Tag Archives: HOA

R.L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H056-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-11-19
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $167.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner R.L. Whitmer Counsel —
Respondent Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners Counsel Emily Mann, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's petition was granted in part, finding Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A) by failing to afford Petitioner an opportunity to speak before the vote ratification during the special meeting. The tribunal found no violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(E)(1), 33-1248(E)(4), or Art. 23, sec. 23.9. Petitioner was awarded a civil penalty of $167.00, but reimbursement of the filing fee was denied.

Why this result: Petitioner lost claims regarding the lack of meeting agenda (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(E)(1)) because the statute applies to board meetings, not special member meetings; regarding the unnoticed Town Hall (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(E)(4)) because the gathering was not considered an informal meeting to discuss Association business; and the claim regarding Art. 23, sec. 23.9 was abandoned/plead in error.

Key Issues & Findings

Member right to speak during noticed meeting

Petitioner alleged violation by refusing to permit him to speak during a noticed meeting. The Tribunal found Respondent in violation because Petitioner unequivocally indicated he wished to be heard ('waiting for the public comment') prior to vote ratification, but was not afforded a clear opportunity to do so.

Orders: Respondent shall tender $167.00 to the Department, in certified funds, as a civil penalty for its violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A) within thirty (30) days of this Order. Respondent shall not violate this statutory provision henceforth.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No, Civil penalty: $167.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Condominium, Open Meeting Law, Right to Speak, Civil Penalty
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(E)(1)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(E)(4)
  • Art. 23, sec. 23.9

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H056-REL Decision – 1335493.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:24:21 (847.7 KB)

25F-H056-REL Decision – 1335502.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:24:26 (74.4 KB)

25F-H056-REL Decision – 1335656.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:24:31 (10.6 KB)

25F-H056-REL Decision – 1352057.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:24:35 (53.9 KB)

25F-H056-REL Decision – 1352067.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:24:39 (7.8 KB)

25F-H056-REL Decision – 1353232.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:24:43 (52.9 KB)

25F-H056-REL Decision – 1357681.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:24:47 (82.0 KB)

25F-H056-REL Decision – 1360270.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:24:51 (52.2 KB)

25F-H056-REL Decision – 1369834.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:24:56 (190.0 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H056-REL


Briefing Document: Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the legal dispute between homeowner R.L. Whitmer (Petitioner) and the Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners (Respondent), culminating in a decision by an Arizona Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The case, docket number 25F-H056-REL, centered on allegations that the Homeowners Association (HOA) violated Arizona’s open meeting laws during and after a special meeting of the members on April 7, 2025.

The Petitioner alleged three primary statutory violations of A.R.S. § 33-1248: (1) failure to provide a meeting agenda, (2) denial of the opportunity to speak, and (3) holding an unnoticed informal meeting with a quorum of the board present. The Respondent countered that the meeting was a special meeting of the members, not a board meeting, that the petitioner never explicitly requested to speak, and that the post-meeting gathering was an informal discussion among neighbors, not an official meeting.

The ALJ’s final decision, issued on November 19, 2025, resulted in a partial victory for the Petitioner. The judge found the HOA in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248(A) for failing to provide an opportunity for the Petitioner to speak, deeming the HOA’s argument that he did not make an explicit request “disingenuous.” The other two allegations were dismissed. Consequently, a civil penalty of $167.00 was imposed on the Respondent, but the Petitioner’s request for reimbursement of his $500.00 filing fee was denied.

I. Case Overview

Case Name

In the Matter of R.L. Whitmer, Petitioner, v. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners, Respondent

Docket Number

25F-H056-REL

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Administrative Law Judge

Jenna Clark

Referring Agency

Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)

Petitioner

R.L. Whitmer (appearing on his own behalf)

Respondent

Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners

Respondent’s Counsel

Emily Mann, Esq. (Phillips Maceyko & Battock, PLLC)

Respondent’s Witness

Robert Westbrook (HOA President)

Date of Incident

April 7, 2025

Petition Filed

April 9, 2025

Hearing Date

November 3, 2025

ALJ Decision Date

November 19, 2025

II. Petitioner’s Allegations and Requested Relief

On April 9, 2025, R.L. Whitmer filed a Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition with the ADRE, alleging violations stemming from a “special meeting” presided over by HOA President Bob Westbrook on April 7, 2025.

Core Allegations:

• Failure to Provide an Agenda (A.R.S. § 33-1248(E)(1)): The Petitioner alleged that the HOA failed to provide an agenda for the meeting. The petition states, “When asked for the agenda…Mr. Westbrook stated there was no agenda.”

• Denial of Opportunity to Speak (A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)): The Petitioner claimed he was denied the opportunity to speak during the noticed session. The petition reads, “When asked for the opportunity to speak during the noticed session, Mr. Westbrook stated there would not be such an opportunity.”

• Unnoticed Meeting (A.R.S. § 33-1248(E)(4)): The Petitioner alleged that after the special meeting was adjourned, the board “unlawfully proceeded to hold an unnoticed meeting with a quorum of the board present.”

• Violation of Association Declaration: The petition initially cited a violation of “Article 23 § 23.9 of the Declaration of Horizontal Property Regime for Hilton Casitas.” During the hearing, the Petitioner acknowledged this was included in error and abandoned the claim.

Requested Relief:

1. An order directing the Respondent to abide by the Arizona statutes specified in the complaint.

2. The imposition of a civil penalty against the Respondent for the alleged violations.

III. Respondent’s Position and Defense

The Hilton Casitas HOA, represented by counsel, denied all allegations and argued for the petition’s complete dismissal.

Core Defense Arguments:

• Agenda Not Required for Member Meeting: The Respondent contended that the April 7, 2025 meeting was a “special meeting of the members” for the sole purpose of ratifying a revised budget, not a “meeting of the board of directors.” Therefore, the specific agenda requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1248(E)(1) did not apply.

• Ballot Packet Served as Agenda: Even if an agenda were required, the absentee ballot packet—which included a letter explaining the budget, the revised budget itself, and the ballot—sufficiently notified the membership of the meeting’s sole purpose.

• Petitioner Never Explicitly Requested to Speak: The Respondent argued that the Petitioner never made a formal request to speak. Citing the hearing transcript, they noted that in response to being asked if he cared to vote, the Petitioner stated, “I’m waiting for the public comment.” The defense argued this statement was not a direct request to speak.

• “Town Hall” Was Not a Board Meeting: The HOA characterized the gathering after the formal meeting as an “informal town hall discussion” where President Westbrook invited neighbors to stay at his home for a “neighborly conversation.” They asserted that no association business was conducted and that the mere presence of a quorum of board members did not transform the gathering into a formal, unnoticed board meeting, which would lead to the “absurd result” of directors being prohibited from attending member events.

IV. Procedural History and Hearing Chronology

• April 9, 2025: Petition filed by R.L. Whitmer.

• April 30, 2025: Petitioner pays the $500.00 single-issue filing fee.

• June 6, 2025: Respondent files its answer, denying all complaint items.

• June 24, 2025: ADRE issues a Notice of Hearing, scheduling it for August 1, 2025.

• August 1, 2025: Petitioner moves to continue the hearing to amend his petition.

• August 11, 2025: Petitioner submits an Amended HOA Dispute Petition.

• September-October 2025: A series of motions are filed, including a Motion for Summary Judgment by the Petitioner and a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment by the Respondent.

• October 8, 2025: The OAH issues an order denying the Petitioner’s motion and dismissing his Amended Petition with prejudice, but allowing the original petition to proceed.

• November 3, 2025: The continued hearing is held remotely before ALJ Jenna Clark. R.L. Whitmer testifies on his own behalf, and Robert Westbrook testifies for the Respondent.

• November 19, 2025: ALJ Clark issues the final Administrative Law Judge Decision.

V. Administrative Law Judge’s Final Decision and Rationale

The ALJ granted the petition in part and denied it in part, finding the Respondent in violation of one of the three alleged statutory provisions.

The ALJ found that the Respondent violated the Petitioner’s right to speak. The decision concluded that although the Petitioner did not make an explicit request, his statement, “I’m waiting for the public comment,” was a clear and unequivocal indication of his desire to be heard.

• Rationale: The judge found the Respondent’s counterargument to be “disingenuous,” stating, “It cannot be faithfully argued that the HOA President was unaware Petitioner was desirous of speaking. Animosity notwithstanding, Petitioner should have been afforded a reasonable amount of time to be heard prior to adjournment.”

The ALJ ruled that the Respondent did not violate the statute regarding meeting agendas.

• Rationale: The decision affirms the Respondent’s position, stating, “the record clearly reflects that the April 07, 2025, special meeting was not a meeting of the board of directors, and did have an agenda issued to members in advance – as evidenced by the ballot and memorandum which provided objectively reasonable detail regarding the purpose and scope of the meeting.”

The ALJ determined that the post-meeting gathering did not constitute an illegal unnoticed meeting.

• Rationale: The judge concluded that “the existence of a quorum, intentional or otherwise, absent open discussion of Association business does not a meeting make.” The decision further supported the Respondent’s argument that holding otherwise “would unintentionally result in absurdity.”

VI. Final Order and Sanctions

Based on the findings, the final order established the following:

1. Petition Status: The petition was granted in part (for the A.R.S. § 33-1248(A) violation) and denied and dismissed for all other allegations.

2. Civil Penalty: The Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $167.00 to the ADRE within thirty days for the violation.

3. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Petitioner’s request to be reimbursed for the $500.00 filing fee was denied.

4. Future Compliance: The Respondent was ordered to not violate A.R.S. § 33-1248(A) henceforth.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Rial Lamar Whitmer (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Emily Mann (respondent attorney)
    Phillips Maceyko & Battock, PLLC
  • Robert Westbrook (HOA president/board member/witness)
    Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners
  • John Brooke (board member)
    Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners
    Director
  • Curt Richard Roberts (board member)
    Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners
    Secretary
  • Jay Panzer (board member)
    Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners
    Director
  • James Cox (board member)
    Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners
    Treasurer

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Liz Recchia (Division Manager/ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • V. Nunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed on distribution list
  • D. Jones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed on distribution list
  • L. Abril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed on distribution list
  • M. Neat (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed on distribution list
  • G. Osborn (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed on distribution list

Other Participants

  • Eli (homeowner/witness)
    Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners
    Attendee at special meeting
  • Mike Benson (former board member/homeowner)
    Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners
    Attendee at Town Hall
  • Katie Hobbs (Governor)

Nicholas Thomas v. Tanglewood Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H037-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-07-13
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Nicholas Thomas Counsel —
Respondent Tanglewood Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Page 2, Section A; and Management Agreement, Pages 33-34, Clause Four, subsection a., b., and f.

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the two-issue Petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Tanglewood Association violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or Management Agreement. The HOA was declared the prevailing party.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. Regarding the plumbing maintenance (Issue #1), the HOA demonstrated they took action but were legally constrained by contract limitations requiring Board approval/owner vote for costly repairs ($5,000 threshold). Regarding the failure to hire a property manager (Issue #2), the governing documents were vague, and the violation was not proven.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to maintain Association standards of acceptable living standards and make proper repairs to plumbing in the properties.

Petitioner filed a two-issue petition alleging HOA failed to timely fix a major plumbing issue (Issue #1) that caused flooding/sink backup, making his unit uninhabitable and resulting in lost rent. The second issue (Issue #2) alleged the HOA failed to hire a property management company, which Petitioner claimed led to the untimely handling of Issue #1. The HOA responded that repairs were delayed due to financial constraints requiring a successful special assessment vote.

Orders: The Petition was denied, and the HOA was determined to be the prevailing party. Petitioner was ordered to bear his filing fees. OAH cannot award damages, such as lost rent reimbursement.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Page 2, Section A
  • Management Agreement, Pages 33-34, Clause Four, subsection a., b., and f.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Plumbing, CC&R, Self-Managed, Special Assessment, Filing Fee, Damages Denied
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H037-REL Decision – 1300705.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:18:44 (49.8 KB)

25F-H037-REL Decision – 1327762.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:18:48 (147.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H037-REL


Briefing Document: Nicholas Thomas v. Tanglewood Association (Case No. 25F-H037-REL)

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of Case No. 25F-H037-REL, a dispute between property owner Nicholas Thomas (Petitioner) and the Tanglewood Association (HOA/Respondent). The case was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, with a final decision issued on July 13, 2025.

The Petitioner filed a two-issue petition alleging that the HOA (1) failed in its duty to perform timely plumbing repairs, rendering his unit uninhabitable, and (2) failed to hire a professional property management company, leading to systemic financial and operational issues.

The HOA countered that the repair delays were not due to inaction but to severe financial constraints and the procedural necessity of securing a majority vote from homeowners for a special assessment. This funding was required for the extensive and costly repairs needed for the property’s aging infrastructure. The HOA highlighted that the Petitioner had never participated in these critical votes.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately denied the petition in its entirety, finding that the Petitioner had not met his burden of proof. The decision concluded that the HOA’s actions were constrained by its financial reality and governing documents, not a breach of duty. The delays were attributed to the failed attempts to secure owner-approved funding via special assessment votes in prior years. The HOA was determined to be the prevailing party, and the Petitioner was ordered to bear his own filing fees.

I. Case Overview

• Case Number: 25F-H037-REL

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Nicholas Thomas, owner of Unit 141, Building 4

◦ Respondent: Tanglewood Association (HOA), represented by Co-President Hector Saavedra

• Adjudicating Body: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn

• Timeline:

◦ Petition Filed: February 7, 2025

◦ Hearing Date: May 16, 2025

◦ Decision Issued: July 13, 2025

The Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging the HOA violated its CC&Rs by failing to maintain the property and by not hiring professional management. The matter was referred to the OAH for an evidentiary hearing.

II. Complaint #1: Failure to Repair Plumbing Issue

Petitioner’s Position

The central claim was that the HOA failed to address a severe plumbing issue in a timely manner, which stemmed from common lines outside the Petitioner’s unit.

• Timeline of Events:

◦ October 2024: The Petitioner first became aware of a plumbing issue causing the kitchen sink to back up. A private plumber determined the issue was external to the unit.

◦ November 18, 2024: The HOA was formally notified of the problem.

◦ January/February 2025: Communication from the HOA ceased, prompting the Petitioner to file his complaint.

◦ February 18, 2025: The Petitioner canceled the lease with his tenants as the unit was deemed “uninhabitable” due to flooding and a non-functional sink.

• Consequences: The Petitioner cited damage to the kitchen floor and walls, the loss of rental income, and the ongoing uninhabitable state of the unit. The water line to the sink was eventually capped in February 2025 to stop the flooding, but this did not resolve the underlying issue.

• Key Quote: “The plumbing issue has been in place for 7 months. It has not been addressed. The house is currently unlivable, uninhabitable, still has damage in it. Um, and I do believe the HOA has failed in its required responsibilities to address this issue.” – Nicholas Thomas

• Requested Relief:

1. An order for the HOA to fix the plumbing with a specific timeline.

2. Reimbursement of the $500 portion of the filing fee for this complaint.

3. Reimbursement for lost rent.

Respondent’s Position (Tanglewood HOA)

The HOA argued that the delay was a direct result of financial insolvency and procedural requirements stipulated in its governing documents, not negligence.

• Systemic Problem: The plumbing issues were not isolated to the Petitioner’s unit but were part of a larger problem with the property’s aging infrastructure, dating back to 1965. A similar issue in another building cost $15,000 to repair two years prior.

• Financial & Procedural Hurdles: The estimated cost for the current repairs was initially $15,000 but rose to $50,000. The HOA stated it was “flat broke” with minimal reserves. The CC&Rs mandate a majority vote of over 50% (50.1%) of owners to approve a special assessment for such funding.

• Key Quote: “It should be noted that the board cannot increase the dues of the HOA or or ask for an special assessment unless we have a 50.01% vote from the owners. Mr. Thomas hasn’t voted in two three years and the things that he’s been asking for need their vote to make them happen.” – Hector Saavedra

• Voting History: Attempts to pass a special assessment failed in 2022 and 2023 due to a lack of owner participation. The Petitioner acknowledged he had never voted.

• Eventual Success: In 2025, after significant effort, the HOA secured a 50.35% vote to approve a $70,000 special assessment. This was structured in three phases to ease the financial burden on owners.

• Current Action Plan: At the time of the hearing, the HOA had collected approximately $40,000, made a $15,000 down payment to a plumbing contractor, and was scheduling the work. The repairs were set to begin with Building 4, which includes the Petitioner’s unit and was identified as having the most severe damage.

III. Complaint #2: Lack of Professional Management

Petitioner’s Position

This complaint asserted that the root cause of the HOA’s problems was its self-managed, volunteer-run structure, which was incapable of handling the property’s complex needs.

• Core Argument: A volunteer board lacks the time, expertise, and resources for effective financial management, enforcement of dues collection (including foreclosure on delinquent owners), and timely handling of maintenance. The Petitioner’s brother, Lucas Thomas, testified that in his 15 years as a property manager, he has consistently seen self-managed HOAs fail to operate correctly.

• Alleged Financial Mismanagement: The Petitioner argued the HOA should have been proactively increasing dues up to the 20% annual limit allowed by Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1803) without an owner vote, which would have built necessary reserves.

• Key Quote: “Every time that there is a self-managed HOA, the volunteers just don’t have the knowledge or the knowhow or the connections to locals that they need to properly facilitate a giant management especially for 42 units.” – Lucas Thomas

• Requested Relief:

1. An order for the HOA to hire a professional property management company.

2. Reimbursement of the $500 portion of the filing fee for this complaint.

Respondent’s Position (Tanglewood HOA)

The HOA acknowledged the challenges of a volunteer board but maintained that its primary obstacle was financial, not a lack of willingness to act.

• Affordability: The board had discussed hiring a professional management company but concluded it could not afford the expense. They feared that passing the cost to owners would result in even greater delinquency in dues payments.

• Volunteer Effort and Investment: The board is comprised of unpaid owner volunteers who live on the property and are personally impacted by the issues. Mr. Saavedra noted the immense personal time and stress involved, stating, “We are working we understand there’s around seven units right now that are vacant just like Mr. Thomas’s. We understand the pain of not being able to collect money from that from rent.”

• Invitation to Participate: The HOA extended an invitation to Mr. Thomas to join the board and contribute to finding solutions.

IV. Administrative Law Judge’s Decision & Rationale

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the Petitioner’s petition on all counts, finding the evidence did not support a conclusion that the HOA had violated its duties.

• Final Order:

◦ The Petitioner’s Petition is denied.

◦ The HOA is the prevailing party.

◦ The Petitioner shall bear his own filing fees ($1,000.00).

◦ The OAH does not have the authority to award damages, such as lost rent.

• Rationale for Denying Complaint #1 (Plumbing Repair):

◦ The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving the HOA was not performing its duties.

◦ The evidence demonstrated that upon receiving complaints, the HOA hired a vendor and investigated the issue. The subsequent delay was a direct result of the high cost of repair and the HOA’s lack of funds.

◦ The HOA’s governing documents prevent a property manager or agent from spending more than $5,000, even in an emergency, without Board approval. Therefore, an immediate, large-scale repair was contractually and financially impossible without the owner-approved special assessment. The delay was thus a consequence of procedural and financial constraints, not a failure of duty.

• Rationale for Denying Complaint #2 (Professional Management):

◦ The ALJ found the hearing record to be “simply vague” on this issue.

◦ It could not be determined whether the HOA ever had a property manager in the past or to whom the “Management Agreement” clauses in the CC&Rs currently apply. Without a clearer record, a violation could not be established.

V. Key Participants & Testimony

Participant

Key Testimony & Contributions

Nicholas Thomas

Petitioner, Owner of Unit 141

Outlined the 7-month timeline of the plumbing failure, the resulting uninhabitability of his unit, and the financial losses incurred. Argued for professional management and acknowledged he had never voted in HOA elections or assessments.

Hector Saavedra

Respondent, Co-President of Tanglewood HOA

Explained the HOA’s financial insolvency, the procedural requirement for a majority owner vote to pass special assessments, and the history of failed votes. Detailed the successful 2025 vote and the current plan to begin repairs. Invited the Petitioner to join the board.

Carl Kesler

Petitioner’s Property Manager

Corroborated the timeline of events and communications with the HOA. Confirmed the plumbing issue was localized to the kitchen and stemmed from a mainline sewer problem. Stated he had never been to the unit in person and did not forward all HOA correspondence to the Petitioner.

Lucas Thomas

Petitioner’s Brother, Former Property Manager

Testified from his 15 years of experience that self-managed HOAs are typically ineffective. Argued that a professional firm is necessary for proper financial management and maintenance, citing a past lawsuit where he forced another HOA to hire a management company, which turned the property around.






