Tag Archives: governing documents

David B. Carr vs. Sunset Plaza Condo Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID18F-H1817003-REL
AgencyADRE
TribunalOAH
Decision Date2017-11-22
Administrative Law JudgeVelva Moses-Thompson
OutcomePetitioner 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.
Filing Fees Refunded$500.00
Civil Penalties$0.00

Parties & Counsel

PetitionerDavid B. CarrCounsel—
RespondentSunset Plaza Condo AssociationCounselPaige 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
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 – 617042.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:07:06 (48.4 KB)

18F-H1817003-REL Decision – 617215.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:07:14 (57.5 KB)

18F-H1817003-REL Decision – 605735.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:07:20 (112.9 KB)

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: 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.

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

Linda Haderli vs. Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID17F-H1717029-REL
AgencyADRE
TribunalOAH
Decision Date2017-06-18
Administrative Law JudgeTammy L. Eigenheer
OutcomePetitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The HOA (Respondent) was found to have acted beyond the scope of its authority under its governing documents by removing the Petitioner as the Pickleball Club President and banning her from holding office for 24 months. The imposed discipline was quashed, and the HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded$500.00
Civil Penalties$0.00

Parties & Counsel

PetitionerLinda HaderliCounselJonathan A. Dessaules
RespondentCarriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.CounselSamuel E. Arrowsmith

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The HOA (Respondent) was found to have acted beyond the scope of its authority under its governing documents by removing the Petitioner as the Pickleball Club President and banning her from holding office for 24 months. The imposed discipline was quashed, and the HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA lacked authority to impose discipline (removal as club president and 24-month ban on holding office) under governing documents.

Petitioner alleged Respondent lacked authority pursuant to governing documents to remove her as President of the Pickleball Club and preclude her from serving as any officer for 24 months as purported discipline. The Tribunal concluded the Board’s decision was in excess of its authority because Respondent did not establish that removal and the prohibition on holding office were remedies available under the governing documents.

Orders: Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party; Respondent's imposed discipline was quashed; Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&R’s Section 14.2
  • CC&R’s Section 15.2B
  • CC&R’s Section 12.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: discipline, governing documents, authority, club officer removal, homeowner vs HOA
Additional Citations:
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&R’s Section 14.2
  • CC&R’s Section 15.2B
  • CC&R’s Section 12.2

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717029-REL Decision – 570378.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:04:51 (84.2 KB)

17F-H1717029-REL Decision – 575026.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:04:55 (700.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Haderli vs. Carriage Manor RV Resort Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key findings and legal conclusions from an administrative hearing concerning a dispute between resident Linda Haderli (Petitioner) and the Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc. (Respondent). The core of the dispute was the Association’s decision to remove Ms. Haderli from her position as President of the Pickleball Club and to bar her from holding any club office for 24 months as a disciplinary measure.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of Ms. Haderli. The central finding was that the disciplinary action imposed by the Association was in excess of the authority granted by its own governing documents (CC&Rs). While the Association’s rules allowed for remedies such as financial assessments up to $500 or the suspension of common area use rights for violations, they did not provide for the removal of a resident from an elected club office. Consequently, the ALJ ordered that Ms. Haderli be deemed the prevailing party, the Association’s disciplinary action be quashed, and the Association reimburse Ms. Haderli’s $500 filing fee. This decision was formally adopted by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, making it a final administrative order.

Case Overview

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Linda Haderli

◦ Respondent: Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc., a homeowners association in Mesa, Arizona.

• Legal Venue: The Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Arizona.

• Case Number: 17F-H1717029-REL

• Hearing Date: May 30, 2017

• Core Issue: On March 28, 2017, Ms. Haderli filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. She alleged that the Association lacked the authority under its governing documents to remove her as President of the Pickleball Club and to prohibit her from serving in any club officer position for two years as a form of discipline.

