Tag Archives: HOA Dispute

Michael H. Jahr v. Leisure World Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H032-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-03-14
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michael H. Jahr Counsel —
Respondent Leisure World Community Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1816(a-b)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied Petitioner Michael H. Jahr's petition, concluding that he failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated ARS § 33-1816, because a clothesline is not a 'solar energy device' under ARS § 44-1761, and ARS § 33-439(a) was inapplicable.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof that the Association violated ARS § 33-1816. The Tribunal determined that a clothesline does not meet the statutory definition of a solar energy device.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of ARS § 33-1816 regarding denial of utilizing solar means to reduce energy consumption.

Petitioner alleged the Association violated ARS § 33-1816 by refusing him the ability to utilize solar means (a clothesline) to reduce energy consumption, arguing the clothesline met the definition of a 'solar energy device' under ARS § 44-1761, which the HOA cannot prohibit.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied. Respondent was ordered not to owe Petitioner any reimbursement for fees incurred.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1816(a-b)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 44-1761
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-439(a)
  • Association Rules & Regulations 2-304(D)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Solar Energy Device, Clothesline, Planned Community, Statutory Interpretation, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-439(a)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808(a)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1816(a-b)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 44-1761
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-111(4)
  • Association Rules & Regulations 2-304(D)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H032-REL Decision – 1041743.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:59 (161.1 KB)

23F-H032-REL Decision – 1057366.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:04 (55.7 KB)

Questions

Question

Can my HOA prohibit me from using a clothesline in my backyard?

Short Answer

Yes, if the community rules prohibit them.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that an HOA can prohibit clotheslines because they do not qualify as protected solar energy devices under Arizona law. In this case, the association's rules explicitly prohibited clotheslines visible from outside the residence.

Alj Quote

Based on the relevant and credible evidence of record… the Tribunal finds that a clothesline is not a solar energy device. Moreover, Petitioner knew or should have known that clotheslines were prohibited by the Association under Rules & Regulations 2-304(D).

Legal Basis

Rules & Regulations 2-304(D); ARS 33-1816

Topic Tags

  • architectural_control
  • prohibited_items
  • solar_energy

Question

Is a clothesline considered a 'solar energy device' legally protected by Arizona statute?

Short Answer

No, a clothesline does not meet the statutory definition of a solar energy device.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarified that a clothesline does not fit the legal definition of a 'solar energy device' (specifically a 'system or series of mechanisms') under A.R.S. § 44-1761, and therefore does not enjoy the statutory protection that voids HOA restrictions on solar devices.

Alj Quote

Based on the relevant and credible evidence of record, including the aforementioned germane statutory definitions, and lacking any binding citations offered from a court of competent jurisdiction, the Tribunal finds that a clothesline is not a solar energy device.

Legal Basis

ARS 44-1761(8); ARS 33-439(a)

Topic Tags

  • solar_energy
  • definitions
  • statutory_interpretation

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner challenging an HOA decision?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

When a homeowner petitions for a hearing, they bear the burden of proving that the HOA violated community documents or statutes. The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more probable than not that the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated a community document.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden_of_proof
  • legal_standards
  • hearing_procedure

Question

Can I be reimbursed for my filing fees if I lose the hearing?

Short Answer

No, reimbursement is generally not awarded if the petition is denied.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ordered that because the petition was denied, the HOA did not owe the homeowner any reimbursement for fees incurred during the filing process.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent does not owe Petitioner any reimbursement(s) for fees incurred in association with the filing of this petition.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • penalties

Question

Are CC&Rs considered a binding contract?

Short Answer

Yes, CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the HOA and the homeowner.

Detailed Answer

The decision affirms that when a property is purchased within a planned community, the buyer agrees to be bound by the CC&Rs, which function as a contract.

Alj Quote

Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner.

Legal Basis

Common Law

Topic Tags

  • cc&rs
  • contract_law
  • governing_documents

Question

Can I use a flag pole sleeve for something other than a flag, like a clothesline?

Short Answer

No, if the permit was granted specifically for a flag pole.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the homeowner obtained a permit for a flag pole sleeve but used it for a clothesline. The HOA was entitled to issue a violation notice because the use differed from the approved purpose and violated other rules.

Alj Quote

Respondent did, however, grant Petitioner’s sleeve request with the explicit instruction that its use was for the purpose of flag display… As such, the Association’s October 31, 2022, VIOLATION NOTICE was not issued unlawfully or in error.

Legal Basis

ARS 33-1808(a)

Topic Tags

  • architectural_requests
  • permits
  • flag_poles

Question

How do courts interpret words in statutes that aren't explicitly defined?

Short Answer

They use the ordinary meaning of the words, often consulting dictionaries.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ looked to the 'natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning' of words. Since the statute did not define 'clothesline,' the judge consulted Merriam Webster to define terms like 'system' and 'mechanism' to see if a clothesline fit the description.

Alj Quote

Words should be given 'their natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning.'… BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY does not define 'clothesline' or 'solar energy device.' Per Merriam Webster, however, 'system' means a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole

Legal Basis

Statutory Construction Principles

Topic Tags

  • legal_standards
  • definitions
  • interpretation

Question

What is the deadline for filing a request for a rehearing?

Short Answer

30 days from the service of the order.

Detailed Answer

If a party wishes to request a rehearing, they must file it with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the decision.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this ORDER upon the parties.

Legal Basis

ARS 41-1092.09

Topic Tags

  • appeals
  • deadlines
  • procedural_requirements

Case

Docket No
23F-H032-REL
Case Title
Michael H. Jahr vs. Leisure World Community Association
Decision Date
2023-03-14
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA prohibit me from using a clothesline in my backyard?

Short Answer

Yes, if the community rules prohibit them.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that an HOA can prohibit clotheslines because they do not qualify as protected solar energy devices under Arizona law. In this case, the association's rules explicitly prohibited clotheslines visible from outside the residence.

Alj Quote

Based on the relevant and credible evidence of record… the Tribunal finds that a clothesline is not a solar energy device. Moreover, Petitioner knew or should have known that clotheslines were prohibited by the Association under Rules & Regulations 2-304(D).

Legal Basis

Rules & Regulations 2-304(D); ARS 33-1816

Topic Tags

  • architectural_control
  • prohibited_items
  • solar_energy

Question

Is a clothesline considered a 'solar energy device' legally protected by Arizona statute?

Short Answer

No, a clothesline does not meet the statutory definition of a solar energy device.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarified that a clothesline does not fit the legal definition of a 'solar energy device' (specifically a 'system or series of mechanisms') under A.R.S. § 44-1761, and therefore does not enjoy the statutory protection that voids HOA restrictions on solar devices.

Alj Quote

Based on the relevant and credible evidence of record, including the aforementioned germane statutory definitions, and lacking any binding citations offered from a court of competent jurisdiction, the Tribunal finds that a clothesline is not a solar energy device.

Legal Basis

ARS 44-1761(8); ARS 33-439(a)

Topic Tags

  • solar_energy
  • definitions
  • statutory_interpretation

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner challenging an HOA decision?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

When a homeowner petitions for a hearing, they bear the burden of proving that the HOA violated community documents or statutes. The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more probable than not that the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated a community document.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden_of_proof
  • legal_standards
  • hearing_procedure

Question

Can I be reimbursed for my filing fees if I lose the hearing?

Short Answer

No, reimbursement is generally not awarded if the petition is denied.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ordered that because the petition was denied, the HOA did not owe the homeowner any reimbursement for fees incurred during the filing process.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent does not owe Petitioner any reimbursement(s) for fees incurred in association with the filing of this petition.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • penalties

Question

Are CC&Rs considered a binding contract?

Short Answer

Yes, CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the HOA and the homeowner.

Detailed Answer

The decision affirms that when a property is purchased within a planned community, the buyer agrees to be bound by the CC&Rs, which function as a contract.

Alj Quote

Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner.

Legal Basis

Common Law

Topic Tags

  • cc&rs
  • contract_law
  • governing_documents

Question

Can I use a flag pole sleeve for something other than a flag, like a clothesline?

Short Answer

No, if the permit was granted specifically for a flag pole.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the homeowner obtained a permit for a flag pole sleeve but used it for a clothesline. The HOA was entitled to issue a violation notice because the use differed from the approved purpose and violated other rules.

Alj Quote

Respondent did, however, grant Petitioner’s sleeve request with the explicit instruction that its use was for the purpose of flag display… As such, the Association’s October 31, 2022, VIOLATION NOTICE was not issued unlawfully or in error.

Legal Basis

ARS 33-1808(a)

Topic Tags

  • architectural_requests
  • permits
  • flag_poles

Question

How do courts interpret words in statutes that aren't explicitly defined?

Short Answer

They use the ordinary meaning of the words, often consulting dictionaries.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ looked to the 'natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning' of words. Since the statute did not define 'clothesline,' the judge consulted Merriam Webster to define terms like 'system' and 'mechanism' to see if a clothesline fit the description.

Alj Quote

Words should be given 'their natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning.'… BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY does not define 'clothesline' or 'solar energy device.' Per Merriam Webster, however, 'system' means a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole

Legal Basis

Statutory Construction Principles

Topic Tags

  • legal_standards
  • definitions
  • interpretation

Question

What is the deadline for filing a request for a rehearing?

Short Answer

30 days from the service of the order.

Detailed Answer

If a party wishes to request a rehearing, they must file it with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the decision.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this ORDER upon the parties.

Legal Basis

ARS 41-1092.09

Topic Tags

  • appeals
  • deadlines
  • procedural_requirements

Case

Docket No
23F-H032-REL
Case Title
Michael H. Jahr vs. Leisure World Community Association
Decision Date
2023-03-14
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Michael H. Jahr (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Daniel Clark Collier (assistant community manager)
    Leisure World Community Association
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent and testified as a witness
  • Regis Salazar (witness)
    Testified for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
    ADRE
    Recipient of recommended decision

Other Participants

  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of electronic transmission
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of electronic transmission
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of electronic transmission
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of electronic transmission

Randall White v. Quail Creek Villas Association Inc

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H004-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-12-29
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Randall White Counsel —
Respondent Quail Creek Villas Association Inc. Counsel Carolyn Goldschmidt

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842; Quail Creek Villas Association Inc. Bylaws Art. III Sec. 2

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the petition because the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated community documents or statutes. The ALJ noted that Petitioner lacked the authority to request the inspection on behalf of the HOA, and one primary statute cited (ARS § 10-3842) was inapplicable/outside jurisdiction.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof regarding the alleged statutory and community document violations. The ALJ found Petitioner lacked the authority to act for the Association, and the inspection had not yet commenced when directed to stop.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged interference with wildfire risk assessment

Petitioner alleged Respondent stopped the Green Valley Fire Department's in-progress wildfire risk assessment, interfering with the assessment and failing to act in good faith or in the best interests of the Corporation.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied. All pending post-hearing motions were denied as moot.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • Quail Creek Villas Association Inc. Bylaws Art. III Sec. 2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA dispute, wildfire risk, homeowner authority, jurisdiction, planned community
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • Quail Creek Villas Association Inc. Bylaws Art. III Sec. 2
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/5mGhwonFTvuMYwkSno8Fwh

Decision Documents

23F-H004-REL Decision – 1002376.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:26 (40.8 KB)

23F-H004-REL Decision – 1002517.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:29 (5.8 KB)

23F-H004-REL Decision – 1014952.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:33 (45.6 KB)

23F-H004-REL Decision – 1020817.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:36 (55.1 KB)

23F-H004-REL Decision – 1022445.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:39 (170.8 KB)

Questions

Question

Can an individual homeowner authorize vendors or government agencies to perform inspections on HOA common property?

Short Answer

No. Unless explicitly granted permission by the governing documents, an individual homeowner does not have the authority to act on behalf of the Association.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that a homeowner cannot unilaterally request services, such as a fire inspection, for the entire subdivision. The authority to manage association affairs and property generally resides with the Board of Directors.

Alj Quote

Here, the record reflects that Petitioner did not have the authority or permission to act on behalf of the Association to request that GVFD perform a wild fire inspection in and for the Quail Creek Villas subdivision.

Legal Basis

Association Bylaws Art. III, Section 2; ARS 33-1802

Topic Tags

  • Homeowner Authority
  • Common Area Inspections
  • Board Powers

Question

Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The person bringing the complaint must prove their case. The HOA does not inherently have to disprove the allegations; the homeowner must first provide sufficient evidence that a violation occurred.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

Legal Basis

Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Hearing Procedures

Question

Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over the standards of conduct for corporate officers (ARS Title 10)?

Short Answer

No. The Department's jurisdiction is limited to specific real estate and planned community statutes.

Detailed Answer

Allegations regarding the general corporate conduct of officers under Title 10 (Corporations and Associations) generally fall outside the scope of the administrative hearing process provided by the Department of Real Estate.

Alj Quote

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842, Corporations and Association – Standards of Conduct for Officers, is outside the jurisdiction of the Department and inapplicable to this matter.

Legal Basis

Jurisdictional Limits

Topic Tags

  • Jurisdiction
  • Corporate Law
  • Officer Conduct

Question

What is the 'preponderance of the evidence' standard used in these hearings?

Short Answer

It means the evidence shows the claim is 'more probably true than not'.

Detailed Answer

This is the standard of proof required in civil and administrative hearings. It is a lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' used in criminal cases. It essentially means the evidence must tip the scale slightly in favor of the petitioner.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Evidence

Question

If I accidentally email my evidence to the wrong email address for the HOA's attorney, will it still be admitted?

Short Answer

Likely not. The responsibility for properly serving evidence lies with the person sending it.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that if a petitioner misspells the opposing counsel's email address, resulting in the evidence not being received, the petitioner is responsible for that error, and the evidence may be excluded.

Alj Quote

Thus, Petitioner bore the onus of any mishandling/compromise of his proposed hearing exhibits.

Legal Basis

Procedural Rules

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Procedure
  • Mistakes

Question

Can I cite general statutes or non-existent statutes in my petition?