Study Guide – 25F-H037-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H037-REL”, “case_title”: “Nicholas Thomas v. Tanglewood Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-07-13”, “alj_name”: “Kay A. Abramsohn”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can I get monetary damages (like lost rent) from my HOA through an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “No, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) does not have the legal authority to award damages.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the OAH can order an HOA to follow its governing documents, it cannot award financial compensation for losses such as lost rent or property damage.”, “alj_quote”: “OAH does not have authority to award damages.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.”, “topic_tags”: [ “damages”, “jurisdiction”, “compensation” ] }, { “question”: “If my HOA fails to make repairs due to lack of funds, is it considered a violation?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily, especially if the HOA is taking steps to secure funding through a special assessment.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the ALJ found that the HOA could not be held in violation for failing to make immediate repairs when it lacked the necessary funds and was actively seeking a special assessment vote from owners to cover the costs.”, “alj_quote”: “Given its financial situation, HOA determined the overall plumbing issues could not be repaired absent a special assessment to cover those specific and projected expenses… Therefore, the hearing record demonstrates that more immediate action to repair either Petitioner’s plumbing issues or the overall plumbing issues could not have been taken.”, “legal_basis”: “Governing Documents / Financial Feasibility”, “topic_tags”: [ “repairs”, “finances”, “special assessment” ] }, { “question”: “Who acts as the ‘burden of proof’ in a hearing against an HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the violation occurred.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA violated its community documents or relevant statutes.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent HOA violated the alleged CC&R provisions.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standard”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Can I force my HOA board to hire a professional property management company?”, “short_answer”: “Likely no, unless you can prove a specific requirement in the governing documents is being violated.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that the homeowner did not meet the burden of proof to show that the HOA was violating its duties by not hiring a property manager, noting the evidence regarding the requirement was vague.”, “alj_quote”: “The Tribunal concludes that Petitioner has not met his burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that HOA was not timely performing ‘their duties outlined’ in CC&Rs Page 2, Section A; and Management Agreement… regarding property management, the hearing record is simply vague.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs / Management Agreement”, “topic_tags”: [ “property management”, “board duties”, “self-management” ] }, { “question”: “Does an HOA manager have unlimited spending power for emergency repairs?”, “short_answer”: “No, governing documents often place specific dollar limits on spending without board/association approval.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision cites a management agreement that limits emergency repair spending (e.g., to $5,000) without prior approval from the Association.”, “alj_quote”: “Agent shall not incur liabilities (direct or contingent) which will at any time exceed the aggregate of $5,000.00 … without first obtaining the approval of the Association.”, “legal_basis”: “Management Agreement Contracts”, “topic_tags”: [ “spending limits”, “emergency repairs”, “budget” ] }, { “question”: “If I lose my case against the HOA, do I get my filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “No, if the petition is denied, the petitioner is typically responsible for their own filing fees.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ordered that the Petitioner bear his own filing fees after Tanglewood Association was determined to be the prevailing party.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall bear his filing fees.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Order”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “costs”, “penalties” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 25F-H037-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H037-REL”, “case_title”: “Nicholas Thomas v. Tanglewood Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-07-13”, “alj_name”: “Kay A. Abramsohn”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can I get monetary damages (like lost rent) from my HOA through an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “No, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) does not have the legal authority to award damages.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the OAH can order an HOA to follow its governing documents, it cannot award financial compensation for losses such as lost rent or property damage.”, “alj_quote”: “OAH does not have authority to award damages.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.”, “topic_tags”: [ “damages”, “jurisdiction”, “compensation” ] }, { “question”: “If my HOA fails to make repairs due to lack of funds, is it considered a violation?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily, especially if the HOA is taking steps to secure funding through a special assessment.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the ALJ found that the HOA could not be held in violation for failing to make immediate repairs when it lacked the necessary funds and was actively seeking a special assessment vote from owners to cover the costs.”, “alj_quote”: “Given its financial situation, HOA determined the overall plumbing issues could not be repaired absent a special assessment to cover those specific and projected expenses… Therefore, the hearing record demonstrates that more immediate action to repair either Petitioner’s plumbing issues or the overall plumbing issues could not have been taken.”, “legal_basis”: “Governing Documents / Financial Feasibility”, “topic_tags”: [ “repairs”, “finances”, “special assessment” ] }, { “question”: “Who acts as the ‘burden of proof’ in a hearing against an HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the violation occurred.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA violated its community documents or relevant statutes.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent HOA violated the alleged CC&R provisions.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standard”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Can I force my HOA board to hire a professional property management company?”, “short_answer”: “Likely no, unless you can prove a specific requirement in the governing documents is being violated.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that the homeowner did not meet the burden of proof to show that the HOA was violating its duties by not hiring a property manager, noting the evidence regarding the requirement was vague.”, “alj_quote”: “The Tribunal concludes that Petitioner has not met his burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that HOA was not timely performing ‘their duties outlined’ in CC&Rs Page 2, Section A; and Management Agreement… regarding property management, the hearing record is simply vague.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs / Management Agreement”, “topic_tags”: [ “property management”, “board duties”, “self-management” ] }, { “question”: “Does an HOA manager have unlimited spending power for emergency repairs?”, “short_answer”: “No, governing documents often place specific dollar limits on spending without board/association approval.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision cites a management agreement that limits emergency repair spending (e.g., to $5,000) without prior approval from the Association.”, “alj_quote”: “Agent shall not incur liabilities (direct or contingent) which will at any time exceed the aggregate of $5,000.00 … without first obtaining the approval of the Association.”, “legal_basis”: “Management Agreement Contracts”, “topic_tags”: [ “spending limits”, “emergency repairs”, “budget” ] }, { “question”: “If I lose my case against the HOA, do I get my filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “No, if the petition is denied, the petitioner is typically responsible for their own filing fees.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ordered that the Petitioner bear his own filing fees after Tanglewood Association was determined to be the prevailing party.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall bear his filing fees.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Order”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “costs”, “penalties” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Nicholas Thomas (petitioner)
    Represented self; Unit owner
  • Carl Kesler (property manager)
    Managed Petitioner's unit; testified as witness
  • Lucas Thomas (witness)
    Brother of Petitioner; former property manager of the unit

Respondent Side

  • Hector Saavedra (board member)
    Tanglewood Association
    Co-President; represented the Respondent Association

Neutral Parties

  • Kay A. Abramsohn (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Also referred to as K. Abramson
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of the decision

Keith A. Shadden v. Las Brisas Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H043-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-07-07
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Keith A. Shadden Counsel —
Respondent Las Brisas Community Association Counsel Emily Cooper, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article 5.10 & Article 5.12 of CC&Rs (Las Brisas Community Association)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof showing the HOA used incorrect CC&R sections for the violation concerning reflective material on garage door glass cutouts. The ALJ concluded that the plain meaning of "window" in CC&R Section 5.10 applies to any transparent opening and does not exclude garages.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its CC&Rs by using incorrect sections for the violation regarding reflective tint on garage door glass cutouts.

Key Issues & Findings

Allegation that Respondent is using incorrect CC&R section (5.10) to create violation for garage door glass cutouts which fall under section 5.12.

Petitioner alleged the HOA misapplied CC&R Section 5.10 (Windows) to enforce a violation regarding reflective tint on garage door glass cutouts, asserting that Section 5.10 was not intended to cover garage doors as they are addressed under Section 5.12.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • Title 33, Chapter 16
  • A.R.S. §§ 33-1801 to 33-1818
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • Powell, 211 Ariz. at 557 ¶ 16, 125 P.3d at 377

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Window Restriction, Garage Door, Reflective Material, Planned Communities Act, Burden of Proof, Violation Notice
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • Title 33, Chapter 16
  • A.R.S. §§ 33-1801 to 33-1818
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • Powell, 211 Ariz. at 557 ¶ 16, 125 P.3d at 377

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H043-REL Decision – 10_TAB H – Denial of Architectural Design hearing request.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:19:34 (284.5 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 11_TAB I – Email concerning unable to attend hearing on Architectural Design with HOA Board.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:19:39 (517.3 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1298924.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:19:43 (219.9 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 12_TAB J – HOA Board denial Letter of Architectural Design appeal.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:19:47 (5.2 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1303564.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:19:51 (78.0 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1312135.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:19:53 (77.0 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1312136.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:00 (5991.2 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1314210.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:04 (45.8 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1315443.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:08 (75.7 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1315444.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:13 (200.3 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1316546.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:19 (59.6 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1316554.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:23 (8.9 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1317444.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:27 (74.8 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1317445.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:32 (241.8 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1317647.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:36 (254.0 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1317648.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:39 (1112.7 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1325514.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:43 (71.8 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1325661.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:47 (88.3 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1325928.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:51 (17.7 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 13_TAB K – Email for HOA Board consideration before rendering Architectural Design Appeal Decision.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:56 (1963.4 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 14_TAB L – Email to Community Manager with Owner Building Option List for window blinds.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:00 (162.2 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 15_Table of Content.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:04 (56.7 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1_Homeowner Association HOA Dispute Process Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:09 (2571.3 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 2_Statement of Facts and Argument.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:14 (93.8 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 3_TAB A – Home Build option sheet.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:19 (391.9 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 4_TAB B – Violation notification from HOA.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:24 (446.9 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 5_TAB C – Hearing Request and communication with Community Manager.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:29 (472.4 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 6_TAB D – Las Brisas.3.Declaration of Covenants Conditions Restrictions.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:33 (175.1 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 7_TAB E – HOA Board Response Letter.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:36 (5.3 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 8_TAB F – Architectural Design Request.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:40 (13.8 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 9_TAB G – Architectural Design Request Response Letter.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:45 (60.7 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – Answer – Las Brisas (1).pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:50 (226.4 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – Arizona Corporation Commission.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:54 (149.1 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – Filing Fee Receipt.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:58 (92.7 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – Notice of Hearing.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:22:02 (235.6 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – Notice of Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:22:06 (496.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H043-REL


Briefing Document: Shadden v. Las Brisas Community Association, Case No. 25F-H043-REL

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal dispute between homeowner Keith A. Shadden (Petitioner) and the Las Brisas Community Association (Respondent) concerning a violation for reflective material on garage door windows. The case, adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, centered on whether the Association correctly applied its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

On July 7, 2025, Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson issued a decision dismissing Mr. Shadden’s petition. The judge ruled that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that the Association had violated its governing documents.

The core of the dispute was Mr. Shadden’s allegation that the Association improperly used CC&R Section 5.10 (“Windows”) to cite him for reflective tint on his garage door’s glass cutouts. He argued that the garage door should be governed by Section 5.12 (“Garages and Driveways”). His primary evidence was that the original builder, Taylor Morrison, did not install window treatments on the garage door (a requirement of 5.10), implying the builder did not consider the cutouts to be “windows.”

The Association maintained that the plain language of the CC&Rs prohibits reflective materials on windows, that the glass cutouts are functionally windows, and that this rule is consistently enforced throughout the community. The Judge ultimately agreed with the Association’s interpretation, defining a “window” in its plain meaning as “any transparent opening through which light passes” and noting that Section 5.10 does not explicitly exclude garages.

Case Overview

Case Name

In the Matter of: Keith A. Shadden v. Las Brisas Community Association

Case Number

25F-H043-REL

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Presiding Judge

Velva Moses-Thompson, Administrative Law Judge

Hearing Date

June 16, 2025

Decision Date

July 7, 2025

Petitioner

Keith A. Shadden (representing himself)

Respondent

Las Brisas Community Association, represented by Emily Cooper, Esq.

Core Dispute and Allegations

The central issue of the hearing, as defined in a June 5, 2025 order, was the Petitioner’s allegation that the Respondent was “using incorrect CC&R section (5.10) to create violation for garage door glass cutouts which fall under section 5.12”.

The dispute originated from a violation notice issued to Mr. Shadden on August 19, 2024, for having reflective material on his garage door windows. Subsequent notices with escalating fines were issued on February 13, 2025 (25fine),March21,2025(50 fine), and April 23, 2025 ($100 fine).

Relevant Governing Documents

The case revolved around the interpretation of two specific sections of the Las Brisas Community Association CC&Rs.

Section

Full Text

Article 5.10

Windows

“Within ninety (90) days of occupancy of a Residential Unit each Owner shall install permanent suitable window treatments that are Visible from Neighboring Property. No reflective materials, including, but without limitation, aluminum foil, reflective screens or glass, mirrors or similar type items, shall be installed or placed upon the outside or inside of any windows.”

Article 5.12

Garages and Driveways

“The interior of all garages situated on any lot shall be maintained in a neat and clean condition. Garages shall be used only for the parking of Vehicles and the storage of normal household supplies and materials and shall not be used for or converted to living quarters or recreational activities after the initial construction thereof without the prior written approval of the Architectural Committee. Garage doors shall be left open only as needed for ingress and egress.”

Arguments and Evidence Presented at Hearing

The evidentiary hearing was conducted virtually via Google Meet on June 16, 2025. Both parties presented arguments, testimony, and exhibits.

Petitioner’s Case (Keith A. Shadden)

Mr. Shadden argued that the Association’s application of Section 5.10 to his garage door was incorrect and unreasonable.

• Argument from Declarant’s Intent: Mr. Shadden testified that as the original homeowner, he paid the declarant, Taylor Morrison, nearly $1,600 for window treatments on all windows in the home. Because Taylor Morrison did not install any treatments on the garage door’s glass cutouts, he contended this showed the declarant’s intent that these cutouts were not to be considered “windows” under Section 5.10.

• Unreasonable Application: He argued that applying the entirety of Section 5.10, including the requirement for window treatments like blinds, to a garage door is an “unrealistic expectation for a homeowner.”

• Conflicting Communication: Mr. Shadden presented an email (Exhibit M) from the assistant community manager, K. White, which stated, “you do not have to install window treatment you can leave the windows without the treatments or you may install window treatments.” He argued this showed the Association itself did not apply the full scope of Section 5.10 to the garage.

• Testimony on “Window” Definition: Under cross-examination, Mr. Shadden offered several definitions of a window, including “something you look through.” He eventually conceded that the glass cutouts meet a common-sense understanding of a window but maintained his position based on the specific context of the CC&Rs.

Respondent’s Case (Las Brisas Community Association)

The Association, represented by Emily Cooper, Esq., with testimony from Community Manager Jamie Cryblskey, argued its actions were proper and consistent.

• Plain Language Interpretation: The Association asserted that the governing documents, including the CC&Rs and Design Guidelines, have “clear and plain language” that expressly prohibits reflective materials on windows.

• Consistent Enforcement: Ms. Cryblskey testified that the rule against reflective tint is enforced consistently across all 1,321 lots in the community. She noted that at the time of the hearing, one or two other homeowners had active violations for the same issue and were being treated in the same manner.

• Definition of “Window”: The Association argued that a “garage window is a window.” Ms. Cryblskey testified that she personally considers the glass inserts in a garage door to be windows.

• Adherence to Due Process: The Association outlined the procedural history, noting Mr. Shadden was provided a hearing before the Board of Directors on October 15, 2024. After his dispute was denied, he was required to submit an architectural application, which was also denied. His subsequent appeal of that denial was heard and denied by the board on December 17, 2024.

• Compliance Status: During opening statements, Ms. Cooper noted that Mr. Shadden had since installed a charcoal tint, which is permissible, rendering the petition moot. During testimony, Mr. Shadden stated he had applied black masking tape. Ms. Cryblskey confirmed that as of her last inspection on June 12, 2025, the reflective material was removed and the lot was in compliance.

Final Decision and Legal Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge issued a final decision on July 7, 2025, dismissing Mr. Shadden’s petition.

• Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner, Mr. Shadden, bore the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent had violated its CC&Rs.

• Legal Interpretation: The judge’s central conclusion addressed the definition of “window.”

• Final Ruling: The judge found that Mr. Shadden failed to meet his evidentiary burden.

• Order: The recommended order stated, “IT IS ORDERED that Keith A. Shadden’s petition against Respondent Las Brisas Community Association is dismissed.” The decision is binding unless a party files for a rehearing within 30 days of the order.






Study Guide – 25F-H043-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H043-REL”, “case_title”: “Keith A. Shadden v. Las Brisas Community Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-07-07”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If I file a petition against my HOA, who is responsible for proving the violation occurred?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner filing the dispute must prove that the HOA violated the governing documents. It is not automatically the HOA’s job to prove they were right; the petitioner must first establish the violation.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated its CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “How much evidence do I need to win a hearing against my HOA?”, “short_answer”: “You need a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning your claim is more likely true than not.”, “detailed_answer”: “The standard is not ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ (like in criminal cases). It is a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means the evidence must show that the homeowner’s argument is more probably true than the HOA’s.”, “alj_quote”: ““A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.””, “legal_basis”: “Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5”, “topic_tags”: [ “evidence”, “legal standards”, “definitions” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA apply ‘Window’ restrictions (like tint bans) to glass cutouts in my garage door?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the cutouts function as windows (allow visibility) and the homeowner fails to prove the specific garage section overrides the window section.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the ALJ dismissed the homeowner’s claim that the HOA used the ‘incorrect’ CC&R section by applying window rules to garage door glass. The ALJ noted it was undisputed that one could see through the cutouts.”, “alj_quote”: “It was undisputed that there are glass door cut outs on Petitioner’s garage door. Petitioner admitted during hearing that a person can see through the glass door cut outs… Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to establish that Respondent used incorrect sections of the CC&Rs when it issued its VIOLATION NOTICE.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Section 5.10 vs 5.12”, “topic_tags”: [ “architectural control”, “garage doors”, “windows”, “interpretation” ] }, { “question”: “Does the HOA have to prove anything during the hearing?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the HOA asserts any ‘affirmative defenses,’ they must prove them.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the homeowner has the initial burden to prove the violation, if the HOA claims a specific legal defense justifies their actions, they carry the burden of proof for that specific defense.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent bears the burden to establish affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)”, “topic_tags”: [ “affirmative defense”, “burden of proof”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Can I argue that a restriction doesn’t apply because the builder didn’t install the item (like blinds) originally?”, “short_answer”: “That argument may fail if the text of the CC&Rs explicitly restricts the item in question.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner argued that because the builder didn’t put blinds on the garage door, the ‘Window’ section (requiring treatments and banning reflective tint) shouldn’t apply. The ALJ rejected this argument and dismissed the petition.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner contended that because Taylor Morrison did not place window treatment on the garage door cut outs, Taylor Morrison did intend for Section 5.10 of the CC&Rs to apply to garage doors… Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to establish that Respondent used incorrect sections of the CC&Rs”, “legal_basis”: “Preponderance of Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “builder intent”, “interpretation”, “architectural restrictions” ] }, { “question”: “What agency handles hearings regarding HOA disputes in Arizona?”, “short_answer”: “The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) receives petitions, which are heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).”, “detailed_answer”: “State law authorizes the Department of Real Estate to receive petitions from association members regarding violations of planned community documents.”, “alj_quote”: “The Arizona Department of Real Estate (hereinafter “the Department”) is authorized by statute to receive and to decide Petitions for Hearings from members of homeowners’ associations… concerning violations of planned community documents”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “ADRE”, “OAH” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 25F-H043-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H043-REL”, “case_title”: “Keith A. Shadden v. Las Brisas Community Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-07-07”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If I file a petition against my HOA, who is responsible for proving the violation occurred?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner filing the dispute must prove that the HOA violated the governing documents. It is not automatically the HOA’s job to prove they were right; the petitioner must first establish the violation.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated its CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “How much evidence do I need to win a hearing against my HOA?”, “short_answer”: “You need a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning your claim is more likely true than not.”, “detailed_answer”: “The standard is not ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ (like in criminal cases). It is a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means the evidence must show that the homeowner’s argument is more probably true than the HOA’s.”, “alj_quote”: ““A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.””, “legal_basis”: “Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5”, “topic_tags”: [ “evidence”, “legal standards”, “definitions” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA apply ‘Window’ restrictions (like tint bans) to glass cutouts in my garage door?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the cutouts function as windows (allow visibility) and the homeowner fails to prove the specific garage section overrides the window section.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the ALJ dismissed the homeowner’s claim that the HOA used the ‘incorrect’ CC&R section by applying window rules to garage door glass. The ALJ noted it was undisputed that one could see through the cutouts.”, “alj_quote”: “It was undisputed that there are glass door cut outs on Petitioner’s garage door. Petitioner admitted during hearing that a person can see through the glass door cut outs… Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to establish that Respondent used incorrect sections of the CC&Rs when it issued its VIOLATION NOTICE.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Section 5.10 vs 5.12”, “topic_tags”: [ “architectural control”, “garage doors”, “windows”, “interpretation” ] }, { “question”: “Does the HOA have to prove anything during the hearing?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the HOA asserts any ‘affirmative defenses,’ they must prove them.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the homeowner has the initial burden to prove the violation, if the HOA claims a specific legal defense justifies their actions, they carry the burden of proof for that specific defense.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent bears the burden to establish affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)”, “topic_tags”: [ “affirmative defense”, “burden of proof”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Can I argue that a restriction doesn’t apply because the builder didn’t install the item (like blinds) originally?”, “short_answer”: “That argument may fail if the text of the CC&Rs explicitly restricts the item in question.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner argued that because the builder didn’t put blinds on the garage door, the ‘Window’ section (requiring treatments and banning reflective tint) shouldn’t apply. The ALJ rejected this argument and dismissed the petition.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner contended that because Taylor Morrison did not place window treatment on the garage door cut outs, Taylor Morrison did intend for Section 5.10 of the CC&Rs to apply to garage doors… Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to establish that Respondent used incorrect sections of the CC&Rs”, “legal_basis”: “Preponderance of Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “builder intent”, “interpretation”, “architectural restrictions” ] }, { “question”: “What agency handles hearings regarding HOA disputes in Arizona?”, “short_answer”: “The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) receives petitions, which are heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).”, “detailed_answer”: “State law authorizes the Department of Real Estate to receive petitions from association members regarding violations of planned community documents.”, “alj_quote”: “The Arizona Department of Real Estate (hereinafter “the Department”) is authorized by statute to receive and to decide Petitions for Hearings from members of homeowners’ associations… concerning violations of planned community documents”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “ADRE”, “OAH” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Keith A. Shadden (petitioner)
    Homeowner of Lot #1-175; appeared pro se
  • Donna M. Shadden (petitioner)
    Co-owner of the property