The Association’s Disciplinary Action and Justification

The Association took disciplinary action against Ms. Haderli and provided three specific reasons for its decision in a formal letter:

1. Challenging Board Policies: The letter accused Ms. Haderli of harassing Association employees and circumventing established systems designed to implement Association policies.

2. Improper Officer Representation: The Association stated that Ms. Haderli had permitted Ms. Joyce Wooton to represent herself as an “Advisor” to the Pickleball Club, a position not recognized as an official Officer position in the Pickleball By-Laws.

3. Unauthorized Representation to External Entities: The Association claimed Ms. Haderli had represented herself to the City of Mesa and SRP (Salt River Project) as having the authority to make decisions on behalf of the Association, which had not been granted by the Board of Directors.

Analysis of Allegations and Testimony

During the May 30, 2017 hearing, testimony was presented by both parties regarding the three justifications for the disciplinary action.

Allegation 1: Harassment of an Association Employee

• Respondent’s Testimony (Mary Candelaria, General Manager): Ms. Candelaria testified that on January 4, 2017, Ms. Haderli had a “contentious interaction” with an employee, Barb Putnam. According to some observers, Ms. Haderli was yelling. The following day, Ms. Putnam was hospitalized with a hemorrhage in her eye. Ms. Candelaria “theorized” that the stress from the encounter caused the medical issue. She collected written statements from observers but did not speak with Ms. Haderli about the incident, citing confidentiality concerns.

• Petitioner’s Testimony (Linda Haderli): Ms. Haderli denied yelling at Ms. Putnam, explaining that her hearing loss sometimes causes her to speak louder than intended, which can be misinterpreted as yelling. She stated she was attempting to reserve dates for Pickleball Club fundraising events and that Ms. Putnam was uncooperative. Ms. Haderli testified she was unaware of the harassment accusation until reviewing exhibits for the hearing with her attorney.

Allegation 2: Improper Officer Representation (Joyce Wooton)

• Petitioner’s Testimony (Linda Haderli): Ms. Haderli testified that Ms. Wooton was already serving as an advisor to the Pickleball Club when Ms. Haderli was elected Vice President, a full year before she became President on March 1, 2016.

Allegation 3: Unauthorized Representation to External Entities

• Respondent’s Testimony (Mary Candelaria, General Manager): Ms. Candelaria stated that while the Pickleball Club was exploring a project to build a small structure, Ms. Haderli contacted the City of Mesa and SRP directly, representing herself as acting on behalf of the Association. This continued even after Ms. Haderli was advised to work through the project’s architect for technical questions.

• Petitioner’s Testimony (Linda Haderli): Ms. Haderli denied representing herself as having authority to act for the Association. She testified that her intent was merely to gather background information to be better informed about the project. She initially did not want to provide her name or address to the entities for fear of appearing to act in an official capacity, only providing the address when required because regulations differ by city area.

Governing Documents and Permitted Remedies

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision hinged on the specific remedies available to the Association as outlined in its governing documents, the CC&Rs. The Association clarified that the discipline was imposed on Ms. Haderli in her capacity as a resident who violated community rules, not as a disciplinary action against the Pickleball Club itself.

The following sections of the CC&Rs were cited as relevant:

CC&R Section

Description

Authorized Remedy

Section 14.2

Employee Abuse: Prohibits physical or verbal harassment of employees by residents.

Enforcement as an “Other Violation” under Section 15.2B.

Section 15.2B

Other Violations: Stipulates that such violations are subject to a financial penalty.

An assessment set by the Board of Directors, not to exceed $500.00.

Section 12.2

Suspension of Rights: Grants the Association the right to suspend an Owner’s rights for infractions.

Suspension of an Owner’s voting rights and Common Areas use rights.

Legal Conclusions and Final Ruling

The Administrative Law Judge reached several key conclusions of law that led to the final order.

• Burden of Proof: The petitioner, Linda Haderli, bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association acted without the authority granted by its governing documents.

