parking spot—when was the last time you read your community’s rules?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michelle Ruffo(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf.
Carol Lundberg(witness) Resides in Unit 45; presented testimony by Petitioner.
Julie Ruiz(witness) Unit 53 Tenant Provided email confirming she gave Petitioner permission to park in Unit 53's space.
Mark F. Williman(attorney) Retained by Petitioner; failed to attend the August 31, 2017 Board meeting.
Eric J. Thomae(attorney) Retained by Petitioner sometime after October 24, 2017.
Respondent Side
Nathan Tennyson(HOA attorney) Brown Olcott, PLLC
Vanessa Chapman Lubinsky(property manager) Associa Property Management Services Former manager; referred to as Ms. Chapman in the decision.
Gabino Trejo(property manager) Associa Property Management Services Current manager.
John Pohlig(unit owner) Owner of unit assigned space #38; communicated he had not given Petitioner permission to park there.
Jonathan Olcott(HOA attorney)
Mitch Treese(HOA president) Alleged by Petitioner's attorney to have misappropriated HOA funds.
Neutral Parties
Diane Mihalsky(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Felicia Del Sol(administrative staff) Transmitted decision electronically.
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated the governing documents or relevant statutes in assessing fines for unauthorized parking.
Why this result: Petitioner continually violated CC&R § 4.7 and failed to prove Respondent violated any CC&R or statute, particularly as A.R.S. § 33-1242 did not apply to disputes concerning the use of limited common elements.
Key Issues & Findings
HOA violation of CC&Rs and Statutes by imposing parking fines
Petitioner challenged the HOA's decision to assess continuous fines against her account totaling $2,544.00 for repeatedly parking in spaces that were not assigned to her unit 52, arguing the fines and enforcement lacked proper statutory process and violated CC&Rs. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof and that the statute cited (A.R.S. § 33-1242) concerning property condition notices did not apply to this dispute regarding limited common elements (parking spaces).
Orders: Petitioner Michelle Ruffo’s petition against Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association is denied.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1242
A.R.S. § 33-1803
CC&R § 4.7
CC&R § 2.8.3
Analytics Highlights
Topics: parking violation, fines, HOA enforcement, limited common elements, due process, Arizona Department of Real Estate
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 33-1242
A.R.S. § 33-1248
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 12-349
CC&R § 4.7
CC&R § 2.8.3
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
18F-H1818044-REL Decision – 663567.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:24:18 (270.9 KB)
Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818044-REL
Briefing Document: Ruffo v. Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case number 18F-H1818044-REL, involving Petitioner Michelle Ruffo and Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association. The core of the dispute centers on a series of fines levied by the Association against Ms. Ruffo for repeatedly parking in condominium parking spaces not assigned to her unit.
The Petitioner argued that she had informal written permission from other residents to use their spaces, that the Association’s notices of violation were procedurally flawed, that she was the victim of retaliatory harassment, and that her own assigned space was frequently occupied by others. The Respondent maintained that its actions were in strict accordance with the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which unambiguously require owners to use only their assigned parking spaces and outline a formal process for reallocating them, a process the Petitioner did not follow.
The ALJ ultimately denied the petition, finding that Ms. Ruffo failed to meet her burden of proof. The decision concluded that the Association acted within its rights, that its enforcement actions were consistent with its governing documents, and that the Petitioner’s reliance on informal agreements represented the very “evils that the CC&Rs were designed to prevent.” As of the hearing date, the outstanding balance of fines, interest, and fees on the Petitioner’s account totaled $2,544.00.
Case Background
Parties Involved
Name / Entity
Representation / Key Details
Petitioner
Michelle Ruffo
Owner of unit 52, assigned parking space #131. Appeared on her own behalf.
Respondent
Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Assoc.
The condominium unit owners’ association. Represented by Nathan Tennyson, Esq. of Brown Olcott, PLLC.
Adjudicator
Diane Mihalsky
Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings.
Witnesses
Carol Lundberg
Testified for the Petitioner.
Vanessa Chapman Lubinsky & Gabino Trejo
Former and current property managers, respectively, who testified for the Respondent.
Core Dispute
The central issue is the Association’s imposition of fines against Ms. Ruffo for violating the community’s parking regulations. On or about April 17, 2018, Ms. Ruffo filed a petition alleging the Association violated its CC&Rs and several Arizona statutes by fining her for parking in spaces #38 and #40, which were not assigned to her unit #52. The Association denied any violation, asserting it was enforcing valid community rules.
Chronology of the Dispute
The conflict escalated over a period of approximately two years, marked by a series of notices, fines, and failed attempts at resolution.
• August 2, 2016: The Association sends a “Friendly Reminder” to Ms. Ruffo to cease parking in space #40 and use her assigned space, #131.
• August 5, 2016: A “Notice of Violation” is sent for the same issue, serving as a second warning.
• March 14, 2017: A “Final Non-Compliance Notice” is issued, noting violations in both space #40 and #38. The notice informs Ms. Ruffo of her right to a hearing with the Board of Directors if requested within 14 days.
• March 30, 2017: The first fine of $50.00 is assessed after Ms. Ruffo’s vehicle is again observed in space #38.
• April 17, 2017: Ms. Ruffo responds in writing, claiming she has permission to use the spaces and requests the fine be waived.
• April 27, 2017: The Association’s Board reviews and denies the waiver request. Ms. Ruffo was invited to address the Board but did not attend.
• June 6, 2017: A $200.00 fine is assessed for two observed violations in space #40.
• June 26, 2017: Another $200.00 fine is assessed for violations in spaces #40 and #38.
• July 11, 2017: The Association warns that access to community amenities (pool, fitness room) will be denied if fines remain unpaid. This action is later taken.
• August 31, 2017: A Board meeting is scheduled for Ms. Ruffo and her attorney, Mark F. Williman, to attend. Neither party attends, and they fail to provide advance notice. The Association incurs a $200 legal fee for its attorney’s attendance.
• September 25, 2017: Fines totaling $1,400.00 are assessed for multiple observed violations.
• September 27, 2017: The Association attempts to tow Ms. Ruffo’s vehicle. The attempt is aborted after she refuses to exit the vehicle and calls the Pima County Sheriff’s Office.
• October 4, 2017: The Association’s attorney informs Ms. Ruffo that another hearing will not be scheduled until she reimburses the Association for the $200 legal fee from the missed August 31 meeting.
• October 2017 – January 2018: A series of additional fines are assessed for ongoing violations, and Ms. Ruffo sends multiple letters requesting a hearing and protesting the fines and the $200 reimbursement requirement.