Respondent Side

  • Emily E. Cooper (HOA attorney)
    CHDB Law LLP
    Appeared at hearing
  • Kyle Banfield (HOA attorney)
    CHDB Law LLP
    Attended hearing
  • Suzanne Hilborn (legal assistant)
    CHDB Law LLP
    Signed proofs of service
  • Jaime Cryblskey (property manager)
    City Property Management Company
    Community Manager; testified at hearing
  • Makayla White (property manager)
    City Property Management Company
    Community Assistant
  • Erica Golditch (property manager)
    City Property Management Company
    Observer at hearing
  • Lauren Nabulsi (board member)
    Las Brisas Community Association
    President
  • Dakota Ball (board member)
    Las Brisas Community Association
    Treasurer; asked question during October hearing
  • Terrance Thomas (board member)
    Las Brisas Community Association
    Vice-President
  • Frank Grigsby (board member)
    Las Brisas Community Association
    Secretary
  • Timothy J. Hansell (board member)
    Las Brisas Community Association
    Director

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presiding Administrative Law Judge
  • Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Gabe Osborn (agency staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Filed Notice of Hearing
  • Vivian Nunez (agency staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    HOA Dispute Process
  • Chandni Bhakta (mediator)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    ADRE Ombudsman

Other Participants

  • Barry Merklin (witness)
    Taylor Morrison
    Sales Associate listed on purchase agreement
  • Karla Paulsen (unknown)
    Taylor Morrison
    Authorized Officer listed on purchase agreement
  • G. Thomas Hennessy (board member)
    Taylor Morrison/Arizona, Inc.
    Declarant Vice President (2010)
  • Lynne M. Dugan (board member)
    Taylor Morrison/Arizona, Inc.
    Director (2010)
  • Leah Grogan (board member)
    Las Brisas Community Association
    Secretary/Treasurer (2010)
  • Amanda Shaw (unknown)
    Las Brisas Community Association
    Resigned Statutory Agent

Sharon M. Maiden v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H030-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-06-02
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Sharon Maiden Counsel —
Respondent Val Vista Lakes Community Association Counsel Josh Bolen, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article IV, Sections 2 and 3 of the Association’s Bylaws
Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-1804(A)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition is denied, as she failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Open Meeting Law) or selectively enforced Article IV, Sections 2 and 3 of the Bylaws regarding term limits.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof on both issues. The closed board meeting was authorized for discussing legal advice, and the HOA's interpretation of the term limit provision aligned with the amendment's purpose to prevent Board members from serving long terms.

Key Issues & Findings

Selective enforcement of Bylaws regarding term limits.

Petitioner alleged Respondent selectively enforced the 2021 Bylaws amendment concerning term limits by retroactively applying the two-term limit to disqualify her 2024 candidacy.

Orders: Petition denied. Petitioner failed to establish a violation of Article IV, Sections 2 and 3 of the Bylaws.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)

Failure to hold an open meeting to decide candidacy disqualification.

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated open meeting laws by holding a closed executive session vote on October 11, 2024, to disqualify her candidacy.

Orders: Petition denied. Petitioner failed to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Arpaio v. Steinle, 201 Ariz. 353, 355 ¶ 5, 35 P.3d 114, 116 (App. 2001)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Bylaws, Term Limits, Open Meeting Law, Selective Enforcement, ADR
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Arpaio v. Steinle, 201 Ariz. 353, 355 ¶ 5, 35 P.3d 114, 116 (App. 2001)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1272425.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:02 (57.7 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1272426.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:06 (49.7 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1282372.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:12 (60.5 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1282375.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:15 (9.1 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1284492.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:19 (56.1 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1288176.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:23 (60.1 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1288177.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:27 (7.4 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1293820.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:31 (41.1 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1313134.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:35 (114.8 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H030-REL


Administrative Hearing Briefing:Maiden v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing case Sharon M. Maiden v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association (No. 25F-H030-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The petitioner, Sharon Maiden, a former board member, alleged that the association selectively enforced its bylaws to disqualify her from running for the board and violated Arizona’s open meeting laws by making this decision in a closed executive session.

The central conflict revolved around the interpretation of a 2021 bylaw amendment that shortened board member term limits. The petitioner argued for a prospective application, which would reset the term-limit clock for sitting board members, while the respondent association argued for an interpretation that counted prior service.

On June 2, 2025, Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson issued a decision denying the petition in its entirety. The judge concluded that the association’s board acted within the bounds of Arizona statute (A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)) by holding a closed session to consider legal advice. Furthermore, the judge found that the petitioner failed to prove a bylaw violation, reasoning that the association’s interpretation was consistent with the membership’s clear intent to shorten, not lengthen, the potential tenure of board members.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Case Name

Sharon M. Maiden v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Case Number

25F-H030-REL

Tribunal

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Petitioner

Sharon M. Maiden

Respondent

Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Respondent’s Counsel

Josh Bolen, Esq. (CHDB Law LLP)

Presiding Judge

Velva Moses-Thompson

Petition Allegations

The petition, filed by Sharon Maiden on December 15, 2024, asserted two primary violations by the Val Vista Lakes Community Association:

1. Selective Enforcement of Bylaws: An alleged violation of Article IV, Sections 2 and 3 of the Association’s Bylaws, stemming from the board’s decision to disqualify the petitioner from running for a board position in 2024 based on its interpretation of term limits.

2. Open Meeting Law Violation: An alleged violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1804(A), contending that the board failed to hold an open meeting when it made the binding decision to disqualify her candidacy.

Initially filed as a single-issue petition for which a $500 fee was paid, the OAH ordered on March 12, 2025, that the petitioner must either pay an additional $500 to pursue both issues or select one to proceed with at the hearing.

——————————————————————————–

Procedural History

• January 27, 2025: The Arizona Department of Real Estate refers the petition to the OAH for an administrative hearing.

• February 4, 2025: Respondent files a Motion to Strike the Petition, arguing the petitioner improperly disclosed attorney-client privileged communications.

• February 11, 2025: Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn denies the Motion to Strike. The hearing is continued to March 26, 2025.

• March 26, 2025: The first day of the evidentiary hearing is conducted.

• April 11, 2025: A further hearing is conducted. At its conclusion, the record is held open to allow for post-hearing briefing.

• May 13, 2025: The post-hearing briefing period concludes, and the record is closed.

• June 2, 2025: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues the final decision, denying the petition.

Central Dispute: Interpretation of Bylaw Term Limits

The core of the dispute was the interpretation of Article IV, Section 2 of the association’s bylaws, which was amended in 2021. The amendment’s purpose, as testified by multiple witnesses, was to shorten the length of time directors could serve on the board.

Evolution of the Bylaw

• 2012 Bylaws: Introduced term limits for the first time, establishing a maximum of three consecutive two-year terms (six years total), followed by a required one-year break.

• 2021 Bylaws: The membership approved a rewrite that reduced term limits to two consecutive elected two-year terms (four years total), followed by a required two-year break.

Both versions of the bylaw contained the following critical sentence: “Commencing with the first Annual Meeting after the adoption of these Amended and Restated Bylaws, Directors will be subject to term limits as follows.” The meaning of this sentence became the primary point of contention.

Competing Interpretations

Position

Argument Summary

Key Evidence and Testimony

Petitioner’s Position (Prospective Application)

The “Commencing with…” language resets the clock. Terms served before the 2021 amendment should not count toward the new, shorter limits. The association’s sudden shift to a retroactive interpretation was selective and targeted.

William Sutell (Former President): Testified the intent was to “reset the clock for everybody.” His 2022 newsletter stating his “term limit of four years is up” was “ineloquent” and meant to express he was tired of serving.
Douglas Keats (Former Board Member): Stated the intent of the rewrite was to “Go forward.”
Historical Precedent: The association, based on a 2016 legal opinion from Goodman Law Group, had allowed Director Cheryl McCoy to serve nine consecutive years despite the 2012 bylaw’s six-year limit.
Legal Opinions: An opinion from Krupnik & Speas in November 2023 stated the 2021 bylaws were prospective, not retroactive.

Respondent’s Position (Prior Service Counts)

The clear intent of the membership and the bylaw committee was to shorten terms. The petitioner’s interpretation creates a loophole allowing sitting board members to serve for 8 or more years, directly contradicting the amendment’s purpose.

Jill Brown (Bylaw Committee Chair): Testified the committee’s intent was to apply the new limits to sitting directors and there was no discussion of “grandfathering” anyone.
Bryan Patterson (Current President): Testified that the membership voted for two two-year terms “and that’s it.”
Sutell’s 2022 Newsletter: Presented as a direct admission from the former president that the four-year limit applied to him based on his service from 2018-2022.
Drafting Logic: The “Commencing with…” clause is a standard legal provision to prevent a new rule from invalidating a board member’s current term, not to erase their entire service history.

Central Dispute: Alleged Open Meeting Law Violation

The second major issue concerned the board’s decision-making process. On October 11, 2024, the board held a closed executive session where it voted 5-4 to accept the legal opinion of its counsel (CHDB Law) and disqualify Ms. Maiden from the ballot.

Competing Arguments

Position

Argument Summary

Key Evidence and Testimony

Petitioner’s Argument (Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A))

The vote to disqualify a candidate was a final, binding decision that must be made in an open meeting. The closed session was not justified under the narrow exceptions of the statute.

Improper Notice: The meeting notice cited the incorrect statute (for condominiums, not planned communities) and was not properly distributed to all board members.
Lack of Statutory Justification: No attorney was present at the meeting, and there was no pending litigation at that specific moment. The agenda item was to “accept opinion,” not simply “receive advice.”

Respondent’s Argument (Compliance with Law)

The executive session was permissible under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1), which allows closed meetings for the “consideration of… Legal advice from an attorney for the board or the association” and matters concerning “pending or contemplated litigation.”

Contemplated Litigation: Testimony indicated that Ms. Maiden had threatened to file an ADR complaint or lawsuit.
Consideration of Legal Advice: The board was reviewing three separate legal opinions regarding Ms. Maiden’s eligibility.
Petitioner’s Participation: Ms. Maiden was present at the meeting, participated in the vote, and did not object to the session being held in private at that time.

——————————————————————————–

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ denied Ms. Maiden’s petition on both counts, finding that she failed to meet her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Ruling on the Open Meeting Law

The ALJ concluded that the board did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).

• Key Rationale: The evidence demonstrated that the board met in executive session “to consider a legal opinion regarding the 2021 Amendment.” This action falls squarely within the statutory exception outlined in A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1).

• On Disclosure: The statute permits, but does not require, the board to disclose information from such a session after a “final resolution.” As the matter was still being litigated, no final resolution had been reached.

Ruling on the Bylaw Violation

The ALJ concluded that the petitioner failed to establish that the respondent violated Article IV of its bylaws.

• Key Rationale: The judge focused on the underlying purpose of the 2021 amendment, which testimony from both sides confirmed was to “prevent Board members from serving for long periods of time.”

• Rejection of Petitioner’s Interpretation: The decision noted that the petitioner, along with her witnesses, admitted that their interpretation “would have allowed the then-sitting Board Members the right to serve 6, 8, and potentially 10-year term limits.” The ALJ found this outcome would be contrary to the amendment’s purpose.

• Jurisdictional Note: The decision explicitly stated that the “issue of selective enforcement is not within the jurisdiction of the tribunal.” The ruling was based on the interpretation of the bylaw’s text and intent, not on whether it was applied unevenly.

Final Order

“IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied because she has not established that Respondent’s Board violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 or Article IV, Sections 2 and 3 of the Bylaws.”






Study Guide – 25F-H030-REL


Administrative Hearing Study Guide: Maiden v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer each of the following questions in 2-3 sentences, based on the provided source context.

1. What were the two primary legal issues Sharon Maiden raised in her petition against the Val Vista Lakes Community Association?

2. What was the key phrase in the 2021 bylaws that became the central point of interpretive conflict regarding term limits?

3. According to the hearing testimony, what were the main purposes of the 2021 bylaw committee’s rewrite of the association’s bylaws?

4. Explain the Respondent’s justification for holding a closed executive session on October 11, 2024, to decide on Sharon Maiden’s eligibility.

5. How did the legal opinions from the Goodman Law Group (Ashley Turner) and Krupnik & Spees (Adrien Speed) support the Petitioner’s case?

6. Describe the key piece of evidence the Respondent used involving former board president William (Bill) Sutell to argue against a prospective interpretation of the term limits.

7. What decision did the Board of Directors make during the October 11, 2024, executive session, and what was the final vote count?

8. What procedural issue did Petitioner Douglas Keats identify with the notice for the October 11, 2024, executive session?

9. According to witness Jill Brown, what was the general intent of the bylaw committee and community members regarding the length of board service?

10. What were the final conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge in the June 2, 2025, decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. Petitioner Sharon Maiden alleged that the Respondent (1) selectively enforced the Bylaws in violation of Article IV, Sections 2 and 3, and (2) failed to hold an open meeting when it decided to disqualify her from running for the Board, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1804(A).

2. The central point of conflict was the phrase in Article IV, Section 2: “Commencing with the first Annual Meeting after the adoption of these Amended and Restated Bylaws, Directors will be subject to term limits…” The Petitioner argued this indicated a prospective “reset,” while the Respondent argued it did not erase prior service.

3. Testimony from witnesses like Douglas Keats and William Sutell indicated the rewrite was intended to address multiple issues, not just term limits. Key purposes included establishing secret ballots, eliminating the nominating committee which was seen as counter to the CCNRs, and creating a formal procedure for replacing board members based on vote counts rather than board appointments.

4. The Respondent justified the closed session under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1), which allows for closed meetings to consider legal advice from an attorney. The board was discussing three separate legal opinions regarding Ms. Maiden’s eligibility and also noted that Ms. Maiden had contemplated legal action against the association.

5. The Petitioner argued that these opinions demonstrated a consistent historical interpretation by the association’s own general counsels. Both opinions stated that the term limit language in the 2012 and 2021 bylaws should be interpreted prospectively, meaning terms served prior to the adoption of the new bylaws did not count toward the new limits.

6. The Respondent heavily relied on a November 2022 newsletter message from then-president Bill Sutell. In it, Mr. Sutell stated, “This will be my last president’s message to the community as my term limit of four years is up,” which the Respondent argued was an admission that the term limits were not reset by the 2021 bylaw amendment.

7. The Board of Directors voted to accept the opinion of CHDB Law LLP regarding term limits, which effectively disqualified Sharon Maiden from running in the 2024 election. The motion passed with a vote of 5 to 4.

8. Douglas Keats testified that the email notice for the executive session was not sent to him or two other board members (Christine Rucker and Curtis Weile) at their correct addresses, while it was sent to a former board member. He also noted the notice cited an incorrect statute (A.R.S. § 33-1248 for condominiums) instead of the one for planned communities.

9. Jill Brown, who chaired the bylaw committee, testified that the general consensus of the committee and community members was that they did not want directors serving for long periods. The intent was to shorten the available terms to encourage turnover and prevent directors from serving for “excessive amounts of time.”

10. The Administrative Law Judge denied Sharon Maiden’s petition. The Judge concluded that the Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) because the closed meeting to consider legal advice was permissible. Furthermore, the Judge found Maiden failed to prove a violation of the bylaws, stating the purpose of the 2021 amendment was to prevent long service periods, and deemed the issue of selective enforcement to be outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Construct detailed responses to the following prompts, synthesizing evidence and arguments from across the source documents. Do not provide answers.

1. Analyze the legal arguments presented by both the Petitioner and Respondent regarding the proper interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Arizona’s open meeting law). Discuss the specific actions taken by the board and how each party framed those actions in the context of the statute’s exceptions for closed sessions.

2. Compare and contrast the testimonies of William Sutell and Douglas Keats with that of Jill Brown. How did their recollections and interpretations of the bylaw committee’s intent differ, particularly concerning whether the new term limits should apply prospectively or retroactively to sitting board members?

3. Trace the evolution of the Val Vista Lakes Community Association’s bylaws regarding term limits from 2012 to 2021. Evaluate the arguments concerning “long-standing practice” and “selective enforcement,” referencing the specific cases of board members Cheryl McCoy, William Sutell, and Sharon Maiden.

4. Examine the role of conflicting legal advice in this dispute. Discuss the different opinions offered by the Goodman Law Group, Krupnik & Spees, and CHDB Law LLP, and analyze how the Board of Directors chose to navigate these contradictory recommendations.

5. The Administrative Law Judge’s final decision states that the “issue of selective enforcement is not within the jurisdiction of the tribunal.” Based on the testimony and arguments presented, construct an argument that Sharon Maiden might have made regarding selective enforcement, and explain why the Respondent would have refuted it.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms and Entities

Term / Entity

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Kay A. Abramsohn and Velva Moses-Thompson served as ALJs.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)

The state agency authorized to receive and decide on petitions from members of homeowners’ associations. It referred this case to the OAH.

Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.)

The codified laws of the state of Arizona. Key statutes in this case include § 33-1804(A) and § 32-2199.

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

The Arizona statute concerning open meeting laws for planned community associations. It mandates that meetings be open to members but provides specific, limited exceptions for closed (executive) sessions, such as to discuss legal advice.

Bolen, Josh

An attorney with CHDB Law LLP who served as counsel for the Respondent, Val Vista Lakes Community Association.

Brown, Jill

A witness for the Respondent. She served as the chair of the 2021 bylaw committee and was a current board member at the time of the hearing.

Bylaw Committee

A committee established by the board in 2021 to review and recommend changes to the association’s bylaws. Its members included Jill Brown, William Sutell, and Douglas Keats.

Carpenter Hazelwood (CHDB LAW LLP)

The law firm that represented the Respondent. The Petitioner filed an unsuccessful motion to disqualify the firm.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. The governing documents for the community. The 2021 bylaw committee sought to address bylaw provisions that were counter to the CCNRs, such as the nominating committee.

Commencing with…

The key phrase in Article IV, Section 2 of the bylaws that was central to the dispute. The Petitioner argued it signaled a prospective application of term limits, while the Respondent disagreed.

Executive Session

A closed meeting of the Board of Directors, permitted under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) for specific purposes, such as discussing legal advice or pending litigation.

Keats, Douglas

A witness for the Petitioner. He was a former board member who served as secretary of the 2021 bylaw committee.

Maiden, Sharon M.

The Petitioner in the case, a homeowner in Val Vista Lakes and a former member of its Board of Directors who was disqualified from running for a third consecutive term.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH / Tribunal)

The independent state agency that conducted the administrative hearing for this case after referral from the Department of Real Estate.

Patterson, Bryan

A witness for the Respondent. He was the HOA President at the time of the hearing and was Vice President when the vote to disqualify the Petitioner occurred.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Sharon M. Maiden.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in this administrative hearing, defined as evidence that is more likely true than not. The ALJ found the Petitioner failed to meet this burden.

Prospective Interpretation

The argument that a new rule or law applies only “going forward” from its effective date and does not consider service or actions that occurred prior to that date. This was the Petitioner’s central argument.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, Val Vista Lakes Community Association.

Retroactive Interpretation

The argument that a new rule or law applies to past events, meaning prior service on the board would count against the newly established term limits. This was the Respondent’s position.

Sutell, William (Bill)

A witness for the Petitioner. He is an attorney, a former board president, and served on the 2021 bylaw committee.

Val Vista Lakes Community Association

The Respondent in the case; a homeowners’ association (HOA) in Gilbert, Arizona.