• Excess of Authority: The Respondent (the Association) “did not establish that removal as the Pickleball Club President and/or a prohibition of holding any other officer position for a period of 24 months is a remedy available under the governing documents.”

• Final Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Board of Directors’ decision to impose this specific discipline was in excess of its authority.

Recommended and Final Order

Based on these conclusions, Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer issued a recommended order on June 18, 2017:

1. Petitioner Deemed Prevailing Party: Linda Haderli was declared the prevailing party in the matter.

2. Discipline Quashed: The disciplinary action imposed by the Association against Ms. Haderli was ordered to be quashed.

3. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Association was ordered to pay Ms. Haderli her $500.00 filing fee within thirty days.

On June 21, 2017, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order adopting the Administrative Law Judge’s decision in its entirety. This order became a final administrative action, effective immediately.

Study Guide: Haderli v. Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

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

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

2. What was the central violation alleged by the Petitioner, Linda Haderli, in her petition?

3. What specific disciplinary action did the Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc. impose on Linda Haderli?

4. List the three reasons the Association provided to justify its disciplinary action against the Petitioner.

5. How did Linda Haderli explain her interaction with the Association employee, Barb Putnam, which the Association characterized as harassment?

6. What was the Petitioner’s explanation for contacting the City of Mesa and SRP regarding the Pickleball Club’s building project?

7. According to the Association’s governing documents (CC&R’s), what specific remedies are available for non-monetary infractions and “Other Violations”?

8. What is the legal standard of proof that the Petitioner was required to meet in this case, and how is it defined in the document?

9. What was the final conclusion of the Administrative Law Judge regarding the Association’s authority to impose its chosen discipline?

10. What were the three components of the Recommended Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge, which was later adopted as the Final Order?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Linda Haderli, the Petitioner, and Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc., the Respondent. The Petitioner is the individual homeowner who filed the dispute, while the Respondent is the homeowners association (HOA) that took disciplinary action against her.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent did not have the authority under its own governing documents to take the disciplinary action it imposed. Specifically, she challenged her removal as President of the Pickleball Club and the subsequent ban from holding any officer position.

3. The Association removed Linda Haderli from her position as President of the Pickleball Club. Additionally, it precluded her from serving as any officer of the Pickleball Club for a period of 24 months.

4. The Association cited three reasons: (1) harassing Association employees and circumventing policies; (2) improperly permitting Ms. Joyce Wooton to represent herself as an “Advisor,” a non-existent officer position; and (3) representing herself to the City of Mesa and SRP as having authority to make decisions on behalf of the Association.

5. Ms. Haderli denied yelling at Ms. Putnam, attributing her loud voice to hearing loss which can be misinterpreted. She stated she was simply trying to reserve dates for Pickleball Club fundraising events and that the employee was not being cooperative in providing information.

6. The Petitioner testified that she approached the City of Mesa and SRP merely to gather background information to be more informed about the building project. She denied ever representing herself as having authority to act for the Association and was initially hesitant to even provide her name for fear of creating that impression.

7. For “Other Violations,” Section 15.2B of the CC&R’s allows for a monetary assessment up to $500.00. For non-monetary infractions, Section 12.2 allows the Association to suspend an Owner’s voting rights and Common Areas use rights until the infraction is cured.

8. The Petitioner was required to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence. The document defines this as “Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”

9. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Board’s decision to remove the Petitioner as Pickleball Club President and ban her from holding office for 24 months was in excess of its authority. The judge found that this specific penalty was not a remedy available to the Association under its governing documents.

10. The Order dictated that (1) the Petitioner be deemed the prevailing party in the matter, (2) the Respondent’s imposed discipline against the Petitioner be quashed (nullified), and (3) the Respondent pay the Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: Consider the following prompts for longer, essay-style responses. Use evidence and specific details from the case documents to construct your arguments.

1. Analyze the discrepancy between the disciplinary penalties available to the Association under its CC&R’s (Sections 12.2 and 15.2B) and the penalty it actually imposed on Linda Haderli. Explain why this discrepancy was the pivotal factor in the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision.

