The Administrative Law Judge granted the petition filed by the Cross Creek Ranch Community Association, finding that Turquoise Textures, LLC violated CC&Rs Article 3, Section 3.1.3 and Article 7, Section 7.5 by clear cutting old growth trees and vegetation in violation of approved plans. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500 filing fee and comply with governing documents.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by clear cutting old growth trees and vegetation contrary to approved plans.
Petitioner alleged Respondent clear cut approximately 30 old growth trees and native vegetation, violating approved plans and governing documents, and presenting a nuisance. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner sustained its burden of proof that Respondent violated the Association’s governing documents, regardless of whether Respondent directed the general contractor, and granted the petition.
Orders: Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds and henceforth comply with the provisions of the governing documents.
Briefing Document: Cross Creek Ranch Community Association vs. Turquoise Textures, LLC
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the case Cross Creek Ranch Community Association vs. Turquoise Textures, LLC (No. 25F-H005-REL), heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The central dispute involved the unauthorized clear-cutting of approximately 30 old-growth trees and native vegetation from a lot owned by William D. Durham, principal of Turquoise Textures, LLC.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Nicole Robinson, ultimately ruled in favor of the Petitioner, the Cross Creek Ranch Community Association (HOA). The decision found that Mr. Durham violated the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Design Guidelines. While Mr. Durham’s primary defense was to blame his general contractor, the ALJ’s decision was based on credible testimony from the contractor implicating Mr. Durham, a documented pattern of non-compliance by Mr. Durham, and his own admission that the lot was cleared in violation of his approved plans.
The HOA sought a court order compelling Mr. Durham to plant 30 trees, 10-12 feet in height, by March 15, 2025. The final OAH order granted the HOA’s petition, requiring Mr. Durham to comply with the governing documents and reimburse the association’s $500 filing fee.
Case Overview
Parties Involved
Name / Entity
Key Role/Witness For
Petitioner
Cross Creek Ranch Community Association
Homeowners’ Association alleging violation of governing documents.
Respondent
Turquoise Textures, LLC (William D. Durham)
Property owner accused of violating governing documents.
Adjudicator
Nicole Robinson
Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings.
Witness
Greg Chambers
Petitioner; HOA Board Member.
Witness
Steve Germaine
Petitioner; Member of Architectural Review Committee (ARC), former ARC Chair.
Witness
Daniel Donahghue
Petitioner; Current ARC Chair and Board Member.
Witness
Jeffrey Penchina
Petitioner; Member of the ARC.
Witness
Timothy Smith
Petitioner; General Contractor hired by William Durham.
Core Allegation and Relief Sought
The HOA filed a petition on July 16, 2024, alleging that in September 2023, the Respondent clear-cut his lot of 20-30 old-growth trees (Junipers and Pinions) and native vegetation. This action was in direct violation of his ARC-approved plans, which were contingent on those plantings remaining in place. The HOA contended this violated:
• CC&Rs Article 3, Section 3.1.3: Pertaining to architectural approval and control.
• CC&Rs Article 7, Section 7.5: Pertaining to improper maintenance and use of lots.
The HOA argued that the clear-cutting was done to improve Mr. Durham’s view and detrimentally affected the community’s appearance and value. The specific relief requested was an order compelling Mr. Durham to plant 30 trees (10 to 12 feet in size) and replace additional vegetation by March 15, 2025.
Chronology of Key Events
• April 18, 2021: Prior to purchasing the lot, William Durham meets with ARC member Steve Germaine and is informed via a follow-up email that “The ARC does not approve the removal of trees… solely for the purpose of preserving or improving a view.”
• May 3, 2021: William Durham purchases Lot 62 in Cross Creek Ranch.
• July 7, 2022: Mr. Durham receives permission from the ARC to remove four specific dead trees.
• July 9, 2022: Mr. Germaine observes Mr. Durham removing more than the four approved dead trees and instructs him to stop.
• June 7, 2023: The ARC approves Mr. Durham’s residential and landscape plans, which show the preservation of existing trees and vegetation in the “transitional area.”
• August 29, 2023: A pre-construction meeting is held with Mr. Durham, his General Contractor (GC) Timothy Smith, and ARC members. ARC member Jeffrey Penchina testified that Mr. Durham personally assured him no trees outside the construction envelope would be removed.
• September 2023: Over approximately three days, Mr. Smith’s company clear-cuts the lot of 30+ old-growth trees and shrubs.
• October 2023: Following the discovery of the clearing, the ARC sends a letter to Mr. Durham to cease construction.
• October 6, 2023: Mr. Durham files a complaint with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (ROC) against Tim Smith, blaming him for the tree removal.
• February 9, 2024: Mr. Durham transfers the property title to Turquoise Textures, LLC.
• July 16, 2024: The HOA files its petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• October 15, 2024: Mr. Durham submits a revised landscape plan to the HOA.
• November 4, 2024: The HOA responds to the plan, requiring 10-12 foot trees for remediation.
• November 11, 2024: Mr. Durham sends a detailed email responding to the HOA’s requirements.
• November 26, 2024: The OAH hearing is conducted virtually.
• December 16, 2024: The ALJ issues a final decision granting the HOA’s petition. A separate minute entry notes that documents filed by Mr. Durham after the hearing record closed would not be considered.
Key Testimony and Arguments
Petitioner’s Case (Cross Creek Ranch HOA)
The HOA presented a case built on documented warnings, contractual obligations, and direct eyewitness testimony.
• Established Pattern of Non-Compliance: Witness Steve Germaine testified that he warned Mr. Durham about the rules regarding tree removal for views even before the lot was purchased in April 2021. He further testified to the incident on July 9, 2022, where he witnessed Mr. Durham cutting down live trees without authorization, beyond the four dead trees he had permission for.
• Violation of Approved Plans: Daniel Donahghue and Jeffrey Penchina testified that during the pre-construction meeting on August 29, 2023, the rules were clearly explained. Mr. Penchina stated, “he assured me that nothing outside of the construction envelope would be removed.” The approved plans, entered as evidence, explicitly showed the preservation of the natural landscape in the transitional area.
• Direct Culpability via GC Testimony: The general contractor, Timothy Smith, provided critical testimony directly contradicting Mr. Durham’s defense.
◦ Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Durham directed the clear-cutting: “he started to point out at trees that were in disturbing the… surrounding views… I let him know, well, now we’re going outside of the construction envelope. And he said he doesn’t really care.”
◦ He testified that Mr. Durham was on-site during the three-day clearing process and that the business relationship fractured later over non-payment for subsequent work, not over the tree removal.