Blog Post – 25F-H030-REL


5 Surprising Lessons from an HOA War Over a Single Sentence

Introduction: The Butterfly Effect of Bylaws

For many homeowners, the rules set by their homeowners’ association (HOA) can feel arbitrary, buried in dense legal documents. But the precise wording of those governing documents has massive, unforeseen consequences—a legal butterfly effect where a minor change creates a major storm. This dynamic was on full display in the case of Sharon Maiden vs. Val Vista Lakes Community Association, where one seemingly simple sentence sparked a complex, year-long legal dispute.

The case offers a masterclass in the tension between the technical reading of a text versus its clear, underlying intent. It provides surprising insights into law, community governance, and human nature. Here are five key lessons from this HOA war over a single sentence.

——————————————————————————–

1. One Sentence, Two Meanings, and a Mountain of Legal Bills

A 2021 bylaw amendment, designed to reduce board member term limits, lit the fuse for the central conflict. The entire dispute hinged on the interpretation of one introductory phrase, demonstrating just how much can ride on a few words.

The critical sentence from Article IV, Section 2 of the 2021 Bylaws reads:

“Commencing with the first Annual Meeting after the adoption of these Amended and Restated Bylaws, Directors will be subject to term limits as follows.”

This single sentence gave rise to two completely opposite interpretations:

• The “Reset” Theory (Petitioner’s view): Proponents argued this language meant the term limit clock reset for all sitting board members. Under this view, their prior years of service didn’t count toward the new, shorter limit. This interpretation seemed solid, even supported by a formal legal opinion from the association’s previous general counsel, attorney Adrien Spees.

• The “Look-Back” Theory (Respondent’s view): The association argued the phrase was merely a legal formality to prevent sitting members from being disqualified mid-term. They contended that a board member’s prior service absolutely still counted toward the new limit.

The fact that this ambiguity was enough to fuel a formal administrative hearing shows the high stakes of precise legal drafting. What’s truly surprising is how a standard legal phrase like “Commencing with…” could be interpreted so diametrically as to potentially erase years of board service from the term-limit calculation.

2. The Architect of the Rule Became Its Most Complicated Case

One of the most fascinating aspects of the case involved the testimony of Bill Sutell, the former Board President. Mr. Sutell was in charge when the 2021 bylaw changes were drafted and approved, and he testified in support of the “reset” theory, which would have allowed him and other members to serve longer.

However, the strongest piece of evidence used against his position came from his own hand. In a 2022 newsletter to the community, Mr. Sutell had written:

“This will be my last president’s message to the community as my term limit of four years is up.”

When questioned, he explained the statement was “ineloquent.” He testified he was tired and had a “self-imposed term limit” because he “didn’t want to be a career board member.” This created a paradox where the rule’s architect argued for one interpretation in court while his own public statement seemed to support the opposing view. As community governance analysts, we see a crucial lesson here: for HOA volunteers, informal communications like a newsletter can be scrutinized with the same intensity as a legal document—a trap many well-meaning leaders are unprepared for.

3. Why a “Correct” Interpretation Can Still Be Wrong

The petitioner’s side came to the hearing with what seemed like very strong evidence. They had testimony about the bylaw committee’s intent and presented a formal legal opinion from attorney Adrien Spees that appeared to settle the matter:

“This amendment is prospective not retroactive. The Term limits only apply to directors elected beginning the first annual meeting following November 9th, 2021. Thus, a director who has served for several years before November 9th, 2021 will still be eligible to serve two consecutive terms after November 9th, 2021.”

This seems clear-cut. However, the argument that ultimately won focused not on what the words said, but on what they would do. The fatal blow to the “reset” theory came not from the respondent’s lawyers, but from the petitioner’s own key witnesses. During testimony, both Sutell and another witness, Douglas Keats, admitted that their interpretation would create a massive loophole, allowing sitting board members “the right to serve 6, 8, and potentially 10-year term limits.” This admission was critical. The Administrative Law Judge rejected an interpretation—even one supported by a legal opinion—because it led to an “absurd result” that directly contradicted the stated purpose of the rule, which was to shorten term limits, not accidentally lengthen them for a select few.

4. The Peril of a Closed-Door Meeting

The second major issue was the claim that the board violated Arizona’s open meeting laws. The vote to disqualify Sharon Maiden from the 2024 ballot was not taken in public. Instead, it happened during a closed executive session while she, a sitting board member, was present.

The board justified the closed-door meeting by stating they were discussing legal advice and contemplated litigation, a valid exception under A.R.S. § 33-1804. However, the ALJ’s final decision highlighted a crucial detail:

“Petitioner was a member of the Board at the time of the meeting and did not object to the Board voting on whether Article IV, Section 2 of Respondent’s Bylaws permitted Petitioner to run for the board…”

This offers a stark lesson. A person’s failure to object to a process in the moment can significantly weaken their ability to challenge it later. It’s easy to see why someone might stay silent: they may be intimidated, unsure of the rules, or simply not realize the procedural gravity of their silence. This surprising takeaway underscores that understanding the rules of order as they are happening is critical, because silence can be interpreted as consent.

5. The “Why” Trumped the “What”

The story concluded when the Administrative Law Judge denied the petitioner’s case on both counts. In the face of ambiguous text and competing legal opinions, the judge focused on the fundamental purpose of the 2021 bylaw amendment. The final decision stated:

“…the preponderance of the evidence presented at hearing shows that the purpose of the 2021 amendment was to prevent Board members for serving on the Board for long periods of time.”

In this legal gray area, the underlying intent—the “why” behind the rule—proved more powerful than the technical arguments about the “what.” The judge determined that an interpretation creating 10-year term limits could not possibly align with the members’ vote to prevent people from serving for long periods. The surprising lesson is that even when the text is debatable, the spirit of a rule can become the most decisive factor in its application.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Are You Sure You Know What Your Rules Mean?

The Val Vista Lakes case is a powerful reminder that the words in bylaws are not just suggestions; they have real-world power to shape communities, define rights, and launch costly legal battles. Bylaws are “living documents” in the sense that they have a daily impact, but they are dangerously “dead documents” if members don’t understand them. The consequences are not just financial. At the hearing, former president Bill Sutell gave a poignant final statement explaining his departure from the community he had worked so hard to serve: “I sold my home that this was more than I needed in my retirement.”

This case is a cautionary tale about the human cost of ambiguity. It leaves every HOA member with a final, thought-provoking challenge: When was the last time you read your community’s governing documents, and are you willing to actively question ambiguity and push for clarity before a conflict arises?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Sharon M. Maiden (petitioner)
    Val Vista Lakes Community Association
    Former board member/candidate
  • William Sutel (witness)
    Val Vista Lakes Community Association
    Former board president; bylaw committee member
  • Douglas Keats (witness)
    Val Vista Lakes Community Association
    Board member; bylaw committee member; requested subpoena for him
  • Jeremy Whitaker (petitioner)
    Val Vista Lakes Community Association
    Filed ADR complaint

Respondent Side

  • Josh Bolen (HOA attorney)
    CHDB Law LLP
    Counsel for Val Vista Lakes Community Association; requested subpoena for him
  • Jill Brown (board member)
    Val Vista Lakes Community Association
    Bylaw committee chair; respondent witness
  • Bryan Patterson (board president)
    Val Vista Lakes Community Association
    Respondent witness; Also listed as subpoenaed witness
  • Chuck Oldham (HOA attorney)
    CHDB Law LLP
  • Mel McDonald (board president)
    Val Vista Lakes Community Association
    Requested subpoena; board member
  • Vicki Goslin (attorney staff)
    CHDB Law LLP

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • Kay A. Abramsohn (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Ashley Turner (attorney)
    Goodman Law Group
    Wrote 2016 legal opinion; Also listed as subpoenaed witness
  • Jessica Misto (attorney)
    Provided legal review/opinion
  • Adrienne Speed (attorney)
    Cartik and Speed
    General counsel who wrote 2023 opinion

Other Participants

  • Diana Ebertshauser (witness)
    Requested subpoena; candidate
  • Brodie Hurtado (witness)
    Requested subpoena; candidate
  • Timothy Hedrick (witness)
    Requested subpoena
  • Christine Rucker (board member)
    Val Vista Lakes Community Association
    Requested subpoena
  • Curtis Weile (board member)
    Val Vista Lakes Community Association
    Requested subpoena
  • Cheryl McCoy (former board president)
    Val Vista Lakes Community Association
  • Brian Solomon (former board member)
    Val Vista Lakes Community Association
  • Dustin Snow (former director)
    Val Vista Lakes Community Association
  • Wendy Rhodess (bylaw committee member)
    Val Vista Lakes Community Association
  • Jonathan Everhouser (attorney)
    CHDB Law LLP
    Bylaw committee member
  • Laura Henry (property manager)
    First Service Residential
    General Manager
  • Leslie Johnson (former director)
    Val Vista Lakes Community Association
  • John Walls (former board member)
    Val Vista Lakes Community Association
    Community member

Anne F. Segal vs Prince Court Homeowners Association, INC.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H032-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-05-22
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Anne F. Segal Counsel —
Respondent Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel Wendy Ehrlich, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1812, 33-1803(B-E), 33-1804, 33-1817, and CC&Rs Article VII

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Association was legally permitted to amend its CC&Rs via written, notarized consent of the members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(A)(1), and that the actions taken did not violate the cited statutes or the governing documents.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; statutory requirements regarding voting (33-1812) and violation notices (33-1803) were inapplicable, and the process of using written consent and closed sessions for legal advice adhered to ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1817 and 33-1804.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged unlawful procedures in replacing CC&Rs

Petitioner alleged the Association violated multiple Arizona Revised Statutes and CC&Rs Article VII by using unlawful procedures to replace the existing CC&Rs. Specific complaints included the Board directing members to sign a notarized agreement without permitting open discussion or dissent on specific proposed changes, arguing that a full vote was required. Respondent argued compliance with ARS § 33-1817 and CC&Rs Article VII, which permits amendment via written consent.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B-E)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817
  • CC&Rs Article VII
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3704

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R Amendment, Written Consent, Executive Session, Statutory Interpretation, Planned Community, Filing Fee
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B-E)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817
  • CC&Rs Article VII
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3704
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1269718.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:43 (53.7 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1269742.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:47 (7.8 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1274756.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:51 (54.6 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1274775.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:55 (7.9 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1277633.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:18:01 (48.1 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1288621.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:18:08 (51.6 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1308520.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:18:15 (206.1 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H032-REL


Briefing Document: Segal vs. Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case Anne F. Segal, Petitioner, vs. Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc., Respondent (No. 25F-H032-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute centered on the petitioner’s allegation that the respondent HOA utilized unlawful procedures to replace the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

The petitioner argued that the HOA violated state statutes and the original governing documents by failing to hold sufficient open meetings for discussion, by not providing a proper ballot for a vote, and by circumventing a one-year discussion period intended by the original developer. Key evidence presented by the petitioner included testimony from the community’s original developer, who affirmed his intent for a lengthy, homeowner-driven amendment process, and testimony detailing significant, substantive changes to the CC&Rs that were allegedly not transparently communicated.

The respondent HOA defended its actions by asserting full compliance with Arizona law, particularly A.R.S. § 33-1817, which permits amendments via written consent of a majority of homeowners—a process legally distinct from a formal vote. The HOA maintained that state law superseded any conflicting provisions in the original CC&Rs. The board justified its decision to forgo a large, open-forum meeting by citing perceived “aggressive and threatening” communications from the petitioner, opting instead for a process of email-based “straw polls,” a formal Q&A period with its attorney, and a notarization event for collecting written consent.

Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the petition. The final decision concluded that the petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof. The ALJ found that the HOA acted lawfully by using executive sessions to obtain legal advice, by amending the CC&Rs through the statutory process of written consent, and that other statutes cited by the petitioner were inapplicable to the case.

Case Overview

The matter involves a formal petition filed on December 22, 2024, by homeowner Anne F. Segal with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The petition alleged that the Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc. violated multiple Arizona Revised Statutes (§§ 33-1812, 33-1803(B-E), 33-1804, 33-1817) and its own governing documents (initially cited as Article V, later amended to Article VII) during the process of replacing the community’s CC&Rs.

The case was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings, with evidentiary hearings held on March 27, 2025, and May 2, 2025, before Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark. A final decision denying the petition was issued on May 22, 2025.

Key Parties and Witnesses

Name / Entity

Key Contributions

Anne F. Segal

Petitioner, Homeowner

Argued the HOA’s process was unlawful, lacked transparency, and violated open meeting laws and voting rights. Provided testimony and evidence regarding communications and the substance of the CC&R changes.

Prince Court Homeowners Association

Respondent

Defended its amendment process as compliant with state statutes for written consent and justified its communication methods based on legal advice and the petitioner’s conduct.

Mary Beth Snyder

President, HOA Board

Testified on behalf of the HOA (also called as an adverse witness by Petitioner). Detailed the board’s decision-making process, reliance on legal counsel, and rationale for avoiding an open-forum meeting.

Susan Matheson

Vice President, HOA Board

Corroborated Snyder’s testimony. Testified to managing the HOA’s email communications, including the accidental removal of David Zinfeld from the distribution list. Detailed complaints received from other homeowners about the petitioner’s communications.

David Zinfeld

Witness for Petitioner; Original Developer of Prince Court

Testified that he wrote the original CC&Rs with the intent for a year-long, homeowner-led discussion before any amendments. Stated he stopped receiving HOA communications and was not involved in or properly notified of the replacement process.

Dr. Robert Segal

Witness for Petitioner; Husband of Petitioner and Property Manager

Testified to the lack of open meetings and poor communication. Described the proposed CC&R changes as a “heart transplant” and highlighted discrepancies between the board’s “summary of changes” and the actual legal text.

Wendy Ehrlich, Esq.

Counsel for Respondent

Provided legal advice to the HOA board, which formed the basis for their procedural decisions. Argued the case for the Respondent during the hearings.

Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge

Presided over the hearings and issued the final decision, concluding the HOA acted lawfully and denying the petition.

——————————————————————————–

Central Arguments and Evidence

Petitioner’s Core Allegations

The petitioner’s case was built on the premise that the HOA’s procedure for replacing the CC&Rs was fundamentally flawed and unlawful.

• Violation of Governing Documents (Article VII): The petitioner argued the HOA ignored the original CC&Rs, which, according to the original developer David Zinfeld, intended a one-year period of open discussion prior to any amendment. Zinfeld testified, “I wanted it to be done at least a year beforehand…with discussion and meetings before any amendments should take place.”

• Improper Amendment Process: The petitioner contended that the “notarized agreement” process was not a valid “vote” and violated A.R.S. § 33-1812. This process did not provide a formal ballot or an opportunity for homeowners to vote “for or against” the action, effectively silencing dissent.

• Violation of Open Meeting Laws (A.R.S. § 33-1804): The petitioner alleged a lack of genuine open meetings where the substance of the new CC&Rs could be debated. Testimony indicated that discussions about the CC&Rs primarily occurred in closed executive sessions, justified by the board as necessary for receiving legal advice.

• Inadequate and Misleading Communication: Dr. Robert Segal described the summary of changes provided by the board as misleading and incomplete. He gave specific examples, such as a new rule allowing the board to remove any “objectionable” vehicle, which was not mentioned in the summary provided to homeowners. The petitioner also argued that relying solely on an incomplete and unverified email list was an unreasonable means of notice.

• Substantive Overhaul Without Consent: Dr. Segal characterized the changes as a “heart transplant,” not a minor revision. He noted the new CC&Rs gave the board “much more power and authority,” including the ability to raise fees by 20% per year.

Respondent’s Defense

The respondent HOA maintained that its actions were deliberate, based on legal counsel, and fully compliant with Arizona law.

• Adherence to Statutory Process (A.R.S. § 33-1817): The HOA’s central defense was that A.R.S. § 33-1817 allows for CC&R amendments through either an “affirmative vote or written consent.” They argued they lawfully chose the written consent path, which does not require a formal ballot under A.R.S. § 33-1812. Their counsel stated, “Article 7 dictated written consent. There was no vote conducted.”

• State Law Supersedes Governing Documents: The HOA argued, and noted in its October 14, 2024 email to members, that “The time limitations for CC&R amendments set forth in our current CC&Rs, Article VII… have been superseded by Arizona law which allows CC&Rs to be amended at any time; see A.R.S. § 33-1817.”

• Justification for Avoiding an Open Forum: Both Mary Beth Snyder and Susan Matheson testified that the decision not to hold a large, in-person informational meeting was based on legal advice and the board’s concern that the petitioner would “hijack the meeting” due to her perceived “aggressive and threatening” emails and communications. Matheson read excerpts from petitioner’s emails, including phrases like “This unilateral decision of the board is buying a lawsuit” and “I’m willing to legally challenge this effort.”

• Reasonable Communication Efforts: The board defended its use of email as a reasonable means of notice. They testified to sending eight separate email communications regarding the CC&Rs, including “straw polls” to gauge opinion, drafts of the new CC&Rs, and a formal Q&A where the board’s attorney answered submitted questions.

——————————————————————————–

Final Adjudication: Administrative Law Judge Decision

On May 22, 2025, Judge Jenna Clark issued a decision denying the petition in its entirety, finding that the petitioner had not sustained her burden of proof.

Findings of Fact

The decision outlined a timeline of events from the initial announcement in March 2024 to the notarization event in December 2024. Key findings included:

• The board hired counsel in April 2024 to assist with updating the CC&Rs.

• The association conducted “straw poll” emails in July and August 2024.

• The board held closed executive sessions to discuss legal advice from its attorney regarding the CC&R revisions.

• A draft of the proposed CC&Rs was distributed to members via email on October 14, 2024.

• A Q&A process was conducted, with attorney-provided answers distributed on November 25, 2025.

• The association intentionally did not hold a large open meeting due to concerns over the petitioner’s perceived behavior.

• A majority of homeowners (at least 20 of 39) provided signed and notarized consent agreements.

Conclusions of Law

The ALJ made the following legal conclusions, which formed the basis of the denial:

1. Written Consent is a Lawful Process: The Tribunal found that A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1) explicitly allows an association to amend its declaration by “an affirmative vote or written consent.” The HOA lawfully chose the written consent method.

2. State Law Supersedes CC&Rs: The provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1817 supersede the edicts outlined in Article VII of the original CC&Rs regarding the amendment timeline.

3. Executive Sessions Were Permissible: The board was permitted under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) to go into executive session to receive legal advice from its attorney, even if the advice was unrelated to pending litigation.

4. Inapplicability of Other Statutes: The statutes regarding voting procedures (A.R.S. § 33-1812) and violation notices (A.R.S. § 33-1803) were deemed inapplicable and irrelevant to the matter at hand, as no formal vote was conducted and no violation notice was issued to the petitioner.

5. Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: The decision concluded that the petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent had violated any of the cited statutes or its governing documents. The petition was therefore denied.






