Tag Archives: HOA authority

Brent J Mathews v. American Ranch Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818050-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-10-11
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Brent J. Mathews Counsel —
Respondent American Ranch Community Association Counsel Lynn Krupnik and Timothy Krupnik

Alleged Violations

American Ranch Bylaws, Article 3.11

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition because the Petitioner failed to prove the Respondent Board violated the Bylaws. The Board was found to have the necessary authority under Bylaws Section 3.11 to enter into the Well Agreement 2 as a variance, and this action did not constitute an improper amendment of the CC&Rs.

Why this result: The Board was authorized to grant a variance to the CC&Rs regarding the well on Lot 2, a power delegated to the Association, meaning the Board did not exceed its authority under the Bylaws.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of the American Ranch Bylaws, Article 3.11, when the Board entered into the 'Well Agreement' (Well Agreement 2).

Petitioner asserted that the Board violated the Bylaws by entering into Well Agreement 2, claiming the Board lacked the authority to grant exceptions or variances to the CC&Rs regarding the use of a private water well on Lot 2. The Board agreed the well existed in violation of CC&Rs Section 3.26, but argued Well Agreement 2 constituted a variance, not an amendment.

Orders: The Petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • 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(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA authority, Bylaws 3.11, CC&Rs, Variance, Amendment, Well Agreement, Burden of Proof, Dismissal
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • 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(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818050-REL Decision – 664186.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:00 (112.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818050-REL


Briefing Document: Mathews v. American Ranch Community Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document outlines the findings and decision in case number 18F-H1818050-REL, a dispute between Petitioner Brent J. Mathews and the American Ranch Community Association (HOA). The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, concluding that Mr. Mathews failed to prove his allegations by a preponderance of the evidence.

The central issue was whether the HOA’s Board of Directors violated Article 3.11 of its Bylaws by entering into a “Well Agreement” with the owners of Lot 2 on August 9, 2016. The Petitioner argued that this agreement constituted an unauthorized amendment to the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) because the Board does not have the power to grant exceptions.

The judge found this argument “faulty,” determining that the agreement was not an amendment but a variance. The CC&Rs explicitly grant the authority to issue variances to the Architectural Review Committee. Per the Bylaws, the Board is empowered to exercise any authority delegated to the Association that is not specifically reserved for the general membership. Therefore, the judge concluded that the Board acted within its authority when it executed the agreement. The decision was based on the Board’s need to resolve a problematic prior agreement under time-sensitive circumstances related to a property sale.

1. Case Overview

Case Number

18F-H1818050-REL

Petitioner

Brent J. Mathews

Respondent

American Ranch Community Association

Hearing Date

September 21, 2018

Decision Date

October 11, 2018

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

The dispute originated from a petition filed by Brent J. Mathews on May 16, 2018, with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The core of the complaint was an alleged Open Meeting Violation concerning an “Action Outside of Meeting” that resulted in a “Well Agreement” between the Association and homeowners Mark and Diane Kaplan.

2. Petitioner’s Core Allegation

After being directed to clarify his petition to a single issue, Mr. Mathews submitted the following statement on August 23, 2018:

“When the Board entered into the ‘Well Agreement’ they may have assumed they had the power to grant exceptions to the CC&R’s. The American Ranch Community Association Bylaws do not empower the Board to grant exceptions to the CC&R’s. Therefore the single complaint is an alleged violation of the American Ranch Bylaws, Article 3.11.”

The Petitioner’s legal argument was that the Board’s action in creating the “Well Agreement 2” was effectively an amendment of the CC&Rs. According to Section 9.3.1 of the CC&Rs, amendments require the written approval or affirmative vote of 75 percent of the total owners. Since this did not occur, the Petitioner concluded the Board lacked the authority to enter into the agreement.

3. Factual Background and Chronology of Events

The case revolves around a water well on Lot 2 of the American Ranch community, which was installed in violation of the governing documents.

A water well is installed on Lot 2. This installation violates Section 3.26 of the CC&Rs, which prohibits wells on all lots except Equestrian Lots and, even then, only with prior approval from the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) for specific purposes.

June 2011

The owners of Lot 2 and the HOA Board enter into the first “Well and Easement Agreement” (Well Agreement 1). This agreement permitted the continued use of the well for irrigation but required the owners to install a water meter and pay the HOA for water usage at the same rate as the local water district.

November 23, 2013

Lot 2 is sold to Steven and Frances Galliano.

July 30, 2016

Mark and Diane Kaplan, who are in escrow to purchase Lot 2, email the Community Manager, Tiffany Taylor. They express concern over Well Agreement 1 and state they cannot proceed with the purchase without clarity on the HOA’s position. They also note that the Gallianos told them they had never been charged for water from the well.

August 2016

Facing a time-sensitive situation due to the pending property sale, the HOA Board decides to enter into a new agreement to invalidate Well Agreement 1. The Board’s decision was based in part on the belief that it lacked the authority to enter into the original agreement, specifically because it had no power to bill residents for water usage—a function of the water district.

August 9, 2016

The HOA Board and the Kaplans execute a new “Well Agreement” (Well Agreement 2). This agreement permits the continued use of the well for irrigation purposes but explicitly states the owners will not be billed for the water used.

4. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Legal Reasoning

The Judge’s decision rested on a critical distinction between a CC&R amendment and a variance, and a detailed analysis of the powers granted to the Board by the governing documents.

A. Burden of Proof

The Petitioner, Brent J. Mathews, bore the burden of proof to establish that the HOA committed the alleged violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard requires proof that a contention is more probably true than not.

B. Variance vs. Amendment

The central point of the Judge’s legal conclusion was the rejection of the Petitioner’s argument.

• Petitioner’s Argument: Well Agreement 2 was an amendment to the CC&Rs.

• Judge’s Finding: The argument is “faulty.” The decision states, “A variance granted to an individual owner from a restriction under the CC&Rs does not constitute an amendment of the CC&Rs.”

The Judge found that the CC&Rs themselves, in Section 3.31, provide a specific mechanism for granting variances. The ARC is authorized to grant variances in “extenuating circumstances” if a restriction creates an “unreasonable hardship or burden” and the variance does not have a “substantial adverse effect” on the community.

C. The Board’s Delegated Authority

The Judge established a clear chain of authority that empowered the Board to act as it did:

1. CC&R Section 3.31: Delegates the power to grant variances to the Architectural Review Committee.

2. Bylaw Section 3.11.8: States the Board shall have the power to “Exercise for the Association all powers, duties and authority vested in or delegated to the Association and not reserved to the membership by other provisions of the Project Documents.”

3. Conclusion: Because the power to grant variances was delegated to the ARC (and thus to the Association) and not reserved for the membership, the Board had the authority to grant the variance embodied in Well Agreement 2.

5. Final Order

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Administrative Law Judge issued the following order:

• Decision: The Petition filed by Brent J. Mathews is dismissed.

• Reasoning: “Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Board of Directors lacked the authority to enter into Well Agreement 2. Thus, Petitioner failed to sustain his burden to establish a violation of Section 3.11 of the Bylaws.”

The order was finalized and transmitted to the parties on October 11, 2018.






Study Guide – 18F-H1818050-REL


Study Guide: Mathews v. American Ranch Community Association (Case No. 18F-H1818050-REL)

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case between Petitioner Brent J. Mathews and Respondent American Ranch Community Association. It is designed to test and deepen understanding of the facts, legal arguments, and final ruling presented in the source document.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this case, and what were their respective roles?

2. What was the initial, overarching subject of Brent J. Mathews’s complaint filed on May 16, 2018?

3. After being asked to clarify, what single issue did the Petitioner choose to proceed with for the hearing?

4. According to the CC&Rs, what are the specific rules regarding the use of water wells on lots within American Ranch?

5. What were the key terms of “Well Agreement 1,” established in June 2011 with the original owners of Lot 2?

6. Why did the American Ranch Board of Directors believe they lacked the authority to enforce “Well Agreement 1”?

7. What were the terms of “Well Agreement 2,” which was executed on August 9, 2016, with the new owners of Lot 2, the Kaplans?

8. What was Petitioner Mathews’s primary legal argument against the Board’s authority to enter into “Well Agreement 2”?

9. How did the Administrative Law Judge distinguish between a “variance” and an “amendment” to the CC&Rs in the final decision?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge on October 11, 2018?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Petitioner Brent J. Mathews, who filed the complaint, and Respondent American Ranch Community Association (HOA), which was the subject of the complaint. Mathews represented himself, while the Association was represented by Lynn Krupnik and Timothy Krupnik.

2. The initial complaint’s subject was an “Open Meeting Violation regarding an ‘Action Outside of Meeting’” that took place on August 6, 2016. This action concerned the Association entering into a “Well Agreement” with Mark and Diane Kaplan.

3. The Petitioner clarified his single issue was an alleged violation of the American Ranch Bylaws, Article 3.11. He argued that the Board entered into the “Well Agreement” assuming they had the power to grant exceptions to the CC&Rs, a power he claimed the Bylaws did not grant them.

4. Section 3.26 of the CC&Rs prohibits water wells on all lots except Equestrian Lots. On Equestrian Lots, wells are permitted only with prior written approval from the Architectural Review Committee and must be used solely to irrigate pasture land and provide drinking water for horses.

5. “Well Agreement 1” acknowledged that the owners of Lot 2 were using their well for irrigation in violation of the CC&Rs. The agreement allowed them to continue this use, provided they installed a water meter and paid the Association the same per-gallon charge as other owners paid to the water district.

6. The Board of Directors believed they did not have the authority to enter into “Well Agreement 1” because they had no ability or authority to bill the lot owners for water used from a private well. They reasoned that billing for water was the responsibility of the water district, not the HOA.

7. “Well Agreement 2” stated that the private water well on Lot 2 would continue to be used for irrigation purposes. Crucially, it specified that the owners (the Kaplans) would not be billed for the water used from this well.

8. Petitioner Mathews argued that “Well Agreement 2” constituted an amendment of the CC&Rs. He contended that under Section 9.3.1 of the CC&Rs, an amendment requires the written approval or affirmative vote of 75 percent of the total owners, and therefore the Board acted outside its authority.

9. The Judge ruled that “Well Agreement 2” was a variance granted to an individual owner, not an amendment to the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs specifically provide a method for granting variances via the Architectural Review Committee, and this power is delegated to the Association and thus exercisable by the Board.

10. The final order, issued on October 11, 2018, was that the Petition be dismissed. The Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Board of Directors lacked the authority to enter into “Well Agreement 2.”

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth, essay-style response. Use the case document to construct a thorough and well-supported argument for each prompt. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the evolution of the dispute, from the initial installation of the well on Lot 2 to the final Administrative Law Judge Decision. Discuss the key events and agreements (Well Agreement 1 and Well Agreement 2) and explain how each contributed to the legal conflict.

2. Explain the legal reasoning used by the Administrative Law Judge to dismiss the Petitioner’s claim. Detail the specific sections of the Bylaws and CC&Rs cited (3.11, 3.26, 3.31, 9.3.1) and explain the distinction the Judge made between a “variance” and an “amendment.”

3. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. Who held the burden of proof, what was the required standard (“preponderance of the evidence”), and why did the Petitioner ultimately fail to meet this standard?

4. Evaluate the actions of the American Ranch Community Association Board of Directors regarding Lot 2’s well. Discuss their reasoning for invalidating Well Agreement 1 and creating Well Agreement 2, and analyze whether their actions were consistent with the powers granted to them by the community’s governing documents.

5. Based on the procedural history outlined in the “Findings of Fact,” describe the process of an HOA dispute in this jurisdiction, from the initial filing of a petition to the final order from the Office of Administrative Hearings.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official (Tammy L. Eigenheer) who presides over administrative hearings and issues a decision on the matter.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The statutory laws of the state of Arizona, sections of which regulate planned communities and the administrative hearing process.

Architectural Review Committee

A body within the Association delegated the authority by the CC&Rs (Section 3.31) to grant variances from certain restrictions in extenuating circumstances.

Board of Directors

The governing body of the American Ranch Community Association, which has the powers and duties necessary for administering the Association’s affairs.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal case to prove their claims. In this case, the Petitioner had the burden to establish the alleged violations.

Bylaws

The rules governing the internal administration of the Association. Petitioner alleged a violation of Bylaw 3.11, which outlines the powers and duties of the Board.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing documents that set rules for properties within the community, such as the prohibition of certain water wells (Section 3.26).

Department

Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the agency with which the initial Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition was filed.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency to which the Department refers HOA dispute cases for a formal hearing.

Petition

The formal document filed by Brent J. Mathews to initiate the HOA dispute process with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who brings the legal action or complaint. In this case, Brent J. Mathews.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this hearing. It is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is “more probably true than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom the petition is filed. In this case, the American Ranch Community Association.

Variance

An officially granted exception from a restriction in the CC&Rs for an individual owner. The Judge determined Well Agreement 2 was a variance, not an amendment.

Well Agreement 1

A June 2011 agreement that allowed the owners of Lot 2 to use a non-compliant well for irrigation, provided they paid the Association for the water.

Well Agreement 2

An August 2016 agreement that invalidated Well Agreement 1 and allowed the new owners of Lot 2 (the Kaplans) to continue using the well for irrigation without being billed for the water.






Blog Post – 18F-H1818050-REL


Your HOA Board Might Be More Powerful Than You Think: 3 Lessons from a Legal Showdown

1.0 Introduction: The Predictable Fight with an Unpredictable Outcome

It’s a scenario familiar to many homeowners: you suspect your Homeowners Association (HOA) board is playing favorites, bending the rules for one resident while holding everyone else to the letter of the law. This feeling of frustration often leads to heated disputes, but what happens when a homeowner decides to take that fight to court? You might expect a simple verdict based on the community’s clear, written rules.