• April 17, 2018: Ms. Ruffo files the formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• September 18, 2018: The evidentiary hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Analysis of Arguments and Evidence
Petitioner’s Position (Michelle Ruffo)
Ms. Ruffo’s defense was multi-faceted, based on claims of permission, procedural errors by the Association, and alleged harassment.
• Claim of Permission: Ms. Ruffo testified that since 2005, she had been parking in spaces #38 and #40 with written permission. She claimed a 2006 agreement with the Morleys, then owners of unit #56, for space #40. She also submitted a 2018 email from Julie Ruiz, a tenant in unit #53, granting permission to use space #38.
• Allegations of Improper Notices: She argued the Association’s notices violated A.R.S. § 33-1242(C) because they did not always identify the person who observed the violation or provide photographic evidence.
• Allegations of Harassment and Retaliation: Through an attorney, Ms. Ruffo alleged she was being “unlawfully discriminated against and harassed in retaliation for her role related to allegations that HOA President Mitch Treese misappropriated HOA funds.” The ALJ noted that no evidence was submitted at the hearing to support this claim.
• Counter-Evidence: Ms. Ruffo submitted photographs dated from October 2016 to July 2017 showing other vehicles, including those of Associa maintenance and a landscaping contractor, parked in her assigned space #131.
• Dispute over Hearing Preconditions: She argued that the Association’s demand for a $200 reimbursement for its attorney’s fees as a condition for a new hearing was unlawful and not permitted under the CC&Rs.
Respondent’s Position (The Association)
The Association’s case rested on the explicit language of its governing documents and its adherence to established enforcement procedures.
• Primacy of the CC&Rs: The Association argued that its governing documents are unambiguous. Section 4.7 explicitly forbids owners from parking in any space other than the one assigned to their unit as a Limited Common Element.
• Formal Reallocation Process: Per Section 2.8.3, reallocating a Limited Common Element like a parking space requires a formal, written amendment executed by the unit owners involved and submitted to the Board for approval. Ms. Ruffo never followed this procedure.
• Rejection of Informal Agreements: The property manager testified that such private agreements are not legally binding or enforceable by the Association and create confusion, as evidenced by complaints from subsequent owners and tenants who were unable to use their assigned spaces.
• Adherence to Enforcement Policy: The Association followed its documented Violation Enforcement Policy, starting with a friendly reminder and escalating to formal notices and fines for continued non-compliance.
• Opportunity to Be Heard: Ms. Ruffo was provided opportunities to address the Board on April 27, 2017, and August 31, 2017. She failed to attend either meeting, and her failure to provide notice for the latter caused the Association to incur unnecessary legal fees.
• Witness Testimony: The former property manager, Ms. Chapman, testified that she had personally witnessed all the charged violations.
Governing Documents and Statutes
The case hinged on the interpretation of the Association’s CC&Rs and relevant Arizona state law.
Key CC&R Provisions
Section
Provision
Relevance
Motor Vehicles: “no Owner, Lessee or Occupant may park any . . . motor vehicle . . . in any Parking Spaces other than the Parking Space assigned to the Unit as a Limited Common Element.”
The central rule that the Petitioner was found to have repeatedly violated.
§ 2.8.3
Reallocation of Limited Common Elements: A reallocation requires a formal, recorded amendment executed by the owners and submitted to the Board.
The official procedure for changing parking space assignments, which the Petitioner did not follow for her informal agreements.
§ 13.1
Enforcement: Grants the Association the right to impose monetary penalties, suspend an owner’s right to use facilities, and tow vehicles in violation of the rules, after notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Provides the legal authority within the governing documents for the Association’s actions (fines, suspension of amenity access, attempted tow).
§ 1.36
“Parking Space” Definition: Defines a parking space as a portion of the Limited Common Elements.
Legally classifies the disputed parking spaces, making them subject to the rules governing Limited Common Elements.
Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.)
The Petitioner cited A.R.S. § 33-1242(C), which requires an association, upon written request from an owner, to provide details of an alleged violation, including the observer’s name and the date. The ALJ determined this statute was inapplicable to the dispute. The judge’s reasoning was that the statute applies specifically to notices regarding the “condition of the property owned by the unit owner” (i.e., her physical condo unit #52), not her use of Limited Common Elements like parking spaces, which she does not own.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ’s decision was a conclusive denial of the petition, siding entirely with the Association.
Final Order: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Michelle Ruffo’s petition against Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association is denied because Petitioner has not established that Respondent violated the CC&Rs or any statute in assessing fines against her for her repeated violations of CC&R § 4.7 by parking in spaces that were not assigned to her unit #52.”
Key Legal Conclusions
• Burden of Proof: The Petitioner bore the burden of proving her claims by a preponderance of the evidence and failed to do so.
• Unambiguous Covenants: The CC&Rs regarding parking are unambiguous and must be enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties. CC&R § 4.7 clearly requires owners to park in their assigned spaces.
• Invalidity of Informal Agreements: The ALJ found that the Petitioner’s reliance on informal agreements illustrated “the evils that the CC&Rs were designed to prevent.” These undocumented side deals create instability and conflict when properties are sold or new tenants arrive, undermining the security and order of the community’s parking plan.
• Respondent’s Proper Conduct: The Association was found to have followed its own enforcement policy and provided the Petitioner with opportunities to be heard.
• Attorney’s Fee Condition: While the CC&Rs do not explicitly authorize charging an owner for attorney’s fees as a precondition for a hearing, the ALJ noted that A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(18) allows an association to “exercise any . . . powers necessary and proper for the governance and operation.” Furthermore, civil statutes often require a party to pay for fees they cause an opponent to incur unnecessarily.
• Futility of a Board Hearing: The ALJ concluded that, in light of the Petitioner’s arguments and her “continued violation of Respondent’s parking policy over nearly two years,” a hearing before the Association’s Board would not have changed her behavior or the outcome of the matter.
Financial Implications
The conflict resulted in significant financial penalties for the Petitioner. The fines were assessed on an escalating basis for continued violations.
• March 30, 2017: $50.00
• June 6, 2017: $200.00
• June 26, 2017: $200.00
• August 9, 2017: $200.00
• September 25, 2017: $1,400.00
• October 17, 2017: $100.00
• November 6, 2017: $100.00
As of the hearing on September 18, 2018, the total outstanding balance on Ms. Ruffo’s account, including interest and certified letter fees, was $2,544.00.
Study Guide – 18F-H1818044-REL
Study Guide: Ruffo v. Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association
This guide is designed to review and assess understanding of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 18F-H1818044-REL, Michelle Ruffo v. Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing all information directly from the provided legal decision.