2. Discuss the three allegations made by the Association against Linda Haderli. For each allegation, present the evidence and testimony offered by the Association (via Mary Candelaria) and the counter-evidence or explanation provided by the Petitioner.

3. Trace the procedural timeline of this case, starting from the filing of the Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition. Describe each key step, including the date of filing, the Notice of Hearing, the hearing itself, the Administrative Law Judge Decision, and the final adoption of that decision by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate.

4. The Respondent stated that the discipline was against Linda Haderli in her capacity as a resident, not as a representative of the Pickleball Club. Evaluate this argument in the context of the specific penalties imposed. Did the nature of the discipline align with the Association’s claim?

5. Explain the legal concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. How did the Petitioner, Linda Haderli, successfully meet the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association acted outside its authority?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The judicial officer, Tammy L. Eigenheer, who presided over the administrative hearing, evaluated evidence, and issued a decision and recommended order.

Answer

The formal response filed by the Respondent (Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.) denying the violation alleged in the Petitioner’s petition.

CC&R’s

An abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are part of the Association’s governing documents that outline the rules for residents and the remedies available to the Association for violations.

Commissioner

The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, who has the authority to adopt the ALJ’s decision, making it a Final Order.

Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency with jurisdiction to hear disputes between homeowners and homeowners associations.

Final Order

The official, binding order issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate that adopts the ALJ’s decision. This order becomes effective immediately and is appealable through judicial review.

Governing Documents

The collection of rules, bylaws, and CC&R’s that legally govern the operation of the Homeowners Association and the conduct of its members.

Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition

The formal document filed by the Petitioner (Linda Haderli) with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on or about March 28, 2017, to initiate the legal dispute against the Association.

Petitioner

The party who filed the petition initiating the legal action. In this case, homeowner Linda Haderli.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required for the Petitioner to win the case. It is defined as “Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”

Prevailing Party

The party that wins the legal dispute. The Administrative Law Judge’s order deemed the Petitioner, Linda Haderli, to be the prevailing party.

Quashed

A legal term meaning to nullify, void, or set aside. The Judge’s order quashed the disciplinary action that the Respondent had imposed on the Petitioner.

Respondent

The party against whom the petition is filed and who is responding to the allegations. In this case, Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.

She Fought Her HOA Over Pickleball—And Won on a Technicality. Here Are 4 Surprising Lessons.

Introduction: The David vs. Goliath of Neighborhood Disputes

For many homeowners, a dispute with their Homeowners Association (HOA) can feel like an unwinnable battle. The board holds what seems like absolute power, leaving residents feeling powerless. However, a recent administrative hearing in Arizona offers a powerful counter-narrative and a series of crucial lessons for anyone living in a planned community. The case involved Linda Haderli, the President of a community Pickleball Club, and her HOA, the Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc. What started as a disagreement over her conduct escalated into a formal disciplinary action that was ultimately overturned. The story of her victory reveals surprising truths about the limits of an HOA’s authority.

Takeaway 1: Your HOA’s Power Isn’t Unlimited—It’s Written in Black and White

An HOA Board Can’t Invent Punishments.

The core of the dispute was the punishment the HOA Board imposed on Linda Haderli. In response to alleged rule violations, the Board removed her from her elected position as President of the Pickleball Club and banned her from holding any club office for 24 months.

However, a close look at the Association’s own governing documents—the CC&Rs—revealed a critical flaw in the Board’s action. The documents specified exactly which remedies were available for violations. These included a monetary assessment not to exceed $500, or the suspension of an owner’s voting rights and their right to use common areas.

The punishment the Board chose—removal from an elected position and a ban from future office—was simply not on that list. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was unequivocal on this point:

Therefore, this Tribunal concludes that the Board’s decision to remove Petitioner as the Pickleball Club President and to preclude her from holding any other officer position for a period of 24 months was in excess of its authority under the Association’s governing documents.