That’s exactly what homeowner Brent J. Mathews thought. He discovered his HOA board had made a special agreement with a neighbor, allowing a water well that clearly violated the community’s governing documents. He filed a formal complaint, arguing the board had illegally overstepped its authority.

The case that followed, however, didn’t turn on one obvious rule. Instead, the judge’s decision hinged on how different governing documents—the CC&Rs and the Bylaws—interact. The outcome reveals some surprising and counter-intuitive truths about where power really lies within an HOA, offering critical lessons for every homeowner.

2.0 Takeaway 1: A Special Exception Isn’t the Same as Changing the Rules for Everyone

Mr. Mathews’ central argument was straightforward and, on its face, perfectly logical. He contended that the board’s “Well Agreement 2” with his neighbor was effectively an amendment to the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

According to the community’s CC&Rs (Section 9.3.1), amending the rules is a serious undertaking that requires the written approval of 75 percent of all homeowners. The board clearly did not have this approval, so it seemed to be a clear-cut case of an illegal action. Many homeowners would have made the same reasonable assumption: the board can’t just change the rules on its own.

However, the judge found a critical distinction. The board’s action was not an “amendment”—a permanent change to the rules for the entire community. Instead, it was legally considered a “variance”—a one-time exception granted to a single homeowner. Because the CC&Rs contained a separate, specific process for granting variances (Section 3.31), the board was not illegally rewriting the rulebook; it was simply using a different, pre-existing tool in the governing documents.

3.0 Takeaway 2: The Board Can Wield Powers Given to Its Own Committees

This distinction raised another logical objection. The CC&Rs (Section 3.31) explicitly state that the power to grant variances belongs to the “Architectural Review Committee” (ARC), not the Board of Directors. It appeared Mr. Mathews had found his checkmate: even if the action was a variance, the wrong body had granted it.

This is where the case took its most surprising turn. The judge looked beyond the CC&Rs and consulted a different governing document: the Bylaws. This document contained a foundational clause about the board’s authority that proved decisive.

According to Bylaw 3.11.8, the Board of Directors is empowered to exercise any authority of the Association that is not specifically and exclusively reserved for the members themselves. Since the power to grant variances was delegated to a committee (the ARC) and not reserved for a vote by the general membership, the Board had the authority to step in and exercise that power itself. The judge’s decision made this clear.

“As the power to grant variances was delegated to the Architectural Review Committee and was not reserved to the membership, the Board had the authority to grant such a variance.”

This finding reveals a crucial principle of HOA governance: powers delegated to a committee are not the same as powers reserved for the entire membership. Unless a power is explicitly reserved for a member vote, the Bylaws can grant the Board ultimate authority over it.

4.0 Takeaway 3: A Messy History Can Justify an Unusual Solution

While the legal arguments are complex, the context behind the board’s decision is equally important. The board wasn’t making a special deal out of the blue; it was trying to solve a messy problem it had inherited.

The well on Lot 2 was originally installed around 2007 in violation of Section 3.26 of the CC&Rs. The board’s first attempt to fix this, “Well Agreement 1” in or about June 2011, allowed the well’s use but required the owner to pay the association for the water consumed. This arrangement, however, was deeply flawed.

When new buyers (the Kaplans) were in escrow to purchase the property in 2016, the situation came to a head. The Kaplans discovered the unusual agreement and informed the board they would be “unable to proceed with the purchase” unless its status was clarified. With the real estate deal on the line, the board recognized that “time was of the essence.”

The board’s decision to execute “Well Agreement 2” was driven by two realities. First, they believed the original agreement was legally invalid, as the board had no authority to bill a resident for water. Second, the agreement was a failure in practice; the Kaplans had been told by the prior owners that “they had never been charged for the water used from the well.” Facing an unenforceable and un-enforced agreement that was now threatening a home sale, the board acted pragmatically to resolve the decade-old violation once and for all.

5.0 Conclusion: Know the Rules—And Who Has the Power to Bend Them

The core lesson from this case is that HOA governance is a complex web of interlocking documents. The rules you read in the CC&Rs might not tell the whole story. Power and authority can be defined, and even transferred, by provisions buried in the Bylaws or other governing texts. What may seem like an obvious violation can be justified by a clause a homeowner might easily overlook.

This case is a powerful reminder for every homeowner. It’s not enough to know the rules of your community. You also need to understand the system of governance that enforces, interprets, and sometimes, grants exceptions to them. It prompts a critical question: Do you know not just the rules in your community, but who really has the authority to grant exceptions?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Brent J. Mathews (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Lynn Krupnik (attorney)
    Krupnik & Speas, PLLC
    Represented Respondent
  • Timothy Krupnik (attorney)
    Krupnik & Speas, PLLC
    Represented Respondent
  • Tiffany Taylor (community manager)
    American Ranch Community Association
    Testified for Respondent
  • Brad Baker (board member)
    American Ranch Community Association
    Respondent Vice President; testified at hearing

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Felicia Del Sol (administrative staff)
    Signed transmission page
  • LDettorre (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Decision recipient
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Decision recipient
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Decision recipient
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Decision recipient
  • ncano (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Decision recipient

Other Participants

  • Mark Kaplan (owner)
    Lot 2
    Executed Well Agreement 2
  • Diane Kaplan (owner)
    Lot 2
    Executed Well Agreement 2
  • Steven Galliano (former owner)
    Lot 2
  • Frances Galliano (former owner)
    Lot 2

Brent J Mathews v. American Ranch Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818050-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-10-11
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Brent J. Mathews Counsel —
Respondent American Ranch Community Association Counsel Lynn Krupnik and Timothy Krupnik

Alleged Violations

American Ranch Bylaws, Article 3.11

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition because the Petitioner failed to prove the Respondent Board violated the Bylaws. The Board was found to have the necessary authority under Bylaws Section 3.11 to enter into the Well Agreement 2 as a variance, and this action did not constitute an improper amendment of the CC&Rs.

Why this result: The Board was authorized to grant a variance to the CC&Rs regarding the well on Lot 2, a power delegated to the Association, meaning the Board did not exceed its authority under the Bylaws.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of the American Ranch Bylaws, Article 3.11, when the Board entered into the 'Well Agreement' (Well Agreement 2).

Petitioner asserted that the Board violated the Bylaws by entering into Well Agreement 2, claiming the Board lacked the authority to grant exceptions or variances to the CC&Rs regarding the use of a private water well on Lot 2. The Board agreed the well existed in violation of CC&Rs Section 3.26, but argued Well Agreement 2 constituted a variance, not an amendment.

Orders: The Petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • 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(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA authority, Bylaws 3.11, CC&Rs, Variance, Amendment, Well Agreement, Burden of Proof, Dismissal
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • 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(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818050-REL Decision – 664186.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:24:56 (112.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818050-REL


Briefing Document: Mathews v. American Ranch Community Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document outlines the findings and decision in case number 18F-H1818050-REL, a dispute between Petitioner Brent J. Mathews and the American Ranch Community Association (HOA). The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, concluding that Mr. Mathews failed to prove his allegations by a preponderance of the evidence.

The central issue was whether the HOA’s Board of Directors violated Article 3.11 of its Bylaws by entering into a “Well Agreement” with the owners of Lot 2 on August 9, 2016. The Petitioner argued that this agreement constituted an unauthorized amendment to the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) because the Board does not have the power to grant exceptions.

The judge found this argument “faulty,” determining that the agreement was not an amendment but a variance. The CC&Rs explicitly grant the authority to issue variances to the Architectural Review Committee. Per the Bylaws, the Board is empowered to exercise any authority delegated to the Association that is not specifically reserved for the general membership. Therefore, the judge concluded that the Board acted within its authority when it executed the agreement. The decision was based on the Board’s need to resolve a problematic prior agreement under time-sensitive circumstances related to a property sale.

1. Case Overview

Case Number

18F-H1818050-REL

Petitioner

Brent J. Mathews

Respondent

American Ranch Community Association

Hearing Date

September 21, 2018

Decision Date

October 11, 2018

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

The dispute originated from a petition filed by Brent J. Mathews on May 16, 2018, with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The core of the complaint was an alleged Open Meeting Violation concerning an “Action Outside of Meeting” that resulted in a “Well Agreement” between the Association and homeowners Mark and Diane Kaplan.

2. Petitioner’s Core Allegation

After being directed to clarify his petition to a single issue, Mr. Mathews submitted the following statement on August 23, 2018:

“When the Board entered into the ‘Well Agreement’ they may have assumed they had the power to grant exceptions to the CC&R’s. The American Ranch Community Association Bylaws do not empower the Board to grant exceptions to the CC&R’s. Therefore the single complaint is an alleged violation of the American Ranch Bylaws, Article 3.11.”

The Petitioner’s legal argument was that the Board’s action in creating the “Well Agreement 2” was effectively an amendment of the CC&Rs. According to Section 9.3.1 of the CC&Rs, amendments require the written approval or affirmative vote of 75 percent of the total owners. Since this did not occur, the Petitioner concluded the Board lacked the authority to enter into the agreement.

3. Factual Background and Chronology of Events

The case revolves around a water well on Lot 2 of the American Ranch community, which was installed in violation of the governing documents.

A water well is installed on Lot 2. This installation violates Section 3.26 of the CC&Rs, which prohibits wells on all lots except Equestrian Lots and, even then, only with prior approval from the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) for specific purposes.

June 2011

The owners of Lot 2 and the HOA Board enter into the first “Well and Easement Agreement” (Well Agreement 1). This agreement permitted the continued use of the well for irrigation but required the owners to install a water meter and pay the HOA for water usage at the same rate as the local water district.

November 23, 2013

Lot 2 is sold to Steven and Frances Galliano.

July 30, 2016

Mark and Diane Kaplan, who are in escrow to purchase Lot 2, email the Community Manager, Tiffany Taylor. They express concern over Well Agreement 1 and state they cannot proceed with the purchase without clarity on the HOA’s position. They also note that the Gallianos told them they had never been charged for water from the well.

August 2016

Facing a time-sensitive situation due to the pending property sale, the HOA Board decides to enter into a new agreement to invalidate Well Agreement 1. The Board’s decision was based in part on the belief that it lacked the authority to enter into the original agreement, specifically because it had no power to bill residents for water usage—a function of the water district.

August 9, 2016

The HOA Board and the Kaplans execute a new “Well Agreement” (Well Agreement 2). This agreement permits the continued use of the well for irrigation purposes but explicitly states the owners will not be billed for the water used.

4. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Legal Reasoning

The Judge’s decision rested on a critical distinction between a CC&R amendment and a variance, and a detailed analysis of the powers granted to the Board by the governing documents.

A. Burden of Proof

The Petitioner, Brent J. Mathews, bore the burden of proof to establish that the HOA committed the alleged violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard requires proof that a contention is more probably true than not.

B. Variance vs. Amendment

The central point of the Judge’s legal conclusion was the rejection of the Petitioner’s argument.

• Petitioner’s Argument: Well Agreement 2 was an amendment to the CC&Rs.

• Judge’s Finding: The argument is “faulty.” The decision states, “A variance granted to an individual owner from a restriction under the CC&Rs does not constitute an amendment of the CC&Rs.”

The Judge found that the CC&Rs themselves, in Section 3.31, provide a specific mechanism for granting variances. The ARC is authorized to grant variances in “extenuating circumstances” if a restriction creates an “unreasonable hardship or burden” and the variance does not have a “substantial adverse effect” on the community.

C. The Board’s Delegated Authority

The Judge established a clear chain of authority that empowered the Board to act as it did:

1. CC&R Section 3.31: Delegates the power to grant variances to the Architectural Review Committee.

2. Bylaw Section 3.11.8: States the Board shall have the power to “Exercise for the Association all powers, duties and authority vested in or delegated to the Association and not reserved to the membership by other provisions of the Project Documents.”

3. Conclusion: Because the power to grant variances was delegated to the ARC (and thus to the Association) and not reserved for the membership, the Board had the authority to grant the variance embodied in Well Agreement 2.

5. Final Order

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Administrative Law Judge issued the following order:

• Decision: The Petition filed by Brent J. Mathews is dismissed.

• Reasoning: “Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Board of Directors lacked the authority to enter into Well Agreement 2. Thus, Petitioner failed to sustain his burden to establish a violation of Section 3.11 of the Bylaws.”

The order was finalized and transmitted to the parties on October 11, 2018.






Study Guide – 18F-H1818050-REL


Study Guide: Mathews v. American Ranch Community Association (Case No. 18F-H1818050-REL)

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case between Petitioner Brent J. Mathews and Respondent American Ranch Community Association. It is designed to test and deepen understanding of the facts, legal arguments, and final ruling presented in the source document.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this case, and what were their respective roles?

2. What was the initial, overarching subject of Brent J. Mathews’s complaint filed on May 16, 2018?

3. After being asked to clarify, what single issue did the Petitioner choose to proceed with for the hearing?

4. According to the CC&Rs, what are the specific rules regarding the use of water wells on lots within American Ranch?

5. What were the key terms of “Well Agreement 1,” established in June 2011 with the original owners of Lot 2?

6. Why did the American Ranch Board of Directors believe they lacked the authority to enforce “Well Agreement 1”?

7. What were the terms of “Well Agreement 2,” which was executed on August 9, 2016, with the new owners of Lot 2, the Kaplans?

8. What was Petitioner Mathews’s primary legal argument against the Board’s authority to enter into “Well Agreement 2”?

9. How did the Administrative Law Judge distinguish between a “variance” and an “amendment” to the CC&Rs in the final decision?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge on October 11, 2018?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Petitioner Brent J. Mathews, who filed the complaint, and Respondent American Ranch Community Association (HOA), which was the subject of the complaint. Mathews represented himself, while the Association was represented by Lynn Krupnik and Timothy Krupnik.

2. The initial complaint’s subject was an “Open Meeting Violation regarding an ‘Action Outside of Meeting’” that took place on August 6, 2016. This action concerned the Association entering into a “Well Agreement” with Mark and Diane Kaplan.