Respondent’s Defense (William D. Durham)
Mr. Durham admitted the plans were violated but placed all blame on his general contractor and portrayed the HOA as a hostile and unresponsive entity.
• Blame Assigned to General Contractor: Mr. Durham’s central argument was that his GC acted against instructions. He stated, “I was forced to have a GC that I didn’t need, and the GC insisted on doing all the initial work… He ignored all the directives from Mark and from me.” He testified that he “absolutely not” directed Mr. Smith to clear the land and claimed to be out of town for most of the clearing.
• Allegations of HOA Harassment and Inefficiency: Mr. Durham repeatedly described the HOA as slow, uncooperative, and corrupt.
◦ He claimed he was trying to remediate the issue but the HOA was “very very very slow to ever get back to me.”
◦ He accused the HOA of “moving the goalposts” by demanding 10-12 foot trees, a requirement he said was never mentioned until the hearing.
◦ He testified he was facing over “$40,000 in fines” and was being harassed by specific members. He stated, “There’s a degree of corruption and cronyism in this HOA that is deeply disturbing.”
• Proactive Remediation Efforts: Mr. Durham asserted he had been proactive, submitting a new landscape plan with 32 plants. He testified, “all I need is their input back that’s helpful to resolve everything.” He repeatedly requested a single liaison from the ARC to facilitate faster solutions.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision
The ALJ’s decision, issued December 16, 2024, was a conclusive victory for the Petitioner.
Findings of Fact
The ALJ established a clear factual record that supported the HOA’s position, highlighting:
• The pre-purchase warning to Mr. Durham in April 2021 regarding tree removal.
• The unauthorized removal of viable trees in July 2022.
• The September 2023 clear-cutting incident, which the judge factually concluded occurred at Mr. Durham’s direction. Finding #15 states: “Mr. Smith, the general contractor, cleared Lot 64 of approximately 30 plus trees and shrubs that were not included in the approved plans per Respondent’s instruction.”
Conclusions of Law
Based on the evidence, the ALJ made the following legal conclusions:
• The Petitioner (HOA) successfully met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the governing documents.
• The ALJ identified a clear “pattern” of behavior, noting Mr. Durham began “failing to heed the ARC’s directions in July 2022.”
• Critically, the judge determined that even without the GC’s testimony, Mr. Durham’s own admission was sufficient for a finding of violation: “Respondent admitted what happened to his Lot was not a part of the approved plan and, hence, was a violation of Petitioner’s CC&Rs and Design Guidelines.”
Final Order
The OAH issued the following orders:
1. IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition be granted.
2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00.
3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall henceforth comply with the provisions of the governing documents.
Study Guide – 25F-H005-REL
Select all sources
1246254.pdf
1246768.aac
1246769.aac
1252576.pdf
1252586.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
25F-H005-REL
5 sources
These sources document a legal dispute and administrative hearing between the Cross Creek Ranch Community Association and homeowner William Durham, operating as Turquoise Textures LLC. The association alleged that Durham violated community governing documents by clear-cutting approximately 30 protected old-growth trees to improve his property’s view, contradicting his approved landscape plans. While Durham blamed his general contractor for the unauthorized removal, testimony from the contractor and association members suggested Durham directed the clearing personally. The Office of Administrative Hearings ultimately ruled in favor of the association, finding Durham in violation of the CC&Rs and Design Guidelines. Consequently, the court ordered Durham to reimburse filing fees and mandated future compliance with community standards, which included a demand for the replanting of mature trees by March 2025.
What are the specific landscaping violations alleged by the Association?
How did the dispute over clear-cutting trees affect the build?
What final ruling did the Administrative Law Judge issue?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 5:13 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 25F-H005-REL
Select all sources
1246254.pdf
1246768.aac
1246769.aac
1252576.pdf
1252586.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
25F-H005-REL
5 sources
These sources document a legal dispute and administrative hearing between the Cross Creek Ranch Community Association and homeowner William Durham, operating as Turquoise Textures LLC. The association alleged that Durham violated community governing documents by clear-cutting approximately 30 protected old-growth trees to improve his property’s view, contradicting his approved landscape plans. While Durham blamed his general contractor for the unauthorized removal, testimony from the contractor and association members suggested Durham directed the clearing personally. The Office of Administrative Hearings ultimately ruled in favor of the association, finding Durham in violation of the CC&Rs and Design Guidelines. Consequently, the court ordered Durham to reimburse filing fees and mandated future compliance with community standards, which included a demand for the replanting of mature trees by March 2025.
What are the specific landscaping violations alleged by the Association?
How did the dispute over clear-cutting trees affect the build?
What final ruling did the Administrative Law Judge issue?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 5:13 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
John Kalinich(representative) Cross Creek Ranch Community Association
Greg Chambers(board member / witness) Cross Creek Ranch Community Association
Daniel K. Donahghue(board member / witness) Cross Creek Ranch Community Association ARC Chair
Steven M. Germaine(ARC member / witness) Cross Creek Ranch Community Association
Jeffrey Panchina(ARC member / witness) Cross Creek Ranch Community Association
Timothy C. Smith(witness (GC)) Former General Contractor for Respondent
Respondent Side
William D. Durham(respondent (principal)) Turquoise Textures, LLC
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Outcome Summary
Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party only regarding the Respondent's violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 (failure to provide notice for hiring Mulcahy and Kinney). Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. All other claims, including the alleged Bylaws violation and the violation related to hiring Osselaer, were dismissed.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the Bylaws violation. The HOA successfully argued that the hiring of Osselaer was conducted during a valid emergency board meeting, exempting it from open meeting notice requirements.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Kinney and Mulcahy)
Sunset Plaza decided to hire Kinney Management and Mulcahy Law Firm at board meetings without informing its members of those meetings.
Orders: Respondent Sunset Plaza must pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Osselaer)
Petitioner alleged violation regarding the hiring of Osselaer Management Company, but the ALJ found the association was exempt because the decision was made at a valid emergency board meeting.
Orders: Petition dismissed in this respect.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Failure to keep correct and complete books and records of account
Petitioner alleged Sunset Plaza failed to keep accurate financial records, pointing out discrepancies and an unexplained reserve deficit between 2015 and 2016 balance sheets.