Short Answer

No, you must cite specific, valid statutes. Citing non-existent codes weakens the case.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that the petitioner cited statutes that did not exist (e.g., ARS 33-9). While the judge may try to interpret the intent based on evidence, relying on invalid statutes makes it difficult to sustain the burden of proof.

Alj Quote

The conundrum of Petitioner’s confusing reliance on statutes that do not exist and/or are outside the jurisdiction of the Department is solved, in large part, based on the substantive evidence of record.

Legal Basis

Statutory Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • Legal Research
  • Petition Drafting

Question

What is the deadline for requesting a rehearing if I disagree with the decision?

Short Answer

30 days from the date the order is served.

Detailed Answer

If a party wishes to contest the ALJ's decision, they must file a request for a rehearing with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this ORDER upon the parties.

Legal Basis

ARS 41-1092.09

Topic Tags

  • Appeals
  • Deadlines

Case

Docket No
23F-H004-REL
Case Title
Randall White vs. Quail Creek Villas Association Inc.
Decision Date
2022-12-29
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can an individual homeowner authorize vendors or government agencies to perform inspections on HOA common property?

Short Answer

No. Unless explicitly granted permission by the governing documents, an individual homeowner does not have the authority to act on behalf of the Association.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that a homeowner cannot unilaterally request services, such as a fire inspection, for the entire subdivision. The authority to manage association affairs and property generally resides with the Board of Directors.

Alj Quote

Here, the record reflects that Petitioner did not have the authority or permission to act on behalf of the Association to request that GVFD perform a wild fire inspection in and for the Quail Creek Villas subdivision.

Legal Basis

Association Bylaws Art. III, Section 2; ARS 33-1802

Topic Tags

  • Homeowner Authority
  • Common Area Inspections
  • Board Powers

Question

Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The person bringing the complaint must prove their case. The HOA does not inherently have to disprove the allegations; the homeowner must first provide sufficient evidence that a violation occurred.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

Legal Basis

Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Hearing Procedures

Question

Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over the standards of conduct for corporate officers (ARS Title 10)?

Short Answer

No. The Department's jurisdiction is limited to specific real estate and planned community statutes.

Detailed Answer

Allegations regarding the general corporate conduct of officers under Title 10 (Corporations and Associations) generally fall outside the scope of the administrative hearing process provided by the Department of Real Estate.

Alj Quote

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842, Corporations and Association – Standards of Conduct for Officers, is outside the jurisdiction of the Department and inapplicable to this matter.

Legal Basis

Jurisdictional Limits

Topic Tags

  • Jurisdiction
  • Corporate Law
  • Officer Conduct

Question

What is the 'preponderance of the evidence' standard used in these hearings?

Short Answer

It means the evidence shows the claim is 'more probably true than not'.

Detailed Answer

This is the standard of proof required in civil and administrative hearings. It is a lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' used in criminal cases. It essentially means the evidence must tip the scale slightly in favor of the petitioner.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Evidence

Question

If I accidentally email my evidence to the wrong email address for the HOA's attorney, will it still be admitted?

Short Answer

Likely not. The responsibility for properly serving evidence lies with the person sending it.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that if a petitioner misspells the opposing counsel's email address, resulting in the evidence not being received, the petitioner is responsible for that error, and the evidence may be excluded.

Alj Quote

Thus, Petitioner bore the onus of any mishandling/compromise of his proposed hearing exhibits.

Legal Basis

Procedural Rules

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Procedure
  • Mistakes

Question

Can I cite general statutes or non-existent statutes in my petition?

Short Answer

No, you must cite specific, valid statutes. Citing non-existent codes weakens the case.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that the petitioner cited statutes that did not exist (e.g., ARS 33-9). While the judge may try to interpret the intent based on evidence, relying on invalid statutes makes it difficult to sustain the burden of proof.

Alj Quote

The conundrum of Petitioner’s confusing reliance on statutes that do not exist and/or are outside the jurisdiction of the Department is solved, in large part, based on the substantive evidence of record.

Legal Basis

Statutory Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • Legal Research
  • Petition Drafting

Question

What is the deadline for requesting a rehearing if I disagree with the decision?

Short Answer

30 days from the date the order is served.

Detailed Answer

If a party wishes to contest the ALJ's decision, they must file a request for a rehearing with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this ORDER upon the parties.

Legal Basis

ARS 41-1092.09

Topic Tags

  • Appeals
  • Deadlines

Case

Docket No
23F-H004-REL
Case Title
Randall White vs. Quail Creek Villas Association Inc.
Decision Date
2022-12-29
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Randall White (petitioner)
    Quail Creek Villas homeowner
    Appeared on his own behalf.

Respondent Side

  • Carolyn B. Goldschmidt (HOA attorney)
    Goldschmidt | Shupe LLC
    Counsel for Respondent.
  • Lori Wuollet (community manager)
    CAD Community Management
    Witness for Respondent; also known as Lori Don Wlette or Gloria Wlette.
  • John Messner (board member)
    Quail Creek Villas Association Inc.
    Vice President and witness for Respondent.
  • Robert Jelen (board member)
    Quail Creek Villas Association Inc.
    President and witness for Respondent; sometimes referred to as Bob Kellen.
  • Max Tittle (board member)
    Quail Creek Villas Association Inc.
    Also referred to as Max Tibble or Matt Tittle.
  • Diane (board member)
    Quail Creek Villas Association Inc.
    Mentioned by Petitioner as a board member.

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
    Presided over the hearing and issued the decision.
  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    OAH
    Signed minute entries (Sept 27, 2022) and order regarding virtual appearance (Nov 28, 2022).
  • John O'Campo (fire inspector)
    Green Valley Fire Department
    Contacted by Petitioner regarding wildfire assessment.
  • Roger Thompson (fire inspector)
    Green Valley Fire Department
    Parallel to John O'Campo; communicated with Petitioner and Respondent's board member.
  • Corey Guerin (inspector)
    AZ Dept Forestry & Fire Management
    Performed the Firewise assessment on November 3, 2022.
  • Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
    OAH
    Signed transmission lists.
  • c. serrano (Staff)
    OAH
    Clerical staff involved in document transmission.

Other Participants

  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official transmissions.
  • AHansen (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official transmissions.
  • vnunez (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official transmissions.
  • djones (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official transmissions.
  • labril (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official transmissions.

Matthew E Thompson v. Deer Valley Homeowners Association Inc

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H003-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-12-20
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Matthew E Thompson Counsel —
Respondent Deer Valley Homeowners Association Inc. Counsel Beth Mulcahy, Esq. & Haidyn Di Lorenzo, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Sun City West Dec CC&Rs Article 4.2(F); Deer Valley CC&Rs Articles 1.16, 6.2, 2.3, 7.1, 7.3; Deer Valley HOA Rules & Regulations ¶ 7.1 and 7.2

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Association violated community documents by failing to replace trees on Member lots. The CC&Rs did not establish a duty for the HOA to replace homeowner trees.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; Petitioner was not an aggrieved party; Petitioner failed to establish causation by Respondent or duty to act by Respondent; trees belong to homeowners, and the Deer Valley CC&Rs do not require the HOA to replace trees under its maintenance obligations.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Respondent is responsible for replacing dead and/or dying trees on all Member Lots in accordance with cited community documents.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated governing documents by failing to replace dead trees on member lots, and sought an order compelling the replacement of 59 missing trees (at a rate of 10 per year).

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Sun City West Dec CC&Rs Article 4.2(F)
  • Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 1.16
  • Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 6.2
  • Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 2.3
  • Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 7.1
  • Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 7.3
  • Deer Valley HOA Rules & Regulations ¶ 7.1
  • Deer Valley HOA Rules & Regulations ¶ 7.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA dispute, Landscape maintenance, Tree replacement, Burden of proof, Standing
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/5BS0I2CnFcymzyVTyrUWvP

Decision Documents

23F-H003-REL Decision – 1001043.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:08 (58.8 KB)

23F-H003-REL Decision – 1001154.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:14 (7.1 KB)

23F-H003-REL Decision – 1021049.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:17 (133.5 KB)

23F-H003-REL Decision – 999666.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:20 (53.9 KB)

Questions

Question

If the CC&Rs require the HOA to perform 'maintenance', does that legally obligate them to replace dead plants or trees?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. The term 'maintenance' does not automatically include 'replacement' unless specified in the governing documents.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the HOA was found not to be in violation for refusing to replace trees because the CC&Rs governed 'maintenance,' which was interpreted as distinct from a requirement to replace items owned by the homeowner. The ALJ ruled the homeowner failed to prove the HOA had a duty to replace the trees.

Alj Quote

The Board declined Petitioner’s request, as it had concluded that the Deer Valley CC&Rs did not require replacement of trees under its maintenance obligations.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation / CC&Rs

Topic Tags

  • Maintenance vs Replacement
  • CC&Rs
  • Landscaping

Question

Can I file a petition against my HOA on behalf of the entire community regarding a general issue?

Short Answer

No. You must be an 'aggrieved party' with a specific injury to yourself or your property.

Detailed Answer

A homeowner cannot sue on behalf of other community members. To have standing, the petitioner must demonstrate that they personally suffered an injury. In this case, the petitioner had no dead trees on his own lot, so he was not considered an aggrieved party.

Alj Quote

Here, Petitioner is not an aggrieved party. Petitioner admitted that he brought forth his petition 'on behalf of all community members' and did not have a dead, dying, or missing tree on his lot.

Legal Basis

Standing / Aggrieved Party Status

Topic Tags

  • Standing
  • Procedural Requirements

Question

Can I argue that my neighbor's violations are diminishing my property value in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

Generally, no, unless you have concrete evidence and it is a justiciable issue.

Detailed Answer

Claims that a neighbor's lack of maintenance (like dead trees) negatively impacts your property value may be dismissed as irrelevant or unsupported without significant proof. The tribunal may consider this non-justiciable.

Alj Quote

Notably, Petitioner’s allegation that his lot’s value has been diminished by neighboring lots due to their dead, dying, and/or missing trees is irrelevant, not supported by the record, and is not a justiciable issue for this tribunal.

Legal Basis

Evidence / Justiciable Issues

Topic Tags

  • Property Value
  • Evidence

Question

If I pay a filing fee for one issue, can I add other complaints to the hearing later?

Short Answer

No. The tribunal will only address the specific issue for which the filing fee was paid.

Detailed Answer

Administrative hearings are limited in scope to the specific issues properly petitioned and paid for. Tangential issues raised in addendums or during the hearing will likely not be adjudicated if a separate fee was not paid.

Alj Quote

Because Petitioner only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may not address all of the tangential issues Petitioner raised in the addendum to his petition.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05

Topic Tags

  • Filing Fees
  • Scope of Hearing

Question

Does the HOA have the authority to remove items (like trees) from my private lot without permission?

Short Answer

No, unless the governing documents explicitly grant that authority.

Detailed Answer

The HOA generally cannot enter a homeowner's lot to remove property, such as trees, without the owner's permission, unless the record establishes specific authority to do so.

Alj Quote

There is nothing in the record that establishes Respondent has the authority to remove a tree from a homeowner’s lot without permission, or that Respondent has done so in the past.

Legal Basis

Property Rights / HOA Authority

Topic Tags

  • Homeowner Rights
  • Trespass/Authority

Question

What level of proof is required for a homeowner to win a case against their HOA?

Short Answer

The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The petitioner must prove that their claim is more likely true than not. This is a lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' used in criminal cases, but still requires superior evidentiary weight.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Evidence

Question

Can I base my claim on the 'Master Association' CC&Rs if my specific HOA CC&Rs say something different?

Short Answer

Generally, the specific HOA CC&Rs form the enforceable contract for maintenance issues within that specific subdivision.

Detailed Answer

While a Master Association may have its own rules, the specific subdivision's CC&Rs are often the controlling documents regarding maintenance obligations for lots within that subdivision. The ALJ focused on the specific HOA's documents to determine liability.

Alj Quote

The record reflects that the Deer Valley CC&Rs govern landscaping maintenance for the Association… [and] did not require Respondent to replace dead, dying, or missing trees within the Association

Legal Basis

Governing Documents Hierarchy

Topic Tags

  • CC&Rs
  • Master Association

Case

Docket No
23F-H003-REL
Case Title
Matthew E Thompson vs. Deer Valley Homeowners Association Inc.
Decision Date
2022-12-20
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

If the CC&Rs require the HOA to perform 'maintenance', does that legally obligate them to replace dead plants or trees?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. The term 'maintenance' does not automatically include 'replacement' unless specified in the governing documents.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the HOA was found not to be in violation for refusing to replace trees because the CC&Rs governed 'maintenance,' which was interpreted as distinct from a requirement to replace items owned by the homeowner. The ALJ ruled the homeowner failed to prove the HOA had a duty to replace the trees.

Alj Quote

The Board declined Petitioner’s request, as it had concluded that the Deer Valley CC&Rs did not require replacement of trees under its maintenance obligations.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation / CC&Rs

Topic Tags

  • Maintenance vs Replacement
  • CC&Rs
  • Landscaping

Question

Can I file a petition against my HOA on behalf of the entire community regarding a general issue?

Short Answer

No. You must be an 'aggrieved party' with a specific injury to yourself or your property.

Detailed Answer

A homeowner cannot sue on behalf of other community members. To have standing, the petitioner must demonstrate that they personally suffered an injury. In this case, the petitioner had no dead trees on his own lot, so he was not considered an aggrieved party.

Alj Quote

Here, Petitioner is not an aggrieved party. Petitioner admitted that he brought forth his petition 'on behalf of all community members' and did not have a dead, dying, or missing tree on his lot.

Legal Basis

Standing / Aggrieved Party Status

Topic Tags

  • Standing
  • Procedural Requirements

Question

Can I argue that my neighbor's violations are diminishing my property value in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

Generally, no, unless you have concrete evidence and it is a justiciable issue.

Detailed Answer

Claims that a neighbor's lack of maintenance (like dead trees) negatively impacts your property value may be dismissed as irrelevant or unsupported without significant proof. The tribunal may consider this non-justiciable.