3. The Petitioner clarified his single issue was an alleged violation of the American Ranch Bylaws, Article 3.11. He argued that the Board entered into the “Well Agreement” assuming they had the power to grant exceptions to the CC&Rs, a power he claimed the Bylaws did not grant them.

4. Section 3.26 of the CC&Rs prohibits water wells on all lots except Equestrian Lots. On Equestrian Lots, wells are permitted only with prior written approval from the Architectural Review Committee and must be used solely to irrigate pasture land and provide drinking water for horses.

5. “Well Agreement 1” acknowledged that the owners of Lot 2 were using their well for irrigation in violation of the CC&Rs. The agreement allowed them to continue this use, provided they installed a water meter and paid the Association the same per-gallon charge as other owners paid to the water district.

6. The Board of Directors believed they did not have the authority to enter into “Well Agreement 1” because they had no ability or authority to bill the lot owners for water used from a private well. They reasoned that billing for water was the responsibility of the water district, not the HOA.

7. “Well Agreement 2” stated that the private water well on Lot 2 would continue to be used for irrigation purposes. Crucially, it specified that the owners (the Kaplans) would not be billed for the water used from this well.

8. Petitioner Mathews argued that “Well Agreement 2” constituted an amendment of the CC&Rs. He contended that under Section 9.3.1 of the CC&Rs, an amendment requires the written approval or affirmative vote of 75 percent of the total owners, and therefore the Board acted outside its authority.

9. The Judge ruled that “Well Agreement 2” was a variance granted to an individual owner, not an amendment to the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs specifically provide a method for granting variances via the Architectural Review Committee, and this power is delegated to the Association and thus exercisable by the Board.

10. The final order, issued on October 11, 2018, was that the Petition be dismissed. The Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Board of Directors lacked the authority to enter into “Well Agreement 2.”

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth, essay-style response. Use the case document to construct a thorough and well-supported argument for each prompt. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the evolution of the dispute, from the initial installation of the well on Lot 2 to the final Administrative Law Judge Decision. Discuss the key events and agreements (Well Agreement 1 and Well Agreement 2) and explain how each contributed to the legal conflict.

2. Explain the legal reasoning used by the Administrative Law Judge to dismiss the Petitioner’s claim. Detail the specific sections of the Bylaws and CC&Rs cited (3.11, 3.26, 3.31, 9.3.1) and explain the distinction the Judge made between a “variance” and an “amendment.”

3. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. Who held the burden of proof, what was the required standard (“preponderance of the evidence”), and why did the Petitioner ultimately fail to meet this standard?

4. Evaluate the actions of the American Ranch Community Association Board of Directors regarding Lot 2’s well. Discuss their reasoning for invalidating Well Agreement 1 and creating Well Agreement 2, and analyze whether their actions were consistent with the powers granted to them by the community’s governing documents.

5. Based on the procedural history outlined in the “Findings of Fact,” describe the process of an HOA dispute in this jurisdiction, from the initial filing of a petition to the final order from the Office of Administrative Hearings.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official (Tammy L. Eigenheer) who presides over administrative hearings and issues a decision on the matter.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The statutory laws of the state of Arizona, sections of which regulate planned communities and the administrative hearing process.

Architectural Review Committee

A body within the Association delegated the authority by the CC&Rs (Section 3.31) to grant variances from certain restrictions in extenuating circumstances.

Board of Directors

The governing body of the American Ranch Community Association, which has the powers and duties necessary for administering the Association’s affairs.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal case to prove their claims. In this case, the Petitioner had the burden to establish the alleged violations.

Bylaws

The rules governing the internal administration of the Association. Petitioner alleged a violation of Bylaw 3.11, which outlines the powers and duties of the Board.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing documents that set rules for properties within the community, such as the prohibition of certain water wells (Section 3.26).

Department

Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the agency with which the initial Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition was filed.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency to which the Department refers HOA dispute cases for a formal hearing.

Petition

The formal document filed by Brent J. Mathews to initiate the HOA dispute process with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who brings the legal action or complaint. In this case, Brent J. Mathews.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this hearing. It is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is “more probably true than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom the petition is filed. In this case, the American Ranch Community Association.

Variance

An officially granted exception from a restriction in the CC&Rs for an individual owner. The Judge determined Well Agreement 2 was a variance, not an amendment.

Well Agreement 1

A June 2011 agreement that allowed the owners of Lot 2 to use a non-compliant well for irrigation, provided they paid the Association for the water.

Well Agreement 2

An August 2016 agreement that invalidated Well Agreement 1 and allowed the new owners of Lot 2 (the Kaplans) to continue using the well for irrigation without being billed for the water.






Blog Post – 18F-H1818050-REL


Your HOA Board Might Be More Powerful Than You Think: 3 Lessons from a Legal Showdown

1.0 Introduction: The Predictable Fight with an Unpredictable Outcome

It’s a scenario familiar to many homeowners: you suspect your Homeowners Association (HOA) board is playing favorites, bending the rules for one resident while holding everyone else to the letter of the law. This feeling of frustration often leads to heated disputes, but what happens when a homeowner decides to take that fight to court? You might expect a simple verdict based on the community’s clear, written rules.

That’s exactly what homeowner Brent J. Mathews thought. He discovered his HOA board had made a special agreement with a neighbor, allowing a water well that clearly violated the community’s governing documents. He filed a formal complaint, arguing the board had illegally overstepped its authority.

The case that followed, however, didn’t turn on one obvious rule. Instead, the judge’s decision hinged on how different governing documents—the CC&Rs and the Bylaws—interact. The outcome reveals some surprising and counter-intuitive truths about where power really lies within an HOA, offering critical lessons for every homeowner.

2.0 Takeaway 1: A Special Exception Isn’t the Same as Changing the Rules for Everyone

Mr. Mathews’ central argument was straightforward and, on its face, perfectly logical. He contended that the board’s “Well Agreement 2” with his neighbor was effectively an amendment to the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

According to the community’s CC&Rs (Section 9.3.1), amending the rules is a serious undertaking that requires the written approval of 75 percent of all homeowners. The board clearly did not have this approval, so it seemed to be a clear-cut case of an illegal action. Many homeowners would have made the same reasonable assumption: the board can’t just change the rules on its own.

However, the judge found a critical distinction. The board’s action was not an “amendment”—a permanent change to the rules for the entire community. Instead, it was legally considered a “variance”—a one-time exception granted to a single homeowner. Because the CC&Rs contained a separate, specific process for granting variances (Section 3.31), the board was not illegally rewriting the rulebook; it was simply using a different, pre-existing tool in the governing documents.

3.0 Takeaway 2: The Board Can Wield Powers Given to Its Own Committees

This distinction raised another logical objection. The CC&Rs (Section 3.31) explicitly state that the power to grant variances belongs to the “Architectural Review Committee” (ARC), not the Board of Directors. It appeared Mr. Mathews had found his checkmate: even if the action was a variance, the wrong body had granted it.

This is where the case took its most surprising turn. The judge looked beyond the CC&Rs and consulted a different governing document: the Bylaws. This document contained a foundational clause about the board’s authority that proved decisive.

According to Bylaw 3.11.8, the Board of Directors is empowered to exercise any authority of the Association that is not specifically and exclusively reserved for the members themselves. Since the power to grant variances was delegated to a committee (the ARC) and not reserved for a vote by the general membership, the Board had the authority to step in and exercise that power itself. The judge’s decision made this clear.

“As the power to grant variances was delegated to the Architectural Review Committee and was not reserved to the membership, the Board had the authority to grant such a variance.”

This finding reveals a crucial principle of HOA governance: powers delegated to a committee are not the same as powers reserved for the entire membership. Unless a power is explicitly reserved for a member vote, the Bylaws can grant the Board ultimate authority over it.

4.0 Takeaway 3: A Messy History Can Justify an Unusual Solution

While the legal arguments are complex, the context behind the board’s decision is equally important. The board wasn’t making a special deal out of the blue; it was trying to solve a messy problem it had inherited.

The well on Lot 2 was originally installed around 2007 in violation of Section 3.26 of the CC&Rs. The board’s first attempt to fix this, “Well Agreement 1” in or about June 2011, allowed the well’s use but required the owner to pay the association for the water consumed. This arrangement, however, was deeply flawed.

When new buyers (the Kaplans) were in escrow to purchase the property in 2016, the situation came to a head. The Kaplans discovered the unusual agreement and informed the board they would be “unable to proceed with the purchase” unless its status was clarified. With the real estate deal on the line, the board recognized that “time was of the essence.”

The board’s decision to execute “Well Agreement 2” was driven by two realities. First, they believed the original agreement was legally invalid, as the board had no authority to bill a resident for water. Second, the agreement was a failure in practice; the Kaplans had been told by the prior owners that “they had never been charged for the water used from the well.” Facing an unenforceable and un-enforced agreement that was now threatening a home sale, the board acted pragmatically to resolve the decade-old violation once and for all.

5.0 Conclusion: Know the Rules—And Who Has the Power to Bend Them

The core lesson from this case is that HOA governance is a complex web of interlocking documents. The rules you read in the CC&Rs might not tell the whole story. Power and authority can be defined, and even transferred, by provisions buried in the Bylaws or other governing texts. What may seem like an obvious violation can be justified by a clause a homeowner might easily overlook.

This case is a powerful reminder for every homeowner. It’s not enough to know the rules of your community. You also need to understand the system of governance that enforces, interprets, and sometimes, grants exceptions to them. It prompts a critical question: Do you know not just the rules in your community, but who really has the authority to grant exceptions?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Brent J. Mathews (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Lynn Krupnik (attorney)
    Krupnik & Speas, PLLC
    Represented Respondent
  • Timothy Krupnik (attorney)
    Krupnik & Speas, PLLC
    Represented Respondent
  • Tiffany Taylor (community manager)
    American Ranch Community Association
    Testified for Respondent
  • Brad Baker (board member)
    American Ranch Community Association
    Respondent Vice President; testified at hearing

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Felicia Del Sol (administrative staff)
    Signed transmission page
  • LDettorre (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Decision recipient
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Decision recipient
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Decision recipient
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Decision recipient
  • ncano (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Decision recipient

Other Participants

  • Mark Kaplan (owner)
    Lot 2
    Executed Well Agreement 2
  • Diane Kaplan (owner)
    Lot 2
    Executed Well Agreement 2
  • Steven Galliano (former owner)
    Lot 2
  • Frances Galliano (former owner)
    Lot 2

James and Shawna Larson v. Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp

Posted on by
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717038-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-12-11
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner James and Shawna Larson Counsel Lisa M. Hanger
Respondent Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1255(C); CC&R sections 9 and 9(b)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition and deemed the Respondent HOA the prevailing party, concluding that the HOA acted reasonably and had the authority under CC&R sections 9 and 9(b) to require the removal of the Petitioners' patio cover for building maintenance and painting. Furthermore, pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1255(C), Petitioners are responsible for the cost of removing and reinstalling their limited common element patio cover.

Why this result: The ALJ concluded that the Respondent's plan for repairing and painting the buildings was reasonable and the Petitioners failed to cite any provision of the CC&Rs that Respondent had currently violated. The cost allocation was determined by A.R.S. § 33-1255(C) based on the patio cover being a limited common element.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA authority to mandate removal of patio cover (limited common element) for maintenance and allocation of associated costs.

Petitioners filed a petition alleging the HOA violated CC&Rs 10(a) by threatening to remove their patio cover during a painting project. The basic issue was Petitioners' assertion that the Respondent lacked authority to mandate the removal of their limited common element patio cover. The ALJ determined the HOA had authority under CC&R sections 9 and 9(b) and A.R.S. § 33-1255(C), and Petitioners must pay the costs of removal and reinstallation.

Orders: Petitioners' petition was dismissed. Respondent was deemed the prevailing party. Respondent has the authority to require Petitioners to remove their patio cover, and Petitioners are responsible for the cost to remove and reinstall it.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 6
  • 15
  • 17
  • 24
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA authority, limited common elements, maintenance costs, patio cover, CC&Rs, A.R.S. 33-1255(C)
Additional Citations:

  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 17
  • 18

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717038-REL-RHG Decision – 605540.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:48 (105.0 KB)

17F-H1717038-REL-RHG Decision – ../17F-H1717038-REL/583987.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-20T13:44:41 (53.0 KB)

17F-H1717038-REL-RHG Decision – ../17F-H1717038-REL/585505.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-20T13:44:42 (385.9 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717038-REL-RHG


Briefing on Larson v. Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the legal dispute between homeowners James and Shawna Larson (Petitioners) and the Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation (Respondent). The core conflict centered on the Respondent’s requirement that Petitioners remove their patio cover at their own expense to facilitate a community-wide building repair and painting project. The case initially faced a jurisdictional challenge, with an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommending dismissal due to the speculative nature of the Respondent’s threat to remove the cover. This recommendation was rejected by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, who found the matter ripe for adjudication and ordered a new hearing.

The final Administrative Law Judge Decision ultimately ruled in favor of the Respondent. The decision found the HOA’s plan to remove the patio covers was reasonable, necessary for the safe and proper completion of the project, and authorized under the community’s CC&Rs. Crucially, the ruling established that the patio cover is a “limited common element” under Arizona statute. Consequently, the financial responsibility for its removal and potential reinstallation rests solely with the Petitioners as the homeowners to whom the element is assigned. The Petitioners’ petition was dismissed, and the Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.

——————————————————————————–

Procedural History

The case progressed through several distinct legal phases, beginning with a petition and culminating in a final administrative decision after a rehearing.

Outcome/Significance

June 15-16, 2017

Petition Filed

James and Shawna Larson filed a petition with the Department of Real Estate alleging a violation of the Respondent’s CC&Rs.

August 25, 2017

Order Recommending Dismissal

Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Marwil recommended dismissing the petition, finding no “justiciable controversy” because the Respondent had not yet acted on its threat to remove the patio cover, rendering the issue speculative.