1. Who are the primary parties in this case, and what is the central dispute between them?
2. What was the Petitioner’s main justification for parking in spaces that were not assigned to her unit?
3. According to the Association’s CC&Rs, what is the formal procedure required to reallocate a Limited Common Element, such as a parking space?
4. Describe the key enforcement actions the Condo Association took against the Petitioner in response to the ongoing parking violations.
5. Why did the Administrative Law Judge determine that Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1242(B) and (C) did not apply in this case?
6. Summarize the incident involving the tow truck on September 27, 2017.
7. What reason did the Association’s attorney provide for requiring the Petitioner to pay a $200 fee before another hearing would be scheduled?
8. What evidence did the Petitioner submit to demonstrate that her own assigned parking space, #131, was frequently occupied by others?
9. Identify the two property managers who provided telephonic testimony on behalf of the Respondent.
10. What was the final ruling in this case, and what was the judge’s primary reason for this decision?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Michelle Ruffo, the Petitioner and owner of unit 52, and Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association, the Respondent. The central dispute is over fines imposed by the Association against Ms. Ruffo for her repeated violations of parking rules by parking in spaces not assigned to her unit.
2. The Petitioner justified her actions by claiming she had long-standing written permission from other unit owners or tenants to use their spaces. Specifically, she cited a 2006 agreement with the owners of unit #56 to use space #40 and more recent permission from a tenant in unit #53 to use space #38.
3. According to Section 2.8.3 of the CC&Rs, reallocating a Limited Common Element requires an amendment to the Declaration. This amendment must be executed by the owners involved, state how the element is being reallocated, and be submitted to the Board of Directors for approval before it can be recorded.
4. The Association’s enforcement actions escalated over time, beginning with a “Friendly Reminder” and moving to a “Notice of Violation” and a “Final Non-Compliance Notice.” Subsequently, the Association assessed escalating monetary fines, suspended the Petitioner’s access to amenities like the pool and fitness room, and attempted to have her vehicle towed.
5. The judge ruled the statute did not apply because it specifically pertains to written notices about the condition of the property owned by the unit owner. The dispute in this case was not about the condition of Ms. Ruffo’s unit (#52) but about her use of Limited Common Elements (parking spaces) that were not assigned to her.
6. On September 27, 2017, the Association attempted to tow the Petitioner’s vehicle from a space not assigned to her. The Petitioner was inside her vehicle and refused to leave, calling the Pima County Sheriff’s Office. The responding officer instructed the tow truck driver to remove the equipment and try again at another time.
7. The Association required the $200 fee to reimburse it for the attorney’s fees it incurred for a Board meeting scheduled on August 31, 2017. The Petitioner and her attorney at the time, Mr. Williman, failed to attend this meeting and did not provide notice of their absence until a few minutes before it was scheduled to begin.
8. The Petitioner submitted a series of dated photographs showing various other vehicles parked in her assigned space, #131. These vehicles included maintenance trucks bearing the Associa logo, a landscaping contractor’s truck and trailer, and several other private cars.
9. The two property managers who testified for the Respondent were Gabino Trejo, the current manager, and Vanessa Chapman Lubinsky (referred to as Ms. Chapman), the former manager.
10. The final ruling was a denial of Michelle Ruffo’s petition. The judge found that the Petitioner had not established that the Respondent violated any CC&Rs or statutes, concluding that the Association was justified in assessing fines for her repeated and clear violations of CC&R § 4.7, which requires owners to park in their assigned spaces.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, structuring your answer in a standard essay format.
1. Analyze the arguments and evidence presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent. Discuss the specific CC&R sections, witness testimonies, and exhibits each side used to support their claims, and explain why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found the Respondent’s position more convincing.
2. The concept of “Limited Common Elements” is central to this case. Using the definitions provided in the CC&Rs (Sections 1.31, 1.36, and 2.8.1(e)), explain the legal significance of this designation in the dispute over parking spaces. How did the specific rules for reallocating these elements (CC&R § 2.8.3) undermine the Petitioner’s primary defense?
3. Trace the timeline of communication and escalating enforcement actions taken by the Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association against Michelle Ruffo, beginning with the “Friendly Reminder” in August 2016. Evaluate whether the Association followed its own Violation Enforcement Policy and the powers granted to it in the CC&Rs throughout this process.
4. Discuss the role of legal representation and the various attorneys involved in this case (Nathan Tennyson, Mark F. Williman, Eric J. Thomae, Jonathan Olcott). How did their actions, communications, and, in one instance, inaction, impact the proceedings and the relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent?
5. The Petitioner argued that her right to due process was violated because the violation notices she received did not contain photographs or identify the person who observed the violation. Explain the Administrative Law Judge’s legal reasoning for rejecting this argument, specifically referencing the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1242 and the distinction made between a violation concerning the “condition of the property owned” versus the use of common elements.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms and Entities
Term / Entity
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Diane Mihalsky presided over the hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings.
A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)
The codified laws of the state of Arizona. Several statutes, including those under Title 33 (Property) and Title 32 (Professions and Occupations), were cited in the case.
Associa Property Management Services
The property management company employed by the Respondent to manage the condominium complex. Both Ms. Chapman and Mr. Trejo were employees of Associa.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The governing legal documents that set out the guidelines for a planned community or condominium. The CC&Rs define the rights and obligations of the homeowners’ association and its members.
Gabino Trejo
The current property manager for the Respondent at the time of the hearing.
Limited Common Elements
As defined in CC&R § 1.31, a portion of the Common Elements allocated for the exclusive use of one or more, but fewer than all, of the Units. Parking spaces are explicitly defined as Limited Common Elements.
Mark F. Williman, Esq.
An attorney and friend of the Petitioner who agreed to help her resolve issues with the Board. He failed to attend a scheduled Board meeting on her behalf on August 31, 2017.
Michelle Ruffo
The Petitioner in the case, owner of condominium unit 52, and member of the Respondent association.
Parking Space
As defined in CC&R § 1.36, a portion of the Limited Common Elements intended for parking a single motor vehicle and allocated to a specific Unit Owner for their exclusive use.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition or brings an action in a legal proceeding. In this case, Michelle Ruffo.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in this case, defined as evidence that is more convincing and has superior weight, inclining an impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.
Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association
The Respondent in the case; the condominium unit owners’ association for the development where the Petitioner resides.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed or an action is brought. In this case, the Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association.
Vanessa Chapman Lubinsky (Ms. Chapman)
The former property manager for the Respondent (from 2012 to early 2018) who handled most of the interactions and sent most of the violation notices to the Petitioner.
Violation Enforcement Policy
The Respondent’s official policy that outlines the procedure for addressing violations, including sending a “Friendly Reminder” and a “Notice of Violation,” and provides for a hearing if requested within 14 days.