Orders: Petition dismissed in all other respects.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Analytics Highlights
Topics: open meeting violation, emergency meeting, governing documents, financial records, condominium association
Additional Citations:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 41-2198.01
Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
18F-H1817003-REL Decision – 605735.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:21:29 (112.9 KB)
Briefing Doc – 18F-H1817003-REL
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Carr v. Sunset Plaza Condo Association
Executive Summary
This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge’s decision in the case of David B. Carr versus the Sunset Plaza Condo Association (Case No. 18F-H1817003-REL). The central conflict involved a petition filed by Mr. Carr, a condominium owner, alleging that the Association’s Board of Management violated Arizona’s open meeting law and engaged in financial mismanagement.
The final ruling was a partial victory for the petitioner. The judge found that Sunset Plaza violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248 by failing to provide members with proper notice of board meetings where decisions were made to hire Kinney Management Services and the Mulcahy Law Firm. The Association admitted to this failure, citing a misunderstanding of the law, and pledged future compliance. As the prevailing party on this specific issue, Mr. Carr was awarded reimbursement for his $500 filing fee.
However, the judge dismissed all of Mr. Carr’s other allegations. The claim that a meeting to hire Osselaer Management Company violated the open meeting law was rejected, as the judge deemed it a valid emergency meeting exempt from notice requirements. Furthermore, Mr. Carr’s claims of financial mismanagement and inaccurate record-keeping in violation of the Association’s bylaws were not substantiated. The judge accepted the Association’s defense that alleged financial discrepancies stemmed from a change in accounting practices by a new management company, not from an actual deficit. No civil penalty was imposed on the Association.
I. Case Overview
• Case Number: 18F-H1817003-REL
• Forum: Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona
• Petitioner: David B. Carr
• Respondent: Sunset Plaza Condo Association
• Administrative Law Judge: Velva Moses-Thompson
• Hearing Date: November 21, 2017
• Decision Date: November 22, 2017
• Core Dispute: A petition filed by a condo owner alleging the association’s board violated state statutes and its own bylaws concerning open meetings, financial record-keeping, and the execution of contracts.
II. Petitioner’s Allegations (David B. Carr)
On August 14, 2017, Mr. Carr filed a petition outlining two primary grievances against the Sunset Plaza Condo Association.
A. Violation of Open Meeting Law (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248)
Mr. Carr alleged that the Association’s Board of Management took official action without holding properly authorized and noticed board meetings. This resulted in unapproved contracts and expenditures.
Direct Quotation from Petition:
“SUNSET PLAZA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION BOARD OF MANAGEMENT TAKES ACTION WITHOUT HOLDING AUTHORIZED BOARD MEETING IN VIOLATION OF AZ STATUTE 33-1248. THESE UNAUTHORIZED MEETINGS HAVE RESULTED IN CONTRACTS WITH MANAGEMENT FIRMS AND ATTORNEYS. THESE CONTRACTS HAVE RESULTED IN EXPENSES NOT APPROVED OR REVIEWED BY CONDO OWNERS.”
• Specific Contracts Cited:
◦ Kinney Management (October 2016)
◦ Osselaer Real Estate (September 2016)
◦ Mulcahy Law Firm (May 2016)
• Requested Remedy: Cancellation of all contracts entered into without a properly called board meeting and personal repayment of all related expenditures by the signatory.
B. Violation of Bylaws and Financial Mismanagement (Article XI)
Mr. Carr contended that the Association violated Article XI of its bylaws, which requires it to “keep correct and complete books and records of account.” He identified specific financial discrepancies based on his analysis of the Association’s financial statements.
• Alleged Reserve Fund Discrepancy: Mr. Carr claimed an “unexplained reserve deficit of $10,295.09” based on the following figures, noting there were no reported reserve expenses in 2016.
Financial Statement Item
Amount
2015 Year-End Reserve Equity
$10,295.09
2016 Income Statement Reserve Deposit
$9,180.00
2016 Year-End Balance Sheet Reserve Total
$2,295.44
• Additional Discrepancies:
◦ The 2016 year-end balance sheet failed to identify prior and current year operating equity.
◦ An “expanded 2016 balance sheet” calculation revealed a discrepancy of $2,808.42.
• Requested Remedy: A formal audit of the 2016 and 2017 financial statements and improved future reporting to identify reserve balances and homeowner equity.
III. Respondent’s Defense (Sunset Plaza Condo Association)
The Association, represented by Paige Marks, Esq., and through the testimony of board member Marilyn Gelroth, presented a defense against both allegations.
A. Response to Open Meeting Allegations
• Admission: The Association conceded that it “did not provide notice of its board meetings when it decided to hire Kinney and the Mulcahy firm.”
• Justification: This failure was attributed to the board’s misunderstanding of the open meeting law. The Association represented to the judge that it would abide by the law in the future.
• Emergency Meeting Exemption: The Association argued that the decision to hire Osselaer Management was made at a valid emergency board meeting on September 21, 2016.
◦ Timeline of Events: Kinney Management Services retracted its offer to manage the property on September 15, 2016, after receiving notice of a complaint Mr. Carr had filed against them with the Attorney General’s Office.
◦ Urgency: This retraction created an urgent need for a new management company. Ms. Gelroth testified that the board “needed to move quickly because members needed to know where to send payments.” This situation, they argued, constituted an emergency under the law.
B. Response to Financial Allegations
• Flawed Comparison: The Association contended that Mr. Carr’s financial analysis was fundamentally flawed because he “erroneously compared Sunset Plaza’s 2015 year end balance statement to its 2016 income statement,” which are two different types of financial records.
• Change in Accounting Methods: The primary reason for the apparent discrepancies was a change in how financial data was categorized.
◦ The previous management company, Kolby, separated reserve amounts in its financial statements.
◦ The new management company, Osselaer, “does not separate reserve amounts” and is not required by law to do so. This difference in reporting style accounted for the changes Mr. Carr identified as a deficit.
IV. Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The judge, Velva Moses-Thompson, found Ms. Gelroth’s testimony credible and issued a split decision, upholding one of Mr. Carr’s claims while dismissing the other.
A. Finding on Financial Mismanagement Allegation
Conclusion: Petition Dismissed The judge ruled that Mr. Carr “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Sunset Plaza violated Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws.” The Association’s explanation regarding the different accounting methods used by Kolby and Osselaer, and the flawed comparison of financial documents, was accepted as a valid defense.
B. Finding on Open Meeting Law Allegations
Conclusion: Partial Violation Confirmed
• Hiring of Osselaer Management (No Violation): The judge concluded that Sunset Plaza did not violate Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248 in this instance. The decision was made at a legitimate emergency board meeting, which exempts the board from the 48-hour notice requirement. The minutes of the meeting stated the reason for the emergency.