August 31, 2017

Order Rejecting Recommendation

Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, rejected the ALJ’s recommendation. Citing a June 1, 2017 letter from the Respondent, the Commissioner determined the matter was “ripe for adjudication” and ordered the hearing to be rescheduled.

September 1, 2017

Notice of Re-Hearing Issued

The Arizona Department of Real Estate formally scheduled a new hearing in the matter.

November 20, 2017

Rehearing Conducted

A full hearing on the merits was conducted before Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden.

December 11, 2017

Final Administrative Law Judge Decision

ALJ Thomas Shedden issued a final decision, dismissing the Petitioners’ petition and finding in favor of the Respondent.

Core Dispute Analysis

The conflict arose from a maintenance project initiated by the Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation, which consists of 169 units. The project involved repairing and painting the exteriors of the community’s twenty-five two-story buildings.

Respondent’s (HOA’s) Mandate and Rationale

• Project Requirement: The HOA informed homeowners with patio covers that they were required to remove the covers at their own expense before repairs and painting could begin.

• Enforcement Threat: In a letter dated June 1, 2017, the HOA stated that if the Larsons’ patio cover was not removed within ten days, the HOA would remove it under the authority of CC&R section 10(a) and charge the homeowners for the cost.

• Legal Justification: The HOA asserted its authority based on:

◦ CC&R Section 9(b): Grants the Respondent responsibility for maintaining the building exteriors.

◦ CC&R Section 9: States, “Any cooperative action necessary or appropriate to the proper maintenance and upkeep of the … [building] exteriors … shall be taken by the [Respondent].”

• Practical Necessity: The HOA argued that removal was essential for the project’s proper and safe completion, a position supported by its project manager.

Petitioners’ (Larsons’) Objections and Counter-Arguments

• Initial Legal Position: In their brief, the Petitioners stated that “the true issues underlying this issue are not about whether Respondent’s current threatened actions are a violation of the CC&Rs. The true issues relate to Respondent Association’s actions and inactions that have lead up to the point where the Parties now find themselves addressing this administrative law panel.”

• Lack of Authority: In a May 19, 2017 letter, the Larsons’ counsel argued the HOA had no legal authority to support its request.

• Unreasonable Cost: The Petitioners asserted that the cost of removal and reinstallation would be “thousands of dollars” and provided bids ranging from $3,980 to $5,975.

• Historical Precedent: The patio cover was in place when the Larsons purchased their unit in 1999, and they argued the HOA did not disclose any violation at that time.

• Proposed Alternatives:

1. The Larsons offered to have the back of their unit painted at their own expense, which the HOA rejected over concerns about project warranty and management.

2. During the November 20 hearing, after hearing testimony, the Larsons offered not to reinstall their patio cover if the Respondent would pay for its removal.

Key Evidence and Testimony

The final decision heavily relied on the testimony of Wayne King, the project manager hired by the HOA, and an analysis of competing cost estimates.

Testimony of Wayne King (Project Manager)

• Project Scope: King testified that the project involved not only painting but also repairing damaged siding, much of which was caused by improperly flashed patio covers. To “do the job right,” the process required sanding, power washing, and patching before painting.

• Contractor Requirements: All five contractors who bid on the project required the patio covers to be removed.

• Safety and Logistics: King explained why working around the covers was not viable:

◦ Scaffolding: “Regular” scaffolding would not fit, and commercial scaffolding would not provide access to the entire building.

◦ Lifts: Using a “reach” or forklift was not an option due to overhead powerlines creating a safety hazard.

◦ Worker Safety: Allowing painters to walk on homeowners’ patio covers was not a safe option. He noted that changes in safety laws since the buildings were last painted necessitated different methods.

• Warranty: King testified that the paint company would not provide a warranty for the project if individual homeowners, like the Larsons, painted their own units.

Cost Estimates and Discrepancies

• Petitioners’ Estimates: The Larsons submitted two bids for their wooden patio cover:

◦ Bid 1: $1,250 to remove and dispose; $3,980 to remove and rebuild with new wood.

◦ Bid 2: $5,975 to remove and replace the structure.

• Respondent’s Estimates:

◦ The HOA’s initial letter offered a contractor who would remove aluminum covers for $150. The cost for the Larsons’ wood cover was stated as $225, though this was not a firm price.

◦ Wayne King testified that the Petitioners’ estimates were “very high” and opined that $1,000 should cover the cost of removing and rebuilding, assuming existing materials were reused. He acknowledged decking material would likely need replacement but estimated 80% of rafters could be reused.

Legal Findings and Final Decision

The Administrative Law Judge Decision of December 11, 2017, provided a comprehensive legal analysis that concluded in the Respondent’s favor.

Governing Authority and Reasonableness

• Deference to the HOA: Citing Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, the decision established that the tribunal must accord the HOA deference in its decisions regarding maintenance and repair, provided it acts reasonably.

• Finding of Reasonableness: Based on the credible testimony of Wayne King, the judge found that the Respondent’s proposed plan for repairing and painting was reasonable, as the buildings could not be “properly and safely painted without the patio covers being removed.”

• Authorization under CC&Rs: The judge concluded that CC&R sections 9 and 9(b) were “sufficient to show that Respondent has the authority to remove Petitioners’ patio to complete the painting work.”

“Limited Common Element” Doctrine and Cost Allocation

The central legal issue of financial responsibility was resolved by applying Arizona state statutes.

1. Classification: The Petitioners’ patio cover was classified as a limited common element within the meaning of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1212(4).

2. Statutory Rule: The judge then applied ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1255(C), which states:

3. Conclusion on Cost: Based on a “reasonable reading” of this statute, the decision concluded that the Petitioners must bear the cost of removing the patio cover and, should they choose to do so, the cost of reinstalling it.

Final Ruling

• The evidence supported the conclusion that the Respondent had the authority to require the removal of the patio cover at the Petitioners’ expense.

• IT IS ORDERED that the petition filed by James and Shawna Larson is dismissed.

• The Respondent, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation, was deemed the prevailing party.

——————————————————————————–

Key Parties and Representatives

Name(s)

Representation

Petitioners

James and Shawna Larson

Lisa M. Hanger, Esq.

Respondent

Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation

Nathan Tennyson, Esq. (Brown Alcott PLLC)

ALJ (Initial)

Suzanne Marwil

Office of Administrative Hearings

ALJ (Final)

Thomas Shedden

Office of Administrative Hearings

Commissioner

Judy Lowe

Arizona Department of Real Estate






Study Guide – 17F-H1717038-REL-RHG


Study Guide for Larson v. Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case between James and Shawna Larson and the Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation, culminating in the Administrative Law Judge Decision of December 11, 2017. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a thorough understanding of the case’s facts, legal arguments, and procedural history.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following ten questions based on the provided source documents. Each answer should be two to three sentences long.

1. Who were the primary parties in this case, and what was their relationship?

2. What was the initial reason given by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Suzanne Marwil for recommending the dismissal of the Larsons’ petition?

3. Why did Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate Judy Lowe reject the initial recommendation for dismissal?

4. What was the central issue adjudicated at the November 20, 2017 hearing before ALJ Thomas Shedden?

5. According to the Respondent, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation, which specific sections of the CC&Rs granted it the authority to require the removal of patio covers?

6. Who was Wayne King, and what was the substance of his testimony during the hearing?

7. How did the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) classify the Petitioners’ patio cover, and why was this classification legally significant for the case’s outcome?

8. What safety and logistical reasons were provided to justify the necessity of removing the patio covers for the painting project?

9. What was the final decision issued by ALJ Thomas Shedden on December 11, 2017?

10. According to the final ruling, who is financially responsible for the removal and potential reinstallation of the Petitioners’ patio cover, and what was the legal basis for this conclusion?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioners, homeowners James and Shawna Larson, and the Respondent, their homeowner’s association, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation. The dispute arose from the Respondent’s requirement that the Petitioners remove a patio cover at their unit.

2. ALJ Suzanne Marwil recommended dismissal on August 25, 2017, for a lack of a “justiciable controversy.” She reasoned that the Respondent’s threat to take down the patio cover had not yet been undertaken, making the issue speculative and more appropriate for a declaratory judgment action in superior court.

3. Commissioner Judy Lowe rejected the recommendation on August 31, 2017, stating the matter was “ripe for adjudication.” Her decision was based on a letter from June 1, 2017, in which the Respondent alleged a violation of the governing documents, thus creating a tangible controversy for the administrative tribunal to rule upon.

4. The central issue was whether the Respondent had the authority to mandate the removal of the Petitioners’ patio cover to facilitate a large-scale building repair and painting project. A secondary issue was determining who was financially responsible for the cost of removal and reinstallation.

5. The Respondent cited CC&R sections 9 and 9(b) as the source of its authority. Section 9(b) makes the Respondent responsible for maintaining building exteriors, and section 9 grants it the power to take “any cooperative action necessary or appropriate” for that maintenance.

6. Wayne King was the project manager hired by the Respondent for the painting project. He provided expert testimony that removing the patio covers was necessary to properly and safely repair and paint the buildings, noting that all five bidding contractors required their removal and that alternative methods were not viable or safe.

7. The patio cover was classified as a “limited common element” under A.R.S. § 33-1212(4). This was significant because A.R.S. § 33-1255(C) states that common expenses associated with the maintenance or repair of a limited common element shall be assessed against the units to which it is assigned, placing the financial burden on the Petitioners.

8. Project manager Wayne King testified that removal was necessary to accommodate the 14-foot by 8-foot area required for scaffolding. He explained that using a forklift was unsafe due to overhead powerlines, and allowing painters to walk on the covers was also a safety hazard, especially given changes in safety laws since the last painting project.

9. ALJ Thomas Shedden dismissed the Petitioners’ petition and deemed the Respondent, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation, to be the prevailing party. The order found that the Respondent’s plan was reasonable and that it had the authority to require the patio cover’s removal.

10. The final ruling concluded that the Petitioners, James and Shawna Larson, were responsible for the cost to remove the patio cover and the cost to reinstall it if they chose to do so. The legal basis was A.R.S. § 33-1255(C), which assigns expenses related to a “limited common element” (the patio cover) exclusively to the unit owner it benefits.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more analytical understanding of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response for each, drawing evidence from the provided source documents.

1. Trace the procedural history of case No. 17F-H1717038-REL from the initial petition to the final decision. Explain the reasoning behind each major procedural step, including the initial recommendation for dismissal, its rejection by the Commissioner, and the final order.

2. Analyze the legal arguments presented by both the Petitioners (James and Shawna Larson) and the Respondent (Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation) at the November 20, 2017 hearing. Discuss the key pieces of evidence, including witness testimony, cost estimates, and CC&R provisions, that each side used to support its position.

3. Explain the concept of “justiciable controversy” as it was applied by ALJ Suzanne Marwil in her recommendation for dismissal. Contrast her interpretation with Commissioner Judy Lowe’s reasoning for why the matter was “ripe for adjudication.”

4. Discuss the legal significance of classifying the patio cover as a “limited common element.” How did this classification, in conjunction with Arizona Revised Statutes and the community’s CC&Rs, ultimately determine the outcome of the case regarding financial responsibility?

5. Evaluate the role of expert testimony in the final administrative hearing. How did the testimony of Wayne King influence ALJ Thomas Shedden’s findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the reasonableness and necessity of the Respondent’s actions?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The judge who presides over administrative hearings at a government agency, such as the Office of Administrative Hearings. In this case, Suzanne Marwil and Thomas Shedden served as ALJs.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The official compilation of the laws of the state of Arizona. Key statutes cited include A.R.S. § 32-2199, § 33-1212(4), and § 33-1255(C).

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions)

The governing documents for a planned community or condominium association that outline the rights and obligations of the homeowners and the association. In this case, sections 9, 9(b), and 10(a) were specifically mentioned.

Declaratory Judgment Action

A legal action filed in superior court where a party asks the court to provide a binding ruling on the rights and obligations of the parties before an actual injury has occurred.

Justiciable Controversy

A real, substantial legal dispute that is appropriate for a court or tribunal to resolve. It cannot be a hypothetical, speculative, or advisory matter.

Limited Common Element

As defined in A.R.S. § 33-1212(4), a common element of a condominium assigned for the exclusive use of one or more units, but fewer than all of them. The Larsons’ patio cover was classified as such.

Petition

The formal written request filed by a party to initiate a case with an administrative body. The Larsons filed their petition with the Department of Real Estate on June 15/16, 2017.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, James and Shawna Larson were the Petitioners.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It means the greater weight of the evidence is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of an issue over the other.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation was the Respondent.

Tribunal

A body, such as the Office of Administrative Hearings, with the authority to judge, adjudicate on, or determine claims or disputes.






Blog Post – 17F-H1717038-REL-RHG


They Fought the HOA Over a Patio and Lost: 3 Shocking Legal Lessons for Every HOA Member

It’s the letter every homeowner dreads. An official-looking envelope from the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) lands in your mailbox, and the message inside is not a friendly neighborhood greeting. It’s a demand.

This is exactly what happened to Arizona couple James and Shawna Larson. Their HOA, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation, was planning a large-scale project to repair and paint the building exteriors. To do the job properly, the HOA demanded that the Larsons remove their wooden patio cover—at their own expense. The Larsons, believing this was an unreasonable overreach, refused. That refusal kicked off a legal battle that serves as a masterclass in the often-shocking realities of HOA power.

This post distills the most important lessons from their fight. These are the legal realities that every homeowner should understand before they find themselves on the receiving end of a similar notice.

You Can Win the First Round and Still Lose the Case

In the first stage of the dispute, the Administrative Law Judge actually recommended that the Larsons’ petition be dismissed. The judge’s reasoning was based on a crucial legal doctrine: ripeness. Because the HOA had only threatened to remove the patio cover and hadn’t physically done it yet, the judge found the issue “speculative.” In the court’s view, there was no “justiciable controversy” to rule on yet.