Alj Quote

Notably, Petitioner’s allegation that his lot’s value has been diminished by neighboring lots due to their dead, dying, and/or missing trees is irrelevant, not supported by the record, and is not a justiciable issue for this tribunal.

Legal Basis

Evidence / Justiciable Issues

Topic Tags

  • Property Value
  • Evidence

Question

If I pay a filing fee for one issue, can I add other complaints to the hearing later?

Short Answer

No. The tribunal will only address the specific issue for which the filing fee was paid.

Detailed Answer

Administrative hearings are limited in scope to the specific issues properly petitioned and paid for. Tangential issues raised in addendums or during the hearing will likely not be adjudicated if a separate fee was not paid.

Alj Quote

Because Petitioner only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may not address all of the tangential issues Petitioner raised in the addendum to his petition.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05

Topic Tags

  • Filing Fees
  • Scope of Hearing

Question

Does the HOA have the authority to remove items (like trees) from my private lot without permission?

Short Answer

No, unless the governing documents explicitly grant that authority.

Detailed Answer

The HOA generally cannot enter a homeowner's lot to remove property, such as trees, without the owner's permission, unless the record establishes specific authority to do so.

Alj Quote

There is nothing in the record that establishes Respondent has the authority to remove a tree from a homeowner’s lot without permission, or that Respondent has done so in the past.

Legal Basis

Property Rights / HOA Authority

Topic Tags

  • Homeowner Rights
  • Trespass/Authority

Question

What level of proof is required for a homeowner to win a case against their HOA?

Short Answer

The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The petitioner must prove that their claim is more likely true than not. This is a lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' used in criminal cases, but still requires superior evidentiary weight.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Evidence

Question

Can I base my claim on the 'Master Association' CC&Rs if my specific HOA CC&Rs say something different?

Short Answer

Generally, the specific HOA CC&Rs form the enforceable contract for maintenance issues within that specific subdivision.

Detailed Answer

While a Master Association may have its own rules, the specific subdivision's CC&Rs are often the controlling documents regarding maintenance obligations for lots within that subdivision. The ALJ focused on the specific HOA's documents to determine liability.

Alj Quote

The record reflects that the Deer Valley CC&Rs govern landscaping maintenance for the Association… [and] did not require Respondent to replace dead, dying, or missing trees within the Association

Legal Basis

Governing Documents Hierarchy

Topic Tags

  • CC&Rs
  • Master Association

Case

Docket No
23F-H003-REL
Case Title
Matthew E Thompson vs. Deer Valley Homeowners Association Inc.
Decision Date
2022-12-20
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Matthew E Thompson (petitioner)
    Also referred to as Mathew E. Thompson; Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Beth Mulcahy (HOA attorney)
    Mulcahy Law Firm, PC
    Also referred to as Beth Mohei, Beth Moi, or Beth Mali
  • Haidyn DiLorenzo (HOA attorney)
    Mulcahy Law Firm, PC
    Also referred to as Hayden Dorenzo
  • Charles Dean Otto (Board President; witness)
    Deer Valley Homeowners Association Inc.
    Also referred to as Charles Deano; President of the board of management

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge

Other Participants

  • Louis Dettorre (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Dan Gardener (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Constituent Services Manager
  • Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
    Transmitted electronic order
  • c. serrano (OAH staff)
    OAH
    Transmitted Minute Entry
  • Sam Muza (Contractor President)
    Verde Valley Landscape Services
    Signed contract with HOA
  • Charlene Frost (homeowner)
    Filed Request for Exterior Change application
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official correspondence
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official correspondence
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official correspondence
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official correspondence

Elieen Ahearn and Robert Barfield v. High Lonesome Ranch Estates

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H002-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-11-17
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Eileen Ahearn Counsel —
Respondent High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association Counsel Jason Smith, Esq.

Alleged Violations

HLR CCR 6.2.1 and HLR Association Rules: Nominating and Election Committee Mission and Procedures (approved 19 July 2021)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge upheld the Petition, finding the Respondent HOA violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures by refusing to count otherwise valid couriered ballots and subsequent in-person attempts to vote at the July 5, 2022 Special Election. Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party and awarded the $500 filing fee refund, and the HOA was assessed a $500 civil penalty.

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of the right to vote in Removal/Recall Special Election

Petitioners alleged they were denied the right to vote in the July 5, 2022 Removal/Recall Special Election after their initial ballots (couriered prior to the meeting) were rejected for lacking a postmark, and their subsequent attempts to cast new ballots in person were rejected for reasons including 'double voting' or being 'too late.' The ALJ found the HOA violated its established election procedures.

Orders: The Petition was upheld, and Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioners their $500.00 filing fee and pay a civil penalty of $500.00 to the Department.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $500.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • HLR CCR 6.2.1
  • Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Election Violation, Voting Rights, CCNR, Recall Election, Filing Fee Refund, Civil Penalty
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • 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
  • HLR CCR 6.2.1
  • Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures

Video Overview

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/20wrMO7dIOJYlU7OS8wGNN

Decision Documents

23F-H002-REL Decision – 1009442.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:47 (60.1 KB)

23F-H002-REL Decision – 1013289.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:50 (127.8 KB)

23F-H002-REL Decision – 996298.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:54 (54.8 KB)

23F-H002-REL Decision – 996319.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:58 (7.5 KB)

Questions

Question

Can my HOA refuse to count a ballot simply because it was delivered by a courier or neighbor rather than mailed?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA's procedures do not explicitly forbid couriers and it has been past practice, they cannot reject ballots solely for lacking a postmark.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that the HOA violated its procedures by rejecting ballots placed in the ballot box prior to the election (via courier) simply because they lacked postmarks. The judge noted that the custodian of the box did not believe it was a problem and there was no reason for homeowners to believe they couldn't do so.

Alj Quote

Respondent violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures when the Elections Committee Chair… refused to count Petitioners’ and other homeowners’ ballots that had been placed in the ballot box prior to the election… There was also no reason for Petitioners or the other homeowners to believe that they could not place their ballots in the ballot box prior to the election and have those ballots counted.

Legal Basis

Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures

Topic Tags

  • elections
  • ballots
  • couriers
  • voting rights

Question

What are valid reasons for an HOA to consider a ballot ineligible or spoiled?

Short Answer

Valid reasons typically include incorrect vote counts, unconfirmed ownership, illegibility, unsigned envelopes, or lack of good standing.

Detailed Answer

The decision outlines specific criteria for invalidating ballots found in the HOA's procedures. Arbitrary reasons not listed in the governing documents (like lack of a postmark when not required) are not valid grounds for rejection.

Alj Quote

Reasons a ballot may not be valid include incorrect number of votes, lot ownership cannot be confirmed, ballot is illegible, ballot envelope is not signed, or a member is not in good standing.

Legal Basis

Association Election Procedures

Topic Tags

  • elections
  • ballot validity
  • rules

Question

Is the HOA obligated to try to count votes rather than looking for reasons to disqualify them?

Short Answer

Yes. If the election procedures state that every effort will be made to count votes to ensure fairness, the HOA must adhere to that standard.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ cited the HOA's own mission statement which promised to make every effort to count votes. Rejecting ballots for minor procedural issues (like lacking a postmark) when the voters are present and eligible violates this obligation.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures state that 'every effort will be made to count as many votes as possible assuring a fair, open and honest election.' This was not the case at the July 5, 2022 Special Election.

Legal Basis

Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures

Topic Tags

  • elections
  • fairness
  • HOA obligations

Question

If my mailed ballot is rejected, can the HOA prevent me from voting in person at the meeting?

Short Answer

No. If you are present at the meeting and your absentee ballot is rejected, the HOA should allow you to cast a replacement ballot.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found a violation when the HOA refused to accept in-person ballots from homeowners whose courier ballots were rejected. The decision noted that these ballots were not ineligible for any valid reason (like lack of standing).

Alj Quote

Respondent violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures when the Elections Committee Chair… refused to accept in-person ballots at the meeting, notwithstanding that those ballots could not be considered ineligible ballots.

Legal Basis

Voting Rights / Election Procedures

Topic Tags

  • in-person voting
  • ballot rejection
  • elections

Question

Can the HOA enforce a voting deadline strictly against some owners but not others?

Short Answer

No. It is a violation to tell some owners they are 'too late' while allowing others to vote after the deadline.

Detailed Answer

The decision noted that while the Petitioners were told voting was closed at 6:00 PM and they were 'too late,' another homeowner was allowed to place a ballot in the box at 6:15 PM.

Alj Quote

Homeowner Jeffrey Knox personally handed in his ballot at the meeting by placing it in the ballot box at approximately 6:15 p.m., notwithstanding that voting supposedly closed at 6:00 p.m.

Legal Basis

Fair Election Practices

Topic Tags

  • discrimination
  • deadlines
  • fairness

Question

What penalties can an HOA face if they are found to have violated election rules?

Short Answer

The HOA may be ordered to refund the homeowner's filing fee and pay a civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the ALJ ordered the HOA to pay $500 to the petitioners (reimbursement) and a $500 civil penalty to the state.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00… IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that… Respondent shall pay to the Department a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fines
  • reimbursement

Question

What is the 'burden of proof' for a homeowner in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.

Detailed Answer

The decision defines the evidentiary standard required for the petitioners to win their case.

Alj Quote

Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation(s) by a preponderance of the evidence… 'A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.'

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • hearing process

Case

Docket No
23F-H002-REL
Case Title
Eileen Ahearn and Robert Barfield v. High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2022-11-17
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA refuse to count a ballot simply because it was delivered by a courier or neighbor rather than mailed?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA's procedures do not explicitly forbid couriers and it has been past practice, they cannot reject ballots solely for lacking a postmark.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that the HOA violated its procedures by rejecting ballots placed in the ballot box prior to the election (via courier) simply because they lacked postmarks. The judge noted that the custodian of the box did not believe it was a problem and there was no reason for homeowners to believe they couldn't do so.

Alj Quote

Respondent violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures when the Elections Committee Chair… refused to count Petitioners’ and other homeowners’ ballots that had been placed in the ballot box prior to the election… There was also no reason for Petitioners or the other homeowners to believe that they could not place their ballots in the ballot box prior to the election and have those ballots counted.

Legal Basis

Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures

Topic Tags

  • elections
  • ballots
  • couriers
  • voting rights

Question

What are valid reasons for an HOA to consider a ballot ineligible or spoiled?

Short Answer

Valid reasons typically include incorrect vote counts, unconfirmed ownership, illegibility, unsigned envelopes, or lack of good standing.

Detailed Answer

The decision outlines specific criteria for invalidating ballots found in the HOA's procedures. Arbitrary reasons not listed in the governing documents (like lack of a postmark when not required) are not valid grounds for rejection.

Alj Quote

Reasons a ballot may not be valid include incorrect number of votes, lot ownership cannot be confirmed, ballot is illegible, ballot envelope is not signed, or a member is not in good standing.

Legal Basis

Association Election Procedures

Topic Tags

  • elections
  • ballot validity
  • rules

Question

Is the HOA obligated to try to count votes rather than looking for reasons to disqualify them?

Short Answer

Yes. If the election procedures state that every effort will be made to count votes to ensure fairness, the HOA must adhere to that standard.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ cited the HOA's own mission statement which promised to make every effort to count votes. Rejecting ballots for minor procedural issues (like lacking a postmark) when the voters are present and eligible violates this obligation.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures state that 'every effort will be made to count as many votes as possible assuring a fair, open and honest election.' This was not the case at the July 5, 2022 Special Election.

Legal Basis

Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures

Topic Tags

  • elections
  • fairness
  • HOA obligations

Question

If my mailed ballot is rejected, can the HOA prevent me from voting in person at the meeting?

Short Answer

No. If you are present at the meeting and your absentee ballot is rejected, the HOA should allow you to cast a replacement ballot.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found a violation when the HOA refused to accept in-person ballots from homeowners whose courier ballots were rejected. The decision noted that these ballots were not ineligible for any valid reason (like lack of standing).

Alj Quote

Respondent violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures when the Elections Committee Chair… refused to accept in-person ballots at the meeting, notwithstanding that those ballots could not be considered ineligible ballots.

Legal Basis

Voting Rights / Election Procedures

Topic Tags

  • in-person voting
  • ballot rejection
  • elections

Question

Can the HOA enforce a voting deadline strictly against some owners but not others?

Short Answer

No. It is a violation to tell some owners they are 'too late' while allowing others to vote after the deadline.

Detailed Answer

The decision noted that while the Petitioners were told voting was closed at 6:00 PM and they were 'too late,' another homeowner was allowed to place a ballot in the box at 6:15 PM.

Alj Quote

Homeowner Jeffrey Knox personally handed in his ballot at the meeting by placing it in the ballot box at approximately 6:15 p.m., notwithstanding that voting supposedly closed at 6:00 p.m.

Legal Basis

Fair Election Practices

Topic Tags

  • discrimination
  • deadlines
  • fairness

Question

What penalties can an HOA face if they are found to have violated election rules?

Short Answer

The HOA may be ordered to refund the homeowner's filing fee and pay a civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the ALJ ordered the HOA to pay $500 to the petitioners (reimbursement) and a $500 civil penalty to the state.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00… IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that… Respondent shall pay to the Department a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fines
  • reimbursement

Question

What is the 'burden of proof' for a homeowner in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.

Detailed Answer

The decision defines the evidentiary standard required for the petitioners to win their case.

Alj Quote

Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation(s) by a preponderance of the evidence… 'A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.'

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • hearing process

Case

Docket No
23F-H002-REL
Case Title
Eileen Ahearn and Robert Barfield v. High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2022-11-17
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Eileen Ahearn (petitioner)
  • Robert Barfield (petitioner)
  • Randy Kling (witness / former board member)
    Testified for Petitioners. Also referred to as Randy Clling/Clean.
  • Claire Peachey (witness / election committee member)
    Testified for Petitioners. Custodian of the ballot box.
  • Joyce Green (witness)
    Testified for Petitioners.
  • Jeffrey Knox (witness)
    Testified for Petitioners. Property owner who received rejected ballots.