Blog Post – 18F-H1818044-REL
How a Parking Spot Deal Led to a Tow Truck Standoff and a $2,544 HOA Bill: 4 Lessons
Introduction: The Handshake Deal That Cost a Fortune
It’s a common scenario in community living: you make a friendly, informal agreement with a neighbor. Maybe you agree to switch parking spots for convenience or let them use your guest pass. These simple handshake deals seem harmless, but what happens when they collide with the ironclad rules of a homeowners’ association (HOA)?
The real-life case of Michelle Ruffo and her condo association serves as a stark cautionary tale. A long-standing, informal parking arrangement escalated into a bitter dispute that culminated in a tow truck standoff, loss of amenities, and a final bill for $2,544 in fines and fees. This case reveals several surprising and critical lessons for anyone living in a community governed by an association.
1. Your Neighbor’s Permission Can Be Legally Worthless
The core of the dispute was Ms. Ruffo’s belief that she had the right to park in spaces other than her own. Since 2006, she had an agreement with another owner to use space #40. Later, she began parking in space #38, believing she had permission from that unit’s tenant. From her perspective, she had done her due diligence. This is the core conflict in community living: the perceived authority of a neighbor’s handshake versus the legal authority of the governing documents.
The association, however, operated under its official Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Those documents told a different story.
• Section 4.7 explicitly required owners to park only in their assigned spaces.
• Section 2.8.3 detailed the only valid procedure for changing parking allocations. Because parking spaces are “Limited Common Elements,” any reallocation required a formal, written amendment executed by the unit owners involved, submitted to the Board for approval, and then officially recorded.
Crucially, the property manager testified that the owner of the unit assigned to space #38 had explicitly denied giving Ms. Ruffo permission and reported that his tenants were complaining. Because Ms. Ruffo never followed the formal procedure, her informal agreements were not recognized or enforceable. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision highlighted the critical importance of these rules:
Because Petitioner never submitted any written agreement with another owner regarding reallocation of parking spaces to Respondent’s Board for its tacit approval, as CC&R § 2.8.3 requires, subsequent tenants and owners have no notice of Petitioner’s alleged agreements with their predecessors regarding parking spaces. If everyone adopted Petitioner’s sense of entitlement as to parking spaces at the Reflections, no one would be able to park their car with any security or plan.
2. Ignoring Official Notices Leads to More Than Just Fines
This conflict didn’t begin with a massive fine. The property management company, Associa, followed a documented escalation process that provided Ms. Ruffo with multiple opportunities to comply. For any homeowner, this documented paper trail should have been a five-alarm fire, signaling a problem that required immediate and formal resolution.
The warnings began on August 2, 2016, with a “Friendly Reminder,” followed by a “Notice of Violation” and a “Final Non-Compliance Notice.” The first fine of just $50 wasn’t assessed until March 30, 2017. But as the violations continued, so did the consequences. After a July 11, 2017 letter, the association shut off Ms. Ruffo’s “electric-key access to the pool and fitness center for the community,” a tangible loss of amenities.
The financial penalties then began to skyrocket. Fines of $200 were assessed in June and August. Then, on September 25, 2017, the association dropped the hammer: a single letter assessing $1,400 for 14 separate observed violations. Just two days later, on September 27, the dispute reached its climax. The association attempted to tow Ms. Ruffo’s vehicle. She was inside the car and refused to leave, prompting her to call the Sheriff’s Office to intervene. The situation had moved from letters and fines to a physical standoff in the parking lot.
3. Skipping a Hearing Can Get You a Bill for the HOA’s Lawyer
After retaining an attorney, Ms. Ruffo was scheduled to have her case heard by the Board on August 31, 2017. The association, anticipating a formal legal discussion, also had its own attorney present. In any formal dispute, failing to appear at your own requested hearing is a critical error. In this case, it not only cost Ruffo credibility but also came with an immediate invoice.
Minutes before the meeting, while the Board and its lawyer were waiting, Ruffo’s attorney sent a message that neither he nor his client would be attending. This last-minute cancellation had a direct financial consequence. The association’s attorney charged it $200 for the time spent on the aborted meeting. The Board then refused to schedule another hearing until Ms. Ruffo reimbursed the association for that $200 fee. This failure to engage was immediately followed by the association’s most severe actions: the $1,400 fine and the attempt to tow her vehicle.
4. “But They Do It Too!” Is Not a Winning Legal Defense
A common response to a violation notice is to point out that others are breaking the rules as well. Ms. Ruffo attempted this strategy, presenting photographic evidence that her own assigned space, #131, was frequently occupied by other vehicles, including maintenance vans bearing the property management company’s logo.
While the property manager testified that she had addressed the issue with the maintenance crew, the Judge ultimately found this argument unpersuasive. The ruling contained a crucial insight: The lesson isn’t just that this defense failed, but why it failed. The Judge noted that Ms. Ruffo “did not present any evidence… that she made any effort to report others parking in her assigned space when there was something that the property manager or Respondent could have done about it.” By failing to formally and properly report her own issue, she undermined her claim that the association was negligent, making it impossible to excuse her own persistent violations.
Conclusion: Read the Fine Print Before You Shake On It
This case serves as a powerful reminder of a fundamental truth of community living: in an HOA, the official, written governing documents are the ultimate authority. Informal “handshake deals,” no matter how reasonable they seem, can lead to serious consequences when they conflict with the rules. This dispute didn’t just involve letters; it led to escalating fines, the loss of amenities, a physical standoff with a tow truck, and ultimately a legal judgment.
This entire conflict, which cost thousands of dollars and countless hours, started with a parking spot—when was the last time you read your community’s rules?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michelle Ruffo(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf.
Carol Lundberg(witness) Resides in Unit 45; presented testimony by Petitioner.
Julie Ruiz(witness) Unit 53 Tenant Provided email confirming she gave Petitioner permission to park in Unit 53's space.
Mark F. Williman(attorney) Retained by Petitioner; failed to attend the August 31, 2017 Board meeting.
Eric J. Thomae(attorney) Retained by Petitioner sometime after October 24, 2017.
Respondent Side
Nathan Tennyson(HOA attorney) Brown Olcott, PLLC
Vanessa Chapman Lubinsky(property manager) Associa Property Management Services Former manager; referred to as Ms. Chapman in the decision.
Gabino Trejo(property manager) Associa Property Management Services Current manager.
John Pohlig(unit owner) Owner of unit assigned space #38; communicated he had not given Petitioner permission to park there.
Jonathan Olcott(HOA attorney)
Mitch Treese(HOA president) Alleged by Petitioner's attorney to have misappropriated HOA funds.