• Hiring of Kinney Management and Mulcahy Law Firm (Violation Confirmed): The judge found that Mr. Carr “established by preponderance of the evidence that Sunset Plaza violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. 33-1248” when it decided to hire these two firms. The Association did not dispute that it failed to inform members of these board meetings, which was a key factor in the ruling.
C. Final Order
Based on the findings and conclusions of law, the judge issued the following order:
1. Prevailing Party: Petitioner David B. Carr is deemed the prevailing party solely with regard to the violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248.
2. Reimbursement: Sunset Plaza is ordered to pay Mr. Carr his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days of the order.
3. Dismissal: All other aspects of Mr. Carr’s petition are dismissed.
4. Penalty: No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in the matter.
Study Guide – 18F-H1817003-REL
Study Guide: Carr v. Sunset Plaza Condo Association (No. 18F-H1817003-REL)
This study guide provides a review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of David B. Carr versus the Sunset Plaza Condo Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a comprehensive understanding of the case’s facts, legal arguments, and final judgment.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer each question in 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the source document.
1. What were the two primary allegations David B. Carr made against the Sunset Plaza Condo Association in his petition?
2. Identify the three specific contracts Mr. Carr claimed resulted from unauthorized board meetings.
3. Why did Kinney Management Services retract its offer to manage Sunset Plaza in September 2016?
4. What justification did Sunset Plaza provide for holding an emergency board meeting to hire Osselaer Management Company?
5. According to Sunset Plaza, why did Mr. Carr mistakenly believe there was a financial discrepancy in the association’s records?
6. Did the Sunset Plaza board admit to violating the open meeting law? If so, what was their explanation?
7. What authority do the association’s Declaration and Bylaws grant the Board of Management regarding contracts?
8. How does Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248 define the requirements for an “emergency meeting” of a board of directors?
9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding Sunset Plaza’s hiring of the Osselaer Management Company?
10. What specific orders were issued against Sunset Plaza as a result of the judge’s decision?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. David B. Carr alleged that the Sunset Plaza Condo Association violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248 by holding unauthorized board meetings to enter into contracts. He also alleged the association violated Article XI of its bylaws by failing to keep correct and complete books and records, citing an unexplained deficit in reserve accounts.
2. Mr. Carr’s petition identified contracts with Kinney Management (October 2016), Osselaer Real Estate (September 2016), and the Mulcahy Law Firm (May 2016). He argued these contracts were entered into without a properly called board meeting and resulted in unapproved expenses.
3. Kinney Management Services retracted its acceptance of Sunset Plaza’s offer after receiving a complaint that Mr. Carr had filed against Kinney with the Attorney General’s Office. This information was stated in a letter from Kinney to Sunset Plaza on September 15, 2016.
4. The board held an emergency meeting because after Kinney retracted its offer, they needed to move quickly to hire a new management company. Board member Marilyn Gelroth testified it was important to have a single company handle all affairs and that members needed to know where to send payments without delay.
5. Sunset Plaza contended that Mr. Carr erroneously compared two different types of financial records: the 2015 year-end balance sheet and the 2016 income statement. Furthermore, the association argued that the new management company, Osselaer, categorized financials differently than the previous company, Kolby, and did not separate out reserve amounts.
6. Yes, Sunset Plaza conceded that it did not provide notice to its members of the board meetings when it decided to hire Kinney Management and the Mulcahy Law Firm. The association contended that it did not understand the open meeting law at the time and represented to the Tribunal that it would abide by the law in the future.
7. The Declaration grants the Board the power to “enter into contracts” and generally have the powers of an apartment house manager. Article VII, section 11 of the Bylaws states the Board of Management “shall enter into contracts on behalf of the association.”
8. The statute allows an emergency meeting to be called to discuss business or take action that cannot be delayed for the required forty-eight hours’ notice. At such a meeting, the board may only act on emergency matters, and the minutes must state the reason necessitating the emergency.
9. The judge concluded that Sunset Plaza did not violate Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248 when it hired Osselaer. The decision was made at a legitimate emergency board meeting, which exempted the board from the standard open meeting notification requirements.
10. The judge ordered that the Petitioner, David Carr, be deemed the prevailing party regarding the violation of the open meeting law. It was further ordered that Sunset Plaza pay Mr. Carr his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days, and his petition was dismissed in all other respects.
——————————————————————————–
Suggested Essay Questions
1. Analyze the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as it was applied in this case. How did David B. Carr meet this burden for his claim about the open meeting law but fail to meet it for his claim about financial mismanagement?
2. Discuss the legal requirements and exceptions for board meetings under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248. Use the board’s decisions to hire Kinney Management, the Mulcahy Law Firm, and Osselaer Management Company as distinct examples to illustrate the application of this law.
3. Evaluate Sunset Plaza’s defense regarding the financial discrepancies alleged by Mr. Carr. Why was this defense successful, and what does it reveal about the potential for confusion when an association changes management companies and accounting methods?
4. Examine the powers and duties of the Sunset Plaza Board of Management as outlined in its Declaration and Bylaws. How do these documents support the board’s authority to enter into contracts, and how does that authority intersect with the procedural requirements of state law?
5. Based on the judge’s decision, critique the actions and governance of the Sunset Plaza board. What were their key procedural mistakes, what was their stated reason for these errors, and what were the ultimate consequences of their violation of the open meeting law?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official, in this case Velva Moses-Thompson, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and renders a decision based on evidence and law.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248
An Arizona statute, also known as the open meeting law, which requires that meetings of a unit owners’ association and its board of directors be open to all members. It outlines requirements for meeting notices, member participation, and exceptions for emergency meetings.
Bylaws
The rules and regulations adopted by an association to govern its internal management. In this case, Article XI requires the association to keep correct and complete books, records, and minutes.
Conclusions of Law
The section of the decision where the judge applies the relevant statutes and legal principles to the established facts of the case to reach a legal judgment.
Declaration
The legal document that creates a condominium or planned community. The Sunset Plaza Declaration grants the Board of Management the power to enter into contracts and manage the association’s affairs.
Emergency Meeting
A type of board meeting that can be called without the standard 48-hour notice to discuss business that cannot be delayed. Action at such a meeting is limited to emergency matters only.
Findings of Facts
The section of the decision that outlines the factual history of the dispute as determined by the judge based on testimony and evidence presented at the hearing.
The final, binding ruling of the Administrative Law Judge. In this case, the Order declared Mr. Carr the prevailing party, required Sunset Plaza to refund his filing fee, and dismissed the other parts of his petition.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action or files a petition seeking a legal remedy. In this case, the Petitioner was David B. Carr.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof required in this civil administrative hearing. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Prevailing Party
The party who wins the legal case or a significant issue within it. The judge declared Mr. Carr the prevailing party regarding the violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent was the Sunset Plaza Condo Association.