Respondent Side

  • Jason Smith (HOA attorney)
    Smith & Wamsley PLLC
  • Nancy Sakarelli (board member)
    High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
    Board President; appeared virtually.
  • Corinthia Pangalinan (former board president / board member)
    High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
    Subject of recall petition; responded to original complaint.
  • Becky Hilgart (Election Committee Chair / board member)
    High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
    Subject of recall petition. Also referred to as Rebecca Kilgart/Gilgart/Elart.
  • Tommy Smith (Election Committee Volunteer / property owner)
    Involved in denying votes.
  • Wally Oliday (board member)
    High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
    Subject of recall petition.
  • Amanda Miller (board member)
    High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
    Subject of recall petition.

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
    OAH staff transmitting documents.
  • c. serrano (Administrative Staff)
    Staff transmitting documents.
  • AHansen (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • vnunez (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • djones (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • labril (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Edna Barton (observer)
    On the line during the hearing.
  • Jill Burns (observer)
    Present in the hearing room.
  • John Kron (observer)
    Present in the hearing room.
  • Stacy (board director)
    Director mentioned in meeting agenda.
  • Deborah Bonesac (property owner)
    Referenced in testimony regarding past courier procedures.
  • Billy McFarland (board member)
    Subject of previous recall election.

Terry Marvin & Lori J Lefferts v. The Stone Canyon Community

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221018-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-08-05
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Terry Marvin & Lori J. Lefferts Counsel —
Respondent The Stone Canyon Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nicholas C.S. Nogami

Alleged Violations

CC&R § 11.3; Guidelines § 1, Items 1 & 32; Guidelines § 5, Item 12

Outcome Summary

The Petition alleging that the Stone Canyon Community Association violated its Design Guidelines by granting a variance for secondary improvements within the side-yard setback to Lot 19 owners was dismissed. The ALJ found that the DRC exercised reasonable discretion in granting a deviation (variance) under Guidelines Section 5, Item 12, and the Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof.

Why this result: The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Design Review Committee acted reasonably within its authority to grant a deviation (variance) to the Guidelines to allow the proposed secondary improvements (grading, driveway, enclosure) within the 15’ side-yard setback in extenuating circumstances, consistent with the requirements outlined in Guideline Section 5, Item 12.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation by DRC when granting a variance for side-yard setback requirements for secondary improvements.

Petitioners (Lot 20 owners) alleged the DRC violated guidelines by granting a variance to Lot 19 owners for placing secondary improvements (driveway, grading, site walls, enclosure) within the 15-foot side-yard setback. Petitioners sought rescission of the variance, arguing the DRC failed to establish an unreasonable hardship or burden as required by Guideline Section 5, Item 12, thereby acting unreasonably and causing diminution in Lot 20 value.

Orders: Petitioners' Petition is dismissed. Petitioners bear their $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Guidelines Section 1, Item 1
  • Guidelines Section 1, Item 32
  • Guidelines Section 5, Item 12
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA dispute, Design Review Committee, variance, setback, secondary improvements, reasonable discretion
Additional Citations:

  • CC&R Section 11.3
  • Guidelines Section 1, Item 1
  • Guidelines Section 1, Item 32
  • Guidelines Section 5, Item 12
  • A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221018-REL Decision – 940674.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:06 (56.7 KB)

22F-H2221018-REL Decision – 953784.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:09 (64.2 KB)

22F-H2221018-REL Decision – 954492.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:13 (46.5 KB)

22F-H2221018-REL Decision – 958478.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:16 (48.5 KB)

22F-H2221018-REL Decision – 958503.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:19 (7.4 KB)

22F-H2221018-REL Decision – 990387.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:22 (167.8 KB)

Questions

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner challenging an HOA's architectural decision?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated its governing documents.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof. They must demonstrate that it is more probable than not that the Association or its Committee violated specific provisions of the governing documents (such as Design Guidelines).

Alj Quote

Petitioners bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that, as alleged, Association through actions of Committee had violated Guidelines Section 1, Items 1 and 32 requirements and Section 5, Item 12 requirements when Committee granted a variance…1

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • evidence

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA hearing?

Short Answer

It means evidence that is more convincing than the opposing evidence, showing the fact is 'more probable than not.'

Detailed Answer

The ALJ defines this legal standard as evidence that carries greater weight than the evidence offered in opposition. It does not require absolute certainty, but rather that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is “[e]vidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”2

Legal Basis

Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990)

Topic Tags

  • legal definitions
  • standards of evidence

Question

Can my HOA grant a neighbor a variance for construction setbacks?

Short Answer

Yes, if the governing documents grant the Design Review Committee discretion to deviate from requirements in extenuating circumstances.

Detailed Answer

If the Design Guidelines provide the Committee with discretion to deviate from requirements when following them would create an unreasonable hardship or burden, the HOA can validly grant a variance. The ALJ looks for whether the Committee exercised 'reasonable discretion' under this authority.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the hearing record demonstrates that Committee exercised reasonable discretion under its authority to grant… a Section 5, Item 12 deviation, i.e., a variance… to allow the proposed/approved secondary improvements to be placed within the 15’ side-yard setback.3

Legal Basis

Design Guidelines Section 5, Item 12

Topic Tags

  • variances
  • setbacks
  • HOA discretion
  • architectural review

Question

Can the HOA treat driveways and landscaping differently than main house structures regarding setbacks?

Short Answer

Yes, governing documents may allow 'modifications' for secondary improvements even if structures have strict setbacks.

Detailed Answer

Governing documents may distinguish between 'building structures' (which must strictly comply with setbacks) and 'secondary improvements' like driveways, grading, or site walls. The documents may allow modifications to setbacks for these secondary items on a case-by-case basis.

Alj Quote

All building Structures shall comply with the above outlined setback distances. Modifications to the above outlined setback distances will be considered on a case-by-case basis for secondary improvements such as grading, landscaping, driveways, site walls, etc.4

Legal Basis

Design Guidelines Section 1, Item 32

Topic Tags

  • setbacks
  • driveways
  • landscaping
  • architectural guidelines

Question

What qualifies as an 'unreasonable hardship' that justifies a variance?

Short Answer

Practical necessities, such as needing access to a garage that otherwise complies with setbacks, can be considered an extenuating circumstance.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the Committee determined that needing driveway access to a new garage (which itself was built within the allowable building envelope) constituted an 'extenuating circumstance.' This practical necessity justified granting a variance for the driveway and grading to encroach into the setback area.

Alj Quote

The hearing record demonstrates that… Association supported the Committee’s determination that needing access to the new RV garage which itself was being built within the building envelope… met the criteria of “extenuating” circumstances… for purposes of granting a “variance” for the new driveway to be placed and necessary grading to occur within the 15’ side-yard setback.5

Legal Basis

Design Guidelines Section 5, Item 12

Topic Tags

  • hardship
  • variances
  • construction

Question

If I lose my case against the HOA, do I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

No, if the petition is dismissed, the homeowner is typically ordered to bear the cost of the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ has the authority to order who pays the costs. In this decision, after dismissing the petition because the homeowners failed to prove a violation, the ALJ ordered the homeowners to pay their own filing fee.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioners bears their $500.00 filing fee.6

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • penalties
  • costs

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221018-REL
Case Title
Terry Marvin & Lori J. Lefferts v. The Stone Canyon Community Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2022-08-05
Alj Name
Kay A. Abramsohn
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner challenging an HOA's architectural decision?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated its governing documents.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof. They must demonstrate that it is more probable than not that the Association or its Committee violated specific provisions of the governing documents (such as Design Guidelines).

Alj Quote

Petitioners bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that, as alleged, Association through actions of Committee had violated Guidelines Section 1, Items 1 and 32 requirements and Section 5, Item 12 requirements when Committee granted a variance…1

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • evidence

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA hearing?

Short Answer

It means evidence that is more convincing than the opposing evidence, showing the fact is 'more probable than not.'

Detailed Answer

The ALJ defines this legal standard as evidence that carries greater weight than the evidence offered in opposition. It does not require absolute certainty, but rather that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is “[e]vidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”2

Legal Basis

Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990)

Topic Tags

  • legal definitions
  • standards of evidence

Question

Can my HOA grant a neighbor a variance for construction setbacks?

Short Answer

Yes, if the governing documents grant the Design Review Committee discretion to deviate from requirements in extenuating circumstances.

Detailed Answer

If the Design Guidelines provide the Committee with discretion to deviate from requirements when following them would create an unreasonable hardship or burden, the HOA can validly grant a variance. The ALJ looks for whether the Committee exercised 'reasonable discretion' under this authority.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the hearing record demonstrates that Committee exercised reasonable discretion under its authority to grant… a Section 5, Item 12 deviation, i.e., a variance… to allow the proposed/approved secondary improvements to be placed within the 15’ side-yard setback.3

Legal Basis

Design Guidelines Section 5, Item 12

Topic Tags

  • variances
  • setbacks
  • HOA discretion
  • architectural review

Question

Can the HOA treat driveways and landscaping differently than main house structures regarding setbacks?

Short Answer

Yes, governing documents may allow 'modifications' for secondary improvements even if structures have strict setbacks.

Detailed Answer

Governing documents may distinguish between 'building structures' (which must strictly comply with setbacks) and 'secondary improvements' like driveways, grading, or site walls. The documents may allow modifications to setbacks for these secondary items on a case-by-case basis.

Alj Quote

All building Structures shall comply with the above outlined setback distances. Modifications to the above outlined setback distances will be considered on a case-by-case basis for secondary improvements such as grading, landscaping, driveways, site walls, etc.4

Legal Basis

Design Guidelines Section 1, Item 32

Topic Tags

  • setbacks
  • driveways
  • landscaping
  • architectural guidelines

Question

What qualifies as an 'unreasonable hardship' that justifies a variance?

Short Answer

Practical necessities, such as needing access to a garage that otherwise complies with setbacks, can be considered an extenuating circumstance.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the Committee determined that needing driveway access to a new garage (which itself was built within the allowable building envelope) constituted an 'extenuating circumstance.' This practical necessity justified granting a variance for the driveway and grading to encroach into the setback area.

Alj Quote

The hearing record demonstrates that… Association supported the Committee’s determination that needing access to the new RV garage which itself was being built within the building envelope… met the criteria of “extenuating” circumstances… for purposes of granting a “variance” for the new driveway to be placed and necessary grading to occur within the 15’ side-yard setback.5

Legal Basis

Design Guidelines Section 5, Item 12

Topic Tags

  • hardship
  • variances
  • construction

Question

If I lose my case against the HOA, do I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

No, if the petition is dismissed, the homeowner is typically ordered to bear the cost of the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ has the authority to order who pays the costs. In this decision, after dismissing the petition because the homeowners failed to prove a violation, the ALJ ordered the homeowners to pay their own filing fee.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioners bears their $500.00 filing fee.6

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • penalties
  • costs

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221018-REL
Case Title
Terry Marvin & Lori J. Lefferts v. The Stone Canyon Community Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2022-08-05
Alj Name
Kay A. Abramsohn
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Terry Marvin (petitioner)
  • Lori J. Lefferts (petitioner)
    Also referred to as Lori Lebert/Leopards

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas C.S. Nogami (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN, LLP
  • Parker C. Fox (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN, LLP
  • Sami M. Farhat (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN, LLP
  • Mark Saul (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN, LLP
    Partner of Mr. Nogami and counsel to the HOA
  • Jerry Young (Consulting Architect)
    Association representative and Consulting Architect for the Design Review Committee
  • Theodore Riggs (DRC member)
    Also referred to as Ted Riggs; witness called by Petitioners
  • Richard Reese (DRC member)
    Also referred to as Dick Reif/Rice/Reef; former DRC member; witness called by Petitioners
  • Kevin Given (DRC member)
    Head of the DRC; voted against Lot 19 approval
  • Steve Hall (DRC member)
    Absent from July 27, 2021 Committee meeting
  • Andrew Deni (Architect)
    Architect for Lot 19 Owners (also referred to as Andy Deni/Denah/Dencki)
  • Martin Coe (Lot owner)
    Lot 19 Owner
  • Lydia Roos (Lot owner)
    Lot 19 Owner
  • Tim Stampson (General Contractor)
    General Contractor for Lot 19 Project (also referred to as Ken Samson)
  • Divine Homes (observer)
    Summer associate observing proceedings with HOA attorneys
  • Edward GA (observer)
    Summer associate observing proceedings with HOA attorneys

Neutral Parties

  • Kay Abramsohn (ALJ)
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • A. Hansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • D. Gardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • d. jones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • v. nunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • c. serrano (OAH staff)
    Signed transmittal
  • Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
    Signed transmittal (also referred to as M Alvarez)
  • Gina Marcus (Design Review Coordinator)
    Association staff/minutes taker
  • Cindy Nichols (unknown)
    Possible minutes taker

Other Participants

  • Nicholas Dana (Lot owner)
    Owner of Lot 24 and resident of Lot 25
  • Steven Schmidt (observer)
    Petitioner in a different matter, observing the hearing

Steven Schmidt v. Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222040-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-07-13
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Steven Schmidt Counsel —
Respondent Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc. Counsel Michael S. Shupe, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 7.7

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the term 'main Dwelling Unit' in CC&Rs Article 7.7 must be calculated using only the livable square footage (2,853 sq ft), excluding attached garages and porches, resulting in a maximum allowable accessory structure size of 1,141.2 sq ft. Since the proposed structure was 1,441 sq ft, the HOA's denial was upheld.

Why this result: The ALJ determined that the calculation of the relevant square footage of a main Dwelling Unit under CC&Rs 7.7 excludes any non-livable portion of a building, structure, or improvement (attached or otherwise), meaning the Petitioner's proposed structure exceeded the calculated maximum limit.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the Association violated CC&Rs Article 7.7 by incorrectly applying the method for determining the allowable square footage of an accessory structure.