The initial ruling contained a powerful statement highlighting the confusion:

Both parties fundamentally misunderstand the limits of this Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

But this initial victory was short-lived. In a surprising twist, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate rejected the judge’s recommendation. The Commissioner found that the core question—whether the patio cover violated the association’s rules—was “ripe for adjudication” and ordered the case back to court for a full hearing. This highlights a key principle: administrative bodies often prefer to rule on the substance of a dispute rather than dismiss it on procedural grounds, ensuring that core community conflicts are actually resolved.

A case isn’t over until it’s over. An initial procedural win (or loss) can be overturned, shifting the entire battlefield. With the case now officially back on, the court turned to the central question of the dispute: who was financially responsible for the patio cover?

It’s Your Patio, So It’s Your Bill—Even When the HOA Forces the Work

The central conflict boiled down to one question: who should pay? The Larsons believed that since the HOA required the patio cover to be removed for its maintenance project, the HOA should bear the associated costs. This seems like common sense, but HOA law operates on a different logic.

The case was decided by a key legal concept: the patio cover was legally classified as a “limited common element.” For most homeowners, this is where their jaw hits the floor. A limited common element is part of the common area (like exterior walls or roofs) but is assigned for the exclusive use of a single unit owner. The logic behind this law is that while the HOA maintains general common areas, elements that provide an exclusive benefit to one owner—like their personal patio, balcony, or assigned parking spot—carry an exclusive financial responsibility, even for HOA-mandated work.

This classification has a devastating financial consequence spelled out in Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1255(C). The law states that common expenses associated with a limited common element are assessed against the unit it’s assigned to. The judge’s final conclusion was direct and absolute:

Because the patio cover is a limited common element, under a reasonable reading of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1255(C), Petitioners must bear the cost of removing the patio cover and, if they choose to do so, the cost of reinstalling it.

Under the law, because the patio exclusively benefitted the Larsons, they were solely responsible for all costs associated with it, even when the work was demanded by the HOA for its own project.

Deference is Given to a Well-Prepared HOA

The HOA didn’t win just because of a legal statute; it won because it built a sound, well-documented case for its demand. They didn’t just issue an order; they presented extensive evidence that their plan was “reasonable.”

The testimony of their project manager, Wayne King, was particularly compelling. He laid out a series of facts that were difficult to dispute:

• The project involved necessary repairs to siding and flashing, not just cosmetic painting.

• All five painting contractors who bid on the project required the patio covers to be removed.

• Removal was essential to comply with modern safety laws for scaffolding and to allow for proper work, including sanding and power washing.

• Safety laws had changed since the buildings were last painted, making old methods unsafe and illegal.

• Allowing individual homeowners to paint their own sections would void the painter’s warranty for the entire project.

Faced with this mountain of meticulously documented evidence, the judge ruled that the HOA’s plan was “reasonable.” Because of this, the court was legally bound to “accord Respondent deference in decisions regarding maintenance and repair of the common areas.” In other words, when an HOA acts logically, documents its process, and prioritizes safety and proper procedure, courts will give it significant authority to enforce its decisions.

Conclusion: Knowledge is Power in an HOA

The Larsons’ case is a stark reminder that in an HOA, what feels fair is irrelevant. The only things that matter are procedural correctness (even a ‘win’ can be temporary), the fine print of legal definitions (you can be forced to pay to remove your own property), and an HOA’s documented reasonableness (a well-prepared board is nearly unbeatable). These principles are found not in a sense of fairness, but in the specific, often surprising language of state law and a community’s own CC&Rs.

This case was about a patio cover, but the principles apply to fences, doors, and windows—do you truly know what you own and what you’re responsible for?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • James Larson (petitioner)
  • Shawna Larson (petitioner)
  • Lisa M. Hanger (petitioner attorney)

Respondent Side

  • Nathan Tennyson (respondent attorney)
    Brown Alcott PLLC
  • Wayne King (witness)
    Project Manager for painting project hired by Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Suzanne Marwil (ALJ)
    Issued initial Recommended Order of Dismissal (August 25, 2017)
  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
    Issued Administrative Law Judge Decision (December 11, 2017)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Rejected initial recommendation of dismissal
  • Dan Gardner (HOA Coordinator)
    Transmitted Commissioner's order

James and Shawna Larson v. Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp

Posted on by
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717038-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-12-11
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner James and Shawna Larson Counsel Lisa M. Hanger
Respondent Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1255(C); CC&R sections 9 and 9(b)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the HOA acted reasonably and had the authority under the CC&Rs to require the removal of the homeowner's patio cover for necessary painting and repairs. The ALJ determined that because the patio cover is a limited common element, the Petitioners must bear the cost of removal and reinstallation according to A.R.S. § 33-1255(C).

Why this result: Petitioners failed to prove the HOA violated CC&Rs or acted unreasonably, and statutory law assigned the expense burden for the limited common element to the homeowner.

Key Issues & Findings

Authority of HOA to mandate removal of homeowner's patio cover for maintenance and assignment of removal/reinstallation costs.

Petitioners challenged the Respondent HOA's authority and reasonableness in requiring them to remove their patio cover, a limited common element, for building painting and repair, and disputed the requirement that Petitioners bear the costs. The ALJ concluded that the HOA's plan was reasonable, the HOA had the authority under CC&R sections 9 and 9(b), and Petitioners must bear the cost of removal and reinstallation under A.R.S. § 33-1255(C).

Orders: Petitioners’ petition is dismissed. Respondent is deemed the prevailing party. Petitioners are responsible for the cost to remove the patio cover and the cost to reinstall it should they choose to do so.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)
  • CC&R section 9
  • CC&R section 9(b)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1212(4)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA authority, limited common element, maintenance costs, patio cover, CC&Rs, statutory interpretation, dismissal, prevailing party
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)
  • CC&R section 9
  • CC&R section 9(b)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1212(4)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717038-REL-RHG Decision – 605540.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:20:51 (105.0 KB)

17F-H1717038-REL-RHG Decision – ../17F-H1717038-REL/583987.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:20:59 (53.0 KB)

17F-H1717038-REL-RHG Decision – ../17F-H1717038-REL/585505.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:21:05 (385.9 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717038-REL-RHG


Briefing on Larson v. Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the legal dispute between homeowners James and Shawna Larson (Petitioners) and the Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation (Respondent). The core conflict centered on the Respondent’s requirement that Petitioners remove their patio cover at their own expense to facilitate a community-wide building repair and painting project. The case initially faced a jurisdictional challenge, with an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommending dismissal due to the speculative nature of the Respondent’s threat to remove the cover. This recommendation was rejected by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, who found the matter ripe for adjudication and ordered a new hearing.

The final Administrative Law Judge Decision ultimately ruled in favor of the Respondent. The decision found the HOA’s plan to remove the patio covers was reasonable, necessary for the safe and proper completion of the project, and authorized under the community’s CC&Rs. Crucially, the ruling established that the patio cover is a “limited common element” under Arizona statute. Consequently, the financial responsibility for its removal and potential reinstallation rests solely with the Petitioners as the homeowners to whom the element is assigned. The Petitioners’ petition was dismissed, and the Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.

——————————————————————————–

Procedural History

The case progressed through several distinct legal phases, beginning with a petition and culminating in a final administrative decision after a rehearing.

Outcome/Significance

June 15-16, 2017

Petition Filed

James and Shawna Larson filed a petition with the Department of Real Estate alleging a violation of the Respondent’s CC&Rs.

August 25, 2017

Order Recommending Dismissal

Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Marwil recommended dismissing the petition, finding no “justiciable controversy” because the Respondent had not yet acted on its threat to remove the patio cover, rendering the issue speculative.

August 31, 2017

Order Rejecting Recommendation

Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, rejected the ALJ’s recommendation. Citing a June 1, 2017 letter from the Respondent, the Commissioner determined the matter was “ripe for adjudication” and ordered the hearing to be rescheduled.

September 1, 2017

Notice of Re-Hearing Issued

The Arizona Department of Real Estate formally scheduled a new hearing in the matter.

November 20, 2017

Rehearing Conducted

A full hearing on the merits was conducted before Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden.

December 11, 2017

Final Administrative Law Judge Decision

ALJ Thomas Shedden issued a final decision, dismissing the Petitioners’ petition and finding in favor of the Respondent.

Core Dispute Analysis

The conflict arose from a maintenance project initiated by the Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation, which consists of 169 units. The project involved repairing and painting the exteriors of the community’s twenty-five two-story buildings.

Respondent’s (HOA’s) Mandate and Rationale

• Project Requirement: The HOA informed homeowners with patio covers that they were required to remove the covers at their own expense before repairs and painting could begin.

• Enforcement Threat: In a letter dated June 1, 2017, the HOA stated that if the Larsons’ patio cover was not removed within ten days, the HOA would remove it under the authority of CC&R section 10(a) and charge the homeowners for the cost.

• Legal Justification: The HOA asserted its authority based on:

◦ CC&R Section 9(b): Grants the Respondent responsibility for maintaining the building exteriors.

◦ CC&R Section 9: States, “Any cooperative action necessary or appropriate to the proper maintenance and upkeep of the … [building] exteriors … shall be taken by the [Respondent].”

• Practical Necessity: The HOA argued that removal was essential for the project’s proper and safe completion, a position supported by its project manager.

Petitioners’ (Larsons’) Objections and Counter-Arguments

• Initial Legal Position: In their brief, the Petitioners stated that “the true issues underlying this issue are not about whether Respondent’s current threatened actions are a violation of the CC&Rs. The true issues relate to Respondent Association’s actions and inactions that have lead up to the point where the Parties now find themselves addressing this administrative law panel.”

• Lack of Authority: In a May 19, 2017 letter, the Larsons’ counsel argued the HOA had no legal authority to support its request.

• Unreasonable Cost: The Petitioners asserted that the cost of removal and reinstallation would be “thousands of dollars” and provided bids ranging from $3,980 to $5,975.

• Historical Precedent: The patio cover was in place when the Larsons purchased their unit in 1999, and they argued the HOA did not disclose any violation at that time.

• Proposed Alternatives:

1. The Larsons offered to have the back of their unit painted at their own expense, which the HOA rejected over concerns about project warranty and management.

2. During the November 20 hearing, after hearing testimony, the Larsons offered not to reinstall their patio cover if the Respondent would pay for its removal.

Key Evidence and Testimony

The final decision heavily relied on the testimony of Wayne King, the project manager hired by the HOA, and an analysis of competing cost estimates.

Testimony of Wayne King (Project Manager)

• Project Scope: King testified that the project involved not only painting but also repairing damaged siding, much of which was caused by improperly flashed patio covers. To “do the job right,” the process required sanding, power washing, and patching before painting.

• Contractor Requirements: All five contractors who bid on the project required the patio covers to be removed.

• Safety and Logistics: King explained why working around the covers was not viable:

◦ Scaffolding: “Regular” scaffolding would not fit, and commercial scaffolding would not provide access to the entire building.

◦ Lifts: Using a “reach” or forklift was not an option due to overhead powerlines creating a safety hazard.

◦ Worker Safety: Allowing painters to walk on homeowners’ patio covers was not a safe option. He noted that changes in safety laws since the buildings were last painted necessitated different methods.

• Warranty: King testified that the paint company would not provide a warranty for the project if individual homeowners, like the Larsons, painted their own units.

Cost Estimates and Discrepancies

• Petitioners’ Estimates: The Larsons submitted two bids for their wooden patio cover:

◦ Bid 1: $1,250 to remove and dispose; $3,980 to remove and rebuild with new wood.

◦ Bid 2: $5,975 to remove and replace the structure.

• Respondent’s Estimates:

◦ The HOA’s initial letter offered a contractor who would remove aluminum covers for $150. The cost for the Larsons’ wood cover was stated as $225, though this was not a firm price.

◦ Wayne King testified that the Petitioners’ estimates were “very high” and opined that $1,000 should cover the cost of removing and rebuilding, assuming existing materials were reused. He acknowledged decking material would likely need replacement but estimated 80% of rafters could be reused.

Legal Findings and Final Decision

The Administrative Law Judge Decision of December 11, 2017, provided a comprehensive legal analysis that concluded in the Respondent’s favor.

Governing Authority and Reasonableness

• Deference to the HOA: Citing Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, the decision established that the tribunal must accord the HOA deference in its decisions regarding maintenance and repair, provided it acts reasonably.

• Finding of Reasonableness: Based on the credible testimony of Wayne King, the judge found that the Respondent’s proposed plan for repairing and painting was reasonable, as the buildings could not be “properly and safely painted without the patio covers being removed.”

• Authorization under CC&Rs: The judge concluded that CC&R sections 9 and 9(b) were “sufficient to show that Respondent has the authority to remove Petitioners’ patio to complete the painting work.”

“Limited Common Element” Doctrine and Cost Allocation

The central legal issue of financial responsibility was resolved by applying Arizona state statutes.

1. Classification: The Petitioners’ patio cover was classified as a limited common element within the meaning of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1212(4).

2. Statutory Rule: The judge then applied ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1255(C), which states:

3. Conclusion on Cost: Based on a “reasonable reading” of this statute, the decision concluded that the Petitioners must bear the cost of removing the patio cover and, should they choose to do so, the cost of reinstalling it.

Final Ruling

• The evidence supported the conclusion that the Respondent had the authority to require the removal of the patio cover at the Petitioners’ expense.

• IT IS ORDERED that the petition filed by James and Shawna Larson is dismissed.

• The Respondent, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation, was deemed the prevailing party.

——————————————————————————–

Key Parties and Representatives

Name(s)

Representation

Petitioners

James and Shawna Larson

Lisa M. Hanger, Esq.