Neutral Parties
Diane Mihalsky(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Felicia Del Sol(administrative staff) Transmitted decision electronically.
Camelback Country Club Estates I & II Homeowners Association
Counsel
Diana J. Elston, J. Gary Linder
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs Section 12
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition related to landscaping (18F-H1818030-REL), but deemed Petitioner the prevailing party and ordered the refund of the $500 filing fee regarding the petition concerning the additional mailbox (18F-H1818031-REL) because the HOA improperly based the fine on CC&R Section 12.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the olive tree was alive, and a dead tree could be reasonably considered a violation of CC&R Section 28 requiring neatly trimmed/properly cultivated plantings (Case 18F-H1818030-REL).
Key Issues & Findings
Improper fine regarding additional freestanding mailbox
Petitioner challenged fines for an additional mailbox lacking architectural approval. The ALJ found that CC&R Section 12 (related to 'building') could not be applied to a mailbox, rendering the fine imposed under that section a violation by the Respondent. Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party in this docket number (18F-H1818031-REL).
Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $500.00 filing fee refund within thirty days.
Briefing Document: Holyoak v. Camelback Country Club Estates HOA
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes the findings and conclusions from an Administrative Law Judge Decision concerning two consolidated petitions filed by homeowner Jon Paul Holyoak against the Camelback Country Club Estates I & II Homeowners Association (HOA). The disputes centered on HOA-issued violations for landscaping maintenance and the presence of a freestanding mailbox.
The final judgment produced a split decision. The Petitioner, Mr. Holyoak, failed to prove the HOA acted improperly in the landscaping case and his petition was denied. However, he was deemed the prevailing party in the mailbox case, with the judge concluding the HOA had violated its own community documents (CC&Rs) by imposing a fine based on an inapplicable section. As the prevailing party in one of the two matters, Mr. Holyoak was awarded his $500 filing fee, to be paid by the HOA. The initial decision document required two subsequent nunc pro tunc orders to correct typographical errors.
Key Takeaways:
• Landscaping Petition (Denied): Mr. Holyoak was cited for failing to remove a “dead” olive tree. He argued the tree was merely “in distress.” The judge ruled that a reasonable person would consider the tree dead and that Mr. Holyoak failed to provide sufficient evidence to the contrary. A dead tree was found to be a potential violation of CC&R Section 28, which requires plantings to be “neatly trimmed” and “properly cultivated.”
• Mailbox Petition (Upheld): Mr. Holyoak was cited for an “additional mailbox” that was present when he purchased the property in 2012. The judge found the HOA’s enforcement problematic for two primary reasons:
1. The HOA cited three different CC&R sections across multiple notices.
2. The fine was ultimately based on Section 12, which pertains to “buildings” and was deemed inapplicable to a mailbox.
• Final Order: The HOA was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee. The decision is binding on the parties.
——————————————————————————–
Case Overview
The matter involves two petitions filed on February 2, 2018, by Petitioner Jon Paul Holyoak with the Arizona Department of Real Estate against the Respondent, Camelback Country Club Estates I & II Homeowners Association. The petitions alleged that the HOA had improperly cited Mr. Holyoak for violations of the community’s Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The two cases were consolidated for a single hearing.
This petition alleged that the HOA improperly cited Mr. Holyoak for violating Section 28 of the CC&Rs, which governs landscape maintenance.
HOA Actions and Timeline
The HOA, through its inspection team Associa Arizona, issued a series of notices regarding the landscaping on Mr. Holyoak’s property.
Notice Type
Description
Oct 17, 2017
Courtesy Notice
“Please remove the dead foliage on your lot.”
Dec 13, 2017
Courtesy Notice
“Please remove the dead olive tree in the front yard.”
Dec 13, 2017
Courtesy Notice
“There are several other trees that need to be removed as they have dead branches including the cassia…”
Jan 25, 2018
Notice of Violation
“2nd notice…There are several other trees that need to be removed as they have dead branches…” (Included photo of backyard).
Arguments Presented
• Petitioner’s Position (Holyoak):
◦ The olive tree in the front yard was not “dead” but rather “in distress,” and he was actively trying to nurse it back to health. He eventually had the tree removed on April 25, 2018, after months of effort.
◦ Regarding the backyard photo attached to the fine notice, he argued that the olive tree visible was healthy and that no dead trees were depicted.
◦ He requested that the fine be abated.
• Respondent’s Position (HOA):
◦ Board member Terry Rogers testified that the front yard olive tree had no leaves, appeared dead from the roadway, and was therefore not “properly trimmed” as required.
◦ He stated the backyard notice referred to a eucalyptus tree with several dead branches visible from the sidewalk bordering the property.
Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusion
The judge ruled in favor of the HOA in this matter.
• Burden of Proof: The Petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence, beyond “his self-serving statements,” that the olive tree was alive.
• Reasonable Interpretation: The judge concluded that “Any reasonable person viewing the olive tree, as depicted in the photographs presented, would understand the tree to be dead.”
• Violation of CC&Rs: A dead tree could reasonably be considered as not being “neatly trimmed” or “properly cultivated” in accordance with Section 28.
• Verdict: The Petitioner’s petition was denied. The judge found that the HOA had not improperly fined him for the landscaping violation.
This petition alleged that the HOA improperly cited Mr. Holyoak for having an “additional mailbox” in violation of the CC&Rs.
HOA Actions and Timeline
The HOA’s notices for the mailbox cited three different sections of the CC&Rs over time.
Notice Type
Description
CC&R Section Cited
Oct 17, 2017
Courtesy Notice
“Please remove the additional mailbox on your lot.”
Section 27
Dec 14, 2017
Courtesy Notice
“…there is an additional mailbox on your lot. In research of our files, there is no architectural application on file for the modification.”
Section 12
Jan 25, 2018
Notice of Violation
“2nd notice…Please remove the mailbox or provide the approved architectural application.” (Mailbox was painted bright pink and yellow at this time).
Section 12
Jan 25, 2018¹
Notice of Violation
“3rd notice…Please remove the mailbox or provide the approved architectural application.”
Section 8
¹The decision document states this notice was sent on January 25, 2018, but references a violation noted on March 15, 2018. The judge’s conclusions later clarify a notice referencing Section 8 was issued April 11, 2018, and was not properly before the tribunal.
Arguments Presented
• Petitioner’s Position (Holyoak):
◦ The freestanding mailbox was already in place when he purchased the home in 2012.
◦ At the time of purchase, he received a statement that there were no known covenant violations on the property.
◦ He argued the mailbox is required by the United States Postal Service (USPS), which no longer provides walking delivery and requires mailboxes to be reachable from a vehicle. The home’s other mailbox, built into a monument, is approximately 15 feet from the curb.