Blog Post – 18F-H1817003-REL
⚖️
No emoji found
Loading
18F-H1817003-REL
1 source
This source is the Administrative Law Judge Decision resulting from a hearing held on November 21, 2017, between Petitioner David B. Carr and the Respondent Sunset Plaza Condo Association. Mr. Carr brought a petition alleging that the Condo Association violated Arizona Revised Statutes (Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248) and its own bylaws by taking action without authorized board meetings and exhibiting financial discrepancies, specifically concerning reserve funds. The decision found that the Condo Association did violate the open meeting law when hiring Kinney and the Mulcahy law firms but was exempt from the open meeting requirement for the emergency meeting that resulted in hiring Osselaer Management Company. Ultimately, the Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party regarding the statutory violation and was awarded a filing fee of $500.00, though all other aspects of the petition were dismissed.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
David B. Carr(petitioner) Sunset Plaza Condo Association (member)
Respondent Side
Paige Marks(attorney) Sunset Plaza Condo Association Appeared on behalf of Respondent
Marilyn Gelroth(board member) Sunset Plaza Condo Association Testified at hearing
Beth Mulcahy(HOA attorney) Mulcahy Law Firm, PC Decision transmitted to her firm; firm hired by Respondent
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) OAH
Judy Lowe(commissioner) ADRE
LDettorre(ADRE staff) ADRE Received electronic transmission
AHansen(ADRE staff) ADRE Received electronic transmission
djones(ADRE staff) ADRE Received electronic transmission
DGardner(ADRE staff) ADRE Received electronic transmission
ncano(ADRE staff) ADRE Received electronic transmission
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Outcome Summary
Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party only regarding the Respondent's violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 (failure to provide notice for hiring Mulcahy and Kinney). Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. All other claims, including the alleged Bylaws violation and the violation related to hiring Osselaer, were dismissed.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the Bylaws violation. The HOA successfully argued that the hiring of Osselaer was conducted during a valid emergency board meeting, exempting it from open meeting notice requirements.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Kinney and Mulcahy)
Sunset Plaza decided to hire Kinney Management and Mulcahy Law Firm at board meetings without informing its members of those meetings.
Orders: Respondent Sunset Plaza must pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Osselaer)
Petitioner alleged violation regarding the hiring of Osselaer Management Company, but the ALJ found the association was exempt because the decision was made at a valid emergency board meeting.
Orders: Petition dismissed in this respect.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Failure to keep correct and complete books and records of account
Petitioner alleged Sunset Plaza failed to keep accurate financial records, pointing out discrepancies and an unexplained reserve deficit between 2015 and 2016 balance sheets.
Orders: Petition dismissed in all other respects.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Analytics Highlights
Topics: open meeting violation, emergency meeting, governing documents, financial records, condominium association
Additional Citations:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 41-2198.01
Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
18F-H1817003-REL Decision – 605735.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:59 (112.9 KB)
Briefing Doc – 18F-H1817003-REL
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Carr v. Sunset Plaza Condo Association
Executive Summary
This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge’s decision in the case of David B. Carr versus the Sunset Plaza Condo Association (Case No. 18F-H1817003-REL). The central conflict involved a petition filed by Mr. Carr, a condominium owner, alleging that the Association’s Board of Management violated Arizona’s open meeting law and engaged in financial mismanagement.
The final ruling was a partial victory for the petitioner. The judge found that Sunset Plaza violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248 by failing to provide members with proper notice of board meetings where decisions were made to hire Kinney Management Services and the Mulcahy Law Firm. The Association admitted to this failure, citing a misunderstanding of the law, and pledged future compliance. As the prevailing party on this specific issue, Mr. Carr was awarded reimbursement for his $500 filing fee.
However, the judge dismissed all of Mr. Carr’s other allegations. The claim that a meeting to hire Osselaer Management Company violated the open meeting law was rejected, as the judge deemed it a valid emergency meeting exempt from notice requirements. Furthermore, Mr. Carr’s claims of financial mismanagement and inaccurate record-keeping in violation of the Association’s bylaws were not substantiated. The judge accepted the Association’s defense that alleged financial discrepancies stemmed from a change in accounting practices by a new management company, not from an actual deficit. No civil penalty was imposed on the Association.
I. Case Overview
• Case Number: 18F-H1817003-REL
• Forum: Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona
• Petitioner: David B. Carr
• Respondent: Sunset Plaza Condo Association
• Administrative Law Judge: Velva Moses-Thompson
• Hearing Date: November 21, 2017
• Decision Date: November 22, 2017
• Core Dispute: A petition filed by a condo owner alleging the association’s board violated state statutes and its own bylaws concerning open meetings, financial record-keeping, and the execution of contracts.
II. Petitioner’s Allegations (David B. Carr)
On August 14, 2017, Mr. Carr filed a petition outlining two primary grievances against the Sunset Plaza Condo Association.
A. Violation of Open Meeting Law (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248)
Mr. Carr alleged that the Association’s Board of Management took official action without holding properly authorized and noticed board meetings. This resulted in unapproved contracts and expenditures.
Direct Quotation from Petition:
“SUNSET PLAZA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION BOARD OF MANAGEMENT TAKES ACTION WITHOUT HOLDING AUTHORIZED BOARD MEETING IN VIOLATION OF AZ STATUTE 33-1248. THESE UNAUTHORIZED MEETINGS HAVE RESULTED IN CONTRACTS WITH MANAGEMENT FIRMS AND ATTORNEYS. THESE CONTRACTS HAVE RESULTED IN EXPENSES NOT APPROVED OR REVIEWED BY CONDO OWNERS.”
• Specific Contracts Cited:
◦ Kinney Management (October 2016)
◦ Osselaer Real Estate (September 2016)
◦ Mulcahy Law Firm (May 2016)
• Requested Remedy: Cancellation of all contracts entered into without a properly called board meeting and personal repayment of all related expenditures by the signatory.
B. Violation of Bylaws and Financial Mismanagement (Article XI)
Mr. Carr contended that the Association violated Article XI of its bylaws, which requires it to “keep correct and complete books and records of account.” He identified specific financial discrepancies based on his analysis of the Association’s financial statements.
• Alleged Reserve Fund Discrepancy: Mr. Carr claimed an “unexplained reserve deficit of $10,295.09” based on the following figures, noting there were no reported reserve expenses in 2016.