Respondent

Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation

Nathan Tennyson, Esq. (Brown Alcott PLLC)

ALJ (Initial)

Suzanne Marwil

Office of Administrative Hearings

ALJ (Final)

Thomas Shedden

Office of Administrative Hearings

Commissioner

Judy Lowe

Arizona Department of Real Estate






Study Guide – 17F-H1717038-REL-RHG


Study Guide for Larson v. Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case between James and Shawna Larson and the Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation, culminating in the Administrative Law Judge Decision of December 11, 2017. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a thorough understanding of the case’s facts, legal arguments, and procedural history.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following ten questions based on the provided source documents. Each answer should be two to three sentences long.

1. Who were the primary parties in this case, and what was their relationship?

2. What was the initial reason given by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Suzanne Marwil for recommending the dismissal of the Larsons’ petition?

3. Why did Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate Judy Lowe reject the initial recommendation for dismissal?

4. What was the central issue adjudicated at the November 20, 2017 hearing before ALJ Thomas Shedden?

5. According to the Respondent, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation, which specific sections of the CC&Rs granted it the authority to require the removal of patio covers?

6. Who was Wayne King, and what was the substance of his testimony during the hearing?

7. How did the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) classify the Petitioners’ patio cover, and why was this classification legally significant for the case’s outcome?

8. What safety and logistical reasons were provided to justify the necessity of removing the patio covers for the painting project?

9. What was the final decision issued by ALJ Thomas Shedden on December 11, 2017?

10. According to the final ruling, who is financially responsible for the removal and potential reinstallation of the Petitioners’ patio cover, and what was the legal basis for this conclusion?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioners, homeowners James and Shawna Larson, and the Respondent, their homeowner’s association, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation. The dispute arose from the Respondent’s requirement that the Petitioners remove a patio cover at their unit.

2. ALJ Suzanne Marwil recommended dismissal on August 25, 2017, for a lack of a “justiciable controversy.” She reasoned that the Respondent’s threat to take down the patio cover had not yet been undertaken, making the issue speculative and more appropriate for a declaratory judgment action in superior court.

3. Commissioner Judy Lowe rejected the recommendation on August 31, 2017, stating the matter was “ripe for adjudication.” Her decision was based on a letter from June 1, 2017, in which the Respondent alleged a violation of the governing documents, thus creating a tangible controversy for the administrative tribunal to rule upon.

4. The central issue was whether the Respondent had the authority to mandate the removal of the Petitioners’ patio cover to facilitate a large-scale building repair and painting project. A secondary issue was determining who was financially responsible for the cost of removal and reinstallation.

5. The Respondent cited CC&R sections 9 and 9(b) as the source of its authority. Section 9(b) makes the Respondent responsible for maintaining building exteriors, and section 9 grants it the power to take “any cooperative action necessary or appropriate” for that maintenance.

6. Wayne King was the project manager hired by the Respondent for the painting project. He provided expert testimony that removing the patio covers was necessary to properly and safely repair and paint the buildings, noting that all five bidding contractors required their removal and that alternative methods were not viable or safe.

7. The patio cover was classified as a “limited common element” under A.R.S. § 33-1212(4). This was significant because A.R.S. § 33-1255(C) states that common expenses associated with the maintenance or repair of a limited common element shall be assessed against the units to which it is assigned, placing the financial burden on the Petitioners.

8. Project manager Wayne King testified that removal was necessary to accommodate the 14-foot by 8-foot area required for scaffolding. He explained that using a forklift was unsafe due to overhead powerlines, and allowing painters to walk on the covers was also a safety hazard, especially given changes in safety laws since the last painting project.

9. ALJ Thomas Shedden dismissed the Petitioners’ petition and deemed the Respondent, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation, to be the prevailing party. The order found that the Respondent’s plan was reasonable and that it had the authority to require the patio cover’s removal.

10. The final ruling concluded that the Petitioners, James and Shawna Larson, were responsible for the cost to remove the patio cover and the cost to reinstall it if they chose to do so. The legal basis was A.R.S. § 33-1255(C), which assigns expenses related to a “limited common element” (the patio cover) exclusively to the unit owner it benefits.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more analytical understanding of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response for each, drawing evidence from the provided source documents.

1. Trace the procedural history of case No. 17F-H1717038-REL from the initial petition to the final decision. Explain the reasoning behind each major procedural step, including the initial recommendation for dismissal, its rejection by the Commissioner, and the final order.

2. Analyze the legal arguments presented by both the Petitioners (James and Shawna Larson) and the Respondent (Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation) at the November 20, 2017 hearing. Discuss the key pieces of evidence, including witness testimony, cost estimates, and CC&R provisions, that each side used to support its position.

3. Explain the concept of “justiciable controversy” as it was applied by ALJ Suzanne Marwil in her recommendation for dismissal. Contrast her interpretation with Commissioner Judy Lowe’s reasoning for why the matter was “ripe for adjudication.”

4. Discuss the legal significance of classifying the patio cover as a “limited common element.” How did this classification, in conjunction with Arizona Revised Statutes and the community’s CC&Rs, ultimately determine the outcome of the case regarding financial responsibility?

5. Evaluate the role of expert testimony in the final administrative hearing. How did the testimony of Wayne King influence ALJ Thomas Shedden’s findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the reasonableness and necessity of the Respondent’s actions?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The judge who presides over administrative hearings at a government agency, such as the Office of Administrative Hearings. In this case, Suzanne Marwil and Thomas Shedden served as ALJs.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The official compilation of the laws of the state of Arizona. Key statutes cited include A.R.S. § 32-2199, § 33-1212(4), and § 33-1255(C).

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions)

The governing documents for a planned community or condominium association that outline the rights and obligations of the homeowners and the association. In this case, sections 9, 9(b), and 10(a) were specifically mentioned.

Declaratory Judgment Action

A legal action filed in superior court where a party asks the court to provide a binding ruling on the rights and obligations of the parties before an actual injury has occurred.

Justiciable Controversy

A real, substantial legal dispute that is appropriate for a court or tribunal to resolve. It cannot be a hypothetical, speculative, or advisory matter.

Limited Common Element

As defined in A.R.S. § 33-1212(4), a common element of a condominium assigned for the exclusive use of one or more units, but fewer than all of them. The Larsons’ patio cover was classified as such.

Petition

The formal written request filed by a party to initiate a case with an administrative body. The Larsons filed their petition with the Department of Real Estate on June 15/16, 2017.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, James and Shawna Larson were the Petitioners.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It means the greater weight of the evidence is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of an issue over the other.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation was the Respondent.

Tribunal

A body, such as the Office of Administrative Hearings, with the authority to judge, adjudicate on, or determine claims or disputes.






Blog Post – 17F-H1717038-REL-RHG


They Fought the HOA Over a Patio and Lost: 3 Shocking Legal Lessons for Every HOA Member

It’s the letter every homeowner dreads. An official-looking envelope from the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) lands in your mailbox, and the message inside is not a friendly neighborhood greeting. It’s a demand.

This is exactly what happened to Arizona couple James and Shawna Larson. Their HOA, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation, was planning a large-scale project to repair and paint the building exteriors. To do the job properly, the HOA demanded that the Larsons remove their wooden patio cover—at their own expense. The Larsons, believing this was an unreasonable overreach, refused. That refusal kicked off a legal battle that serves as a masterclass in the often-shocking realities of HOA power.

This post distills the most important lessons from their fight. These are the legal realities that every homeowner should understand before they find themselves on the receiving end of a similar notice.

You Can Win the First Round and Still Lose the Case

In the first stage of the dispute, the Administrative Law Judge actually recommended that the Larsons’ petition be dismissed. The judge’s reasoning was based on a crucial legal doctrine: ripeness. Because the HOA had only threatened to remove the patio cover and hadn’t physically done it yet, the judge found the issue “speculative.” In the court’s view, there was no “justiciable controversy” to rule on yet.

The initial ruling contained a powerful statement highlighting the confusion:

Both parties fundamentally misunderstand the limits of this Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

But this initial victory was short-lived. In a surprising twist, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate rejected the judge’s recommendation. The Commissioner found that the core question—whether the patio cover violated the association’s rules—was “ripe for adjudication” and ordered the case back to court for a full hearing. This highlights a key principle: administrative bodies often prefer to rule on the substance of a dispute rather than dismiss it on procedural grounds, ensuring that core community conflicts are actually resolved.

A case isn’t over until it’s over. An initial procedural win (or loss) can be overturned, shifting the entire battlefield. With the case now officially back on, the court turned to the central question of the dispute: who was financially responsible for the patio cover?

It’s Your Patio, So It’s Your Bill—Even When the HOA Forces the Work

The central conflict boiled down to one question: who should pay? The Larsons believed that since the HOA required the patio cover to be removed for its maintenance project, the HOA should bear the associated costs. This seems like common sense, but HOA law operates on a different logic.

The case was decided by a key legal concept: the patio cover was legally classified as a “limited common element.” For most homeowners, this is where their jaw hits the floor. A limited common element is part of the common area (like exterior walls or roofs) but is assigned for the exclusive use of a single unit owner. The logic behind this law is that while the HOA maintains general common areas, elements that provide an exclusive benefit to one owner—like their personal patio, balcony, or assigned parking spot—carry an exclusive financial responsibility, even for HOA-mandated work.

This classification has a devastating financial consequence spelled out in Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1255(C). The law states that common expenses associated with a limited common element are assessed against the unit it’s assigned to. The judge’s final conclusion was direct and absolute:

Because the patio cover is a limited common element, under a reasonable reading of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1255(C), Petitioners must bear the cost of removing the patio cover and, if they choose to do so, the cost of reinstalling it.

Under the law, because the patio exclusively benefitted the Larsons, they were solely responsible for all costs associated with it, even when the work was demanded by the HOA for its own project.

Deference is Given to a Well-Prepared HOA

The HOA didn’t win just because of a legal statute; it won because it built a sound, well-documented case for its demand. They didn’t just issue an order; they presented extensive evidence that their plan was “reasonable.”

The testimony of their project manager, Wayne King, was particularly compelling. He laid out a series of facts that were difficult to dispute:

• The project involved necessary repairs to siding and flashing, not just cosmetic painting.

• All five painting contractors who bid on the project required the patio covers to be removed.

• Removal was essential to comply with modern safety laws for scaffolding and to allow for proper work, including sanding and power washing.

• Safety laws had changed since the buildings were last painted, making old methods unsafe and illegal.

• Allowing individual homeowners to paint their own sections would void the painter’s warranty for the entire project.

Faced with this mountain of meticulously documented evidence, the judge ruled that the HOA’s plan was “reasonable.” Because of this, the court was legally bound to “accord Respondent deference in decisions regarding maintenance and repair of the common areas.” In other words, when an HOA acts logically, documents its process, and prioritizes safety and proper procedure, courts will give it significant authority to enforce its decisions.

Conclusion: Knowledge is Power in an HOA

The Larsons’ case is a stark reminder that in an HOA, what feels fair is irrelevant. The only things that matter are procedural correctness (even a ‘win’ can be temporary), the fine print of legal definitions (you can be forced to pay to remove your own property), and an HOA’s documented reasonableness (a well-prepared board is nearly unbeatable). These principles are found not in a sense of fairness, but in the specific, often surprising language of state law and a community’s own CC&Rs.

This case was about a patio cover, but the principles apply to fences, doors, and windows—do you truly know what you own and what you’re responsible for?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • James Larson (petitioner)
  • Shawna Larson (petitioner)
  • Lisa M. Hanger (petitioner attorney)

Respondent Side

  • Nathan Tennyson (respondent attorney)
    Brown Alcott PLLC
  • Wayne King (witness)
    Project Manager for painting project hired by Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Suzanne Marwil (ALJ)
    Issued initial Recommended Order of Dismissal (August 25, 2017)
  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
    Issued Administrative Law Judge Decision (December 11, 2017)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Rejected initial recommendation of dismissal
  • Dan Gardner (HOA Coordinator)
    Transmitted Commissioner's order

James and Shawna Larson v. Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717038-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-12-11
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome no_win
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner James and Shawna Larson Counsel Lisa M. Hanger
Respondent Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1255(C); CC&R Sections 9 and 9(b)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the Petitioners' complaint, ruling that the HOA acted reasonably and within its authority under the CC&Rs and A.R.S. § 33-1255(C) by requiring homeowners to remove their limited common element patio covers for necessary maintenance and requiring the homeowners to bear the associated cost.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the Respondent HOA committed a violation of the condominium documents or statutes.

Key Issues & Findings

Authority of HOA to require removal of a limited common element (patio cover) for maintenance and allocation of associated costs.

Petitioners alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs by mandating the removal of their patio cover at their expense to facilitate building painting. The ALJ found the HOA's proposed plan was reasonable and authorized by CC&R Sections 9 and 9(b), and that Petitioners, under A.R.S. § 33-1255(C), must bear the cost of removing and reinstalling the limited common element.

Orders: Petitioners' petition is dismissed. Respondent Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation is deemed to be the prevailing party. Petitioners are responsible for the cost to remove and reinstall their patio cover.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)
  • CC&R Section 9
  • CC&R Section 9(b)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1212(4)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Authority, Limited Common Element, Maintenance Costs, CC&R Interpretation, Patio Cover Removal
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1212(4)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1806(E)
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717038-REL-RHG Decision – 605540.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:58:20 (105.0 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717038-REL-RHG


Briefing on Larson v. Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation

Executive Summary

This briefing synthesizes the legal dispute between homeowners James and Shawna Larson and the Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation (the “Respondent” or “HOA”). The core conflict centered on the HOA’s directive that the Larsons remove their wooden patio cover at their own expense to facilitate a community-wide building repair and painting project.

The case progressed through two distinct phases. Initially, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended dismissing the Larsons’ petition for a lack of a “justiciable controversy,” reasoning that the HOA had not yet acted on its threat to remove the patio cover, rendering the dispute speculative. However, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate rejected this recommendation, finding the matter was “ripe for adjudication,” and ordered a full hearing on the merits.