◦ A USPS mail carrier had confirmed this delivery requirement.
• Respondent’s Position (HOA):
◦ Board member Terry Rogers testified that the USPS mail carrier told him he would prefer to deliver to the permanent monument mailbox because the freestanding one was not secure.
◦ The mailbox had become an “eyesore,” as it was faded, peeling, and “listing to one side.”
◦ Of the 61 homes in the community, only three have freestanding mailboxes, and the Petitioner is the only one with two mailboxes.
Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusion
The judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner in this matter.
• Inconsistent Enforcement: The judge found it “problematic” that the HOA relied on three different sections of the CC&Rs in its notices.
• Pre-existing Structure: The Petitioner established that the mailbox was present at the time of his 2012 home purchase and that he was told of no existing violations. Therefore, the HOA’s argument regarding the lack of an architectural approval was “without merit.”
• Inapplicable CC&R Section: The fine was imposed based on Section 12 of the CC&Rs. The judge determined the plain language of this section relates to a “building” and “cannot be read to apply to Petitioner’s mailbox.”
• Violation by HOA: By imposing a fine based on an inapplicable section, the HOA was in violation of the CC&Rs.
• Verdict: The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The judge noted that the HOA could potentially impose fines for failure to maintain the mailbox or for painting it without approval, but those specific violations were not before the court.
——————————————————————————–
Final Order and Subsequent Corrections
• Order of May 25, 2018:
1. Petitioner’s petition in Case Number 18F-H1818030-REL (Landscaping) is denied.
2. Petitioner is deemed the prevailing party in Case Number 18F-H1818031-REL (Mailbox).
3. Respondent (HOA) is ordered to pay Petitioner his $500.00 filing fee within thirty days.
• Order Nunc Pro Tunc of May 30, 2018:
◦ This order corrected a typographical error in the original decision. The original text mistakenly stated the petition for the mailbox case (31-REL) was denied.
◦ Correction: The denial was correctly applied to the landscaping case: “it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition in Case Number 18F-H1818031-REL 18F-H1818030-REL is denied.”
• Order Nunc Pro Tunc of May 31, 2018:
◦ This order corrected a typographical error in the May 30 order, which had misstated the date of the original decision.
◦ Correction: “On April 26 May 25, 2018, the Administrative Law Judge issued the Administrative Law Judge Decision…”
——————————————————————————–
Key CC&R Sections Cited
• Section 8 (Architectural Control): Requires written approval from the Committee before any “building or other structure” is erected, altered, or repaired. This includes exterior finish, color, and architectural style.
• Section 12 (Buildings): States that “No building may be erected or maintained upon any Lot except one single family dwelling with private appurtenant garage and customary outbuildings” without prior written approval.
• Section 27 (Maintenance): Prohibits any building or structure from falling into disrepair and requires owners to keep them in good condition and adequately painted.
• Section 28 (Landscaping): Requires the owner of each lot to “at all times keep shrubs, trees, grass and plantings of every kind, on his lot mostly trimmed, properly cultivated, and free of trash, weeds and other unsightly material.”
Study Guide – 18F-H1818030-REL
Study Guide: Holyoak v. Camelback Country Club Estates I & II HOA
This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative hearing case between petitioner Jon Paul Holyoak and the respondent, Camelback Country Club Estates I & II Homeowners Association. It covers the core disputes, arguments, legal interpretations, and the final decision rendered by the Administrative Law Judge.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the case documents.
1. Who were the primary parties in this administrative case, and what were their roles?
2. What were the two distinct case numbers, and what violation did each one address?
3. According to Section 28 of the CC&Rs, what is the responsibility of a lot owner regarding landscaping?
4. What was the petitioner’s primary defense regarding the citation for a “dead” olive tree in his front yard?
5. What was the respondent’s argument for why the olive tree was a violation of the CC&Rs?
6. What key fact did the petitioner establish regarding the freestanding mailbox that was central to the judge’s decision in that matter?
7. Why did the Administrative Law Judge find the respondent’s enforcement actions regarding the mailbox to be “problematic”?
8. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge rule that the respondent violated the CC&Rs by fining the petitioner for the mailbox under Section 12?
9. What was the final outcome and financial penalty ordered in the consolidated cases?
10. What is an “Order Nunc Pro Tunc,” and why were two such orders issued after the initial decision?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Jon Paul Holyoak, the homeowner, who acted as the Petitioner. The Respondent was the Camelback Country Club Estates I & II Homeowners Association, which was represented by Gary Linder and Diana Elston.
2. The first case, No. 18F-H1818030-REL, addressed alleged landscaping violations under Section 28 of the CC&Rs concerning dead trees and foliage. The second case, No. 18F-H1818031-REL, addressed an alleged violation for an additional freestanding mailbox, primarily under Section 12 of the CC&Rs.
3. Section 28 of the CC&Rs requires that the owner of each lot shall at all times keep shrubs, trees, grass, and plantings neatly trimmed, properly cultivated, and free of trash, weeds, and other unsightly material.
4. The petitioner testified that the olive tree was not “dead” but was “in distress,” and that he and his landscaper were actively trying to nurse it back to health. He argued he should not be forced to remove a tree with dead branches while attempting to save it.
5. The respondent’s board member, Terry Rogers, testified that the olive tree had no leaves and appeared dead from the roadway. He contended that a dead tree could not be considered “properly trimmed” as required by the CC&Rs.
6. The petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the freestanding mailbox was already in place when he purchased the property in 2012. Furthermore, at the time of purchase, he was notified that there were no known covenant violations on the property.
7. The Judge found the respondent’s actions problematic because, over the course of four notices sent to the petitioner about the mailbox, the respondent relied on three different sections of the CC&Rs (Sections 27, 12, and 8). This inconsistency weakened the respondent’s position.
8. The Judge ruled that the plain language of Section 12 of the CC&Rs relates to a “building,” such as a single-family dwelling or garage. The Judge concluded that a mailbox cannot be considered a “building” under this section, making the fine imposed under this rule a violation of the CC&Rs by the respondent.
9. The petitioner’s petition regarding landscaping (18F-H1818030-REL) was denied. However, the petitioner was deemed the prevailing party in the mailbox case (18F-H1818031-REL), and the respondent was ordered to pay the petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.
10. “Nunc Pro Tunc” is a legal term for an order that corrects a clerical error in a prior court decision, with the correction being retroactive. The first order corrected the case number in the final ruling, and the second order corrected a date referenced in the first corrective order.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: Consider the following questions. Formulate a detailed response that synthesizes facts and arguments from the case documents to support your position.