Financial Statement Item
Amount
2015 Year-End Reserve Equity
$10,295.09
2016 Income Statement Reserve Deposit
$9,180.00
2016 Year-End Balance Sheet Reserve Total
$2,295.44
• Additional Discrepancies:
◦ The 2016 year-end balance sheet failed to identify prior and current year operating equity.
◦ An “expanded 2016 balance sheet” calculation revealed a discrepancy of $2,808.42.
• Requested Remedy: A formal audit of the 2016 and 2017 financial statements and improved future reporting to identify reserve balances and homeowner equity.
III. Respondent’s Defense (Sunset Plaza Condo Association)
The Association, represented by Paige Marks, Esq., and through the testimony of board member Marilyn Gelroth, presented a defense against both allegations.
A. Response to Open Meeting Allegations
• Admission: The Association conceded that it “did not provide notice of its board meetings when it decided to hire Kinney and the Mulcahy firm.”
• Justification: This failure was attributed to the board’s misunderstanding of the open meeting law. The Association represented to the judge that it would abide by the law in the future.
• Emergency Meeting Exemption: The Association argued that the decision to hire Osselaer Management was made at a valid emergency board meeting on September 21, 2016.
◦ Timeline of Events: Kinney Management Services retracted its offer to manage the property on September 15, 2016, after receiving notice of a complaint Mr. Carr had filed against them with the Attorney General’s Office.
◦ Urgency: This retraction created an urgent need for a new management company. Ms. Gelroth testified that the board “needed to move quickly because members needed to know where to send payments.” This situation, they argued, constituted an emergency under the law.
B. Response to Financial Allegations
• Flawed Comparison: The Association contended that Mr. Carr’s financial analysis was fundamentally flawed because he “erroneously compared Sunset Plaza’s 2015 year end balance statement to its 2016 income statement,” which are two different types of financial records.
• Change in Accounting Methods: The primary reason for the apparent discrepancies was a change in how financial data was categorized.
◦ The previous management company, Kolby, separated reserve amounts in its financial statements.
◦ The new management company, Osselaer, “does not separate reserve amounts” and is not required by law to do so. This difference in reporting style accounted for the changes Mr. Carr identified as a deficit.
IV. Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The judge, Velva Moses-Thompson, found Ms. Gelroth’s testimony credible and issued a split decision, upholding one of Mr. Carr’s claims while dismissing the other.
A. Finding on Financial Mismanagement Allegation
Conclusion: Petition Dismissed The judge ruled that Mr. Carr “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Sunset Plaza violated Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws.” The Association’s explanation regarding the different accounting methods used by Kolby and Osselaer, and the flawed comparison of financial documents, was accepted as a valid defense.
B. Finding on Open Meeting Law Allegations
Conclusion: Partial Violation Confirmed
• Hiring of Osselaer Management (No Violation): The judge concluded that Sunset Plaza did not violate Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248 in this instance. The decision was made at a legitimate emergency board meeting, which exempts the board from the 48-hour notice requirement. The minutes of the meeting stated the reason for the emergency.
• Hiring of Kinney Management and Mulcahy Law Firm (Violation Confirmed): The judge found that Mr. Carr “established by preponderance of the evidence that Sunset Plaza violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. 33-1248” when it decided to hire these two firms. The Association did not dispute that it failed to inform members of these board meetings, which was a key factor in the ruling.
C. Final Order
Based on the findings and conclusions of law, the judge issued the following order:
1. Prevailing Party: Petitioner David B. Carr is deemed the prevailing party solely with regard to the violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248.
2. Reimbursement: Sunset Plaza is ordered to pay Mr. Carr his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days of the order.
3. Dismissal: All other aspects of Mr. Carr’s petition are dismissed.
4. Penalty: No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in the matter.
Study Guide – 18F-H1817003-REL
Study Guide: Carr v. Sunset Plaza Condo Association (No. 18F-H1817003-REL)
This study guide provides a review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of David B. Carr versus the Sunset Plaza Condo Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a comprehensive understanding of the case’s facts, legal arguments, and final judgment.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer each question in 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the source document.
1. What were the two primary allegations David B. Carr made against the Sunset Plaza Condo Association in his petition?
2. Identify the three specific contracts Mr. Carr claimed resulted from unauthorized board meetings.
3. Why did Kinney Management Services retract its offer to manage Sunset Plaza in September 2016?
4. What justification did Sunset Plaza provide for holding an emergency board meeting to hire Osselaer Management Company?
5. According to Sunset Plaza, why did Mr. Carr mistakenly believe there was a financial discrepancy in the association’s records?
6. Did the Sunset Plaza board admit to violating the open meeting law? If so, what was their explanation?
7. What authority do the association’s Declaration and Bylaws grant the Board of Management regarding contracts?
8. How does Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248 define the requirements for an “emergency meeting” of a board of directors?
9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding Sunset Plaza’s hiring of the Osselaer Management Company?
10. What specific orders were issued against Sunset Plaza as a result of the judge’s decision?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. David B. Carr alleged that the Sunset Plaza Condo Association violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248 by holding unauthorized board meetings to enter into contracts. He also alleged the association violated Article XI of its bylaws by failing to keep correct and complete books and records, citing an unexplained deficit in reserve accounts.
2. Mr. Carr’s petition identified contracts with Kinney Management (October 2016), Osselaer Real Estate (September 2016), and the Mulcahy Law Firm (May 2016). He argued these contracts were entered into without a properly called board meeting and resulted in unapproved expenses.
3. Kinney Management Services retracted its acceptance of Sunset Plaza’s offer after receiving a complaint that Mr. Carr had filed against Kinney with the Attorney General’s Office. This information was stated in a letter from Kinney to Sunset Plaza on September 15, 2016.
4. The board held an emergency meeting because after Kinney retracted its offer, they needed to move quickly to hire a new management company. Board member Marilyn Gelroth testified it was important to have a single company handle all affairs and that members needed to know where to send payments without delay.
5. Sunset Plaza contended that Mr. Carr erroneously compared two different types of financial records: the 2015 year-end balance sheet and the 2016 income statement. Furthermore, the association argued that the new management company, Osselaer, categorized financials differently than the previous company, Kolby, and did not separate out reserve amounts.
6. Yes, Sunset Plaza conceded that it did not provide notice to its members of the board meetings when it decided to hire Kinney Management and the Mulcahy Law Firm. The association contended that it did not understand the open meeting law at the time and represented to the Tribunal that it would abide by the law in the future.
7. The Declaration grants the Board the power to “enter into contracts” and generally have the powers of an apartment house manager. Article VII, section 11 of the Bylaws states the Board of Management “shall enter into contracts on behalf of the association.”