Ultimately, the HOA was bound by the rules it had created. Its failure to adhere to its own documents was the key to its defeat.

Takeaway 2: It Might Not Matter Who Was “Right”

The Case Can Hinge on Procedure, Not on the Facts of the Dispute.

The HOA levied three main accusations against Haderli: harassing an Association employee during a contentious interaction, improperly allowing an “Advisor” to participate in the club, and misrepresenting herself to the City of Mesa while researching a project. For her part, Haderli explained that her hearing loss can cause her to speak loudly, that the advisor had served in that capacity previously, and that she was only gathering information from the city and never claimed to have authority.

Here is the counter-intuitive twist: the judge never ruled on whether Haderli was actually guilty of any of these actions. The final decision did not weigh the evidence to determine who was “right” or “wrong” about the incidents. The entire case was decided on the grounds that the punishment itself was invalid because it was not authorized by the HOA’s governing documents, regardless of the alleged offenses that prompted it.

This procedural victory underscores the first lesson: it didn’t matter if the Board’s accusations were 100% true, because they attempted to enforce their judgment with a punishment they had no authority to invent. This is a crucial lesson. In an HOA dispute, winning isn’t always about proving your innocence regarding an incident. It can be about proving the board failed to follow its own established rules and procedures for discipline.

Takeaway 3: You May Have to Prove the HOA is Wrong

The Burden of Proof Can Fall on the Homeowner.

Many might assume that an HOA, as the governing body imposing discipline, would be required to prove it had the authority to do so. In this case, however, the legal burden was reversed. The administrative ruling states that the homeowner, referred to as the “Petitioner,” had the “burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence” that the HOA acted without authority. This is not unusual; in an administrative hearing, the person who files the petition is the one bringing the complaint, and it is standard procedure for them to carry the burden of proving their claim.

The court defined “preponderance of the evidence” as:

[E]vidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.

This is a significant hurdle. It meant that Haderli couldn’t just question the Board’s power; she had to affirmatively prove, with more convincing evidence, that they didn’t have the authority they claimed. Despite this challenge, she successfully met that burden.

Takeaway 4: Victory Can Be Found in the Fine Print

Knowing Your Governing Documents is Your Greatest Weapon.

This case was not won through complex legal maneuvering or emotional arguments about who was to blame. Victory was found in a straightforward reading of the HOA’s own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

The judge’s decision specifically cited Sections 14.2, 15.2B, and 12.2 of the CC&Rs as the foundation for what constituted authorized punishments—namely, fines and the suspension of privileges. By pointing out that the Board’s chosen discipline was absent from these sections, Haderli demonstrated that the Board had overstepped.

This reinforces the central lesson for every homeowner. The most powerful tool you have in a dispute with your association is a copy of your own governing documents. The answer to whether a board is overstepping its authority is often written right there in the text. Homeowners should treat their CC&Rs not as a dusty rulebook, but as a binding contract that holds their Board accountable.

Conclusion: Knowledge is Power

In the end, Linda Haderli was officially deemed the “prevailing party.” The judge ordered that the HOA’s imposed discipline be “quashed” and that her $500 filing fee be returned. This victory was possible for one primary reason: the HOA board exceeded the specific authority granted to it by its own rules. The case serves as a powerful reminder that an HOA’s power is not absolute; it is defined and limited by its documents.

The Board’s power ended where their documents said it did. Do you know where that line is drawn in your community?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Linda Haderli (petitioner)
  • Jonathan A. Dessaules (attorney)
  • Ashley C. Hill (attorney)

Respondent Side

  • Samuel E. Arrowsmith (attorney)
  • Ryan J. McCarthy (attorney)
  • Mary Candelaria (general manager)
    Respondent's General Manager; testified
  • Barb Putnam (employee)
    Association employee allegedly harassed by Petitioner

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)

Other Participants

  • Joyce Wooton (involved individual)
    Individual associated with the Pickleball Club, subject of allegation