1. Explain the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the decision and analyze how the petitioner met this burden of proof in the mailbox case but failed to meet it in the landscaping case.
2. Discuss the legal significance of the HOA’s inconsistent application of its CC&Rs in the mailbox dispute. Why did citing three different sections (27, 12, and 8) undermine the HOA’s case?
3. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of Section 12 of the CC&Rs. How does the “plain language” of the rule factor into the decision that a mailbox is not a “building”?
4. Examine the arguments presented by both parties regarding the freestanding mailbox, including the conflicting accounts of conversations with the USPS mail carrier. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s position.
5. The Judge noted that while the fine under Section 12 was improper, the HOA could potentially impose fines for failure to maintain the mailbox or for painting it without approval. Based on the facts presented, construct a hypothetical argument the HOA could have made that might have been successful.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
To reduce or remove. In the context of the hearing, the Petitioner asked that the fines be abated, meaning he requested they be cancelled or removed.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions, similar to a judge in a court of law. In this case, the ALJ was Tammy L. Eigenheer.
Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing legal documents that set forth the rules and regulations for a planned community or subdivision. The petitioner and respondent both based their arguments on interpretations of these documents.
Conclusions of Law
The section of a legal decision where the judge applies legal principles and rules (like the CC&Rs and state statutes) to the facts of the case to reach a final judgment.
Findings of Fact
The section of a legal decision that establishes the factual record of the case based on the evidence and testimony presented during the hearing.
Jurisdiction
The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The Arizona Department of Real Estate was determined to have jurisdiction to hear disputes between a property owner and a homeowners association.
Nunc Pro Tunc
A Latin phrase meaning “now for then.” It refers to a legal order that corrects a clerical error in a previous order, making the correction retroactive to the original date of the decision.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a lawsuit or files a petition seeking a legal remedy. In this case, Jon Paul Holyoak was the Petitioner.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in most civil cases. It means the greater weight of the evidence shows that a fact is more likely than not to be true. The Petitioner bore this burden of proof.
Prevailing Party
The party in a lawsuit who is found to have won the legal dispute. In case 18F-H1818031-REL, the Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party, which entitled him to have his filing fee reimbursed.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed; the defending party. In this case, the Camelback Country Club Estates I & II Homeowners Association was the Respondent.
Blog Post – 18F-H1818030-REL
Select all sources
636748.pdf
637227.pdf
637433.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
18F-H1818030-REL
3 sources
The sources document an Administrative Law Judge Decision concerning a dispute between Jon Paul Holyoak (Petitioner) and the Camelback Country Club Estates I & II Homeowners Association (Respondent), along with subsequent orders correcting clerical errors. The initial decision addresses two consolidated petitions: one regarding landscaping violations (dead trees) under CC&R Section 28, and a second concerning a disputed mailbox under various CC&R sections, particularly Section 12. While the Petitioner failed to prove the association improperly fined him for the dead tree, the judge determined the association was in violation of the CC&Rs for improperly citing Section 12 for the mailbox issue, leading the Petitioner to be deemed the prevailing party in the mailbox case and awarded his $500 filing fee. The subsequent documents, titled Order Nunc Pro Tunc, are procedural corrections to typographical errors found in the original decision’s text and date.
Based on 3 sources
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
John Paul Holyoak(petitioner) Also appears as 'Jon Paul Holyoak'
Respondent Side
Terry Rogers(board member) Camelback Country Club Estates I & II HOA Testified at hearing
Gary Linder(attorney) Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C. Also listed as 'J. Gary Linder'
Diana J. Elston(attorney) Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
Neutral Parties
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ)
Judy Lowe(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
Felicia Del Sol(clerk) Transmitting agent
LDettorre(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
DGardner(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
ncano(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
Camelback Country Club Estates I & II Homeowners Association
Counsel
Diana J. Elston, J. Gary Linder
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs Section 12
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition related to landscaping (18F-H1818030-REL), but deemed Petitioner the prevailing party and ordered the refund of the $500 filing fee regarding the petition concerning the additional mailbox (18F-H1818031-REL) because the HOA improperly based the fine on CC&R Section 12.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the olive tree was alive, and a dead tree could be reasonably considered a violation of CC&R Section 28 requiring neatly trimmed/properly cultivated plantings (Case 18F-H1818030-REL).
Key Issues & Findings
Improper fine regarding additional freestanding mailbox
Petitioner challenged fines for an additional mailbox lacking architectural approval. The ALJ found that CC&R Section 12 (related to 'building') could not be applied to a mailbox, rendering the fine imposed under that section a violation by the Respondent. Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party in this docket number (18F-H1818031-REL).
Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $500.00 filing fee refund within thirty days.
Briefing Document: Holyoak v. Camelback Country Club Estates HOA
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes the findings and conclusions from an Administrative Law Judge Decision concerning two consolidated petitions filed by homeowner Jon Paul Holyoak against the Camelback Country Club Estates I & II Homeowners Association (HOA). The disputes centered on HOA-issued violations for landscaping maintenance and the presence of a freestanding mailbox.
The final judgment produced a split decision. The Petitioner, Mr. Holyoak, failed to prove the HOA acted improperly in the landscaping case and his petition was denied. However, he was deemed the prevailing party in the mailbox case, with the judge concluding the HOA had violated its own community documents (CC&Rs) by imposing a fine based on an inapplicable section. As the prevailing party in one of the two matters, Mr. Holyoak was awarded his $500 filing fee, to be paid by the HOA. The initial decision document required two subsequent nunc pro tunc orders to correct typographical errors.
Key Takeaways:
• Landscaping Petition (Denied): Mr. Holyoak was cited for failing to remove a “dead” olive tree. He argued the tree was merely “in distress.” The judge ruled that a reasonable person would consider the tree dead and that Mr. Holyoak failed to provide sufficient evidence to the contrary. A dead tree was found to be a potential violation of CC&R Section 28, which requires plantings to be “neatly trimmed” and “properly cultivated.”
• Mailbox Petition (Upheld): Mr. Holyoak was cited for an “additional mailbox” that was present when he purchased the property in 2012. The judge found the HOA’s enforcement problematic for two primary reasons:
1. The HOA cited three different CC&R sections across multiple notices.
2. The fine was ultimately based on Section 12, which pertains to “buildings” and was deemed inapplicable to a mailbox.
• Final Order: The HOA was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee. The decision is binding on the parties.
——————————————————————————–
Case Overview
The matter involves two petitions filed on February 2, 2018, by Petitioner Jon Paul Holyoak with the Arizona Department of Real Estate against the Respondent, Camelback Country Club Estates I & II Homeowners Association. The petitions alleged that the HOA had improperly cited Mr. Holyoak for violations of the community’s Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The two cases were consolidated for a single hearing.