8. The statute allows an emergency meeting to be called to discuss business or take action that cannot be delayed for the required forty-eight hours’ notice. At such a meeting, the board may only act on emergency matters, and the minutes must state the reason necessitating the emergency.
9. The judge concluded that Sunset Plaza did not violate Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248 when it hired Osselaer. The decision was made at a legitimate emergency board meeting, which exempted the board from the standard open meeting notification requirements.
10. The judge ordered that the Petitioner, David Carr, be deemed the prevailing party regarding the violation of the open meeting law. It was further ordered that Sunset Plaza pay Mr. Carr his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days, and his petition was dismissed in all other respects.
——————————————————————————–
Suggested Essay Questions
1. Analyze the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as it was applied in this case. How did David B. Carr meet this burden for his claim about the open meeting law but fail to meet it for his claim about financial mismanagement?
2. Discuss the legal requirements and exceptions for board meetings under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248. Use the board’s decisions to hire Kinney Management, the Mulcahy Law Firm, and Osselaer Management Company as distinct examples to illustrate the application of this law.
3. Evaluate Sunset Plaza’s defense regarding the financial discrepancies alleged by Mr. Carr. Why was this defense successful, and what does it reveal about the potential for confusion when an association changes management companies and accounting methods?
4. Examine the powers and duties of the Sunset Plaza Board of Management as outlined in its Declaration and Bylaws. How do these documents support the board’s authority to enter into contracts, and how does that authority intersect with the procedural requirements of state law?
5. Based on the judge’s decision, critique the actions and governance of the Sunset Plaza board. What were their key procedural mistakes, what was their stated reason for these errors, and what were the ultimate consequences of their violation of the open meeting law?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official, in this case Velva Moses-Thompson, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and renders a decision based on evidence and law.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248
An Arizona statute, also known as the open meeting law, which requires that meetings of a unit owners’ association and its board of directors be open to all members. It outlines requirements for meeting notices, member participation, and exceptions for emergency meetings.
Bylaws
The rules and regulations adopted by an association to govern its internal management. In this case, Article XI requires the association to keep correct and complete books, records, and minutes.
Conclusions of Law
The section of the decision where the judge applies the relevant statutes and legal principles to the established facts of the case to reach a legal judgment.
Declaration
The legal document that creates a condominium or planned community. The Sunset Plaza Declaration grants the Board of Management the power to enter into contracts and manage the association’s affairs.
Emergency Meeting
A type of board meeting that can be called without the standard 48-hour notice to discuss business that cannot be delayed. Action at such a meeting is limited to emergency matters only.
Findings of Facts
The section of the decision that outlines the factual history of the dispute as determined by the judge based on testimony and evidence presented at the hearing.
The final, binding ruling of the Administrative Law Judge. In this case, the Order declared Mr. Carr the prevailing party, required Sunset Plaza to refund his filing fee, and dismissed the other parts of his petition.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action or files a petition seeking a legal remedy. In this case, the Petitioner was David B. Carr.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof required in this civil administrative hearing. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Prevailing Party
The party who wins the legal case or a significant issue within it. The judge declared Mr. Carr the prevailing party regarding the violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent was the Sunset Plaza Condo Association.
Blog Post – 18F-H1817003-REL
⚖️
No emoji found
Loading
18F-H1817003-REL
1 source
This source is the Administrative Law Judge Decision resulting from a hearing held on November 21, 2017, between Petitioner David B. Carr and the Respondent Sunset Plaza Condo Association. Mr. Carr brought a petition alleging that the Condo Association violated Arizona Revised Statutes (Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248) and its own bylaws by taking action without authorized board meetings and exhibiting financial discrepancies, specifically concerning reserve funds. The decision found that the Condo Association did violate the open meeting law when hiring Kinney and the Mulcahy law firms but was exempt from the open meeting requirement for the emergency meeting that resulted in hiring Osselaer Management Company. Ultimately, the Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party regarding the statutory violation and was awarded a filing fee of $500.00, though all other aspects of the petition were dismissed.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
David B. Carr(petitioner) Sunset Plaza Condo Association (member)
Respondent Side
Paige Marks(attorney) Sunset Plaza Condo Association Appeared on behalf of Respondent
Marilyn Gelroth(board member) Sunset Plaza Condo Association Testified at hearing
Beth Mulcahy(HOA attorney) Mulcahy Law Firm, PC Decision transmitted to her firm; firm hired by Respondent
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) OAH
Judy Lowe(commissioner) ADRE
LDettorre(ADRE staff) ADRE Received electronic transmission
AHansen(ADRE staff) ADRE Received electronic transmission
djones(ADRE staff) ADRE Received electronic transmission
DGardner(ADRE staff) ADRE Received electronic transmission
ncano(ADRE staff) ADRE Received electronic transmission
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Outcome Summary
Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party only regarding the Respondent's violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 (failure to provide notice for hiring Mulcahy and Kinney). Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. All other claims, including the alleged Bylaws violation and the violation related to hiring Osselaer, were dismissed.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the Bylaws violation. The HOA successfully argued that the hiring of Osselaer was conducted during a valid emergency board meeting, exempting it from open meeting notice requirements.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Kinney and Mulcahy)
Sunset Plaza decided to hire Kinney Management and Mulcahy Law Firm at board meetings without informing its members of those meetings.
Orders: Respondent Sunset Plaza must pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Osselaer)
Petitioner alleged violation regarding the hiring of Osselaer Management Company, but the ALJ found the association was exempt because the decision was made at a valid emergency board meeting.
Orders: Petition dismissed in this respect.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Failure to keep correct and complete books and records of account
Petitioner alleged Sunset Plaza failed to keep accurate financial records, pointing out discrepancies and an unexplained reserve deficit between 2015 and 2016 balance sheets.
Orders: Petition dismissed in all other respects.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Analytics Highlights
Topics: open meeting violation, emergency meeting, governing documents, financial records, condominium association
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Outcome Summary
Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party only regarding the Respondent's violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 (failure to provide notice for hiring Mulcahy and Kinney). Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. All other claims, including the alleged Bylaws violation and the violation related to hiring Osselaer, were dismissed.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the Bylaws violation. The HOA successfully argued that the hiring of Osselaer was conducted during a valid emergency board meeting, exempting it from open meeting notice requirements.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Kinney and Mulcahy)
Sunset Plaza decided to hire Kinney Management and Mulcahy Law Firm at board meetings without informing its members of those meetings.