Study Guide – 25F-H032-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H032-REL”, “case_title”: “Anne F. Segal v. Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2025-05-22”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can an HOA amend its CC&Rs by obtaining written consent from homeowners rather than holding a vote?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, an HOA is permitted to amend CC&Rs by written consent under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1), and voting statutes do not apply to this process.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the association was permitted to modify its CC&Rs by written consent of its members. Because this process falls under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1), the statutes governing voting (A.R.S. § 33-1812) are considered unrelated and irrelevant to the proceedings.”, “alj_quote”: “It is clear from the record that the Association … was also permitted to modify or otherwise amend its CC&Rs by written consent of its Members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(A)(1)… Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1812(A) and 33-1803 are inapplicable to the proceedings at bar as unrelated and irrelevant.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&R Amendments”, “Written Consent”, “Voting Rights” ] }, { “question”: “Does state law override CC&R provisions that restrict when amendments can be made (e.g., only every 10 years)?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1) supersedes original CC&R restrictions regarding periodic renewal or specific timelines for amendments.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision clarifies that state statute supersedes ‘edicts’ in original CC&Rs regarding timing for amendments. Even if the original documents specify a renewal period, the association can amend the documents via the statutory written consent process.”, “alj_quote”: “…permitted to modify or otherwise amend its CC&Rs by written consent of its Members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(A)(1); which supersedes any edicts outlined in Article VII of the original CC&Rs.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&R Amendments”, “State Statute Supremacy”, “Governing Documents” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA Board hold a closed executive session to get legal advice if there is no pending lawsuit?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Board may meet in executive session to receive legal advice from their attorney, even if it is unrelated to pending litigation.”, “detailed_answer”: “Homeowners often believe legal advice must relate to a lawsuit for a meeting to be closed. However, the ALJ ruled that the Board is permitted to go into executive session to receive legal advice unrelated to pending litigation under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).”, “alj_quote”: “It is clear from the record that the Association was not only permitted to go into executive session to receive legal advice unrelated to pending litigation from its attorney under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Open Meetings”, “Executive Session”, “Legal Advice” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA required to hold an open discussion or town hall meeting before amending the CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “No, the tribunal found that there is no requirement to permit members to openly deliberate proposed changes for a specific period if the statutory process is followed.”, “detailed_answer”: “The petitioner argued that the HOA was required to permit open deliberation for at least one year. The ALJ disagreed, ruling that the petitioner did not sustain the burden of proof for this contention, implying statutory compliance for written consent is sufficient.”, “alj_quote”: “Specifically, Petitioner contends that Respondent was required to permit Members to openly deliberate proposed changes to the CC&Rs for at least 1 year… the Tribunal is not in agreement with either of Petitioner’s contentions, and holds that she has not sustained her burden of proof in this matter.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817”, “topic_tags”: [ “Procedural Requirements”, “Open Discussion”, “CC&R Amendments” ] }, { “question”: “Do statutes regarding monetary penalties apply to the process of amending CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “No, statutes regarding fines and penalties are irrelevant to the amendment process if no actual violation notice was issued or penalty imposed.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ dismissed allegations regarding A.R.S. § 33-1803 (which governs monetary penalties) because they were inapplicable to a dispute centered on the procedural validity of amending CC&Rs where no fines were levied.”, “alj_quote”: “Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1812(A) and 33-1803 are inapplicable to the proceedings at bar as unrelated and irrelevant. No violations of these statutes have been established by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1803”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Statutory Application”, “Relevance” ] }, { “question”: “Who bears the burden of proof in a hearing regarding HOA procedural violations?”, “short_answer”: “The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “In administrative hearings regarding HOA disputes, it is up to the homeowner filing the petition to prove that their allegations are more probably true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory and/or governing document violation(s).”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Procedure”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Procedure” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 25F-H032-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H032-REL”, “case_title”: “Anne F. Segal v. Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2025-05-22”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can an HOA amend its CC&Rs by obtaining written consent from homeowners rather than holding a vote?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, an HOA is permitted to amend CC&Rs by written consent under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1), and voting statutes do not apply to this process.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the association was permitted to modify its CC&Rs by written consent of its members. Because this process falls under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1), the statutes governing voting (A.R.S. § 33-1812) are considered unrelated and irrelevant to the proceedings.”, “alj_quote”: “It is clear from the record that the Association … was also permitted to modify or otherwise amend its CC&Rs by written consent of its Members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(A)(1)… Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1812(A) and 33-1803 are inapplicable to the proceedings at bar as unrelated and irrelevant.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&R Amendments”, “Written Consent”, “Voting Rights” ] }, { “question”: “Does state law override CC&R provisions that restrict when amendments can be made (e.g., only every 10 years)?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1) supersedes original CC&R restrictions regarding periodic renewal or specific timelines for amendments.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision clarifies that state statute supersedes ‘edicts’ in original CC&Rs regarding timing for amendments. Even if the original documents specify a renewal period, the association can amend the documents via the statutory written consent process.”, “alj_quote”: “…permitted to modify or otherwise amend its CC&Rs by written consent of its Members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(A)(1); which supersedes any edicts outlined in Article VII of the original CC&Rs.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&R Amendments”, “State Statute Supremacy”, “Governing Documents” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA Board hold a closed executive session to get legal advice if there is no pending lawsuit?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Board may meet in executive session to receive legal advice from their attorney, even if it is unrelated to pending litigation.”, “detailed_answer”: “Homeowners often believe legal advice must relate to a lawsuit for a meeting to be closed. However, the ALJ ruled that the Board is permitted to go into executive session to receive legal advice unrelated to pending litigation under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).”, “alj_quote”: “It is clear from the record that the Association was not only permitted to go into executive session to receive legal advice unrelated to pending litigation from its attorney under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Open Meetings”, “Executive Session”, “Legal Advice” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA required to hold an open discussion or town hall meeting before amending the CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “No, the tribunal found that there is no requirement to permit members to openly deliberate proposed changes for a specific period if the statutory process is followed.”, “detailed_answer”: “The petitioner argued that the HOA was required to permit open deliberation for at least one year. The ALJ disagreed, ruling that the petitioner did not sustain the burden of proof for this contention, implying statutory compliance for written consent is sufficient.”, “alj_quote”: “Specifically, Petitioner contends that Respondent was required to permit Members to openly deliberate proposed changes to the CC&Rs for at least 1 year… the Tribunal is not in agreement with either of Petitioner’s contentions, and holds that she has not sustained her burden of proof in this matter.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817”, “topic_tags”: [ “Procedural Requirements”, “Open Discussion”, “CC&R Amendments” ] }, { “question”: “Do statutes regarding monetary penalties apply to the process of amending CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “No, statutes regarding fines and penalties are irrelevant to the amendment process if no actual violation notice was issued or penalty imposed.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ dismissed allegations regarding A.R.S. § 33-1803 (which governs monetary penalties) because they were inapplicable to a dispute centered on the procedural validity of amending CC&Rs where no fines were levied.”, “alj_quote”: “Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1812(A) and 33-1803 are inapplicable to the proceedings at bar as unrelated and irrelevant. No violations of these statutes have been established by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1803”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Statutory Application”, “Relevance” ] }, { “question”: “Who bears the burden of proof in a hearing regarding HOA procedural violations?”, “short_answer”: “The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “In administrative hearings regarding HOA disputes, it is up to the homeowner filing the petition to prove that their allegations are more probably true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory and/or governing document violation(s).”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Procedure”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Procedure” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Anne F. Segal (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf.
  • David Zeinfeld (witness)
    Original developer and declarant of the subdivision.
  • Robert J. Seagull (witness)
    Petitioner's husband and property manager.

Respondent Side

  • Wendy Ehrlich (HOA attorney)
    Counsel for Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.
  • Mary Beth Snyder (board member)
    Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.
    President of the Association and witness.
  • Susan Matheson (board member)
    Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Vice President of the Association and witness.

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (ADRE Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • Dianna Tidle (observer)
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • mneat (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • lrecchia (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • gosborn (ADRE staff)
    ADRE

Allan, Joseph P v. The Springs Condominiums Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H018-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-03-31
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Joseph P. Allan Counsel —
Respondent The Springs Condominiums Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner met his burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A). Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party, and Respondent was ordered to refund the $500.00 filing fee and comply with the statute in the future.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide access to financial and other records within ten business days.

Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) by failing to allow Petitioner to examine original invoices for May 2024 (requested July 9, 2024) and bank statements from four accounts (requested September 23, 2024) within the required ten business days, despite receiving the requests through board members.

Orders: Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days and is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) going forward. No Civil Penalty was found appropriate.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, records request, A.R.S. 33-1258, prevailing party, condominium association
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H018-REL Decision – 1263777.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:14:18 (48.3 KB)

25F-H018-REL Decision – 1288586.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:14:22 (105.9 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H018-REL


Briefing Document: Case No. 25F-H018-REL, Allan v. The Springs Condominiums Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the key facts, arguments, and legal conclusions from the administrative hearing and subsequent decision in the matter of Joseph P. Allan (Petitioner) versus The Springs Condominiums Association (Respondent). The central issue was the Respondent’s failure to provide financial records to the Petitioner within the timeframe mandated by Arizona law.

The Petitioner, a homeowner and former board member, formally requested to examine bank statements and original invoices by sending emails directly to the association’s board members. The Respondent, represented by the owner of its property management company, did not fulfill these requests within the statutory ten-business-day period. The primary defense offered was that the requests were not sent to the management company, which is the customary channel for processing such items, and the board failed to forward the requests.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found conclusively in favor of the Petitioner. The decision established that the legal obligation to comply with Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1258 rests with the association itself, and internal procedural preferences or communication failures between the board and its management agent do not absolve the association of this statutory duty. The documents were ultimately provided on the eve of the hearing, well past the legal deadline. The final order deemed the Petitioner the prevailing party, mandated the refund of his $500 filing fee, and directed the association to ensure future compliance with state law.

Case Overview

Case Number

25F-H018-REL

Jurisdiction

Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona

Petitioner

Joseph P. Allan

Respondent

The Springs Condominiums Association

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson

Hearing Date

March 11, 2025

Decision Date

March 31, 2025

Core Allegation and Legal Framework

The dispute centered on the Petitioner’s allegation that The Springs Condominiums Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1258, which governs a member’s right to access association records.

• Statutory Requirement (A.R.S. § 33-1258 A): The statute mandates that “all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member.” It explicitly states, “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”

• Specific Violations Alleged: The Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate after the association failed to respond to two separate requests for documents:

1. A request for original invoices for May 2024.

2. A request for bank statements from four association accounts.

Chronology of Events

• July 9, 2024: Mr. Allan emails several board members, including the President and Vice President, requesting to examine original invoices for May 2024.

• September 23, 2024: Mr. Allan emails several board members requesting to examine bank statements from four association accounts.

• October 2024 (approx.): After receiving no response, Mr. Allan files a petition with the Department of Real Estate, alleging the violations. The petition incorrectly listed the request dates as July 29 and September 24, a discrepancy clarified and acknowledged by both parties at the hearing.

• January 16, 2025: An “Order Granting Continuance” is issued at the Petitioner’s request, moving the hearing date.

• March 10, 2025: At 6:45 PM, the evening before the scheduled hearing, the Respondent provides the requested documents to Mr. Allan.

• March 11, 2025: The evidentiary hearing is held before ALJ Velva Moses-Thompson.

• March 31, 2025: The ALJ issues the final decision and order.

Analysis of Testimony and Arguments

Petitioner’s Position (Joseph P. Allan)

Mr. Allan, representing himself, argued that he followed the law by submitting his requests directly to the association. His key points were:

• Direct Communication with the Association: He intentionally sent his requests to the board members (President, Vice President, Treasurer, and Director) because he considers them to be the “association” as defined by the statute.

• Investigation of Management Company: He deliberately bypassed the management company because he was actively investigating its conduct.

• Lack of Timely Response: It was undisputed that the association failed to provide the documents within the 10-day period. He confirmed receipt only on March 10, 2025, months after the requests were made.

• Past Experience: As a former board member for three years, he was familiar with the association’s financial documents and was requesting them to ensure everything was correct due to perceived problems.

Respondent’s Position (The Springs Condominiums Association)

The association was represented by Belen Guzman, the owner of its management company, SSC Property Management. Her defense centered on a procedural failure, not a denial of the Petitioner’s right to the documents.

• Improper Channel of Request: The primary defense was that Mr. Allan failed to follow standard practice by not including the management company in his email requests.

• Board’s Failure to Act: Ms. Guzman testified that the board members who received the emails did not forward them or follow up. She stated she was unaware of the requests until after the official complaint was filed and one of the board members, Petri (the president at the time), forwarded an email to her.

• Lack of Written Policy: Ms. Guzman acknowledged that the association has no written policy requiring requests to be sent to the management company, but stated the board had verbally instructed Mr. Allan in a meeting to include management on such communications.

• Knowledge of Procedure: She argued that as a former board member, Mr. Allan was aware that record requests are typically handled by the management company.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

The ALJ’s decision provided a clear legal interpretation of the events and the responsibilities of the parties.

Key Findings of Fact

• It was undisputed that the Petitioner is a member of the Respondent association.

• The Petitioner made formal requests for records via email to board members on July 9, 2024, and September 23, 2024.

• These requests were not sent to the Respondent’s property management company.

• The Respondent did not respond to the requests within the ten-business-day timeframe required by law.

• The Respondent provided the requested documents on March 10, 2025.

• The Respondent’s representative, Ms. Guzman, did not dispute that the board members had received the requests.

Key Conclusions of Law

• The Petitioner successfully met his burden to prove by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).

• The Respondent failed to provide any legal authority supporting its defense that a request must be sent to its property management company to be valid.

• The statutory obligation to provide records lies with the “association.” The failure of the board to forward the requests to its management agent does not excuse the association’s non-compliance.

• The ALJ concluded: “Respondent violated A.R.S. section 33-1258(A) when it failed to allow Petitioner to examine the May 2024 original invoices and bank statements from four of Respondent’s accounts, within ten business days of the date of Petitioner’s requests.”

Final Order and Implications

Based on the findings, the ALJ issued a binding order with the following components:

1. Prevailing Party: The Petitioner, Joseph P. Allan, was deemed the prevailing party.

2. Reimbursement: The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner his $500.00 filing fee within thirty days of the order.

3. Future Compliance: The Respondent was formally directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) going forward.

4. No Civil Penalty: The judge determined that a civil penalty was not appropriate in this matter.

The primary implication of this decision is that a condominium or homeowner association is directly and legally responsible for fulfilling its statutory obligations. It cannot use internal protocols, informal procedures, or communication breakdowns between its board and third-party vendors (like a management company) as a legal defense for failing to comply with state law.






Study Guide – 25F-H018-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H018-REL”, “case_title”: “Allan, Joseph P v. The Springs Condominiums Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-03-31”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If I send a records request to the Board but not the management company, can the HOA ignore it?”, “short_answer”: “No. Sending the request to Board members is sufficient to trigger the HOA’s legal obligation to respond.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if the management company prefers requests to go directly to them, the Association is still obligated to comply with the law if the Board receives the request. In this case, the management company argued they didn’t know about the request because it went to the Board, but the judge ruled the violation still occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent did present any legal authority to establish that it was not obligated to comply with A.R.S. section 33-1258(A), for the reason that the requests were not sent to Respondent’s property management company.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “HOA obligations”, “property management” ] }, { “question”: “How many days does the HOA have to let me examine the records I requested?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA must make records available for examination within 10 business days.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona law grants the Association ten business days to fulfill a request for examination after receiving it.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “timelines”, “records request”, “statutory requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA charge me a fee just to look at the records?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA cannot charge a member for making material available for review.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the HOA can charge for copies (up to 15 cents per page), they are explicitly prohibited from charging a fee for the act of making materials available for review.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “records request”, “homeowner rights” ] }, { “question”: “What happens if I win my hearing against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “You may be deemed the prevailing party and the HOA can be ordered to reimburse your filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “If the judge rules in your favor, they can order the HOA to pay back the filing fee you paid to bring the case. In this decision, the HOA was ordered to pay the homeowner $500.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.”, “legal_basis”: “Order”, “topic_tags”: [ “penalties”, “reimbursement”, “ruling” ] }, { “question”: “Does the HOA have to provide original invoices if I request them?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Financial records, including original invoices, must be made reasonably available.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision confirms that failure to allow examination of original invoices constitutes a violation of the statute governing association records.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent violated A.R.S. section 33-1258(A) when it failed to allow Petitioner to examine the May 2024 original invoices and bank statements”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “invoices”, “financial records”, “transparency” ] }, { “question”: “What is the standard of proof for proving the HOA violated the law?”, “short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must prove their case by showing it is ‘more probably true than not.’ This is the standard evidentiary weight required in these administrative hearings.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 (A) by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “burden of proof”, “hearing procedures” ] }, { “question”: “Will the HOA always be fined a civil penalty if they break the law?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. The judge has discretion on whether to apply a civil penalty.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if a violation is found (as it was in this case regarding the records), the judge may decide that a civil penalty is not appropriate based on the circumstances.”, “alj_quote”: “No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.”, “legal_basis”: “Order”, “topic_tags”: [ “civil penalty”, “fines”, “enforcement” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 25F-H018-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H018-REL”, “case_title”: “Allan, Joseph P v. The Springs Condominiums Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-03-31”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If I send a records request to the Board but not the management company, can the HOA ignore it?”, “short_answer”: “No. Sending the request to Board members is sufficient to trigger the HOA’s legal obligation to respond.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if the management company prefers requests to go directly to them, the Association is still obligated to comply with the law if the Board receives the request. In this case, the management company argued they didn’t know about the request because it went to the Board, but the judge ruled the violation still occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent did present any legal authority to establish that it was not obligated to comply with A.R.S. section 33-1258(A), for the reason that the requests were not sent to Respondent’s property management company.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “HOA obligations”, “property management” ] }, { “question”: “How many days does the HOA have to let me examine the records I requested?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA must make records available for examination within 10 business days.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona law grants the Association ten business days to fulfill a request for examination after receiving it.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “timelines”, “records request”, “statutory requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA charge me a fee just to look at the records?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA cannot charge a member for making material available for review.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the HOA can charge for copies (up to 15 cents per page), they are explicitly prohibited from charging a fee for the act of making materials available for review.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “records request”, “homeowner rights” ] }, { “question”: “What happens if I win my hearing against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “You may be deemed the prevailing party and the HOA can be ordered to reimburse your filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “If the judge rules in your favor, they can order the HOA to pay back the filing fee you paid to bring the case. In this decision, the HOA was ordered to pay the homeowner $500.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.”, “legal_basis”: “Order”, “topic_tags”: [ “penalties”, “reimbursement”, “ruling” ] }, { “question”: “Does the HOA have to provide original invoices if I request them?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Financial records, including original invoices, must be made reasonably available.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision confirms that failure to allow examination of original invoices constitutes a violation of the statute governing association records.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent violated A.R.S. section 33-1258(A) when it failed to allow Petitioner to examine the May 2024 original invoices and bank statements”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “invoices”, “financial records”, “transparency” ] }, { “question”: “What is the standard of proof for proving the HOA violated the law?”, “short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must prove their case by showing it is ‘more probably true than not.’ This is the standard evidentiary weight required in these administrative hearings.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 (A) by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “burden of proof”, “hearing procedures” ] }, { “question”: “Will the HOA always be fined a civil penalty if they break the law?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. The judge has discretion on whether to apply a civil penalty.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if a violation is found (as it was in this case regarding the records), the judge may decide that a civil penalty is not appropriate based on the circumstances.”, “alj_quote”: “No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.”, “legal_basis”: “Order”, “topic_tags”: [ “civil penalty”, “fines”, “enforcement” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Joseph P. Allan (petitioner)
    Appeared on behalf of himself. Name also appears as Joseph P. Allen.

Respondent Side

  • Belen Guzman (property manager)
    SSC Property Management
    Owner of the property management company for the Respondent. Appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
  • Peetri Ahon (board member)
    The Springs Condominiums Association
    Was the President of the board at the time of requests, later identified as a member at large.

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge. Name also appears as Fala Moses Thompson.
  • Susan Nicolson (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Carmen (homeowner)
    The Springs Condominiums Association
    A homeowner who was CC'd on an email.

Keystone Owners Association V. Bernadette M. Bennett

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H031-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-12-09
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $1,500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Keystone Owners Association Counsel Erica L. Mortenson
Respondent Bernadette M. Bennett Counsel Thomas A. Walcott

Alleged Violations

Mountain Park Association CC&Rs Art. IV, Sec. 2; Keystone CC&Rs Art. V, Sec. 5.19; Rules (35% Frontage Limit)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner (HOA) prevailed. The Respondent (Homeowner) was found in violation of Governing Documents for installing an unapproved driveway extension that exceeded 35% of the total yard frontage area. Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner the $1,500.00 filing fee and comply with all Governing Documents henceforth. No civil penalty was levied.

Why this result: Respondent failed to obtain prior written approval for the driveway alteration and failed to prove the affirmative defense of laches.

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized Driveway Extension Exceeding 35% of Total Yard Frontage Area

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated CC&Rs by installing a driveway extension exceeding 35% of the total yard frontage area without prior written approval. The ALJ found by a preponderance of the evidence that the violation occurred and the Respondent failed to establish the affirmative defense of laches.

Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $1,500.00 for the filing fee and comply henceforth with the Governing Documents.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Westburne Supply, Inc. v. Diversified Design and Construction, Inc., 170 Ariz. 598, 600, 826 P.2d 1224, 1226 (Ct. App. 1992)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • Flynn v. Rogers, 172 Ariz. 62 (1992)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, ARC, Driveway, Frontage Area, CC&Rs, Laches
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Westburne Supply, Inc. v. Diversified Design and Construction, Inc., 170 Ariz. 598, 600, 826 P.2d 1224, 1226 (Ct. App. 1992)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • Flynn v. Rogers, 172 Ariz. 62 (1992)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1159036.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:53 (52.8 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1180542.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:56 (49.9 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1180545.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:00 (7.6 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1198622.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:04 (50.0 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1198623.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:09 (7.6 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1225107.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:13 (52.6 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1227639.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:18 (48.7 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1227642.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:23 (5.9 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1230660.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:26 (45.0 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1241815.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:30 (48.8 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1250037.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:33 (113.0 KB)

Questions

Question

Can a sub-association enforce the rules and CC&Rs of the master association?

Short Answer

Yes, if the master association has assigned those enforcement rights to the sub-association.

Detailed Answer

A sub-association (like a specific neighborhood HOA within a larger master planned community) generally enforces its own documents. However, this decision clarifies that a sub-association may be authorized to enforce the master association's governing documents if there is a specific assignment agreement executing that transfer of authority.