In the final decision, a second ALJ dismissed the Larsons’ petition and ruled in favor of the HOA. The judge found the HOA’s plan to be reasonable and necessary for the proper and safe completion of the project, based on credible testimony from the project manager. The decision affirmed the HOA’s authority under its CC&Rs to require the removal of the structure. Crucially, the ruling established that the patio cover is a “limited common element” under Arizona law. Consequently, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, the homeowners (the Larsons) are exclusively responsible for all costs associated with it, including its removal and potential reinstallation.

Procedural History and Jurisdictional Rulings

Initial Petition and Dismissal Recommendation

On June 16, 2017, James and Shawna Larson filed a petition with the Department of Real Estate against their HOA, alleging a violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). However, the initial filing did not specify which provisions had been violated.

Upon inquiry, the Petitioners’ counsel admitted via email that no specific provision of the CC&Rs had yet been violated. Instead, their concern was that section 10(a) would be violated if the HOA acted on its threat to forcibly remove their patio cover and charge them for the cost.

This led to the “ORDER RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY,” issued on August 25, 2017, by Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Marwil. The key findings of this order were:

• Speculative Harm: The Judge found that the HOA’s actions “have not yet been undertaken and our [are] speculative at this juncture.”

• Lack of Jurisdiction: The order stated that the Office of Administrative Hearings’ jurisdiction, per A.R.S. § 32-2199, is limited to adjudicating existing violations of community documents, not potential future ones.

• Misunderstanding by Both Parties: The order noted, “Both parties fundamentally misunderstand the limits of this Tribunal’s jurisdiction.” The Petitioners were seeking a ruling on a future action, while the Respondent was urging the Tribunal to find the Petitioners had violated the CC&Rs, which was not the subject of the petition.

• Recommended Forum: The Judge suggested that the appropriate forum for the Petitioners would be a declaratory judgment action in superior court.

Rejection of Dismissal and Re-Hearing

On August 31, 2017, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issued an “ORDER REJECTING RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL.”

• The Commissioner rejected the ALJ’s finding that the matter lacked a justiciable controversy.

• The order cited a letter from the Respondent dated June 1, 2017, which posed the question: “Is the presence of the awning a violation of the Association’s governing documents?”

• This question was deemed sufficient to make the matter “ripe for adjudication.”

• The Commissioner requested that the hearing be rescheduled for a ruling on the matter. A re-hearing was subsequently conducted on November 20, 2017, before Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden.

Analysis of the Merits of the Dispute

The re-hearing focused on the substantive conflict: whether the HOA had the authority to compel the Larsons to remove their patio cover at their own expense for the maintenance project.

Respondent’s (HOA) Case

The HOA, consisting of 169 units, initiated a project to make necessary repairs to its twenty-five buildings and then have them painted. The HOA’s position was based on the following points:

• Legal Authority: The HOA asserted its authority under sections 9 and 9(b) of its CC&Rs, which state that the HOA is responsible for maintaining building exteriors and that “Any cooperative action necessary or appropriate to the proper maintenance and upkeep of the… [building] exteriors… shall be taken by the [Respondent].”

• Project Necessity: The project manager, Wayne King, provided testimony that the HOA’s board deemed credible and reasonable.

◦ Safety: King stated that all five bidding contractors required the patio covers to be removed to ensure a safe work environment as mandated by the Arizona Department of Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA).

◦ Logistics: Standard scaffolding would not fit without removing the covers, commercial scaffolding would not provide full access, a forklift was not viable due to overhead power lines, and allowing painters to walk on homeowner patio covers was unsafe.

◦ Quality of Work: The project involved sanding, power washing, and patching before painting to “do the job right.” Many covers had been improperly flashed, causing damage to the buildings that needed repair.

◦ Warranty: The paint company would not provide a warranty for the project if individual homeowners, such as the Larsons, were permitted to paint their own units.

Petitioners’ (Larsons’) Case

The Larsons, who purchased their unit in 1999 with the wooden patio cover already in place, contested the HOA’s demands.

• Challenge to Authority: The Petitioners argued that the HOA had no legal authority to demand the removal of their patio cover.

• Unreasonable Cost: They asserted that the cost of removal and reinstallation was unreasonable, submitting two bids:

◦ One bid quoted $1,250 to remove and dispose of the cover and $3,980 to remove and rebuild it with new wood.

◦ A second bid quoted $5,975 to remove and then replace the structure.

• Proposed Alternative: In a letter dated May 19, 2017, the Larsons offered to have the back of their unit painted at their own expense.

• Compromise Offer: During the November 20, 2017 hearing, after hearing the project manager’s testimony, Ms. Larson offered that they would agree not to reinstall the patio cover if the HOA would pay for its removal.

Final Administrative Law Judge Decision

On December 11, 2017, ALJ Thomas Shedden issued a final decision dismissing the Larsons’ petition and finding in favor of the Respondent, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation.

Key Findings and Conclusions of Law

Finding/Conclusion

Details

Standard of Review

The HOA’s decisions regarding maintenance and repair are given deference, provided they act reasonably.

Reasonableness of HOA Action

Based on the “credible testimony” of Wayne King, the Judge found that the HOA’s proposed plan for repairing and painting the buildings, which required the removal of patio covers, was reasonable.

HOA Authority

CC&R sections 9 and 9(b) were found to be “sufficient to show that Respondent has the authority to remove Petitioners’ patio to complete the painting work.”

Patio Cover Classification

The Petitioners’ patio cover was legally classified as a “limited common element” within the meaning of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1212(4).

Cost Responsibility

The central issue of payment was decided by statute. The Judge concluded that under a “reasonable reading of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1255(C),” any common expense associated with a limited common element “shall be assessed exclusively against the units benefitted.”

Final Order

Based on these findings, the Administrative Law Judge ordered the following:

“The evidence of record supports a conclusion that Respondent has authority to require Petitioners to remove their patio cover to allow the building to be properly and safely painted, and that Petitioners are responsible for the cost to remove the patio cover and the cost to reinstall it should they choose to do so.”

The final order was that the Petitioners’ petition be dismissed, and the Respondent, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation, was deemed the prevailing party.


James and Shawna Larson v. Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717038-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-12-11
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome no_win
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner James and Shawna Larson Counsel Lisa M. Hanger
Respondent Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1255(C); CC&R Sections 9 and 9(b)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the Petitioners' complaint, ruling that the HOA acted reasonably and within its authority under the CC&Rs and A.R.S. § 33-1255(C) by requiring homeowners to remove their limited common element patio covers for necessary maintenance and requiring the homeowners to bear the associated cost.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the Respondent HOA committed a violation of the condominium documents or statutes.

Key Issues & Findings

Authority of HOA to require removal of a limited common element (patio cover) for maintenance and allocation of associated costs.

Petitioners alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs by mandating the removal of their patio cover at their expense to facilitate building painting. The ALJ found the HOA's proposed plan was reasonable and authorized by CC&R Sections 9 and 9(b), and that Petitioners, under A.R.S. § 33-1255(C), must bear the cost of removing and reinstalling the limited common element.

Orders: Petitioners' petition is dismissed. Respondent Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation is deemed to be the prevailing party. Petitioners are responsible for the cost to remove and reinstall their patio cover.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)
  • CC&R Section 9
  • CC&R Section 9(b)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1212(4)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Authority, Limited Common Element, Maintenance Costs, CC&R Interpretation, Patio Cover Removal
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1212(4)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1806(E)
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717038-REL-RHG Decision – 605540.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:02:35 (105.0 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717038-REL-RHG


Briefing on Larson v. Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation

Executive Summary

This briefing synthesizes the legal dispute between homeowners James and Shawna Larson and the Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation (the “Respondent” or “HOA”). The core conflict centered on the HOA’s directive that the Larsons remove their wooden patio cover at their own expense to facilitate a community-wide building repair and painting project.

The case progressed through two distinct phases. Initially, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended dismissing the Larsons’ petition for a lack of a “justiciable controversy,” reasoning that the HOA had not yet acted on its threat to remove the patio cover, rendering the dispute speculative. However, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate rejected this recommendation, finding the matter was “ripe for adjudication,” and ordered a full hearing on the merits.

In the final decision, a second ALJ dismissed the Larsons’ petition and ruled in favor of the HOA. The judge found the HOA’s plan to be reasonable and necessary for the proper and safe completion of the project, based on credible testimony from the project manager. The decision affirmed the HOA’s authority under its CC&Rs to require the removal of the structure. Crucially, the ruling established that the patio cover is a “limited common element” under Arizona law. Consequently, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, the homeowners (the Larsons) are exclusively responsible for all costs associated with it, including its removal and potential reinstallation.

Procedural History and Jurisdictional Rulings

Initial Petition and Dismissal Recommendation

On June 16, 2017, James and Shawna Larson filed a petition with the Department of Real Estate against their HOA, alleging a violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). However, the initial filing did not specify which provisions had been violated.

Upon inquiry, the Petitioners’ counsel admitted via email that no specific provision of the CC&Rs had yet been violated. Instead, their concern was that section 10(a) would be violated if the HOA acted on its threat to forcibly remove their patio cover and charge them for the cost.

This led to the “ORDER RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY,” issued on August 25, 2017, by Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Marwil. The key findings of this order were:

• Speculative Harm: The Judge found that the HOA’s actions “have not yet been undertaken and our [are] speculative at this juncture.”

• Lack of Jurisdiction: The order stated that the Office of Administrative Hearings’ jurisdiction, per A.R.S. § 32-2199, is limited to adjudicating existing violations of community documents, not potential future ones.

• Misunderstanding by Both Parties: The order noted, “Both parties fundamentally misunderstand the limits of this Tribunal’s jurisdiction.” The Petitioners were seeking a ruling on a future action, while the Respondent was urging the Tribunal to find the Petitioners had violated the CC&Rs, which was not the subject of the petition.

• Recommended Forum: The Judge suggested that the appropriate forum for the Petitioners would be a declaratory judgment action in superior court.

Rejection of Dismissal and Re-Hearing

On August 31, 2017, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issued an “ORDER REJECTING RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL.”

• The Commissioner rejected the ALJ’s finding that the matter lacked a justiciable controversy.

• The order cited a letter from the Respondent dated June 1, 2017, which posed the question: “Is the presence of the awning a violation of the Association’s governing documents?”

• This question was deemed sufficient to make the matter “ripe for adjudication.”

• The Commissioner requested that the hearing be rescheduled for a ruling on the matter. A re-hearing was subsequently conducted on November 20, 2017, before Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden.

Analysis of the Merits of the Dispute

The re-hearing focused on the substantive conflict: whether the HOA had the authority to compel the Larsons to remove their patio cover at their own expense for the maintenance project.

Respondent’s (HOA) Case

The HOA, consisting of 169 units, initiated a project to make necessary repairs to its twenty-five buildings and then have them painted. The HOA’s position was based on the following points:

• Legal Authority: The HOA asserted its authority under sections 9 and 9(b) of its CC&Rs, which state that the HOA is responsible for maintaining building exteriors and that “Any cooperative action necessary or appropriate to the proper maintenance and upkeep of the… [building] exteriors… shall be taken by the [Respondent].”

• Project Necessity: The project manager, Wayne King, provided testimony that the HOA’s board deemed credible and reasonable.

◦ Safety: King stated that all five bidding contractors required the patio covers to be removed to ensure a safe work environment as mandated by the Arizona Department of Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA).

◦ Logistics: Standard scaffolding would not fit without removing the covers, commercial scaffolding would not provide full access, a forklift was not viable due to overhead power lines, and allowing painters to walk on homeowner patio covers was unsafe.

◦ Quality of Work: The project involved sanding, power washing, and patching before painting to “do the job right.” Many covers had been improperly flashed, causing damage to the buildings that needed repair.

◦ Warranty: The paint company would not provide a warranty for the project if individual homeowners, such as the Larsons, were permitted to paint their own units.

Petitioners’ (Larsons’) Case

The Larsons, who purchased their unit in 1999 with the wooden patio cover already in place, contested the HOA’s demands.

• Challenge to Authority: The Petitioners argued that the HOA had no legal authority to demand the removal of their patio cover.

• Unreasonable Cost: They asserted that the cost of removal and reinstallation was unreasonable, submitting two bids:

◦ One bid quoted $1,250 to remove and dispose of the cover and $3,980 to remove and rebuild it with new wood.

◦ A second bid quoted $5,975 to remove and then replace the structure.

• Proposed Alternative: In a letter dated May 19, 2017, the Larsons offered to have the back of their unit painted at their own expense.

• Compromise Offer: During the November 20, 2017 hearing, after hearing the project manager’s testimony, Ms. Larson offered that they would agree not to reinstall the patio cover if the HOA would pay for its removal.

Final Administrative Law Judge Decision

On December 11, 2017, ALJ Thomas Shedden issued a final decision dismissing the Larsons’ petition and finding in favor of the Respondent, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation.

Key Findings and Conclusions of Law

Finding/Conclusion

Details

Standard of Review

The HOA’s decisions regarding maintenance and repair are given deference, provided they act reasonably.

Reasonableness of HOA Action

Based on the “credible testimony” of Wayne King, the Judge found that the HOA’s proposed plan for repairing and painting the buildings, which required the removal of patio covers, was reasonable.

HOA Authority

CC&R sections 9 and 9(b) were found to be “sufficient to show that Respondent has the authority to remove Petitioners’ patio to complete the painting work.”

Patio Cover Classification

The Petitioners’ patio cover was legally classified as a “limited common element” within the meaning of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1212(4).

Cost Responsibility

The central issue of payment was decided by statute. The Judge concluded that under a “reasonable reading of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1255(C),” any common expense associated with a limited common element “shall be assessed exclusively against the units benefitted.”

Final Order

Based on these findings, the Administrative Law Judge ordered the following:

“The evidence of record supports a conclusion that Respondent has authority to require Petitioners to remove their patio cover to allow the building to be properly and safely painted, and that Petitioners are responsible for the cost to remove the patio cover and the cost to reinstall it should they choose to do so.”