Orders: Respondent Sunset Plaza must pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Osselaer)
Petitioner alleged violation regarding the hiring of Osselaer Management Company, but the ALJ found the association was exempt because the decision was made at a valid emergency board meeting.
Orders: Petition dismissed in this respect.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Failure to keep correct and complete books and records of account
Petitioner alleged Sunset Plaza failed to keep accurate financial records, pointing out discrepancies and an unexplained reserve deficit between 2015 and 2016 balance sheets.
Orders: Petition dismissed in all other respects.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Analytics Highlights
Topics: open meeting violation, emergency meeting, governing documents, financial records, condominium association
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Outcome Summary
Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party only regarding the Respondent's violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 (failure to provide notice for hiring Mulcahy and Kinney). Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. All other claims, including the alleged Bylaws violation and the violation related to hiring Osselaer, were dismissed.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the Bylaws violation. The HOA successfully argued that the hiring of Osselaer was conducted during a valid emergency board meeting, exempting it from open meeting notice requirements.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Kinney and Mulcahy)
Sunset Plaza decided to hire Kinney Management and Mulcahy Law Firm at board meetings without informing its members of those meetings.
Orders: Respondent Sunset Plaza must pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Osselaer)
Petitioner alleged violation regarding the hiring of Osselaer Management Company, but the ALJ found the association was exempt because the decision was made at a valid emergency board meeting.
Orders: Petition dismissed in this respect.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Failure to keep correct and complete books and records of account
Petitioner alleged Sunset Plaza failed to keep accurate financial records, pointing out discrepancies and an unexplained reserve deficit between 2015 and 2016 balance sheets.
Orders: Petition dismissed in all other respects.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Analytics Highlights
Topics: open meeting violation, emergency meeting, governing documents, financial records, condominium association
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Outcome Summary
Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party only regarding the Respondent's violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 (failure to provide notice for hiring Mulcahy and Kinney). Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. All other claims, including the alleged Bylaws violation and the violation related to hiring Osselaer, were dismissed.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the Bylaws violation. The HOA successfully argued that the hiring of Osselaer was conducted during a valid emergency board meeting, exempting it from open meeting notice requirements.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Kinney and Mulcahy)
Sunset Plaza decided to hire Kinney Management and Mulcahy Law Firm at board meetings without informing its members of those meetings.
Orders: Respondent Sunset Plaza must pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Osselaer)
Petitioner alleged violation regarding the hiring of Osselaer Management Company, but the ALJ found the association was exempt because the decision was made at a valid emergency board meeting.
Orders: Petition dismissed in this respect.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Failure to keep correct and complete books and records of account
Petitioner alleged Sunset Plaza failed to keep accurate financial records, pointing out discrepancies and an unexplained reserve deficit between 2015 and 2016 balance sheets.
Orders: Petition dismissed in all other respects.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Analytics Highlights
Topics: open meeting violation, emergency meeting, governing documents, financial records, condominium association
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Outcome Summary
Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party only regarding the Respondent's violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 (failure to provide notice for hiring Mulcahy and Kinney). Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. All other claims, including the alleged Bylaws violation and the violation related to hiring Osselaer, were dismissed.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the Bylaws violation. The HOA successfully argued that the hiring of Osselaer was conducted during a valid emergency board meeting, exempting it from open meeting notice requirements.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Kinney and Mulcahy)
Sunset Plaza decided to hire Kinney Management and Mulcahy Law Firm at board meetings without informing its members of those meetings.
Orders: Respondent Sunset Plaza must pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Osselaer)
Petitioner alleged violation regarding the hiring of Osselaer Management Company, but the ALJ found the association was exempt because the decision was made at a valid emergency board meeting.
Orders: Petition dismissed in this respect.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Failure to keep correct and complete books and records of account
Petitioner alleged Sunset Plaza failed to keep accurate financial records, pointing out discrepancies and an unexplained reserve deficit between 2015 and 2016 balance sheets.
Orders: Petition dismissed in all other respects.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Analytics Highlights
Topics: open meeting violation, emergency meeting, governing documents, financial records, condominium association
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Outcome Summary
Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party only regarding the Respondent's violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 (failure to provide notice for hiring Mulcahy and Kinney). Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. All other claims, including the alleged Bylaws violation and the violation related to hiring Osselaer, were dismissed.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the Bylaws violation. The HOA successfully argued that the hiring of Osselaer was conducted during a valid emergency board meeting, exempting it from open meeting notice requirements.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Kinney and Mulcahy)
Sunset Plaza decided to hire Kinney Management and Mulcahy Law Firm at board meetings without informing its members of those meetings.
Orders: Respondent Sunset Plaza must pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Osselaer)
Petitioner alleged violation regarding the hiring of Osselaer Management Company, but the ALJ found the association was exempt because the decision was made at a valid emergency board meeting.
Orders: Petition dismissed in this respect.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Failure to keep correct and complete books and records of account
Petitioner alleged Sunset Plaza failed to keep accurate financial records, pointing out discrepancies and an unexplained reserve deficit between 2015 and 2016 balance sheets.
Orders: Petition dismissed in all other respects.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Analytics Highlights
Topics: open meeting violation, emergency meeting, governing documents, financial records, condominium association
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
18F-H1817003-REL
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2017-11-22
Administrative Law Judge
Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome
partial
Filing Fees Refunded
$500.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
David B. Carr
Counsel
—
Respondent
Sunset Plaza Condo Association
Counsel
Paige Marks, Esq.
Alleged Violations
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Outcome Summary
Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party only regarding the Respondent's violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 (failure to provide notice for hiring Mulcahy and Kinney). Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. All other claims, including the alleged Bylaws violation and the violation related to hiring Osselaer, were dismissed.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the Bylaws violation. The HOA successfully argued that the hiring of Osselaer was conducted during a valid emergency board meeting, exempting it from open meeting notice requirements.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Kinney and Mulcahy)
Sunset Plaza decided to hire Kinney Management and Mulcahy Law Firm at board meetings without informing its members of those meetings.
Orders: Respondent Sunset Plaza must pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Osselaer)
Petitioner alleged violation regarding the hiring of Osselaer Management Company, but the ALJ found the association was exempt because the decision was made at a valid emergency board meeting.
Orders: Petition dismissed in this respect.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Failure to keep correct and complete books and records of account
Petitioner alleged Sunset Plaza failed to keep accurate financial records, pointing out discrepancies and an unexplained reserve deficit between 2015 and 2016 balance sheets.
Orders: Petition dismissed in all other respects.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Analytics Highlights
Topics: open meeting violation, emergency meeting, governing documents, financial records, condominium association