Petitioner alleged the HOA/ARC incorrectly calculated the maximum allowable square footage for his proposed 1,441 sq ft detached garage, arguing that the 'main Dwelling Unit' calculation under CC&Rs 7.7 should include the attached garage and porches. The HOA maintained that the 'main Dwelling Unit' only consists of the livable portions of the home (2,853 sq ft), resulting in a maximum allowable accessory structure of 1,141.2 square feet.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied. The ALJ concluded that the 'main Dwelling Unit' under CC&Rs 7.7 excludes non-livable portions of the building (attached garage, porch, patio).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Article 7.7
  • CC&Rs Article 7.6
  • CC&Rs Article I, Section 15
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA dispute, accessory structure, dwelling unit definition, CC&Rs interpretation, square footage calculation
Additional Citations:

  • CC&Rs Article 7.7
  • CC&Rs Article 7.6
  • CC&Rs Article I, Section 15
  • CC&Rs Article I, Section 29
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222040-REL Decision – 2022 04 22 ADRE Response HO22-22040.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:46:29 (95.9 KB)

22F-H2222040-REL Decision – 973190.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:46:33 (45.6 KB)

22F-H2222040-REL Decision – 975956.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:46:36 (54.8 KB)

22F-H2222040-REL Decision – 983362.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:46:40 (165.5 KB)

22F-H2222040-REL Decision – Date of Hearing Recieved.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:46:44 (169.0 KB)

22F-H2222040-REL Decision – HO22-22040_Notice_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:46:47 (521.1 KB)

22F-H2222040-REL Decision – Notice of Hearing .pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:46:52 (1792.3 KB)

22F-H2222040-REL Decision – Response to Petition – 4.22.22.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:46:56 (127.2 KB)





Briefing Doc – 22F-H2222040-REL


Briefing Document: Schmidt v. Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key facts, arguments, and legal proceedings in the dispute between homeowner Steven Schmidt (Petitioner) and the Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc. (Respondent), case number 22F-H2222040-REL. The central conflict revolves around the interpretation of the term “Dwelling Unit” within the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the purpose of calculating the maximum allowable size of an accessory structure.

The Petitioner contended that “Dwelling Unit” encompasses the total square footage of his home, including livable space, attached garage, and covered porches, which would permit his proposed 1,441-square-foot detached garage. The Respondent argued that the CC&Rs define “Dwelling Unit” as only the livable square footage, explicitly excluding garages and porches from the calculation, making the proposed structure too large.

Following an evidentiary hearing on June 23, 2022, Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark issued a decision on July 13, 2022, denying the petition. The ruling sided with the Respondent, concluding that a holistic reading of the CC&Rs, particularly its definition section, establishes that a “Dwelling Unit” is distinct from garages and patios. The decision affirmed the Association’s methodology, rendering the Petitioner’s project non-compliant with the community’s governing documents.

Case Overview

Parties Involved

Name / Entity

Representation

Petitioner

Steven Schmidt

Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent

Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc.

Michael S. Shupe, Esq., Goldschmidt Shupe, PLLC

Case Details

Detail

Case Numbers

ADRE: HO22-22/040
OAH: 22F-H2222040-REL

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark

Hearing Location

Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona

Hearing Date

June 23, 2022

Final Decision Date

July 13, 2022

Timeline of Key Events

• May 15, 2019: Petitioner submits his initial Architectural Review Committee (ARC) application for a detached garage.

• July 25, 2019: The Association issues its first denial letter, stating, “The Committee believes that the square footage of a home does not include garage area or patio.”

• January 10, 2020: Following a request for reconsideration, the Association issues a second denial letter.

• February 7, 2020: After Petitioner attends an ARC meeting to appeal, the Association issues a third and final denial letter.

• March 21, 2022: The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) receives the Petitioner’s formal petition.

• April 22, 2022: Respondent, through counsel, files a response denying all complaint items and requesting a hearing.

• June 8, 2022: A telephonic pre-hearing conference is held to clarify issues and set deadlines.

• June 23, 2022: An evidentiary hearing is conducted before ALJ Jenna Clark.

• July 13, 2022: The ALJ issues a final decision and order denying the Petitioner’s petition.

The Central Dispute: Interpretation of “Dwelling Unit”

The core of the dispute is a question of contract interpretation regarding the CC&Rs. The parties agreed that the facts were not in dispute, only the legal meaning of key terms used to calculate the maximum size of an accessory structure.

Governing Documents and Key Clauses

The disagreement centered on the following provisions from the Association’s CC&Rs and Design Guidelines:

• CC&Rs Article VII, Section 7.7 (Accessory Structures): “Accessory structures shall include, but are not limited to, detached garages and guest homes… Accessory structures shall be limited to 5% of the lot area or forty percent (40%) of the main Dwelling Unit, whichever is less.”

• CC&Rs Article VII, Section 7.6 (Minimum Dwelling Unit Size): “Any Dwelling unit erected, permitted or maintained on any Lot shall have a minimum livable square footage, excluding garage, porches or guest house, and patios, of two thousand five hundred (2500) square feet.”

• Design Guidelines Section 3.2.2 (Building Size): “The minimum livable square footage of any Dwelling Unit on a Lot shall be 2,500 square feet. This minimum requirement shall be exclusive of garages, porches, Guest Houses, and patios.”

• CC&Rs Article I, Section 1.15 (Definition of “Dwelling Unit”): “‘Dwelling Unit’ means any building or portion of a building situated upon a Lot designed and intended for use and occupancy as a Residence by a Single Family.”

• CC&Rs Article I, Section 1.29 (Definition of “Residence”): “‘Residence’ means any subdivided Lot shown on the Plat, together with the residential Dwelling Unit, garage, patio and other Improvements thereon…”

Competing Square Footage Calculations

The two parties applied these clauses to the Petitioner’s property dimensions, resulting in conflicting maximums for the proposed 1,441 sq. ft. garage.

Calculation Metric

Petitioner’s Interpretation (Total Structure)

Respondent’s Interpretation (Livable Space Only)

Livable Square Footage

2,820 sq. ft.

2,820 sq. ft.

Covered Front Porch

289 sq. ft.

0 sq. ft. (excluded)

Covered Rear Porch

327 sq. ft.

0 sq. ft. (excluded)

Attached Garage

1,002 sq. ft.

0 sq. ft. (excluded)

Total “Dwelling Unit” Base

4,438 sq. ft.

2,820 sq. ft.

Max Accessory Structure (40%)

1,775 sq. ft.

1,128 sq. ft.

Compliance of Proposed Garage

Compliant (1,441 < 1,775)

Non-Compliant (1,441 > 1,128)

Petitioner’s Position (Steven Schmidt)

The Petitioner’s case was built on a direct, plain-language reading of the rules governing accessory structures, asserting his interpretation was that of a reasonable homeowner.

• Core Argument: The term “Dwelling Unit” in Section 7.7, which governs accessory structures, refers to the entire physical structure of the main home. He argued, “Somehow the ARC has wrongly concluded that the entire area of a dwelling unit is… only the livable square footage. This is simply not correct.”

• Supporting Points:

◦ The provision establishing a minimum of 2,500 sq. ft. (Section 7.6) explicitly excludes garages and porches, but its purpose is only to ensure a minimum standard of living space, not to define the total size of the dwelling for all other purposes.

◦ He contended that Section 7.7, the most relevant clause, “does not say 40% of the livable square footage, but rather 40% of the dwelling unit.”

◦ He pointed to other CC&R sections regarding architectural design (7.5), solar panels (7.10), and antennas (7.40) to argue that for those rules to be logical, “Dwelling Unit” must include the garage and porches, as they are part of the building’s exterior.

◦ During his closing argument, he stated, “The clear intent of the CCNR is to treat a dwelling unit as an entire structure, including the garage and porches.”

• Requested Relief: Petitioner requested an order directing the Association “to correctly apply section 7.7 of the H&Rs by including the square footage of the entire dwelling unit in the computation of the allowable size of an accessory structure.” He did not request a civil penalty.

Respondent’s Position (Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc.)

The Respondent’s position relied on principles of contract law, arguing that the CC&Rs must be interpreted as a whole, with special attention given to the explicit definitions provided within the document.

• Core Argument: The CC&Rs’ own definitions create a clear distinction between the “Dwelling Unit” (the livable portion) and other improvements like “garage” and “patio.” The ARC’s denial was a correct application of these defined terms.

• Supporting Points:

◦ Counsel Michael Shupe argued that Section 1.29, by listing “residential Dwelling Unit, garage, patio” as separate items, unambiguously proves they are not the same thing. He stated, “there is no ambiguity that dwelling unit is listed separately from garages, patios, and other improvements thereon.”

◦ He emphasized that legal principles require that “the entire contract be looked at and that the court takes steps to ensure that the contract can be read as a whole as to render no provision meaningless or contrary.”

◦ The Respondent argued this interpretation ensures community continuity and prevents situations where accessory structures could be disproportionately large compared to the actual living area of a home.

• Requested Relief: The Association requested that the court uphold the ARC’s decision.

Administrative Hearing Proceedings (June 23, 2022)

The hearing focused entirely on the legal arguments, as the underlying facts were agreed upon in advance.

• Stipulated Evidence: The parties submitted 17 stipulated facts (one of which was later struck due to a date discrepancy) and 9 stipulated exhibits, which streamlined the hearing.

• Demonstrative Evidence: The Petitioner appeared in person and utilized two easels displaying large-format plans of his home to illustrate his square footage calculations. The ALJ noted these were demonstrative aids and not formally admitted into the evidentiary record.

• Evidentiary Rulings:

◦ The Petitioner requested that his marked-up floor plan (Petitioner’s Exhibit A) be admitted as evidence. The Respondent objected on the grounds that its labeling of a “total dwelling unit” figure constituted a legal conclusion, which is the central issue of the case. The ALJ sustained the objection.

◦ The Respondent’s Pre-Hearing Memorandum was admitted into the record without objection from the Petitioner.

Final Decision and Order (July 13, 2022)

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision provided a definitive legal interpretation of the disputed terms, finding in favor of the Respondent.

• Outcome: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is denied.”

• Legal Rationale:

◦ The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to carry his burden of proving a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

◦ The decision states: “It is clear from the record that a ‘Dwelling Unit’ can only consist of a portion of a building that is distinct from other structures and improvements like garages and patios.”

◦ It further clarifies: “Hence, the calculation of the relevant square footage of a main Dwelling Unit under CC&Rs 7.7 excludes any non-livable portion of a building, structure, or improvement (attached or otherwise).”

◦ The order affirmed the Association’s calculation, noting that the maximum allowable square footage for an accessory structure on the Petitioner’s property is capped at 1,141.2 square feet, making the proposed 1,441-square-foot garage non-compliant.

• Binding Nature: The order is binding on the parties unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the ADRE within 30 days of the order’s service.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Steven Schmidt (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Michael Shupe (HOA attorney)
    Goldschmidt Shupe, PLLC

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Daniel Y. Jones (Division Manager)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • c. serrano (administrative staff)
    Transmitted documents
  • Douglas A. Ducey (Governor)
    Arizona
  • vnunez (administrative staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed on electronic transmission
  • labril (administrative staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed on electronic transmission

Other Participants

  • Caroline Schmidt (unknown)
    Paid HOA Petition Fee

Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Green Elephant

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222036-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-04-29
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel —
Respondent Green Elephant Development LLC Counsel Ronald E. Huser, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102, 32-2199 et seq., 33-1802(4), 41-1092, ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-111(4)

Outcome Summary

The petition was denied, and the case was vacated and remanded due to lack of jurisdiction. The OAH determined the Petitioner failed to meet the statutory definition of a 'planned community' required for the Department of Real Estate to have authority over the dispute.

Why this result: OAH lacked authority to hear the dispute because Petitioner failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Association met the definition of a 'planned community' under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4). Specifically, there was no evidence of real estate ownership, roadway easements, mandatory membership, or mandatory assessments.

Key Issues & Findings

OAH jurisdiction over the dispute based on whether the Petitioner is a 'planned community.'

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated setback requirements in the Declaration of Restrictions (Section 5). Respondent moved for Judgment as a Matter of Law, arguing OAH lacked jurisdiction because Petitioner failed to prove it met the statutory definition of a 'planned community' under ARS § 33-1802(4).