Alj Quote

The Governing Documents authorize Petitioner to enforce the Governing Documents, as further memorialized by an executed Assignment Agreement by and between Mountain Park Association and Keystone Owners Association signed on August 16, 2023.

Legal Basis

Assignment Agreement / Governing Documents

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • sub-associations
  • master association
  • enforcement authority

Question

If I extend my driveway without approval, does the HOA have to prove I didn't get permission, or do I have to prove I did?

Short Answer

The absence of written evidence granting approval can be used to establish a violation.

Detailed Answer

While the HOA bears the initial burden of proof for the violation, the lack of testimonial or written evidence showing that the homeowner received approval helps establish that the modification was unauthorized.

Alj Quote

However, there was no testimonial or written evidence presented to establish that Respondent was granted approval to install a driveway that exceeded 35% of the total yard frontage area.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • architectural approval
  • evidence
  • driveways
  • modifications

Question

What is the 'burden of proof' for an HOA to win a violation hearing?

Short Answer

The HOA must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The HOA does not need to prove a violation 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (the criminal standard). They must only show that their contention is 'more probably true than not' or carries superior evidentiary weight.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated CC&R § 7.9 by a preponderance of the evidence… 'A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.'

Legal Basis

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

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • evidence
  • hearing procedures

Question

Can I use the defense that the HOA waited too long to enforce the rule (laches)?

Short Answer

Yes, but you bear the burden of proving that the delay was unreasonable and caused you prejudice.

Detailed Answer

Laches is an affirmative defense. It is not enough to simply show a delay; the homeowner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the delay was unreasonable and that it resulted in sufficient prejudice to deny the HOA's relief.

Alj Quote

Laches is an affirmative defense, and Respondent bears the burden of establishing the defense by a preponderance of the evidence… Respondent has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that there was unreasonable delay that has resulted in prejudice to Respondent sufficient to deny the relief Petitioner seeks…

Legal Basis

A.C.C. R2-19-119(B)(2); Flynn v. Rogers

Topic Tags

  • defenses
  • laches
  • enforcement delay

Question

If I lose the hearing, can the judge make me pay the HOA's filing fees?

Short Answer

Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the losing homeowner to reimburse the HOA's filing fee.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, the judge ordered the Respondent (homeowner) to pay the Petitioner's (HOA) filing fee of $1,500.00 directly to the Petitioner within 30 days.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner its filing fee of $1,500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • costs
  • penalties

Question

How do judges interpret the meaning of restrictive covenants (CC&Rs)?

Short Answer

They are interpreted as a whole, looking at the underlying purpose of the document.

Detailed Answer

Legal interpretation does not isolate single phrases but looks at the document in its entirety to understand the intent of the parties and the purpose of the restrictions.

Alj Quote

Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.

Legal Basis

Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs.

Topic Tags

  • legal interpretation
  • CC&Rs
  • covenants

Question

Can the judge issue a civil penalty (fine) in addition to ordering me to fix the violation?

Short Answer

Yes, the judge has the authority to levy a civil penalty, though they may choose not to.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 32-2199.02, the administrative law judge has the discretion to order compliance and also levy a civil penalty for each violation. In this specific case, the judge found no civil penalty was appropriate, but the authority exists.

Alj Quote

The administrative law judge may order any party to abide by the statute, condominium documents, community documents or contract provision at issue and may levy a civil penalty on the basis of each violation.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • civil penalties
  • fines
  • statutory authority

Case

Docket No
24F-H031-REL
Case Title
Keystone Owners Association vs. Bernadette M. Bennett
Decision Date
2024-12-09
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can a sub-association enforce the rules and CC&Rs of the master association?

Short Answer

Yes, if the master association has assigned those enforcement rights to the sub-association.

Detailed Answer

A sub-association (like a specific neighborhood HOA within a larger master planned community) generally enforces its own documents. However, this decision clarifies that a sub-association may be authorized to enforce the master association's governing documents if there is a specific assignment agreement executing that transfer of authority.

Alj Quote

The Governing Documents authorize Petitioner to enforce the Governing Documents, as further memorialized by an executed Assignment Agreement by and between Mountain Park Association and Keystone Owners Association signed on August 16, 2023.

Legal Basis

Assignment Agreement / Governing Documents

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • sub-associations
  • master association
  • enforcement authority

Question

If I extend my driveway without approval, does the HOA have to prove I didn't get permission, or do I have to prove I did?

Short Answer

The absence of written evidence granting approval can be used to establish a violation.

Detailed Answer

While the HOA bears the initial burden of proof for the violation, the lack of testimonial or written evidence showing that the homeowner received approval helps establish that the modification was unauthorized.

Alj Quote

However, there was no testimonial or written evidence presented to establish that Respondent was granted approval to install a driveway that exceeded 35% of the total yard frontage area.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • architectural approval
  • evidence
  • driveways
  • modifications

Question

What is the 'burden of proof' for an HOA to win a violation hearing?

Short Answer

The HOA must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The HOA does not need to prove a violation 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (the criminal standard). They must only show that their contention is 'more probably true than not' or carries superior evidentiary weight.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated CC&R § 7.9 by a preponderance of the evidence… 'A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.'

Legal Basis

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

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • evidence
  • hearing procedures

Question

Can I use the defense that the HOA waited too long to enforce the rule (laches)?

Short Answer

Yes, but you bear the burden of proving that the delay was unreasonable and caused you prejudice.

Detailed Answer

Laches is an affirmative defense. It is not enough to simply show a delay; the homeowner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the delay was unreasonable and that it resulted in sufficient prejudice to deny the HOA's relief.

Alj Quote

Laches is an affirmative defense, and Respondent bears the burden of establishing the defense by a preponderance of the evidence… Respondent has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that there was unreasonable delay that has resulted in prejudice to Respondent sufficient to deny the relief Petitioner seeks…

Legal Basis

A.C.C. R2-19-119(B)(2); Flynn v. Rogers

Topic Tags

  • defenses
  • laches
  • enforcement delay

Question

If I lose the hearing, can the judge make me pay the HOA's filing fees?

Short Answer

Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the losing homeowner to reimburse the HOA's filing fee.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, the judge ordered the Respondent (homeowner) to pay the Petitioner's (HOA) filing fee of $1,500.00 directly to the Petitioner within 30 days.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner its filing fee of $1,500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • costs
  • penalties

Question

How do judges interpret the meaning of restrictive covenants (CC&Rs)?

Short Answer

They are interpreted as a whole, looking at the underlying purpose of the document.

Detailed Answer

Legal interpretation does not isolate single phrases but looks at the document in its entirety to understand the intent of the parties and the purpose of the restrictions.

Alj Quote

Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.

Legal Basis

Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs.

Topic Tags

  • legal interpretation
  • CC&Rs
  • covenants

Question

Can the judge issue a civil penalty (fine) in addition to ordering me to fix the violation?

Short Answer

Yes, the judge has the authority to levy a civil penalty, though they may choose not to.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 32-2199.02, the administrative law judge has the discretion to order compliance and also levy a civil penalty for each violation. In this specific case, the judge found no civil penalty was appropriate, but the authority exists.

Alj Quote

The administrative law judge may order any party to abide by the statute, condominium documents, community documents or contract provision at issue and may levy a civil penalty on the basis of each violation.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • civil penalties
  • fines
  • statutory authority

Case

Docket No
24F-H031-REL
Case Title
Keystone Owners Association vs. Bernadette M. Bennett
Decision Date
2024-12-09
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Erica L. Mortenson (attorney)
    Goodman Law Group
    HOA attorney
  • Harry Whitel (board member/witness)
    Keystone Owners Association
    Secretary of the Board
  • Tim Seyfarth (board member/president)
    Keystone Owners Association
    Board President
  • Glenn Steinman (board member)
    Keystone Owners Association
    Board Vice President
  • Debbie Burch (board member)
    Keystone Owners Association
    Board Treasurer
  • Cherry Collins (board member)
    Keystone Owners Association
    Member at large; Architectural Advisory Committee member
  • Joe Getti (ARC member/former board member)
    Keystone Owners Association
    Architectural Advisory Committee member
  • Mary Hamilton (ARC member)
    Keystone Owners Association
    Architectural Advisory Committee member
  • Dan (attorney/staff)
    Goodman Law Group

Respondent Side

  • Bernadette M. Bennett (respondent)
    Lot Owner
  • Thomas A. Walcott (attorney)
    Provident Lawyers
    Respondent attorney
  • Noah Alvarado (staff)
    Staff/assistant for Respondent's Counsel
  • Christopher J. Charles (attorney/staff)
    Provident Lawyers

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Amy Haley (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge (prior to VMT)
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Isabella (property manager)
    Vision Management
    Keystone Property Manager who was asked for documents
  • Annette Wthbon (property management agent)
    City Management
    Former Property Management Agent
  • Carla Garvin (property management agent)
    City Management
    Former Property Management Agent

R.L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H001-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-11-12
Administrative Law Judge Samuel Fox
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner R.L. Whitmer Counsel —
Respondent Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners Counsel Emily H. Mann

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge found the Respondent HOA in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1) for failing to contain the name of the association in the Declaration. The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party and awarded the $500.00 filing fee, but no civil penalty was imposed.

Key Issues & Findings

Declaration requirements for naming the condominium and association.

Petitioner claimed the Declaration failed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1) because it lacked the formal name of the association. Respondent argued the existing reference to the 'Council of Co-owners' was sufficient because case law established the current association was the successor entity. The Tribunal found the Declaration did not contain the name of the association as required.

Orders: Respondent shall pay Petitioner the filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days and shall comply with A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1) going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 12-550
  • A.R.S. § 33-1202(15)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1219(A)
  • London v Carrick
  • Schaefer v Pro Keanti AZ2 LP
  • Eli v Cro County A

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Condominium Act, Declaration, Statute of Limitations
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 12-550
  • A.R.S. § 33-1202(15)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1219(A)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092
  • London v Carrick
  • Schaefer v Pro Keanti AZ2 LP
  • Eli v Cro County A

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H001-REL Decision – 1235116.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:12:40 (44.0 KB)

25F-H001-REL Decision – 1241814.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:12:47 (115.8 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H001-REL


Briefing on Administrative Hearing Case No. 25F-H001-REL

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative hearing case R.L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners (No. 25F-H001-REL). The central issue was whether the Respondent Homeowners Association’s (HOA) governing Declaration complied with Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1215(A)(1), which mandates that the Declaration contain both the name of the condominium (with the word “condominium”) and the specific name of the association.

In a decision issued on November 12, 2024, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Samuel Fox ruled in favor of the Petitioner, R.L. Whitmer. The ALJ found that while the Declaration’s associated plat satisfied the requirement for the condominium’s name, the Declaration failed to contain the association’s actual, current legal name, “Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners.”

The Respondent HOA advanced three primary defenses, all of which were rejected by the tribunal:

1. Constructive Compliance: The HOA argued that the Declaration’s reference to its predecessor entity (“Council of Co-owners”), combined with numerous court rulings affirming the current HOA as its legal successor, constituted compliance. The ALJ dismissed this, stating the statute requires the actual name to be present and that “constructive compliance” is not sufficient.

2. Statute of Limitations: The HOA claimed the petition was barred by a four-year statute of limitations (A.R.S. § 12-550), as the Petitioner had notice of the Declaration’s contents since 2014. The ALJ ruled that this statute applies only to “actions” in a “court,” and that proceedings before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), an executive branch agency, do not qualify.

3. Impossibility of Unilateral Action: The HOA contended that it could not be ordered to amend the Declaration because such an action requires a membership vote and is not unilaterally achievable. The ALJ found this was not a valid legal defense, as the procedural requirements for achieving statutory compliance do not excuse non-compliance.

The final order declared the Petitioner the prevailing party, ordered the Respondent to pay the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee, and mandated that the Respondent comply with A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1). No civil penalty was imposed.

Case Overview

• Case Number: 25F-H001-REL

• Forum: Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), State of Arizona

• Petitioner: R.L. Whitmer

• Respondent: Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Samuel Fox

• Respondent’s Counsel: Emily H. Mann

• Core Legal Issue: Whether the Respondent’s Declaration of Horizontal Property Regime for Hilton Casitas violates A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1), which states:

Procedural History

• Petition Filed: On or about June 27, 2024, R.L. Whitmer filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging the violation.

• Motion to Dismiss: On October 1, 2024, the Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment (or to dismiss), which was denied by the OAH on October 18, 2024.

• Evidentiary Hearing: A hearing was held on October 25, 2024, though the hearing transcript is dated October 26, 2024.

• ALJ Decision Issued: The final Administrative Law Judge Decision was issued on November 12, 2024.

Analysis of Key Arguments and Rulings

The case centered on three distinct legal arguments presented by the Respondent HOA and the subsequent rulings by the ALJ.

1. Statutory Compliance of the Declaration

The fundamental dispute was whether the Declaration, as written, satisfied the plain language of A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1).

Argument / Position

Supporting Evidence / Rationale

Petitioner (Whitmer)

The Declaration is non-compliant because the legal name “Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners” is not present anywhere in the document.

The Declaration refers to the “Council of Co-owners,” an unincorporated association created in 1972. The current non-profit corporation, formed in 1994, is not named. The Petitioner argued, “It’s just not there.”

Respondent (HOA)

The Declaration is compliant when its constituent parts are read together with established case law.

1. Condominium Name: The plat, which is legally part of the Declaration per A.R.S. § 33-1219(A), contains the phrase “HILTON CASITAS A CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT.”
2. Association Name: Section 1.4 of the Declaration defines “Council” as the “Council of Co-owners.” Multiple Arizona Court of Appeals decisions have held that the “Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners” is the legal successor entity to the “Council of Co-owners.” Therefore, a reference to the old name legally constitutes a reference to the current name.

ALJ Ruling

Violation Established. The Declaration does not contain the name of the association as required.

The ALJ agreed with the Respondent that the plat satisfied the condominium name requirement. However, the judge rejected the “successor entity” argument for the association’s name, concluding: > “The statute requires ‘the name of the association,’ not merely a reference to it. Even if the current association was the entity with standing, its name was not present in the Declaration. Assuming that there is some purpose for the statutory requirement, a reader should be able to identify the association from the declaration. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not willing to accept constructive compliance.”

2. The Statute of Limitations Defense

The Respondent argued that even if a violation existed, the Petitioner’s claim was filed too late.

Argument / Position

Supporting Evidence / Rationale

Petitioner (Whitmer)

The statute of limitations does not apply because the violation is a continuous act.

The Petitioner framed the non-compliant Declaration as a “cloud on the title,” a type of defect to which a statute of limitations is never a bar.

Respondent (HOA)

The claim is time-barred by the four-year default statute of limitations under A.R.S. § 12-550.

The Petitioner acquired his property in August 2014 and thus had constructive notice of the Declaration’s contents. The four-year period to file a claim expired in August 2018, making the 2024 petition six years too late.

ALJ Ruling

Defense Rejected. The statute of limitations does not apply to OAH proceedings.

The ALJ performed a statutory analysis, noting that A.R.S. § 12-550 applies to an “action” which is defined as “any matter or proceeding in a court.” Because the OAH is an agency of the executive branch and not a court, its proceedings are not “actions” under the statute. Therefore, the general statute of limitations is inapplicable.

3. The “Impossibility” of Unilateral Compliance

The Respondent argued that the relief sought by the Petitioner—an order to amend the Declaration—was not something the tribunal could grant because the HOA Board could not comply on its own.

Argument / Position

Supporting Evidence / Rationale

Petitioner (Whitmer)

The HOA has a clear path to compliance.

The Petitioner stated that the HOA simply needs to “call the election, amend the… or propose an amendment that cures this problem and ask the membership to approve it.” He offered to stipulate that he would not seek a contempt order if the HOA made a good-faith effort.

Respondent (HOA)

An order to amend would be inappropriate because the HOA cannot unilaterally amend the Declaration.

Amending the Declaration requires a vote of the membership (either 51% or 67%) and consent from an entity referred to as “the corporation.” If a vote failed, the HOA could not comply with the order, exposing it to further litigation from the Petitioner seeking to hold it in contempt.

ALJ Ruling

Defense Rejected. Procedural requirements for compliance do not constitute a legal defense against non-compliance.

The ALJ noted that it is ordinary for an HOA board or membership to have to vote to enact compliance with a statute. The ruling states: > “Technical procedures and responsibility for amending the Declaration, under a condominium’s documents and Arizona statues, is not a legal defense in this matter.” The tribunal’s role is to determine compliance and order it where it is lacking.

Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge Decision concluded with the following orders:

1. Prevailing Party: The Petitioner, R.L. Whitmer, is deemed the prevailing party.

2. Filing Fee: The Respondent must pay the Petitioner the filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the order.

3. Compliance: The Respondent shall comply with A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1) going forward.

4. Civil Penalty: No civil penalty was found to be appropriate in the matter.

The decision is binding unless a rehearing is requested with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days.






Study Guide – 25F-H001-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H001-REL”, “case_title”: “R.L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners”, “decision_date”: “2024-11-12”, “alj_name”: “Samuel Fox”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Does the 4-year statute of limitations for civil lawsuits apply to HOA disputes filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?”, “short_answer”: “No. The general statute of limitations applies to court ‘actions,’ and administrative hearings are not considered court actions.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the general 4-year statute of limitations (A.R.S. § 12-550) does not apply to petitions filed with the Department of Real Estate/OAH. This is because the Office of Administrative Hearings is part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch, and its proceedings are not defined as ‘actions’ by the legislature.”, “alj_quote”: “Accordingly, proceedings before OAH are not ‘actions’ as defined by the legislature, and the general statute of limitations does not apply.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 12-550; A.R.S. § 1-215”, “topic_tags”: [ “statute of limitations”, “jurisdiction”, “filing deadlines” ] }, { “question”: “Must the HOA’s Declaration explicitly state the full legal name of the Association?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The Declaration must contain the actual name of the association, not just a definition or reference like ‘The Council’.”, “detailed_answer”: “State law requires the Declaration to contain the specific name of the association. The Judge rejected the argument that defining a term like ‘Council’ to mean the association was sufficient. The actual name must appear to ensure a reader can identify the association from the document.”, “alj_quote”: “The statute requires ‘the name of the association,’ not merely a reference to it. The name of the association as stated in the defined term ‘Council’ is not the name of the association.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&Rs”, “governing documents”, “HOA name” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA avoid an order to amend its documents by claiming it requires a vote of the membership?”, “short_answer”: “No. Procedural difficulties, such as needing a membership vote, are not a valid legal defense for non-compliant documents.”, “detailed_answer”: “An HOA cannot use the difficulty of obtaining a membership vote as a defense against a violation finding. If the documents are non-compliant with state law, the Tribunal can order compliance regardless of the internal procedures required to fix them.”, “alj_quote”: “Technical procedures and responsibility for amending the Declaration, under a condominium’s documents and Arizona statues, is not a legal defense in this matter.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Authority”, “topic_tags”: [ “amendments”, “voting”, “defenses” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my case against the HOA, will I be reimbursed for the filing fee?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Judge can order the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee to the prevailing homeowner.”, “detailed_answer”: “When a homeowner prevails in proving a violation, the Administrative Law Judge has the authority to order the Respondent (HOA) to pay the filing fee directly to the Petitioner.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner the filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Remedy”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “remedies”, “costs” ] }, { “question”: “Does proving an HOA violation automatically result in a civil penalty (fine) against the Association?”, “short_answer”: “No. A violation does not automatically trigger a civil penalty unless the Judge deems it appropriate.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if a homeowner proves that the HOA violated a statute or the community documents, the Judge has discretion regarding civil penalties. In this case, despite finding a violation regarding the naming in the Declaration, the Judge decided no civil penalty was necessary.”, “alj_quote”: “No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Discretion”, “topic_tags”: [ “fines”, “civil penalties”, “enforcement” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner filing a petition against their HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove the violation by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’.”, “detailed_answer”: “The petitioner (homeowner) is responsible for providing enough evidence to show that their contention is ‘more probably true than not.'”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “evidence”, “burden of proof”, “legal standards” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 25F-H001-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H001-REL”, “case_title”: “R.L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners”, “decision_date”: “2024-11-12”, “alj_name”: “Samuel Fox”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Does the 4-year statute of limitations for civil lawsuits apply to HOA disputes filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?”, “short_answer”: “No. The general statute of limitations applies to court ‘actions,’ and administrative hearings are not considered court actions.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the general 4-year statute of limitations (A.R.S. § 12-550) does not apply to petitions filed with the Department of Real Estate/OAH. This is because the Office of Administrative Hearings is part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch, and its proceedings are not defined as ‘actions’ by the legislature.”, “alj_quote”: “Accordingly, proceedings before OAH are not ‘actions’ as defined by the legislature, and the general statute of limitations does not apply.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 12-550; A.R.S. § 1-215”, “topic_tags”: [ “statute of limitations”, “jurisdiction”, “filing deadlines” ] }, { “question”: “Must the HOA’s Declaration explicitly state the full legal name of the Association?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The Declaration must contain the actual name of the association, not just a definition or reference like ‘The Council’.”, “detailed_answer”: “State law requires the Declaration to contain the specific name of the association. The Judge rejected the argument that defining a term like ‘Council’ to mean the association was sufficient. The actual name must appear to ensure a reader can identify the association from the document.”, “alj_quote”: “The statute requires ‘the name of the association,’ not merely a reference to it. The name of the association as stated in the defined term ‘Council’ is not the name of the association.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1215(A)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&Rs”, “governing documents”, “HOA name” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA avoid an order to amend its documents by claiming it requires a vote of the membership?”, “short_answer”: “No. Procedural difficulties, such as needing a membership vote, are not a valid legal defense for non-compliant documents.”, “detailed_answer”: “An HOA cannot use the difficulty of obtaining a membership vote as a defense against a violation finding. If the documents are non-compliant with state law, the Tribunal can order compliance regardless of the internal procedures required to fix them.”, “alj_quote”: “Technical procedures and responsibility for amending the Declaration, under a condominium’s documents and Arizona statues, is not a legal defense in this matter.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Authority”, “topic_tags”: [ “amendments”, “voting”, “defenses” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my case against the HOA, will I be reimbursed for the filing fee?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Judge can order the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee to the prevailing homeowner.”, “detailed_answer”: “When a homeowner prevails in proving a violation, the Administrative Law Judge has the authority to order the Respondent (HOA) to pay the filing fee directly to the Petitioner.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner the filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Remedy”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “remedies”, “costs” ] }, { “question”: “Does proving an HOA violation automatically result in a civil penalty (fine) against the Association?”, “short_answer”: “No. A violation does not automatically trigger a civil penalty unless the Judge deems it appropriate.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if a homeowner proves that the HOA violated a statute or the community documents, the Judge has discretion regarding civil penalties. In this case, despite finding a violation regarding the naming in the Declaration, the Judge decided no civil penalty was necessary.”, “alj_quote”: “No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Discretion”, “topic_tags”: [ “fines”, “civil penalties”, “enforcement” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner filing a petition against their HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove the violation by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’.”, “detailed_answer”: “The petitioner (homeowner) is responsible for providing enough evidence to show that their contention is ‘more probably true than not.'”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “evidence”, “burden of proof”, “legal standards” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • R.L. Whitmer (petitioner)
    fulcrumgroup.biz