This petition alleged that the HOA improperly cited Mr. Holyoak for violating Section 28 of the CC&Rs, which governs landscape maintenance.
HOA Actions and Timeline
The HOA, through its inspection team Associa Arizona, issued a series of notices regarding the landscaping on Mr. Holyoak’s property.
Notice Type
Description
Oct 17, 2017
Courtesy Notice
“Please remove the dead foliage on your lot.”
Dec 13, 2017
Courtesy Notice
“Please remove the dead olive tree in the front yard.”
Dec 13, 2017
Courtesy Notice
“There are several other trees that need to be removed as they have dead branches including the cassia…”
Jan 25, 2018
Notice of Violation
“2nd notice…There are several other trees that need to be removed as they have dead branches…” (Included photo of backyard).
Arguments Presented
• Petitioner’s Position (Holyoak):
◦ The olive tree in the front yard was not “dead” but rather “in distress,” and he was actively trying to nurse it back to health. He eventually had the tree removed on April 25, 2018, after months of effort.
◦ Regarding the backyard photo attached to the fine notice, he argued that the olive tree visible was healthy and that no dead trees were depicted.
◦ He requested that the fine be abated.
• Respondent’s Position (HOA):
◦ Board member Terry Rogers testified that the front yard olive tree had no leaves, appeared dead from the roadway, and was therefore not “properly trimmed” as required.
◦ He stated the backyard notice referred to a eucalyptus tree with several dead branches visible from the sidewalk bordering the property.
Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusion
The judge ruled in favor of the HOA in this matter.
• Burden of Proof: The Petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence, beyond “his self-serving statements,” that the olive tree was alive.
• Reasonable Interpretation: The judge concluded that “Any reasonable person viewing the olive tree, as depicted in the photographs presented, would understand the tree to be dead.”
• Violation of CC&Rs: A dead tree could reasonably be considered as not being “neatly trimmed” or “properly cultivated” in accordance with Section 28.
• Verdict: The Petitioner’s petition was denied. The judge found that the HOA had not improperly fined him for the landscaping violation.
This petition alleged that the HOA improperly cited Mr. Holyoak for having an “additional mailbox” in violation of the CC&Rs.
HOA Actions and Timeline
The HOA’s notices for the mailbox cited three different sections of the CC&Rs over time.
Notice Type
Description
CC&R Section Cited
Oct 17, 2017
Courtesy Notice
“Please remove the additional mailbox on your lot.”
Section 27
Dec 14, 2017
Courtesy Notice
“…there is an additional mailbox on your lot. In research of our files, there is no architectural application on file for the modification.”
Section 12
Jan 25, 2018
Notice of Violation
“2nd notice…Please remove the mailbox or provide the approved architectural application.” (Mailbox was painted bright pink and yellow at this time).
Section 12
Jan 25, 2018¹
Notice of Violation
“3rd notice…Please remove the mailbox or provide the approved architectural application.”
Section 8
¹The decision document states this notice was sent on January 25, 2018, but references a violation noted on March 15, 2018. The judge’s conclusions later clarify a notice referencing Section 8 was issued April 11, 2018, and was not properly before the tribunal.
Arguments Presented
• Petitioner’s Position (Holyoak):
◦ The freestanding mailbox was already in place when he purchased the home in 2012.
◦ At the time of purchase, he received a statement that there were no known covenant violations on the property.
◦ He argued the mailbox is required by the United States Postal Service (USPS), which no longer provides walking delivery and requires mailboxes to be reachable from a vehicle. The home’s other mailbox, built into a monument, is approximately 15 feet from the curb.
◦ A USPS mail carrier had confirmed this delivery requirement.
• Respondent’s Position (HOA):
◦ Board member Terry Rogers testified that the USPS mail carrier told him he would prefer to deliver to the permanent monument mailbox because the freestanding one was not secure.
◦ The mailbox had become an “eyesore,” as it was faded, peeling, and “listing to one side.”
◦ Of the 61 homes in the community, only three have freestanding mailboxes, and the Petitioner is the only one with two mailboxes.
Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusion
The judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner in this matter.
• Inconsistent Enforcement: The judge found it “problematic” that the HOA relied on three different sections of the CC&Rs in its notices.
• Pre-existing Structure: The Petitioner established that the mailbox was present at the time of his 2012 home purchase and that he was told of no existing violations. Therefore, the HOA’s argument regarding the lack of an architectural approval was “without merit.”
• Inapplicable CC&R Section: The fine was imposed based on Section 12 of the CC&Rs. The judge determined the plain language of this section relates to a “building” and “cannot be read to apply to Petitioner’s mailbox.”
• Violation by HOA: By imposing a fine based on an inapplicable section, the HOA was in violation of the CC&Rs.
• Verdict: The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The judge noted that the HOA could potentially impose fines for failure to maintain the mailbox or for painting it without approval, but those specific violations were not before the court.
——————————————————————————–
Final Order and Subsequent Corrections
• Order of May 25, 2018:
1. Petitioner’s petition in Case Number 18F-H1818030-REL (Landscaping) is denied.
2. Petitioner is deemed the prevailing party in Case Number 18F-H1818031-REL (Mailbox).
3. Respondent (HOA) is ordered to pay Petitioner his $500.00 filing fee within thirty days.
• Order Nunc Pro Tunc of May 30, 2018:
◦ This order corrected a typographical error in the original decision. The original text mistakenly stated the petition for the mailbox case (31-REL) was denied.
◦ Correction: The denial was correctly applied to the landscaping case: “it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition in Case Number 18F-H1818031-REL 18F-H1818030-REL is denied.”
• Order Nunc Pro Tunc of May 31, 2018:
◦ This order corrected a typographical error in the May 30 order, which had misstated the date of the original decision.
◦ Correction: “On April 26 May 25, 2018, the Administrative Law Judge issued the Administrative Law Judge Decision…”
——————————————————————————–
Key CC&R Sections Cited
• Section 8 (Architectural Control): Requires written approval from the Committee before any “building or other structure” is erected, altered, or repaired. This includes exterior finish, color, and architectural style.
• Section 12 (Buildings): States that “No building may be erected or maintained upon any Lot except one single family dwelling with private appurtenant garage and customary outbuildings” without prior written approval.
• Section 27 (Maintenance): Prohibits any building or structure from falling into disrepair and requires owners to keep them in good condition and adequately painted.
• Section 28 (Landscaping): Requires the owner of each lot to “at all times keep shrubs, trees, grass and plantings of every kind, on his lot mostly trimmed, properly cultivated, and free of trash, weeds and other unsightly material.”