Orders: Petitioner’s petition was denied. Respondent’s motion for a Judgment as a Matter of Law was granted. The matter was vacated and remanded to the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-111(4)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Jurisdiction, Planned Community Definition, Setback Violation, Judgment as a Matter of Law, Voluntary Membership
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-111(4)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-112
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222036-REL Decision – 958968.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:40 (45.8 KB)

22F-H2222036-REL Decision – 962071.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:43 (53.3 KB)

22F-H2222036-REL Decision – 966017.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:47 (143.0 KB)





Study Guide – 22F-H2222036-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2222036-REL”, “case_title”: “Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc. vs. Green Elephant Development LLC”, “decision_date”: “2022-04-29”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Does the Arizona Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over every type of homeowner association dispute?”, “short_answer”: “No, the Department only has jurisdiction over disputes involving a “planned community” as defined by statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ decision clarifies that the Department’s jurisdiction is limited to disputes between an owner and a “planned community” association. If an association does not meet the statutory definition of a planned community, the administrative court cannot hear the case.”, “alj_quote”: “This matter falls outside the Department’s jurisdiction pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq., regarding a dispute between an owner and a planned community association.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102, 32-2199”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “planned community definition”, “administrative authority” ] }, { “question”: “What are the specific requirements for an association to be legally considered a ‘planned community’?”, “short_answer”: “A planned community must own/operate real estate (or maintain roadways) and have a declaration mandating membership and assessments.”, “detailed_answer”: “According to Arizona statute cited in the decision, a planned community requires three elements: 1) The association owns/operates real estate or holds easements to maintain roadways; 2) The declaration explicitly states owners are mandatory members; and 3) The declaration explicitly states owners are required to pay assessments.”, “alj_quote”: “a real estate development that includes real estate owned and operated by or real estate on which an easement to maintain roadways or a covenant to maintain roadways is held by a nonprofit corporation… and in which the declaration expressly states both that the owners of separately owned lots, parcels or units are mandatory members and that the owners are required to pay assessments to the association for these purposes.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal definitions”, “planned community”, “assessments”, “mandatory membership” ] }, { “question”: “If my HOA membership is voluntary, can the HOA take me to an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “No, the Office of Administrative Hearings lacks authority over voluntary associations.”, “detailed_answer”: “If the evidence shows that membership is voluntary rather than mandatory, the association does not qualify as a planned community. Consequently, the administrative law judge must dismiss the case for lack of authority.”, “alj_quote”: “Because the evidence failed to establish, at a minimum, that the Association is a planned community, OAH does not have any authority to consider a dispute between the Association and Respondent”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2), 41-1092”, “topic_tags”: [ “voluntary membership”, “jurisdiction”, “dismissal” ] }, { “question”: “Who has the burden of proof in a hearing regarding an alleged violation?”, “short_answer”: “The Petitioner (the party filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The party bringing the action must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. This includes proving that the tribunal has jurisdiction and that the specific violation occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence first that this matter is properly before the OAH and then that Respondent violated Section 5 of the DECLARATION.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Does an HOA need to provide actual measurements to prove a setback violation?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, specific evidence of the actual construction dimensions is required.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that the HOA failed to provide evidence that construction had factually taken place that exceeded the specific setback requirements (e.g., 7ft side, 20ft front). Without measurements or factual proof of the construction’s location relative to property lines, the violation cannot be established.”, “alj_quote”: “[N]o evidence was submitted to establish… that any construction has factually taken place… which exceeds the DECLARATION’S 7ft side setback and 20ft front setback property requirements.”, “legal_basis”: “Preponderance of the Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “evidence”, “setbacks”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “Is an HOA considered a ‘planned community’ if it does not own any common areas?”, “short_answer”: “No, the association must own real estate or hold easements for maintaining roadways.”, “detailed_answer”: “A critical component of the legal definition of a planned community is that the association must own and operate real estate or hold specific maintenance easements. Failure to prove this ownership prevents the association from being classified as a planned community under the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner failed to present any evidence that it owns and operates any real estate, or that it has an easement or covenant to maintain roadways.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “common areas”, “property ownership”, “planned community definition” ] }, { “question”: “What is the standard of proof used in these administrative hearings?”, “short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The standard is whether the contention is more probably true than not. This is described as the greater weight of the evidence or superior evidentiary weight.”, “alj_quote”: “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”, “legal_basis”: “MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “preponderance of evidence” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 22F-H2222036-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2222036-REL”, “case_title”: “Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc. vs. Green Elephant Development LLC”, “decision_date”: “2022-04-29”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Does the Arizona Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over every type of homeowner association dispute?”, “short_answer”: “No, the Department only has jurisdiction over disputes involving a “planned community” as defined by statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ decision clarifies that the Department’s jurisdiction is limited to disputes between an owner and a “planned community” association. If an association does not meet the statutory definition of a planned community, the administrative court cannot hear the case.”, “alj_quote”: “This matter falls outside the Department’s jurisdiction pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq., regarding a dispute between an owner and a planned community association.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102, 32-2199”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “planned community definition”, “administrative authority” ] }, { “question”: “What are the specific requirements for an association to be legally considered a ‘planned community’?”, “short_answer”: “A planned community must own/operate real estate (or maintain roadways) and have a declaration mandating membership and assessments.”, “detailed_answer”: “According to Arizona statute cited in the decision, a planned community requires three elements: 1) The association owns/operates real estate or holds easements to maintain roadways; 2) The declaration explicitly states owners are mandatory members; and 3) The declaration explicitly states owners are required to pay assessments.”, “alj_quote”: “a real estate development that includes real estate owned and operated by or real estate on which an easement to maintain roadways or a covenant to maintain roadways is held by a nonprofit corporation… and in which the declaration expressly states both that the owners of separately owned lots, parcels or units are mandatory members and that the owners are required to pay assessments to the association for these purposes.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal definitions”, “planned community”, “assessments”, “mandatory membership” ] }, { “question”: “If my HOA membership is voluntary, can the HOA take me to an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “No, the Office of Administrative Hearings lacks authority over voluntary associations.”, “detailed_answer”: “If the evidence shows that membership is voluntary rather than mandatory, the association does not qualify as a planned community. Consequently, the administrative law judge must dismiss the case for lack of authority.”, “alj_quote”: “Because the evidence failed to establish, at a minimum, that the Association is a planned community, OAH does not have any authority to consider a dispute between the Association and Respondent”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2), 41-1092”, “topic_tags”: [ “voluntary membership”, “jurisdiction”, “dismissal” ] }, { “question”: “Who has the burden of proof in a hearing regarding an alleged violation?”, “short_answer”: “The Petitioner (the party filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The party bringing the action must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. This includes proving that the tribunal has jurisdiction and that the specific violation occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence first that this matter is properly before the OAH and then that Respondent violated Section 5 of the DECLARATION.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Does an HOA need to provide actual measurements to prove a setback violation?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, specific evidence of the actual construction dimensions is required.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that the HOA failed to provide evidence that construction had factually taken place that exceeded the specific setback requirements (e.g., 7ft side, 20ft front). Without measurements or factual proof of the construction’s location relative to property lines, the violation cannot be established.”, “alj_quote”: “[N]o evidence was submitted to establish… that any construction has factually taken place… which exceeds the DECLARATION’S 7ft side setback and 20ft front setback property requirements.”, “legal_basis”: “Preponderance of the Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “evidence”, “setbacks”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “Is an HOA considered a ‘planned community’ if it does not own any common areas?”, “short_answer”: “No, the association must own real estate or hold easements for maintaining roadways.”, “detailed_answer”: “A critical component of the legal definition of a planned community is that the association must own and operate real estate or hold specific maintenance easements. Failure to prove this ownership prevents the association from being classified as a planned community under the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner failed to present any evidence that it owns and operates any real estate, or that it has an easement or covenant to maintain roadways.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “common areas”, “property ownership”, “planned community definition” ] }, { “question”: “What is the standard of proof used in these administrative hearings?”, “short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The standard is whether the contention is more probably true than not. This is described as the greater weight of the evidence or superior evidentiary weight.”, “alj_quote”: “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”, “legal_basis”: “MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “preponderance of evidence” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Robert Chiffelle (HOA President/Petitioner Rep/Witness)
    Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Also referred to as Bob Chappelle.
  • Jeremy Lyons (HOA Treasurer/Observer)
    Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Also referred to as Mr. Lions; submitted the petition on behalf of Petitioner.
  • Missy Lopez (Observer)
    Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc.
  • Dr. B. Paul Scott (Architectural Committee member/Observer)
    Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc.
  • Mike Goldwater (Previous HOA President)
    Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc.

Respondent Side

  • Ronald E. Huser (Respondent Attorney)
    Huser Law Firm
  • Bryant Aplass (Respondent Co-Owner/Director/Witness)
    Green Elephant Development LLC
    Co-owner and member; also referred to as Bryant Alpass/Applas; role listed as Director of Business Development.
  • Cody Sperber (Respondent President/Witness)
    Green Elephant Development LLC
    Also referred to as Cody Fergburgger.
  • Garrett Schmidt (Respondent Rep/Witness)
    Green Elephant Development LLC
  • Reggie Martinez (Witness)
    Green Elephant Development LLC

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • c. serrano (Legal Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Transmitted Minute Entries.
  • Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Transmitted ALJ Decision.

Kathy Padalino v. Legend Trail Parcel A

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221003-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-12-08
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kathy Padalino Counsel —
Respondent Legend Trail Parcel A Counsel Kelsey Dressen, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 1 Section 26, Article 4 Section 4.6, and Article 2, Section 2.4

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s Petition be dismissed after finding that the Petitioner failed to sustain her burden to establish a violation by the Respondent of the cited sections of the CC&Rs.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the CC&Rs, and did not establish that Respondent was obligated to provide her with an individual access code separate from the one already provided to the Lot.

Key Issues & Findings

The dispute between Petitioner and Respondent arises from Community Document Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions Article 1 Section 26, Article 4 Section 4.6, and Article 2, Section 2.4.

Petitioner filed an HOA Dispute Process Petition alleging a violation of community documents because the HOA refused to grant her a personal access gate code. Petitioner argued that as an owner and member, she was entitled to her own personal and individual access code. Respondent disputed the violation, asserting the lot already had multiple modes of access, and was not obligated to provide an additional individual code.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Article 1 Section 26
  • CC&Rs Article 4 Section 4.6
  • CC&Rs Article 2, Section 2.4
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 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)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, CC&R Violation, Gate Access, Access Code Policy
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 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

22F-H2221003-REL Decision – 930504.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:39:28 (109.5 KB)

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute hearing?

Short Answer

The Petitioner (the person filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden is not on the HOA to prove they are innocent. Instead, the homeowner filing the petition must prove that the HOA committed the violation.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Hearing Procedures

Question

What is the legal standard of proof required to win a hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

This standard means that the evidence must show that the claim is more likely true than not true. It is based on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the number of witnesses.

Alj Quote

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Evidence

Question

If Association Rules conflict with the CC&Rs (Declaration), which document controls?

Short Answer

The Declaration (CC&Rs) prevails.

Detailed Answer

The governing documents usually establish a hierarchy. If the Board adopts rules that are inconsistent with the recorded Declaration, the Declaration is the superior document.

Alj Quote

In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this Declaration and the Association Rules, the provisions of this Declaration shall prevail.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article 4 Section 4.3

Topic Tags

  • Governing Documents
  • Rules vs CC&Rs

Question

Is an HOA obligated to provide a unique gate access code to every individual owner?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, if access is provided to the Lot.

Detailed Answer

If the HOA provides valid methods of access for a Lot (such as a shared code, key fob, or remote), they may not be legally obligated to provide a specific 'personal' code for each individual owner of that Lot.

Alj Quote

Petitioner did not establish that Respondent is obligated to provide her with a “personal” or “individual” access code.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law 4

Topic Tags

  • Access Rights
  • Gate Codes
  • Security

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge resolve disputes between co-owners regarding access to the property?

Short Answer

No, disputes between co-owners are personal matters.

Detailed Answer

If one co-owner restricts another co-owner from using a shared access code, the Department of Real Estate views this as a private issue between the owners, not a violation by the HOA.

Alj Quote

Mr. Gribble, as co-owner, has placed restrictions upon Petitioner’s use of the code for the Lot. That is an issue for Petitioner to take up with Mr. Gribble, not the Department.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law 4

Topic Tags

  • Co-owner Disputes
  • Jurisdiction

Question

Are Association Rules as enforceable as the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

Yes, generally rules are enforceable to the same extent as the Declaration.

Detailed Answer

Once validly adopted, Association Rules regarding the management and operation of the community can be enforced just like the recorded covenants.

Alj Quote

The Association Rules shall be enforceable in the same manner and to the same extent as the covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth in this Declaration.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article 4 Section 4.3

Topic Tags

  • Enforcement
  • Rules

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221003-REL
Case Title
Kathy Padalino v. Legend Trail Parcel A
Decision Date
2021-12-08
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute hearing?

Short Answer

The Petitioner (the person filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden is not on the HOA to prove they are innocent. Instead, the homeowner filing the petition must prove that the HOA committed the violation.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Hearing Procedures

Question

What is the legal standard of proof required to win a hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

This standard means that the evidence must show that the claim is more likely true than not true. It is based on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the number of witnesses.

Alj Quote

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Evidence

Question

If Association Rules conflict with the CC&Rs (Declaration), which document controls?

Short Answer

The Declaration (CC&Rs) prevails.

Detailed Answer

The governing documents usually establish a hierarchy. If the Board adopts rules that are inconsistent with the recorded Declaration, the Declaration is the superior document.

Alj Quote

In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this Declaration and the Association Rules, the provisions of this Declaration shall prevail.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article 4 Section 4.3

Topic Tags

  • Governing Documents
  • Rules vs CC&Rs

Question

Is an HOA obligated to provide a unique gate access code to every individual owner?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, if access is provided to the Lot.

Detailed Answer

If the HOA provides valid methods of access for a Lot (such as a shared code, key fob, or remote), they may not be legally obligated to provide a specific 'personal' code for each individual owner of that Lot.

Alj Quote

Petitioner did not establish that Respondent is obligated to provide her with a “personal” or “individual” access code.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law 4

Topic Tags

  • Access Rights
  • Gate Codes
  • Security

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge resolve disputes between co-owners regarding access to the property?

Short Answer

No, disputes between co-owners are personal matters.

Detailed Answer

If one co-owner restricts another co-owner from using a shared access code, the Department of Real Estate views this as a private issue between the owners, not a violation by the HOA.

Alj Quote

Mr. Gribble, as co-owner, has placed restrictions upon Petitioner’s use of the code for the Lot. That is an issue for Petitioner to take up with Mr. Gribble, not the Department.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law 4

Topic Tags

  • Co-owner Disputes
  • Jurisdiction

Question

Are Association Rules as enforceable as the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

Yes, generally rules are enforceable to the same extent as the Declaration.

Detailed Answer

Once validly adopted, Association Rules regarding the management and operation of the community can be enforced just like the recorded covenants.

Alj Quote

The Association Rules shall be enforceable in the same manner and to the same extent as the covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth in this Declaration.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article 4 Section 4.3

Topic Tags

  • Enforcement
  • Rules

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221003-REL
Case Title
Kathy Padalino v. Legend Trail Parcel A
Decision Date
2021-12-08
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Kathy Padalino (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Kelsey Dressen (attorney)
    LAW OFFICES OF CHOATE & WOOD
    Represented Respondent Legend Trail Parcel A

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Vance Gribble (co-owner)
    Co-owns home with Petitioner

Nancy Bender v. Foothills Townhomes Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121048-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-08-23
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Nancy Bender Counsel —
Respondent Foothills Townhomes Association, Inc. Counsel Jason Smith, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Community Bylaws 3.03

Outcome Summary

The petition was denied because Petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof that the Association violated Community Bylaws 3.03, as the issue regarding a special meeting was found to be unripe. Other alleged statutory violations were inapplicable.