Respondent Side

  • Emily H. Mann Phillips (HOA attorney)
    Phillips, Maceyko & Battock, PLLC
  • Robert Westbrook (HOA president)
    Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners

Neutral Parties

  • Samuel Fox (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)

Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association v. Goebel, Rick Jr. & Elizabeth

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H050-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-09-11
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association Counsel Daniel S. Francom
Respondent Rick Jr. & Elizabeth Goebel Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article V, Section 5.22; Guidelines Section 2.24

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the HOA's petition, finding the HOA failed to meet its burden of proving a violation. The homeowner justifiably relied on the ARC's approval, which was granted rapidly and without clarification requests, despite the lack of detail on the wall height, effectively granting an exception to the Guidelines.

Why this result: The HOA (Petitioner) failed to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, primarily because the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approved the plans after multiple rounds of review, and the homeowner relied on that approval. The delay in the stop construction notice was also deemed unreasonable.

Key Issues & Findings

Construction of unapproved structures/patio walls in excess of permitted height

Petitioner (HOA) alleged Respondent (homeowner) violated community documents by constructing walls around a courtyard in excess of the 42-inch height limit set by the Guidelines Section 2.24, and without sufficient prior approval (CC&R Section 5.22). The constructed wall was approximately 8 feet high.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition in this matter is denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Architectural Review, Wall Height, Pony Wall, Approval Reliance, Burden of Proof, Unreasonable Delay
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • CC&R Article V, Section 5.22
  • Guidelines Section 2.24




Briefing Doc – 24F-H050-REL


Arroyo Mountain Estate HOA vs. Goebel: A Dispute Over Architectural Approval

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive overview of the dispute between the Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association (HOA) and homeowners Rick and Elizabeth Goebel, culminating in an administrative law hearing on August 28, 2024. The central conflict revolves around the construction of a courtyard wall at the Goebels’ property, which the HOA alleged was unapproved and in violation of community guidelines.

The Goebels maintained that they followed all required procedures, submitting multiple revised applications at the HOA’s request, and ultimately received explicit, unconditional approval from the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) before commencing work. They argued that they built a “courtyard wall” in conformance with section 2.9 of the guidelines, which does not specify a height limit, and not a “pony wall,” which is restricted to 42 inches under section 2.24.

The HOA contended that the Goebels’ application was misleading due to a lack of critical details, specifically the wall’s 8-foot 8-inch height and a three-foot overhead hood. Key members of the ARC testified they understood the application to be for landscaping only and would have denied it had the full scope been clear. The HOA argued the constructed wall violates the spirit and letter of the guidelines intended to maintain community aesthetic uniformity.

The case concluded with a definitive ruling by an Administrative Law Judge on September 11, 2024. The judge denied the HOA’s petition, finding that they had not met their burden of proof. The decision highlighted that the Goebels had followed the prescribed process, justifiably relied on the ARC’s formal approval, and that the HOA’s month-long delay in issuing a stop-construction notice was unreasonable. The ruling deemed the ARC’s approval “tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines.”

The Core Dispute: The Courtyard Wall

The conflict centers on improvements made at the Goebels’ property, located at 5408 North Prescott Court (incorrectly listed multiple times in HOA documents as 5408 North Carson Court). The primary structure in question is a wall enclosing a front courtyard area, which the Goebels’ plans identified as a “courtyard wall.”

Alleged Violations by the HOA

The HOA’s petition alleged that the Goebels were in violation of two primary governing documents:

1. CC&Rs Article V, Section 5.22: This section requires homeowners to receive ARC approval before beginning any construction that alters the exterior appearance of a property, demanding that requests “Specify in detail the nature and extent of construction.”

2. Architectural and Landscape Design Guidelines, Section 2.24: This section governs “Pony Walls and Courtyards,” stating that pony walls constructed in a front yard to form a courtyard “should be no higher than 42 inches.”

The HOA argued that the wall built by the Goebels, which reaches a height of approximately 8 feet 8 inches, is functionally a pony wall and therefore violates the 42-inch height restriction.

The Homeowner’s (Goebel) Position and Timeline

The Goebels’ defense was anchored in their assertion of procedural compliance, reliance on a formal approval, and a belief that they were being unfairly targeted.

Application and Approval Process

The timeline of the application process was a key element of the Goebels’ case:

Dec 30, 2022

Initial consolidated application for all improvements submitted via email.

Jan 3, 2023

Initial application denied with the instruction to “please resubmit separate applications for the different projects.”

Jan 3, 2023

Revised, separate applications submitted to the community manager, Katie Sand.

Jan 3, 2023

Additional comments received from Katie Sand requesting further changes.

Jan 3, 2023

Final revised applications submitted at 4:14 p.m. and notice of acceptance received at 4:26 p.m.

Jan 5, 2023

The ARC formally approved the applications, within 48 hours of submission, without requesting additional information.

Argument of Good Faith and Procedural Adherence

Mr. Goebel argued that he diligently followed the HOA’s process and could not have done more to ensure compliance.

“I follow the requirement of the architectural community prepared the application submitted the application via the appropriate application approval process and received approval. It’s unclear what I’m being violated for. It is unclear as to how I violated any part of the approval or constructed improvements not identified on the plan.” – Rick Goebel

He emphasized that the ARC, under its own guidelines, had the power to request more information if the application was deemed incomplete but chose not to, instead granting full approval. Elizabeth Goebel further stated, “they approved the application and we move forward with our approval… We still got the approval. We moved forward in good faith and constructed what we had done.”

Construction Timeline and HOA Response

• March 21, 2023: Engineering drawings submitted to Maricopa County.

• March 24, 2023: Technical approvals and permits issued by the county.

• April 7, 2023: Construction commenced.

• April 19, 2023: The wall reached its full height.

• May 12, 2023: Nearly one month after the wall was completed, the Goebels received a stop-construction notice from the HOA.

Claims of Targeted Harassment

Mr. Goebel testified that he felt his family and home were being targeted by board members, leading to significant distress and financial cost.

“Over the past 12 months, I’ve had to deal with continued harassment from our board… People drive past my home, take pictures of my home. John Conalo has driven past my home multiple times taking pictures of my home… I have people to drive by my home, take photos and post these photos online and generally disrupt the reasonable enjoyment of my property. I am of the opinion that me and my home are being targeted for these improvements by members of the board who are utilizing funds to support the basic attack.” – Rick Goebel

The Homeowners Association’s (HOA) Position

The HOA’s case, presented by attorney Daniel Francom, focused on the argument that the Goebels’ application was deficient and that any approval granted was therefore invalid for the wall as constructed.

Insufficient Detail and Misleading Application

The HOA argued the Goebels “failed to provide sufficient details” in their application.

• Wall Height: The plans did not specify the wall would be 8 feet 8 inches high.

• Overhead Hood: The plans did not clearly indicate a three-foot deep overhead structure above the gate.

• County Plans: The detailed plans submitted to Maricopa County, which included engineering reports and the exact wall height, were never provided to the HOA.

Board President John Consalvo testified that the application “showed nothing about a construction wall showing landscape application turned in.”

Architectural Committee’s Interpretation

ARC member Judy Oliver provided crucial testimony for the HOA, stating that the committee was misled by the application’s presentation.

• She testified that since the application was titled “revamping of landscaping,” she and other members “assumed that this was regarding landscaping only.”

• Regarding the wall itself, she stated, “I felt that that wall wasn’t even up for discussion at the time.”

• Crucially, she asserted that had the Goebels provided specifics for an 8-foot wall, the committee would have denied the project as it “counters the architectural guidelines.”

Violation of Guideline 2.24 (“Pony Walls”)

The HOA’s legal argument rested on classifying the Goebels’ structure under section 2.24. They argued that because the wall creates a courtyard, it should be considered a “pony wall” and is therefore subject to the 42-inch height limit, regardless of what the Goebels labeled it in their plans. They argued the wall “sticks out like a sore thumb” and that there are no other similar walls in the community.

Key Witness Testimony

Ms. Rozzo’s testimony significantly undermined the HOA’s position.

• Admission of Error: When asked if she noted the courtyard wall, she stated, “No, I absolutely missed it. I am completely honest about that. I have missed it just like we’ve missed other ones and nothing’s done about it.”

• Precedent of Inaction: She testified that the ARC had mistakenly approved “at least 15 to 20 homes” with non-compliant improvements and that “the HOA has never pursued them.” She cited unapproved walls, pavers, and concrete pads at other properties.

• Challenge to HOA’s Pursuit: She expressed surprise that the HOA was pursuing this case, stating that when she told John Consalvo that pursuing the Goebels meant they should pursue all other erroneous approvals, he “chuckled and said, ‘Mike, my neighbor,'” implying a neighbor of the board president also had unapproved improvements.

• Board Vote: Ms. Rozzo, who was also a board member for a short time, revealed that the decision to take action against the Goebels was not unanimous, with two of the five board members voting “no.”

Mr. Consalvo testified that the board’s function is to maintain the community and enforce HOA rules. He stated that the Goebels’ application did not provide the required detail for the courtyard wall, its height, or the overhead gate structure. He confirmed he took photos of the property and that, in his view, the wall as built did not conform to any approved application and should have been limited to 42 inches.

Ms. Oliver testified she had been on the ARC since 2017. She stated that the application was understood to be for landscaping and that the wall was not considered for approval due to the lack of detail. She testified that had the 8-foot height been specified, the application would have been denied.

The Final Decision: Administrative Law Judge Ruling

On September 11, 2024, Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone issued a final, binding decision in the case (No. 24F-H050-REL).

Ruling

The Petitioner’s (HOA’s) petition was denied. The judge found that the HOA failed to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Reasoning for the Decision

The judge provided a clear, multi-point rationale for siding with the Goebels:

1. Procedural Compliance: “Respondent followed the process as laid out in section 5.22 of the CC&Rs, by submitting its Application to the ARC.”

2. Justifiable Reliance on Approval: The ARC had multiple opportunities to question the plans and did so on other matters. The judge concluded that Ms. Rozzo’s approval, even if she “missed it,” was a formal action on which the “Respondent justifiably relied… and moved ahead with construction.”

3. Approval as an Exception: The judge stated the formal approval “was tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines as the project was approved.”

4. Unreasonable Delay by HOA: The judge found that for the HOA “to wait almost a month once the project was completed to provide a stop construction notice to Respondent was unreasonable.”

5. Inconsistent Enforcement: The judge noted that “this was not the first time the ARC had approved projects that were not within the Guidelines,” referencing the testimony about other unpursued violations in the community.

Final Order

• The HOA’s petition was formally denied.

• The Respondent (Goebels) was not required to reimburse the HOA’s $500 filing fee.


Questions

Question

If the HOA approves my architectural application, can they later claim a violation because they 'missed' details in the plan?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA approves the application, the homeowner can justifiably rely on that approval to proceed, even if the committee claims they missed specific details during review.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that once an application is approved, the homeowner has the right to rely on that approval to begin construction. Even if an Architectural Committee member testifies later that they 'missed' a detail (like a wall height) during their review, the approval stands. The HOA cannot penalize the homeowner for the committee's oversight after approval has been granted.

Alj Quote

Ms. Rozzo testified that while she may have “missed it”, the Application was nonetheless approved, and Respondent justifiably relied on the approval and moved ahead with construction.

Legal Basis

Justifiable Reliance

Topic Tags

  • architectural approval
  • committee oversight
  • homeowner reliance

Question

Can an approved application serve as a valid exception to written architectural guidelines?

Short Answer

Yes. An approved application can be considered tantamount to an exception to the community's design guidelines.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the HOA argued the construction violated height guidelines. However, because the specific project plans were submitted and approved by the committee, the ALJ determined that this approval effectively acted as an exception to the general guidelines, making the construction permissible.

Alj Quote

This was tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines as the project was approved.

Legal Basis

Exception to Guidelines

Topic Tags

  • guidelines
  • exceptions
  • compliance

Question

Is it reasonable for an HOA to issue a stop work notice after I have already completed my project?

Short Answer

No. Waiting until a project is completed to issue a stop construction notice is considered unreasonable.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that the HOA failed to act in a timely manner. Issuing a stop construction notice nearly a month after the homeowner had already finished building the structure was deemed unreasonable behavior by the association.

Alj Quote

Moreover, for Petitioner to wait almost a month once the project was completed to provide a stop construction notice to Respondent was unreasonable.

Legal Basis

Reasonableness / Laches

Topic Tags

  • enforcement timing
  • stop work order
  • construction

Question

Who has to prove that a violation occurred during an HOA hearing?

Short Answer

The HOA (the Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

When an HOA petitions for a hearing regarding a violation, they must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' This means they must convince the judge that their claim is more likely true than not. If they fail to meet this burden, the homeowner prevails.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • legal procedure
  • evidence
  • burden of proof

Question

Does it matter if the HOA has allowed other non-compliant projects in the neighborhood?

Short Answer

Yes. Evidence that the HOA has previously approved other projects that did not meet guidelines can support the homeowner's defense.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that the evidence showed this was not an isolated incident; the Architectural Committee had previously approved other projects that were not compliant with the Guidelines. This pattern weakens the HOA's position in enforcing the rule against the current homeowner.

Alj Quote

Further, as the evidence provided, this was not the first time the ARC had approved projects that were not within the Guidelines.

Legal Basis

Arbitrary Enforcement / Precedent

Topic Tags

  • selective enforcement
  • consistency
  • precedent

Question

If I submit an application and answer the committee's questions, do I have to ensure they asked about every single detail?

Short Answer

No. If you follow the submission process and the committee has the opportunity to ask questions but doesn't, the responsibility lies with them.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner followed the CC&R process by submitting the application. The committee had multiple chances to ask for clarification or details (like height) but failed to do so before approving. The judge ruled the homeowner followed the proper process.

Alj Quote

Respondent followed the process as laid out in section 5.22 of the CC&Rs, by submitting its Application to the ARC. The ARC had many opportunities thereafter to question Respondent about the project

Legal Basis

Due Process / Procedural Compliance

Topic Tags

  • application process
  • due diligence
  • homeowner obligations

Question

Do I have to pay the HOA's filing fees if they sue me and lose?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA's petition is denied, the homeowner is not required to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ explicitly ordered that because the petition was denied, the respondent (homeowner) was not required to pay back the $500 filing fee that the HOA paid to the Department.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • penalties
  • costs

Case

Docket No

24F-H050-REL

Case Title

Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association v. Goebel

Decision Date

2024-09-11

Alj Name

Adam D. Stone

Tribunal

OAH

Agency

ADRE

Questions

Question

If the HOA approves my architectural application, can they later claim a violation because they 'missed' details in the plan?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA approves the application, the homeowner can justifiably rely on that approval to proceed, even if the committee claims they missed specific details during review.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that once an application is approved, the homeowner has the right to rely on that approval to begin construction. Even if an Architectural Committee member testifies later that they 'missed' a detail (like a wall height) during their review, the approval stands. The HOA cannot penalize the homeowner for the committee's oversight after approval has been granted.

Alj Quote

Ms. Rozzo testified that while she may have “missed it”, the Application was nonetheless approved, and Respondent justifiably relied on the approval and moved ahead with construction.

Legal Basis

Justifiable Reliance

Topic Tags

  • architectural approval
  • committee oversight
  • homeowner reliance

Question

Can an approved application serve as a valid exception to written architectural guidelines?

Short Answer

Yes. An approved application can be considered tantamount to an exception to the community's design guidelines.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the HOA argued the construction violated height guidelines. However, because the specific project plans were submitted and approved by the committee, the ALJ determined that this approval effectively acted as an exception to the general guidelines, making the construction permissible.

Alj Quote

This was tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines as the project was approved.

Legal Basis

Exception to Guidelines

Topic Tags

  • guidelines
  • exceptions
  • compliance

Question

Is it reasonable for an HOA to issue a stop work notice after I have already completed my project?

Short Answer

No. Waiting until a project is completed to issue a stop construction notice is considered unreasonable.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that the HOA failed to act in a timely manner. Issuing a stop construction notice nearly a month after the homeowner had already finished building the structure was deemed unreasonable behavior by the association.

Alj Quote

Moreover, for Petitioner to wait almost a month once the project was completed to provide a stop construction notice to Respondent was unreasonable.

Legal Basis

Reasonableness / Laches

Topic Tags

  • enforcement timing
  • stop work order
  • construction

Question

Who has to prove that a violation occurred during an HOA hearing?

Short Answer

The HOA (the Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

When an HOA petitions for a hearing regarding a violation, they must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' This means they must convince the judge that their claim is more likely true than not. If they fail to meet this burden, the homeowner prevails.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • legal procedure
  • evidence
  • burden of proof

Question

Does it matter if the HOA has allowed other non-compliant projects in the neighborhood?

Short Answer

Yes. Evidence that the HOA has previously approved other projects that did not meet guidelines can support the homeowner's defense.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that the evidence showed this was not an isolated incident; the Architectural Committee had previously approved other projects that were not compliant with the Guidelines. This pattern weakens the HOA's position in enforcing the rule against the current homeowner.

Alj Quote

Further, as the evidence provided, this was not the first time the ARC had approved projects that were not within the Guidelines.

Legal Basis

Arbitrary Enforcement / Precedent

Topic Tags

  • selective enforcement
  • consistency
  • precedent

Question

If I submit an application and answer the committee's questions, do I have to ensure they asked about every single detail?

Short Answer

No. If you follow the submission process and the committee has the opportunity to ask questions but doesn't, the responsibility lies with them.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner followed the CC&R process by submitting the application. The committee had multiple chances to ask for clarification or details (like height) but failed to do so before approving. The judge ruled the homeowner followed the proper process.

Alj Quote

Respondent followed the process as laid out in section 5.22 of the CC&Rs, by submitting its Application to the ARC. The ARC had many opportunities thereafter to question Respondent about the project

Legal Basis

Due Process / Procedural Compliance

Topic Tags

  • application process
  • due diligence
  • homeowner obligations

Question

Do I have to pay the HOA's filing fees if they sue me and lose?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA's petition is denied, the homeowner is not required to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ explicitly ordered that because the petition was denied, the respondent (homeowner) was not required to pay back the $500 filing fee that the HOA paid to the Department.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • penalties
  • costs

Case

Docket No

24F-H050-REL

Case Title

Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association v. Goebel

Decision Date

2024-09-11

Alj Name

Adam D. Stone

Tribunal

OAH

Agency

ADRE

Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association v. Goebel, Rick Jr. &

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H050-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-09-11
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association Counsel Daniel S. Francom
Respondent Rick Jr. & Elizabeth Goebel Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article V, Section 5.22; Guidelines Section 2.24

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the HOA's petition, finding the HOA failed to meet its burden of proving a violation. The homeowner justifiably relied on the ARC's approval, which was granted rapidly and without clarification requests, despite the lack of detail on the wall height, effectively granting an exception to the Guidelines.