The final order was that the Petitioners’ petition be dismissed, and the Respondent, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation, was deemed the prevailing party.


James and Shawna Larson vs. Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717038-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-12-11
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner James and Shawna Larson Counsel Lisa M. Hanger
Respondent Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1255(C); CC&R sections 9 and 9(b)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the HOA acted reasonably and had the authority under the CC&Rs to require the removal of the homeowner's patio cover for necessary painting and repairs. The ALJ determined that because the patio cover is a limited common element, the Petitioners must bear the cost of removal and reinstallation according to A.R.S. § 33-1255(C).

Why this result: Petitioners failed to prove the HOA violated CC&Rs or acted unreasonably, and statutory law assigned the expense burden for the limited common element to the homeowner.

Key Issues & Findings

Authority of HOA to mandate removal of homeowner's patio cover for maintenance and assignment of removal/reinstallation costs.

Petitioners challenged the Respondent HOA's authority and reasonableness in requiring them to remove their patio cover, a limited common element, for building painting and repair, and disputed the requirement that Petitioners bear the costs. The ALJ concluded that the HOA's plan was reasonable, the HOA had the authority under CC&R sections 9 and 9(b), and Petitioners must bear the cost of removal and reinstallation under A.R.S. § 33-1255(C).

Orders: Petitioners’ petition is dismissed. Respondent is deemed the prevailing party. Petitioners are responsible for the cost to remove the patio cover and the cost to reinstall it should they choose to do so.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)
  • CC&R section 9
  • CC&R section 9(b)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1212(4)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA authority, limited common element, maintenance costs, patio cover, CC&Rs, statutory interpretation, dismissal, prevailing party
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)
  • CC&R section 9
  • CC&R section 9(b)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1212(4)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717038-REL Decision – 583987.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:46 (53.0 KB)

17F-H1717038-REL Decision – 585505.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:46 (385.9 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717038-REL


Briefing on Larson v. Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation

Executive Summary

This briefing synthesizes the legal dispute between homeowners James and Shawna Larson and the Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation (the “Respondent” or “HOA”). The core conflict centered on the HOA’s directive that the Larsons remove their wooden patio cover at their own expense to facilitate a community-wide building repair and painting project.

The case progressed through two distinct phases. Initially, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended dismissing the Larsons’ petition for a lack of a “justiciable controversy,” reasoning that the HOA had not yet acted on its threat to remove the patio cover, rendering the dispute speculative. However, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate rejected this recommendation, finding the matter was “ripe for adjudication,” and ordered a full hearing on the merits.

In the final decision, a second ALJ dismissed the Larsons’ petition and ruled in favor of the HOA. The judge found the HOA’s plan to be reasonable and necessary for the proper and safe completion of the project, based on credible testimony from the project manager. The decision affirmed the HOA’s authority under its CC&Rs to require the removal of the structure. Crucially, the ruling established that the patio cover is a “limited common element” under Arizona law. Consequently, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, the homeowners (the Larsons) are exclusively responsible for all costs associated with it, including its removal and potential reinstallation.

Procedural History and Jurisdictional Rulings

Initial Petition and Dismissal Recommendation

On June 16, 2017, James and Shawna Larson filed a petition with the Department of Real Estate against their HOA, alleging a violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). However, the initial filing did not specify which provisions had been violated.

Upon inquiry, the Petitioners’ counsel admitted via email that no specific provision of the CC&Rs had yet been violated. Instead, their concern was that section 10(a) would be violated if the HOA acted on its threat to forcibly remove their patio cover and charge them for the cost.

This led to the “ORDER RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY,” issued on August 25, 2017, by Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Marwil. The key findings of this order were:

• Speculative Harm: The Judge found that the HOA’s actions “have not yet been undertaken and our [are] speculative at this juncture.”

• Lack of Jurisdiction: The order stated that the Office of Administrative Hearings’ jurisdiction, per A.R.S. § 32-2199, is limited to adjudicating existing violations of community documents, not potential future ones.

• Misunderstanding by Both Parties: The order noted, “Both parties fundamentally misunderstand the limits of this Tribunal’s jurisdiction.” The Petitioners were seeking a ruling on a future action, while the Respondent was urging the Tribunal to find the Petitioners had violated the CC&Rs, which was not the subject of the petition.

• Recommended Forum: The Judge suggested that the appropriate forum for the Petitioners would be a declaratory judgment action in superior court.

Rejection of Dismissal and Re-Hearing

On August 31, 2017, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issued an “ORDER REJECTING RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL.”

• The Commissioner rejected the ALJ’s finding that the matter lacked a justiciable controversy.

• The order cited a letter from the Respondent dated June 1, 2017, which posed the question: “Is the presence of the awning a violation of the Association’s governing documents?”

• This question was deemed sufficient to make the matter “ripe for adjudication.”

• The Commissioner requested that the hearing be rescheduled for a ruling on the matter. A re-hearing was subsequently conducted on November 20, 2017, before Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden.

Analysis of the Merits of the Dispute

The re-hearing focused on the substantive conflict: whether the HOA had the authority to compel the Larsons to remove their patio cover at their own expense for the maintenance project.

Respondent’s (HOA) Case

The HOA, consisting of 169 units, initiated a project to make necessary repairs to its twenty-five buildings and then have them painted. The HOA’s position was based on the following points:

• Legal Authority: The HOA asserted its authority under sections 9 and 9(b) of its CC&Rs, which state that the HOA is responsible for maintaining building exteriors and that “Any cooperative action necessary or appropriate to the proper maintenance and upkeep of the… [building] exteriors… shall be taken by the [Respondent].”

• Project Necessity: The project manager, Wayne King, provided testimony that the HOA’s board deemed credible and reasonable.

◦ Safety: King stated that all five bidding contractors required the patio covers to be removed to ensure a safe work environment as mandated by the Arizona Department of Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA).

◦ Logistics: Standard scaffolding would not fit without removing the covers, commercial scaffolding would not provide full access, a forklift was not viable due to overhead power lines, and allowing painters to walk on homeowner patio covers was unsafe.

◦ Quality of Work: The project involved sanding, power washing, and patching before painting to “do the job right.” Many covers had been improperly flashed, causing damage to the buildings that needed repair.

◦ Warranty: The paint company would not provide a warranty for the project if individual homeowners, such as the Larsons, were permitted to paint their own units.

Petitioners’ (Larsons’) Case

The Larsons, who purchased their unit in 1999 with the wooden patio cover already in place, contested the HOA’s demands.

• Challenge to Authority: The Petitioners argued that the HOA had no legal authority to demand the removal of their patio cover.

• Unreasonable Cost: They asserted that the cost of removal and reinstallation was unreasonable, submitting two bids:

◦ One bid quoted $1,250 to remove and dispose of the cover and $3,980 to remove and rebuild it with new wood.

◦ A second bid quoted $5,975 to remove and then replace the structure.

• Proposed Alternative: In a letter dated May 19, 2017, the Larsons offered to have the back of their unit painted at their own expense.

• Compromise Offer: During the November 20, 2017 hearing, after hearing the project manager’s testimony, Ms. Larson offered that they would agree not to reinstall the patio cover if the HOA would pay for its removal.

Final Administrative Law Judge Decision

On December 11, 2017, ALJ Thomas Shedden issued a final decision dismissing the Larsons’ petition and finding in favor of the Respondent, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation.

Key Findings and Conclusions of Law

Finding/Conclusion

Details

Standard of Review

The HOA’s decisions regarding maintenance and repair are given deference, provided they act reasonably.

Reasonableness of HOA Action

Based on the “credible testimony” of Wayne King, the Judge found that the HOA’s proposed plan for repairing and painting the buildings, which required the removal of patio covers, was reasonable.

HOA Authority

CC&R sections 9 and 9(b) were found to be “sufficient to show that Respondent has the authority to remove Petitioners’ patio to complete the painting work.”

Patio Cover Classification

The Petitioners’ patio cover was legally classified as a “limited common element” within the meaning of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1212(4).

Cost Responsibility

The central issue of payment was decided by statute. The Judge concluded that under a “reasonable reading of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1255(C),” any common expense associated with a limited common element “shall be assessed exclusively against the units benefitted.”

Final Order

Based on these findings, the Administrative Law Judge ordered the following:

“The evidence of record supports a conclusion that Respondent has authority to require Petitioners to remove their patio cover to allow the building to be properly and safely painted, and that Petitioners are responsible for the cost to remove the patio cover and the cost to reinstall it should they choose to do so.”

The final order was that the Petitioners’ petition be dismissed, and the Respondent, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation, was deemed the prevailing party.






Study Guide – 17F-H1717038-REL


Study Guide: Larson v. Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case between homeowners James and Shawna Larson and the Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms based on the provided legal documents.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this case, and what was their relationship?

2. What was the initial reason given by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Suzanne Marwil for recommending the dismissal of the Larsons’ petition?

3. Why did the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, reject the initial recommendation for dismissal?

4. What was the central dispute that was ultimately decided in the November 20, 2017, hearing?

5. According to the final Administrative Law Judge Decision, what is the legal classification of the petitioners’ patio cover?

6. Which specific sections of the CC&Rs did the Respondent, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation, cite as the basis for its authority?

7. What key reasons did project manager Wayne King provide to justify the necessity of removing the patio covers for the painting project?

8. Describe the significant difference in the cost estimates for removing and replacing the patio cover as presented by the Petitioners versus the Respondent’s project manager.

9. What was the final ruling regarding who was financially responsible for the removal and potential reinstallation of the patio cover?

10. What was the ultimate outcome of the Larsons’ petition following the final hearing, and which party was deemed the “prevailing party”?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioners, homeowners James and Shawna Larson, and the Respondent, the Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation, which is their homeowner’s association (HOA). The dispute arose from the HOA’s plan to repair and paint the building exteriors.

2. ALJ Marwil initially recommended dismissal due to a “lack of justiciable controversy.” She found that the Petitioners had failed to cite any provision of the CC&Rs that the Respondent had currently violated, as the threatened action to remove the patio cover was speculative and had not yet occurred.

3. Commissioner Lowe rejected the dismissal because she found the matter was “ripe for adjudication.” Her decision was based on a June 1, 2017 letter from the Respondent that questioned whether “the presence of the awning [is] a violation of the Association’s governing documents,” which she interpreted as the Respondent alleging a violation.

4. The central dispute was whether the Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation had the authority to mandate that homeowners, specifically the Larsons, remove their patio covers at their own expense to facilitate a building repair and painting project.

5. The final decision classifies the Petitioners’ patio cover as a “limited common element” within the meaning of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1212(4). This classification was crucial to determining financial responsibility.

6. The Respondent cited sections 9 and 9(b) of the CC&Rs. Section 9(b) makes the Respondent responsible for maintaining building exteriors, and section 9 grants it the authority to take “Any cooperative action necessary or appropriate to the proper maintenance and upkeep” of those exteriors.

7. Wayne King testified that removal was necessary to properly and safely complete the work using scaffolding, as required by modern safety laws. He also stated that removal was needed to repair improperly flashed areas behind the covers and to ensure the painting contractor would provide a warranty for the project.

8. The Petitioners presented bids showing the cost to remove and rebuild the cover would be between $3,980 and $5,975. In contrast, Mr. King opined these estimates were very high and that the cost should be closer to $1,000 if existing materials were reused.

9. The final ruling, based on ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1255(C), was that the Petitioners must bear the cost of removing the patio cover and, if they choose, the cost of reinstalling it. This is because the patio cover is a limited common element assigned specifically to their unit.

10. The final outcome was the dismissal of the Larsons’ petition. The Respondent, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation, was deemed the prevailing party in the matter.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis. Use the provided documents to construct a detailed, evidence-based response.

1. Trace the procedural history of this case from the initial filing to the final decision. Discuss the key turning points, including the initial recommendation for dismissal, its rejection by the Commissioner, and the reasoning behind the final judgment.

2. Analyze the legal arguments presented by both the Petitioners and the Respondent in the November 2017 hearing. On what specific statutes and CC&R provisions did each side rely, and how did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately interpret these documents?

3. Evaluate the role of expert testimony in this case, specifically focusing on the evidence provided by project manager Wayne King. How did his testimony regarding safety, project requirements, and cost estimates influence the Administrative Law Judge’s findings on the reasonableness of the Respondent’s actions?

4. Discuss the legal concept of a “limited common element” as defined and applied in the source documents. Explain how this classification was central to the final decision regarding financial responsibility for the patio cover’s removal and reinstallation.

5. The initial Administrative Law Judge found no “justiciable controversy,” while the Commissioner later found the matter “ripe for adjudication.” Based on the details in all three documents, explain the arguments for both positions and analyze why the case ultimately proceeded to a full hearing.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition from Source Context

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official in the Office of Administrative Hearings who adjudicates complaints regarding condominium and planned community documents and ensures compliance with relevant statutes.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. The documents that govern the community and are described as a contract between the homeowner’s association and the homeowners.

Justiciable Controversy

A real dispute that a tribunal has the authority to resolve. The initial petition was recommended for dismissal for a lack of a justiciable controversy because the Respondent’s threatened actions were deemed speculative.

Limited Common Element

A legal classification for property defined under ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1212(4). In this case, the Petitioners’ patio cover was classified as such, meaning any common expense associated with its maintenance, repair, or replacement is assessed against the unit to which it is assigned.

Petition

The formal document filed with the Department of Real Estate to initiate a complaint against a homeowner’s association.

Petitioner

The party that files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, the homeowners James and Shawna Larson.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this matter, defined as “The greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Prevailing Party

The party that is successful in a legal dispute. In the final order, the Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation.

Ripe for Adjudication

A term used by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate to indicate that a dispute is ready to be formally heard and decided by the Administrative Law Judge.






Blog Post – 17F-H1717038-REL


Select all sources