Why this result: Petitioner did not sustain the burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) on the Bylaws violation because the condition precedent (requesting or holding a special meeting) had not occurred, rendering the issue unripe. The statutory violations cited were inapplicable to the Association.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Foothills Townhomes Association, Inc. violated Community Bylaws 3.03 and ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(A), 33-1248(B), and 33-1261(D).

Petitioner alleged the Association violated Community Bylaws 3.03 when it drafted and posted a letter directed to Petitioner on its online platform, in response to private correspondence (a draft special meeting request) that had not yet been submitted to the Board, which Petitioner perceived as an attempt to dismantle a platform for discussion and retaliate against her.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Community Bylaws 3.03
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1261(D)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Planned Community, Bylaws Violation, Jurisdiction, Unripe Issue, Special Meeting, Filing Fee Paid
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1261(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov
  • Community Bylaws 3.03

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121048-REL Decision – 906190.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:43 (117.4 KB)

Questions

Question

If I pay for a single-issue petition, can the judge rule on other grievances I mention during the hearing?

Short Answer

No. The tribunal is limited to the specific issue paid for and filed.

Detailed Answer

If a petitioner only pays the filing fee for the adjudication of one issue, the Administrative Law Judge cannot address other issues raised in the petition or during testimony.

Alj Quote

Because Petitioner only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may not address all of the issues Petitioner raised in her petition or during her testimony.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05

Topic Tags

  • procedure
  • jurisdiction
  • filing fees

Question

What happens if I cite Condominium statutes in a dispute regarding a Planned Community?

Short Answer

The claims will likely be dismissed as moot or inapplicable.

Detailed Answer

Different statutes regulate Condominiums (Title 33, Chapter 9) and Planned Communities (Title 33, Chapter 16). If a homeowner alleges violations of statutes that do not govern their specific type of association, the burden of proof is not met and the concerns are rendered moot.

Alj Quote

However, because Petitioner’s amended petition specifically alleges violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A), 33-1248(B) and 33-1261(D), which are inapplicable as the Association is not subject to governance or regulation by these statutes, the concerns are rendered moot.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 9 vs. Chapter 16

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • statutes
  • planned communities

Question

Does the HOA posting my private correspondence on the community website violate bylaws regarding special meetings?

Short Answer

No. Public dissemination of private letters does not violate bylaws strictly governing the calling of meetings.

Detailed Answer

While a homeowner may feel that publishing private correspondence is retaliatory or malicious, it does not constitute a violation of bylaws specifically designed to regulate the calling and holding of special meetings.

Alj Quote

Instead, Petitioner’s grievance is the Association’s public dissemination and address of her private correspondence; which is not a violation of Bylaws Section 3.03.

Legal Basis

Bylaws Section 3.03

Topic Tags

  • privacy
  • bylaws
  • communications

Question

Can the ADRE hear claims regarding my constitutional rights or general 'rights as a homeowner'?

Short Answer

No. The Department's jurisdiction is limited to violations of community documents and specific statutes.

Detailed Answer

The Department lacks jurisdiction over broad claims such as constitutional rights, general homeowner rights, or fiduciary responsibilities unless they are framed as specific violations of the community documents or relevant statutes.

Alj Quote

Petitioner also alleged no less than four (4) additional violations in her Amended Petition that the Department has no jurisdiction over or she lacked standing to bring, such as (1) 'my rights as a homeowner,' (2) 'my constitutional rights as an American citizen'…

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102, 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • constitutional rights
  • adre authority

Question

Can I claim the HOA violated the rules for calling a special meeting if I never formally requested one?

Short Answer

No. The issue is considered 'unripe' if no meeting was actually requested or held.

Detailed Answer

A violation regarding the calling of a special meeting cannot be established if the homeowner never submitted the request for the meeting prior to filing the petition. The tribunal cannot rule on a hypothetical refusal.

Alj Quote

No violation of Bylaws Section 3.03 exists because the issue is unripe. Here, the record reflects that a special meeting was not held, nor had Petitioner requested one prior to the filing of her petition in this matter.

Legal Basis

ripeness doctrine

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • procedural requirements
  • violations

Question

What is the standard of proof required for a homeowner to win an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The petitioner must provide enough evidence to convince the judge that their contention is 'more probably true than not.' It requires superior evidentiary weight, not necessarily a greater number of witnesses.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • evidence

Question

Are the CC&Rs considered a legal contract between me and the HOA?

Short Answer

Yes. CC&Rs form an enforceable contract that binds the owner upon purchase.

Detailed Answer

When a party purchases a property within the development, they agree to be bound by the terms of the CC&Rs and Bylaws, creating a contractual relationship.

Alj Quote

Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, and the Bylaws outline how the Association is permitted to operate.

Legal Basis

Contract Law Principles

Topic Tags

  • CC&Rs
  • contracts
  • enforcement

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121048-REL
Case Title
Nancy Bender vs. Foothills Townhomes Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-08-23
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

If I pay for a single-issue petition, can the judge rule on other grievances I mention during the hearing?

Short Answer

No. The tribunal is limited to the specific issue paid for and filed.

Detailed Answer

If a petitioner only pays the filing fee for the adjudication of one issue, the Administrative Law Judge cannot address other issues raised in the petition or during testimony.

Alj Quote

Because Petitioner only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may not address all of the issues Petitioner raised in her petition or during her testimony.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05

Topic Tags

  • procedure
  • jurisdiction
  • filing fees

Question

What happens if I cite Condominium statutes in a dispute regarding a Planned Community?

Short Answer

The claims will likely be dismissed as moot or inapplicable.

Detailed Answer

Different statutes regulate Condominiums (Title 33, Chapter 9) and Planned Communities (Title 33, Chapter 16). If a homeowner alleges violations of statutes that do not govern their specific type of association, the burden of proof is not met and the concerns are rendered moot.

Alj Quote

However, because Petitioner’s amended petition specifically alleges violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A), 33-1248(B) and 33-1261(D), which are inapplicable as the Association is not subject to governance or regulation by these statutes, the concerns are rendered moot.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 9 vs. Chapter 16

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • statutes
  • planned communities

Question

Does the HOA posting my private correspondence on the community website violate bylaws regarding special meetings?

Short Answer

No. Public dissemination of private letters does not violate bylaws strictly governing the calling of meetings.

Detailed Answer

While a homeowner may feel that publishing private correspondence is retaliatory or malicious, it does not constitute a violation of bylaws specifically designed to regulate the calling and holding of special meetings.

Alj Quote

Instead, Petitioner’s grievance is the Association’s public dissemination and address of her private correspondence; which is not a violation of Bylaws Section 3.03.

Legal Basis

Bylaws Section 3.03

Topic Tags

  • privacy
  • bylaws
  • communications

Question

Can the ADRE hear claims regarding my constitutional rights or general 'rights as a homeowner'?

Short Answer

No. The Department's jurisdiction is limited to violations of community documents and specific statutes.

Detailed Answer

The Department lacks jurisdiction over broad claims such as constitutional rights, general homeowner rights, or fiduciary responsibilities unless they are framed as specific violations of the community documents or relevant statutes.

Alj Quote

Petitioner also alleged no less than four (4) additional violations in her Amended Petition that the Department has no jurisdiction over or she lacked standing to bring, such as (1) 'my rights as a homeowner,' (2) 'my constitutional rights as an American citizen'…

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102, 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • constitutional rights
  • adre authority

Question

Can I claim the HOA violated the rules for calling a special meeting if I never formally requested one?

Short Answer

No. The issue is considered 'unripe' if no meeting was actually requested or held.

Detailed Answer

A violation regarding the calling of a special meeting cannot be established if the homeowner never submitted the request for the meeting prior to filing the petition. The tribunal cannot rule on a hypothetical refusal.

Alj Quote

No violation of Bylaws Section 3.03 exists because the issue is unripe. Here, the record reflects that a special meeting was not held, nor had Petitioner requested one prior to the filing of her petition in this matter.

Legal Basis

ripeness doctrine

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • procedural requirements
  • violations

Question

What is the standard of proof required for a homeowner to win an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The petitioner must provide enough evidence to convince the judge that their contention is 'more probably true than not.' It requires superior evidentiary weight, not necessarily a greater number of witnesses.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • evidence

Question

Are the CC&Rs considered a legal contract between me and the HOA?

Short Answer

Yes. CC&Rs form an enforceable contract that binds the owner upon purchase.

Detailed Answer

When a party purchases a property within the development, they agree to be bound by the terms of the CC&Rs and Bylaws, creating a contractual relationship.

Alj Quote

Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, and the Bylaws outline how the Association is permitted to operate.

Legal Basis

Contract Law Principles

Topic Tags

  • CC&Rs
  • contracts
  • enforcement

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121048-REL
Case Title
Nancy Bender vs. Foothills Townhomes Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-08-23
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Nancy Bender (petitioner)
    Foothills Townhomes owner/member

Respondent Side

  • Jason Smith (respondent attorney)
    Goodman Holmgren Smith

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Dan Gardener (Constituent Services Manager)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Nancy L Babington v. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation

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 20F-H2020064-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-03-24
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $2,500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Nancy L. Babington Counsel —
Respondent Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation Counsel Mark K. Sahl, Scott B. Carpenter

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge found Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A). Respondent was ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee and pay a $2,500.00 civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to make financial and other association records reasonably available for examination/provide copies within ten business days

Petitioner formally requested several records on May 1, 2020, but Respondent failed to provide the documents within the 10-day statutory limit. Evidence presented at the rehearing established that Respondent possessed the requested bank statements and contracts prior to the request.

Orders: Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner her $500.00 filing fee and pay a civil penalty of $2,500.00 to the Department of Real Estate.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $2,500.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: A.R.S. § 33-1258, Records Access, HOA Dispute, Civil Penalty, Rehearing
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020064-REL-RHG Decision – 866802.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:34 (123.5 KB)

20F-H2020064-REL-RHG Decision – ../20F-H2020064-REL/823263.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-20T13:59:35 (108.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020064-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Babington v. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key findings, arguments, and outcomes from the administrative case of Nancy L. Babington (Petitioner) versus the Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation (Respondent). The dispute centered on the Respondent’s failure to provide association records as required by Arizona state law (A.R.S. § 33-1258).

The case progressed through two distinct phases: an initial hearing that ruled in favor of the Respondent, and a subsequent rehearing that reversed the decision. The initial ruling was based on the Respondent’s testimony that it did not possess the requested records due to a dispute with a former management company. However, the rehearing was granted based on newly discovered evidence proving the Respondent, through its management company and board, did possess key documents at the time of the request.

The final judgment established that the Respondent had violated state law. The Administrative Law Judge rejected the Respondent’s defense, including the argument that records held in a corporate satellite office were not in its possession. As a result, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee and pay a $2,500 civil penalty to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Case Background and Timeline

The dispute arose from a records request made by Petitioner Nancy L. Babington to her condominium association, Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation, and its management company, Associa Arizona. The timeline of key events is as follows:

June-July 2019

Respondent’s prior management company, Community Management & Consulting, LLC (CMC), terminates its agreement.

Post-July 2019

Respondent hires Associa Arizona (Associa). Associa and the Respondent encounter difficulty obtaining records from CMC due to a financial dispute.

April 29, 2020

Petitioner sends a formal email requesting association records from September 1, 2019, to April 28, 2020, citing A.R.S. § 33-1258.

May 1, 2020

Petitioner provides a specific, nine-point list of requested documents, including bank statements, financial statements, and contracts.

May 28, 2020

Having received no documents, Petitioner files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

August 28, 2020

The Office of Administrative Hearings conducts the initial hearing.

September 17, 2020

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues a decision denying the petition.

Post-Sept 2020

Respondent provides some of the requested documents to the Petitioner. Upon review, Petitioner discovers evidence that the documents had been in the Respondent’s possession prior to her request.

Date Unspecified

Petitioner files a request for rehearing based on newly discovered material evidence.

March 4, 2021

A rehearing is held.

March 24, 2021

The ALJ issues a new decision, reversing the original finding and ruling in favor of the Petitioner.

The Initial Hearing: Petition Denied

The initial hearing on August 28, 2020, focused on whether the Respondent had violated its statutory obligation to provide records.

Petitioner’s Allegation

The Petitioner’s case was based on her formal request for records on April 29, 2020, and the Respondent’s failure to produce any documents. Her petition stated:

“After repeated attempts since the beginning of this year to get information, on April 29, 2020 I emailed Associa Arizona and the Board of Directors of Park Scottsdale II formally requesting records per ARS 33-1258 and to date, May 25, 2020, I have not received anything.”

Respondent’s Defense

The Respondent’s primary defense was that it could not provide documents that were not in its possession.

• Withheld Records: Joseph Silberschlag, Secretary of the Board of Directors, testified that due to ongoing issues with the former management company (CMC), neither the association nor Associa had possession of many documents, including previous financial records.

• Inability to Create Documents: Mr. Silberschlag stated that without the starting balances from CMC, it was not possible to create current financial statements.

• No Obligation to Create: The Respondent argued it was “under no statutory obligation to create documents to respond to Petitioner’s request.”

Ruling and Rationale

The ALJ sided with the Respondent in the initial decision. The judge noted that while there was no dispute that the documents were not provided within the 10-day statutory period, the Petitioner had not provided any authority showing the Respondent was required to create a document responsive to her request. The ruling concluded:

“Respondent did not have possession of any of the documents requested at the time of Petitioner’s request… Thus, Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).”

The petition was subsequently denied on September 17, 2020.

The Rehearing: Decision Reversed

A rehearing was granted after the Petitioner discovered that, contrary to the testimony at the initial hearing, the Respondent had possessed several of the requested documents. The rehearing on March 4, 2021, introduced new evidence that fundamentally changed the outcome of the case.