Why this result: The HOA (Petitioner) failed to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, primarily because the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approved the plans after multiple rounds of review, and the homeowner relied on that approval. The delay in the stop construction notice was also deemed unreasonable.

Key Issues & Findings

Construction of unapproved structures/patio walls in excess of permitted height

Petitioner (HOA) alleged Respondent (homeowner) violated community documents by constructing walls around a courtyard in excess of the 42-inch height limit set by the Guidelines Section 2.24, and without sufficient prior approval (CC&R Section 5.22). The constructed wall was approximately 8 feet high.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition in this matter is denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Architectural Review, Wall Height, Pony Wall, Approval Reliance, Burden of Proof, Unreasonable Delay
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • CC&R Article V, Section 5.22
  • Guidelines Section 2.24

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H050-REL Decision – 1222437.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:11:25 (132.2 KB)





Briefing Doc – 24F-H050-REL


Arroyo Mountain Estate HOA vs. Goebel: A Dispute Over Architectural Approval

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive overview of the dispute between the Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association (HOA) and homeowners Rick and Elizabeth Goebel, culminating in an administrative law hearing on August 28, 2024. The central conflict revolves around the construction of a courtyard wall at the Goebels’ property, which the HOA alleged was unapproved and in violation of community guidelines.

The Goebels maintained that they followed all required procedures, submitting multiple revised applications at the HOA’s request, and ultimately received explicit, unconditional approval from the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) before commencing work. They argued that they built a “courtyard wall” in conformance with section 2.9 of the guidelines, which does not specify a height limit, and not a “pony wall,” which is restricted to 42 inches under section 2.24.

The HOA contended that the Goebels’ application was misleading due to a lack of critical details, specifically the wall’s 8-foot 8-inch height and a three-foot overhead hood. Key members of the ARC testified they understood the application to be for landscaping only and would have denied it had the full scope been clear. The HOA argued the constructed wall violates the spirit and letter of the guidelines intended to maintain community aesthetic uniformity.

The case concluded with a definitive ruling by an Administrative Law Judge on September 11, 2024. The judge denied the HOA’s petition, finding that they had not met their burden of proof. The decision highlighted that the Goebels had followed the prescribed process, justifiably relied on the ARC’s formal approval, and that the HOA’s month-long delay in issuing a stop-construction notice was unreasonable. The ruling deemed the ARC’s approval “tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines.”

The Core Dispute: The Courtyard Wall

The conflict centers on improvements made at the Goebels’ property, located at 5408 North Prescott Court (incorrectly listed multiple times in HOA documents as 5408 North Carson Court). The primary structure in question is a wall enclosing a front courtyard area, which the Goebels’ plans identified as a “courtyard wall.”

Alleged Violations by the HOA

The HOA’s petition alleged that the Goebels were in violation of two primary governing documents:

1. CC&Rs Article V, Section 5.22: This section requires homeowners to receive ARC approval before beginning any construction that alters the exterior appearance of a property, demanding that requests “Specify in detail the nature and extent of construction.”

2. Architectural and Landscape Design Guidelines, Section 2.24: This section governs “Pony Walls and Courtyards,” stating that pony walls constructed in a front yard to form a courtyard “should be no higher than 42 inches.”

The HOA argued that the wall built by the Goebels, which reaches a height of approximately 8 feet 8 inches, is functionally a pony wall and therefore violates the 42-inch height restriction.

The Homeowner’s (Goebel) Position and Timeline

The Goebels’ defense was anchored in their assertion of procedural compliance, reliance on a formal approval, and a belief that they were being unfairly targeted.

Application and Approval Process

The timeline of the application process was a key element of the Goebels’ case:

Dec 30, 2022

Initial consolidated application for all improvements submitted via email.

Jan 3, 2023

Initial application denied with the instruction to “please resubmit separate applications for the different projects.”

Jan 3, 2023

Revised, separate applications submitted to the community manager, Katie Sand.

Jan 3, 2023

Additional comments received from Katie Sand requesting further changes.

Jan 3, 2023

Final revised applications submitted at 4:14 p.m. and notice of acceptance received at 4:26 p.m.

Jan 5, 2023

The ARC formally approved the applications, within 48 hours of submission, without requesting additional information.

Argument of Good Faith and Procedural Adherence

Mr. Goebel argued that he diligently followed the HOA’s process and could not have done more to ensure compliance.

“I follow the requirement of the architectural community prepared the application submitted the application via the appropriate application approval process and received approval. It’s unclear what I’m being violated for. It is unclear as to how I violated any part of the approval or constructed improvements not identified on the plan.” – Rick Goebel

He emphasized that the ARC, under its own guidelines, had the power to request more information if the application was deemed incomplete but chose not to, instead granting full approval. Elizabeth Goebel further stated, “they approved the application and we move forward with our approval… We still got the approval. We moved forward in good faith and constructed what we had done.”

Construction Timeline and HOA Response

• March 21, 2023: Engineering drawings submitted to Maricopa County.

• March 24, 2023: Technical approvals and permits issued by the county.

• April 7, 2023: Construction commenced.

• April 19, 2023: The wall reached its full height.

• May 12, 2023: Nearly one month after the wall was completed, the Goebels received a stop-construction notice from the HOA.

Claims of Targeted Harassment

Mr. Goebel testified that he felt his family and home were being targeted by board members, leading to significant distress and financial cost.

“Over the past 12 months, I’ve had to deal with continued harassment from our board… People drive past my home, take pictures of my home. John Conalo has driven past my home multiple times taking pictures of my home… I have people to drive by my home, take photos and post these photos online and generally disrupt the reasonable enjoyment of my property. I am of the opinion that me and my home are being targeted for these improvements by members of the board who are utilizing funds to support the basic attack.” – Rick Goebel

The Homeowners Association’s (HOA) Position

The HOA’s case, presented by attorney Daniel Francom, focused on the argument that the Goebels’ application was deficient and that any approval granted was therefore invalid for the wall as constructed.

Insufficient Detail and Misleading Application

The HOA argued the Goebels “failed to provide sufficient details” in their application.

• Wall Height: The plans did not specify the wall would be 8 feet 8 inches high.

• Overhead Hood: The plans did not clearly indicate a three-foot deep overhead structure above the gate.

• County Plans: The detailed plans submitted to Maricopa County, which included engineering reports and the exact wall height, were never provided to the HOA.

Board President John Consalvo testified that the application “showed nothing about a construction wall showing landscape application turned in.”

Architectural Committee’s Interpretation

ARC member Judy Oliver provided crucial testimony for the HOA, stating that the committee was misled by the application’s presentation.

• She testified that since the application was titled “revamping of landscaping,” she and other members “assumed that this was regarding landscaping only.”

• Regarding the wall itself, she stated, “I felt that that wall wasn’t even up for discussion at the time.”

• Crucially, she asserted that had the Goebels provided specifics for an 8-foot wall, the committee would have denied the project as it “counters the architectural guidelines.”

Violation of Guideline 2.24 (“Pony Walls”)

The HOA’s legal argument rested on classifying the Goebels’ structure under section 2.24. They argued that because the wall creates a courtyard, it should be considered a “pony wall” and is therefore subject to the 42-inch height limit, regardless of what the Goebels labeled it in their plans. They argued the wall “sticks out like a sore thumb” and that there are no other similar walls in the community.

Key Witness Testimony

Ms. Rozzo’s testimony significantly undermined the HOA’s position.

• Admission of Error: When asked if she noted the courtyard wall, she stated, “No, I absolutely missed it. I am completely honest about that. I have missed it just like we’ve missed other ones and nothing’s done about it.”

• Precedent of Inaction: She testified that the ARC had mistakenly approved “at least 15 to 20 homes” with non-compliant improvements and that “the HOA has never pursued them.” She cited unapproved walls, pavers, and concrete pads at other properties.

• Challenge to HOA’s Pursuit: She expressed surprise that the HOA was pursuing this case, stating that when she told John Consalvo that pursuing the Goebels meant they should pursue all other erroneous approvals, he “chuckled and said, ‘Mike, my neighbor,'” implying a neighbor of the board president also had unapproved improvements.

• Board Vote: Ms. Rozzo, who was also a board member for a short time, revealed that the decision to take action against the Goebels was not unanimous, with two of the five board members voting “no.”

Mr. Consalvo testified that the board’s function is to maintain the community and enforce HOA rules. He stated that the Goebels’ application did not provide the required detail for the courtyard wall, its height, or the overhead gate structure. He confirmed he took photos of the property and that, in his view, the wall as built did not conform to any approved application and should have been limited to 42 inches.

Ms. Oliver testified she had been on the ARC since 2017. She stated that the application was understood to be for landscaping and that the wall was not considered for approval due to the lack of detail. She testified that had the 8-foot height been specified, the application would have been denied.

The Final Decision: Administrative Law Judge Ruling

On September 11, 2024, Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone issued a final, binding decision in the case (No. 24F-H050-REL).

Ruling

The Petitioner’s (HOA’s) petition was denied. The judge found that the HOA failed to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Reasoning for the Decision

The judge provided a clear, multi-point rationale for siding with the Goebels:

1. Procedural Compliance: “Respondent followed the process as laid out in section 5.22 of the CC&Rs, by submitting its Application to the ARC.”

2. Justifiable Reliance on Approval: The ARC had multiple opportunities to question the plans and did so on other matters. The judge concluded that Ms. Rozzo’s approval, even if she “missed it,” was a formal action on which the “Respondent justifiably relied… and moved ahead with construction.”

3. Approval as an Exception: The judge stated the formal approval “was tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines as the project was approved.”

4. Unreasonable Delay by HOA: The judge found that for the HOA “to wait almost a month once the project was completed to provide a stop construction notice to Respondent was unreasonable.”

5. Inconsistent Enforcement: The judge noted that “this was not the first time the ARC had approved projects that were not within the Guidelines,” referencing the testimony about other unpursued violations in the community.

Final Order

• The HOA’s petition was formally denied.

• The Respondent (Goebels) was not required to reimburse the HOA’s $500 filing fee.






Study Guide – 24F-H050-REL


{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “24F-H050-REL”,
“case_title”: “Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association v. Goebel”,
“decision_date”: “2024-09-11”,
“alj_name”: “Adam D. Stone”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“questions”: [
{
“question”: “If the HOA approves my architectural application, can they later claim a violation because they ‘missed’ details in the plan?”,
“short_answer”: “No. If the HOA approves the application, the homeowner can justifiably rely on that approval to proceed, even if the committee claims they missed specific details during review.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that once an application is approved, the homeowner has the right to rely on that approval to begin construction. Even if an Architectural Committee member testifies later that they ‘missed’ a detail (like a wall height) during their review, the approval stands. The HOA cannot penalize the homeowner for the committee’s oversight after approval has been granted.”,
“alj_quote”: “Ms. Rozzo testified that while she may have “missed it”, the Application was nonetheless approved, and Respondent justifiably relied on the approval and moved ahead with construction.”,
“legal_basis”: “Justifiable Reliance”,
“topic_tags”: [
“architectural approval”,
“committee oversight”,
“homeowner reliance”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can an approved application serve as a valid exception to written architectural guidelines?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes. An approved application can be considered tantamount to an exception to the community’s design guidelines.”,
“detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA argued the construction violated height guidelines. However, because the specific project plans were submitted and approved by the committee, the ALJ determined that this approval effectively acted as an exception to the general guidelines, making the construction permissible.”,
“alj_quote”: “This was tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines as the project was approved.”,
“legal_basis”: “Exception to Guidelines”,
“topic_tags”: [
“guidelines”,
“exceptions”,
“compliance”
]
},
{
“question”: “Is it reasonable for an HOA to issue a stop work notice after I have already completed my project?”,
“short_answer”: “No. Waiting until a project is completed to issue a stop construction notice is considered unreasonable.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that the HOA failed to act in a timely manner. Issuing a stop construction notice nearly a month after the homeowner had already finished building the structure was deemed unreasonable behavior by the association.”,
“alj_quote”: “Moreover, for Petitioner to wait almost a month once the project was completed to provide a stop construction notice to Respondent was unreasonable.”,
“legal_basis”: “Reasonableness / Laches”,
“topic_tags”: [
“enforcement timing”,
“stop work order”,
“construction”
]
},
{
“question”: “Who has to prove that a violation occurred during an HOA hearing?”,
“short_answer”: “The HOA (the Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”,
“detailed_answer”: “When an HOA petitions for a hearing regarding a violation, they must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence.’ This means they must convince the judge that their claim is more likely true than not. If they fail to meet this burden, the homeowner prevails.”,
“alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.”,
“legal_basis”: “Burden of Proof”,
“topic_tags”: [
“legal procedure”,
“evidence”,
“burden of proof”
]
},
{
“question”: “Does it matter if the HOA has allowed other non-compliant projects in the neighborhood?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes. Evidence that the HOA has previously approved other projects that did not meet guidelines can support the homeowner’s defense.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that the evidence showed this was not an isolated incident; the Architectural Committee had previously approved other projects that were not compliant with the Guidelines. This pattern weakens the HOA’s position in enforcing the rule against the current homeowner.”,
“alj_quote”: “Further, as the evidence provided, this was not the first time the ARC had approved projects that were not within the Guidelines.”,
“legal_basis”: “Arbitrary Enforcement / Precedent”,
“topic_tags”: [
“selective enforcement”,
“consistency”,
“precedent”
]
},
{
“question”: “If I submit an application and answer the committee’s questions, do I have to ensure they asked about every single detail?”,
“short_answer”: “No. If you follow the submission process and the committee has the opportunity to ask questions but doesn’t, the responsibility lies with them.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The homeowner followed the CC&R process by submitting the application. The committee had multiple chances to ask for clarification or details (like height) but failed to do so before approving. The judge ruled the homeowner followed the proper process.”,
“alj_quote”: “Respondent followed the process as laid out in section 5.22 of the CC&Rs, by submitting its Application to the ARC. The ARC had many opportunities thereafter to question Respondent about the project”,
“legal_basis”: “Due Process / Procedural Compliance”,
“topic_tags”: [
“application process”,
“due diligence”,
“homeowner obligations”
]
},
{
“question”: “Do I have to pay the HOA’s filing fees if they sue me and lose?”,
“short_answer”: “No. If the HOA’s petition is denied, the homeowner is not required to reimburse the filing fee.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ explicitly ordered that because the petition was denied, the respondent (homeowner) was not required to pay back the $500 filing fee that the HOA paid to the Department.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee”,
“legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fees”,
“penalties”,
“costs”
]
}
]
}






Blog Post – 24F-H050-REL


{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “24F-H050-REL”,
“case_title”: “Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association v. Goebel”,
“decision_date”: “2024-09-11”,
“alj_name”: “Adam D. Stone”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“questions”: [
{
“question”: “If the HOA approves my architectural application, can they later claim a violation because they ‘missed’ details in the plan?”,
“short_answer”: “No. If the HOA approves the application, the homeowner can justifiably rely on that approval to proceed, even if the committee claims they missed specific details during review.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that once an application is approved, the homeowner has the right to rely on that approval to begin construction. Even if an Architectural Committee member testifies later that they ‘missed’ a detail (like a wall height) during their review, the approval stands. The HOA cannot penalize the homeowner for the committee’s oversight after approval has been granted.”,
“alj_quote”: “Ms. Rozzo testified that while she may have “missed it”, the Application was nonetheless approved, and Respondent justifiably relied on the approval and moved ahead with construction.”,
“legal_basis”: “Justifiable Reliance”,
“topic_tags”: [
“architectural approval”,
“committee oversight”,
“homeowner reliance”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can an approved application serve as a valid exception to written architectural guidelines?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes. An approved application can be considered tantamount to an exception to the community’s design guidelines.”,
“detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA argued the construction violated height guidelines. However, because the specific project plans were submitted and approved by the committee, the ALJ determined that this approval effectively acted as an exception to the general guidelines, making the construction permissible.”,
“alj_quote”: “This was tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines as the project was approved.”,
“legal_basis”: “Exception to Guidelines”,
“topic_tags”: [
“guidelines”,
“exceptions”,
“compliance”
]
},
{
“question”: “Is it reasonable for an HOA to issue a stop work notice after I have already completed my project?”,
“short_answer”: “No. Waiting until a project is completed to issue a stop construction notice is considered unreasonable.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that the HOA failed to act in a timely manner. Issuing a stop construction notice nearly a month after the homeowner had already finished building the structure was deemed unreasonable behavior by the association.”,
“alj_quote”: “Moreover, for Petitioner to wait almost a month once the project was completed to provide a stop construction notice to Respondent was unreasonable.”,
“legal_basis”: “Reasonableness / Laches”,
“topic_tags”: [
“enforcement timing”,
“stop work order”,
“construction”
]
},
{
“question”: “Who has to prove that a violation occurred during an HOA hearing?”,
“short_answer”: “The HOA (the Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”,
“detailed_answer”: “When an HOA petitions for a hearing regarding a violation, they must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence.’ This means they must convince the judge that their claim is more likely true than not. If they fail to meet this burden, the homeowner prevails.”,
“alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.”,
“legal_basis”: “Burden of Proof”,
“topic_tags”: [
“legal procedure”,
“evidence”,
“burden of proof”
]
},
{
“question”: “Does it matter if the HOA has allowed other non-compliant projects in the neighborhood?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes. Evidence that the HOA has previously approved other projects that did not meet guidelines can support the homeowner’s defense.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that the evidence showed this was not an isolated incident; the Architectural Committee had previously approved other projects that were not compliant with the Guidelines. This pattern weakens the HOA’s position in enforcing the rule against the current homeowner.”,
“alj_quote”: “Further, as the evidence provided, this was not the first time the ARC had approved projects that were not within the Guidelines.”,
“legal_basis”: “Arbitrary Enforcement / Precedent”,
“topic_tags”: [
“selective enforcement”,
“consistency”,
“precedent”
]
},
{
“question”: “If I submit an application and answer the committee’s questions, do I have to ensure they asked about every single detail?”,
“short_answer”: “No. If you follow the submission process and the committee has the opportunity to ask questions but doesn’t, the responsibility lies with them.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The homeowner followed the CC&R process by submitting the application. The committee had multiple chances to ask for clarification or details (like height) but failed to do so before approving. The judge ruled the homeowner followed the proper process.”,
“alj_quote”: “Respondent followed the process as laid out in section 5.22 of the CC&Rs, by submitting its Application to the ARC. The ARC had many opportunities thereafter to question Respondent about the project”,
“legal_basis”: “Due Process / Procedural Compliance”,
“topic_tags”: [
“application process”,
“due diligence”,
“homeowner obligations”
]
},
{
“question”: “Do I have to pay the HOA’s filing fees if they sue me and lose?”,
“short_answer”: “No. If the HOA’s petition is denied, the homeowner is not required to reimburse the filing fee.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ explicitly ordered that because the petition was denied, the respondent (homeowner) was not required to pay back the $500 filing fee that the HOA paid to the Department.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee”,
“legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fees”,
“penalties”,
“costs”
]
}
]
}


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Daniel S. Francom (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Law
    Represented Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association.
  • John Consalvo (board president, witness)
    Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association Board
    President of the Association's Board; testified for Petitioner.
  • Judy Oliver (architectural committee member, witness)
    Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association Architectural Committee
    Testified for Petitioner; member of the ARC.

Respondent Side

  • Rick Goebel Jr. (respondent, homeowner)
    Testified on his own behalf; also referred to as Mr. Gobel/Goebel.
  • Elizabeth Goebel (respondent, homeowner)
    Testified on her own behalf; also referred to as Ms. Goebel.
  • Nancy Rozzo (architectural committee member, witness, former board member)
    Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association Architectural Committee
    Approved Respondent's plans; testified for Respondent. Referred to as Ms. Brazo/Rozo.

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge assigned to the hearing.
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
  • V. Nunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of the decision for transmission (derived from email [email protected]).
  • D. Jones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of the decision for transmission (derived from email [email protected]).
  • L. Abril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of the decision for transmission (derived from email [email protected]).
  • M. Neat (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of the decision for transmission (derived from email [email protected]).
  • L. Recchia (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of the decision for transmission (derived from email [email protected]).
  • G. Osborn (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of the decision for transmission (derived from email [email protected]).

Other Participants

  • Katie Sand (property manager)
    Vision Community Management
    Former employee/property manager involved in initial communications; also referred to as Katie Tam and Katie Pan.