New Evidence and Testimony

The Petitioner presented evidence focusing on three categories of documents she had requested:

• Bank Statements: Petitioner testified that bank statements she received after the initial hearing showed they had been sent to Associa starting in August 2019. Evelyn Shanley, Community Director for Associa, testified that the statements were sent to a national office in Richardson, Texas, and admitted she did not contact that office to obtain them in response to the Petitioner’s request.

• Contracts: Petitioner received two contracts signed by board members on March 27 and March 31, 2020, which were in existence prior to her request. Ms. Shanley admitted these were not provided because the board members had not given them to Associa.

• 1099s: Petitioner noted a document indicating four vendors were eligible for 1099s for 2019. Ms. Shanley denied that any 1099s had been issued.

Respondent’s Evolved Arguments

Faced with the new evidence, the Respondent’s arguments shifted:

• “Immediate Possession”: Counsel argued that the requested documents were not in the “immediate possession” of Associa’s local office.

• Concession on Bank Statements: During closing arguments, Respondent’s counsel acknowledged that “‘one could concede’ the bank statements located in Richardson, Texas were in the possession of Associa and should have been provided to Petitioner in response to her request.”

• Mootness and Penalties: Counsel argued the matter was now moot because the documents had been provided. It was further argued that a civil penalty was inappropriate because the Petitioner did not specifically request one on her initial petition form.

Final Ruling and Rationale

The ALJ found the new evidence compelling and decisive.

• Direct Contradiction: The ruling stated that “the evidence presented during the rehearing was directly contradictory” to the representation made at the initial hearing that Respondent did not have possession of the documents.

• Violation Established: The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner successfully “established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).”

• Authority for Civil Penalty: The ALJ firmly rejected the Respondent’s argument against a civil penalty. The decision cited A.R.S. § 32-2199.02, noting that the plain language of the statute grants the judge the authority to levy a penalty for established violations. The judge wrote, “Nothing in the statute limits the available remedies to those specifically requested by a petitioner.”

Final Order and Penalties

Given the established violation, the ALJ found that a civil penalty was appropriate. The final order, issued March 24, 2021, mandated the following actions by the Respondent within 30 days of the decision’s mailing date:

1. Reimbursement of Filing Fee: Pay the Petitioner, Nancy L. Babington, her filing fee of $500.00.

2. Payment of Civil Penalty: Pay the Arizona Department of Real Estate a civil penalty of $2,500.00.






Study Guide – 20F-H2020064-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Babington v. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case Nancy L. Babington vs. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation. It covers the initial hearing, the subsequent rehearing, the key arguments presented by both parties, and the final legal outcome. The materials are designed to test and deepen understanding of the case’s facts, legal principles, and timeline.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, using only information provided in the case documents.

1. What specific Arizona statute did Petitioner Nancy L. Babington allege that the Respondent, Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation, had violated?

2. What was the Respondent’s primary defense during the initial hearing for not providing the requested documents within the statutory timeframe?

3. What was the official outcome of the first Administrative Law Judge Decision issued on September 17, 2020?

4. On what legal grounds did the Petitioner successfully request a rehearing of the case?

5. What new evidence regarding the requested bank statements was introduced during the rehearing?

6. How did the Respondent’s management company, Associa Arizona, explain its failure to produce the two contracts signed in March 2020?

7. What was the Respondent’s counsel’s argument at the rehearing for why a civil penalty should not be levied?

8. How did the Administrative Law Judge counter the Respondent’s argument regarding the imposition of a civil penalty?

9. What two financial penalties were included in the final order issued on March 24, 2021?

10. What is the standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and what is its definition according to the case file?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had violated A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16, Section 33-1258. This statute requires a condominium owners association to make its financial and other records reasonably available for examination by any member within ten business days of a request.

2. During the initial hearing, the Respondent argued that it was unable to provide the documents because they were not in its possession. This was attributed to a financial disagreement with its former management company, Community Management & Consulting (CMC), which was withholding records.

3. The first decision, issued on September 17, 2020, was in favor of the Respondent. The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition, concluding she had failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the statute, as it was not required to create or provide documents it did not possess.

4. A rehearing was granted based on the Petitioner’s claim of “newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.” After the initial ruling, the Respondent provided some documents, which revealed that it had, in fact, been in possession of them prior to the Petitioner’s formal request.

5. During the rehearing, it was revealed that bank statements were being sent to Associa’s national central office in Richardson, Texas, starting in August 2019. An Associa representative admitted that the local office never contacted the central office to obtain these statements in response to the Petitioner’s request.

6. Associa’s representative, Evelyn Shanley, admitted that two signed contracts existed but had not been provided to the Petitioner. She stated this was because the members of the Board of Directors who signed them had not yet provided the contracts to Associa.

7. The Respondent’s counsel argued that a civil penalty was not appropriate because the Petitioner did not specifically request one by checking the corresponding box on the initial petition. Counsel asserted that the rehearing process was not designed for the Petitioner to change the relief requested.

8. The Judge rejected the Respondent’s argument, stating it was an erroneous interpretation of A.R.S. § 32-2199.02. The Judge clarified that the plain language of the statute allows the Administrative Law Judge to levy a civil penalty for established violations, and nothing in the statute limits available remedies to only those specifically requested by a petitioner.

9. The final order required the Respondent to pay the Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00. Additionally, the Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $2,500.00 to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

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

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for essay-style responses. Formulate a comprehensive argument using only the evidence and legal reasoning presented in the source documents.

1. Analyze the concept of “possession” as it applied to the association’s records in this case. How did the distinction between Associa’s local Arizona office and its national central office in Texas impact the initial ruling versus the outcome of the rehearing?

2. Trace the evolution of the Respondent’s legal arguments from the first hearing to the second. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of their positions at each stage, including the “mootness” argument, and explain why their defense ultimately failed.

3. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence.” How did the Petitioner fail to meet this standard in the initial hearing but succeed in the rehearing? Use specific examples of evidence related to the bank statements and contracts to support the analysis.

4. Examine the role and authority of the Administrative Law Judge in this case, particularly concerning the decision to grant a rehearing and the authority to levy a civil penalty even when not explicitly requested by the petitioner.

5. Evaluate the significance of A.R.S. § 33-1258 for condominium owners. Using the facts of this case, explain the rights it grants to members and the obligations it places on associations and their management companies regarding record-keeping and transparency.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions and orders. In this case, the ALJ was Tammy L. Eigenheer.

A.R.S. § 33-1258

The specific Arizona Revised Statute that requires condominium associations to make all financial and other records reasonably available for examination by a member within ten business days of a request.

Associa Arizona (Associa)

The management company hired by Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation after the termination of the previous management agreement. Associa was responsible for handling the Petitioner’s records request on behalf of the association.

Civil Penalty

A monetary penalty levied by a government agency or administrative judge for a violation of a statute or regulation. In this case, a $2,500 penalty was levied against the Respondent for violating A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Community Management & Consulting, LLC (CMC)

The previous management company for Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation. CMC terminated its agreement in 2019 and was withholding records from the association due to a financial disagreement.

Department of Real Estate

The Arizona state agency with jurisdiction to hear disputes between property owners and condominium owners associations. The Petitioner filed her initial petition with this department.

HOA Dispute Rehearing Request

The formal request filed by the Petitioner with the Department of Real Estate to have the case reheard. It was granted based on the discovery of new material evidence.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, the Petitioner was Nancy L. Babington, a member of the condominium association.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent was Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation, the condominium owners association.






Blog Post – 20F-H2020064-REL-RHG


She Sued Her HOA and Lost. What Happened Next Reversed Everything: 4 Lessons from a Homeowner’s Fight for Records

For too many homeowners, the Homeowner’s Association is a black box. Simple requests for financial records or board contracts—information you are legally entitled to—are met with delays, excuses, or outright silence. This isn’t just an annoyance; it’s an abuse of power that can leave residents feeling helpless against a secretive body that controls their property and their money. But what happens when one homeowner refuses to accept the stonewalling?

The case of Nancy L. Babington versus her Scottsdale, Arizona HOA provides a powerful playbook for fighting back. Documented in public legal records, her journey began with a standard request for records, escalated to a legal petition that she initially lost, and ended with a stunning reversal that holds critical lessons for every homeowner in America. Her fight demonstrates how persistence, diligence, and an understanding of the law can turn a seemingly hopeless situation into a victory for transparency.

Here are the four essential lessons from her successful battle for accountability.

1. Lesson One: An Initial Loss Isn’t the Final Word

Nancy Babington’s initial petition against her HOA was denied. At the first hearing on August 28, 2020, the HOA presented a seemingly plausible defense: they couldn’t provide the records because of an ongoing dispute with a former management company, CMC, which they claimed was withholding the documents.

The judge sided with the HOA. In a decision issued on September 17, 2020, the judge ruled against Babington, stating she had not sufficiently proven her case. The official ruling found she “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).” For most people, this would have been the end of the story.

But then the HOA made a critical, almost theatrical, miscalculation. After their victory, they provided Babington with some of the documents she had requested. As she reviewed them, she discovered the bombshell: the records proved the HOA had possessed crucial documents like bank statements and signed board contracts all along. These documents had nothing to do with the former management company, CMC, making the HOA’s initial defense appear to be a deliberate misdirection. This was the “newly discovered material evidence” she needed. The homeowner turned the HOA’s own actions against them, securing a rehearing on March 4, 2021, that would unravel their entire case.

2. Lesson Two: “Possession” Is More Than What’s in the Local Office

During the rehearing, the HOA pivoted to a new excuse, this time concerning bank statements. Their national management company, Associa, had its bank statements sent to a central office in Richardson, Texas. Because the records weren’t physically in the local Arizona office, the HOA argued they were not in their “immediate possession” and therefore not subject to the production deadline.

Under questioning, the Community Director, Evelyn Shanley, admitted she never even contacted the Texas office to get the statements for the homeowner. The HOA’s legal argument rested on the idea that their own corporate geography could shield them from transparency laws.

The judge flatly rejected this logic. An organization is responsible for its own records, no matter where they are stored. The argument was so weak that the HOA’s own lawyer was forced to backpedal during the hearing. The final decision noted:

Counsel acknowledged during closing arguments that “one could concede” the bank statements located in Richardson, Texas were in the possession of Associa and should have been provided to Petitioner in response to her request.

This ruling is a critical precedent: Your HOA cannot hide records in a corporate vault in another state and claim they are out of reach. If the documents belong to the association, they are in its possession, period.

3. Lesson Three: The Board Is the HOA, Not a Separate Entity

The next fight was over two contracts signed by board members in March 2020—documents that were created months after the dispute with the old management company. The excuse for not providing them? The management company claimed the contracts “had not been provided by the members of the Board of Directors to Associa.”

This was an attempt to create a legal fiction—that the Board of Directors and the HOA’s management company are separate entities, and that if the Board withholds a document from its own agent, the HOA can claim ignorance. The court did not buy it. By holding the HOA (the Respondent) responsible for the failure to produce the documents, the judge made it clear that this distinction is invalid.

For the purposes of records law, the Board is the HOA. The lesson is clear: The buck stops with the HOA. Board members cannot play a shell game with documents to evade their legal duty.

4. Lesson Four: Justice Doesn’t Require You to Check the Right Box

Having lost on the facts, the HOA’s counsel made one last-ditch effort to avoid a penalty. They argued that a civil penalty was inappropriate because the petitioner “did not indicate in her petition that she was seeking a civil penalty.” In essence, they claimed that because she hadn’t checked the right box on a form, the judge was powerless to punish them for breaking the law.

The Administrative Law Judge swiftly dismantled this procedural excuse. The judge’s final decision, issued on March 24, 2021, explicitly called out the HOA’s flawed logic:

Respondent erroneously interpreted A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 to require a petitioner to identify the requested relief in the petition when the plain language of the statute provides that the Administrative Law Judge may levy a civil penalty for violations that are established. Nothing in the statute limits the available remedies to those specifically requested by a petitioner.

The final ruling was the tangible consequence of the HOA’s failed arguments and lack of transparency. The judge ordered the HOA to reimburse Babington’s $500 filing fee and levied a separate $2,500 civil penalty payable to the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The message was unmistakable: the law has teeth, and a judge can use them based on the facts, regardless of which boxes were checked on a form.

Conclusion: Knowledge is Power

Nancy Babington’s fight is a masterclass in homeowner advocacy. Her journey from a seemingly hopeless loss to a precedent-setting victory proves that a single resident, armed with facts and relentless persistence, can force an HOA to follow the law. This case affirms that transparency is a legal requirement, not an optional courtesy. It serves as a powerful reminder that while the law is on the side of transparency, it often falls to diligent homeowners to hold their associations accountable.

This case was won because the facts came to light—do you know what your rights are, and what records you’re entitled to see from your own HOA?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Nancy L. Babington (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf at both the initial hearing and the rehearing.,

Respondent Side

  • Lydia Linsmeier (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
    Represented Respondent at the initial hearing.,
  • Mark K. Sahl (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
    Represented Respondent at the rehearing.,
  • Scott B. Carpenter (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
    Represented Respondent at the rehearing.,
  • Joseph Silberschlag (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
    Secretary of the Board of Directors; testified at the initial hearing; also referred to as 'Joe Silberschlag' in the petition request.,,,
  • Debbie Schumacher (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
    Named in Petitioner's record request email.,
  • Marty Shuford (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
    Named in Petitioner's record request email.,
  • Angelina Rajenovich (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
    Named in Petitioner's record request email.,
  • Dermot Brown (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
    Named in Petitioner's record request email.,
  • Lori Nusbaum (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
    Named in Petitioner's record request email.,
  • Linda Parker (property manager)
    Associa Arizona
    Director of Client Services; responded to Petitioner's record requests.,,,
  • Evelyn Shanley (property manager/witness)
    Associa Arizona
    Community Director; previously communicated with Petitioner; testified at the rehearing.,,,
  • Laura Smith (property manager)
    Associa Arizona
    Previously communicated with Petitioner regarding records.,

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • c. serrano (admin staff)
    Transmitted the initial decision.

Other Participants

  • Stephen Silberschlag (unknown)
    Petitioner requested proof of his liability insurance.,