Case Summary
| Case ID | 21F-H2120020-REL-RHG |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2022-02-02 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Jenna Clark |
| Outcome | loss |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $0.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes | Counsel | Kristin Roebuck Bethell, Esq. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association | Counsel | Samantha Cote, Esq. |
Alleged Violations
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioners' petition, concluding they failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 regarding the availability of voting records.
Why this result: Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the HOA violated the statute through its NDA request or its method of providing the records (redacted ballots and separate unredacted envelopes) and failed to prove the records were not made reasonably available within the required statutory time frame.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to comply with voting records request (regarding assessment and cumulative voting records)
Petitioners alleged the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by requiring an NDA and providing redacted ballots and separate unredacted envelopes, which prevented Petitioners from cross-referencing votes with voters. Respondent argued it timely provided the totality of the requested information and that the manner of delivery did not violate the statute.
Orders: Petitioners' petition is denied.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
- ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Analytics Highlights
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
21F-H2120020-REL-RHG Decision – 944169.pdf
21F-H2120020-REL-RHG Decision – 944171.pdf
21F-H2120020-REL-RHG Decision – ../21F-H2120020-REL/881665.pdf
Briefing Document: Swanson & Barnes v. Circle G Ranches 4 HOA
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the legal dispute between homeowners Sandra Swanson and Robert Barnes (“Petitioners”) and the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association (“Respondent” or “HOA”). The core of the case, adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), was the Petitioners’ allegation that the HOA violated Arizona Revised Statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1805 by failing to properly fulfill a request to inspect voting records.
The conflict centered on the HOA’s response to the request. Citing concerns for member privacy and safety, the HOA initially required the Petitioners to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), which they refused. Subsequently, the HOA provided the requested records for inspection by separating them into two stacks: redacted ballots and unredacted envelopes. The Petitioners argued this method was an unlawful barrier that made it impossible to cross-reference voters with their votes, thus failing to make the records “reasonably available” as required by statute. The HOA contended its actions were a necessary and reasonable balance of its legal duties to provide access and protect its members.
Ultimately, Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark denied the petition. The Judge ruled that the Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof. The initial decision found that the NDA request was not a statutory violation, and the method of providing the documents, while “not ideal,” was reasonable under the circumstances. This decision was upheld in a final order following a rehearing, solidifying the finding that no violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 had occurred.
I. Case Overview
• Case Name: Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes vs. Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
• Case Number: 21F-H2120020-REL (Initial); 21F-H2120020-REL-RHG (Rehearing)
• Adjudicating Body: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
• Core Legal Issue: Whether the HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805, which mandates that association records be made “reasonably available for examination” by a member, in its handling of the Petitioners’ request for voting records.
Parties Involved
Name(s)
Representation
Petitioners
Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes
Kristin Roebuck, Esq. (later Kristin Roebuck Bethell, Esq.) of Horne Siaton, PLLC
Respondent
Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
Jeremy Johnson, Esq. & Sam Cote, Esq. (later Samantha Cote, Esq.) of Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
II. Factual Background and Chronology of Events
The dispute arose from requests to inspect records related to two separate votes conducted by the HOA.
Oct 4, 2017
The HOA Board adopts the “Rule Requiring Secret Ballots” for votes on special assessments.
Oct 28, 2019
Approximate date of a vote regarding an increase in HOA dues.
Dec 2019
A vote occurs on a proposed Declaration amendment to prohibit cumulative voting.
Jan 2, 2020
Petitioners make a verbal request to the HOA’s management company, Vision, to “view the votes” on the cumulative voting amendment.
Jan 6, 2020
Petitioners formalize their verbal request in a letter to Vision’s attorney, Clint Goodman.
Jan 13, 2020
The HOA Board votes 8:1 to require Petitioners to sign an NDA before viewing the ballots, citing member privacy and prior complaints of “harassing” behavior by Petitioners. Petitioners decline to sign.
Jan 16, 2020
Petitioners’ counsel sends a formal written request for all ballots and related documents for both the dues increase and the cumulative voting amendment.
Jan 30, 2020
The HOA’s counsel responds, stating the HOA must “balance your clients’ requests against the privacy and safety of all Owners” and confirming the records will be made available for inspection.
Feb 7, 2020
Petitioners inspect records at the attorney’s office for 3.5 hours. They are provided with two separate stacks: redacted ballots and unredacted envelopes, which they are unable to match. They review only the cumulative voting records (approx. 122 pages).
Aug 5, 2020
Petitioners’ attorney sends a new demand for “unredacted ballots” and all related documents for an in-person inspection. No additional documents are provided.
Sep 22, 2020
Petitioners file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging a violation of statute.
III. The Central Dispute: Access to Voting Records
The conflict revolved around the interpretation of the “reasonably available” standard in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.
The HOA’s Response and Justification
Faced with the records request, the HOA’s Board expressed concern for member privacy. This was based on a general fear of retaliation against members based on their votes and specific complaints from homeowners labeling past behaviors by the Petitioners as “harassing.” The HOA’s attorney, Clint Goodman, articulated this position in a January 30, 2020, letter:
“The Association’s position is that it has to balance your clients’ requests against the privacy and safety of all Owners within the Association. The Board is concerned with the personal information contained on the written consent forms or other documents and fears that individual members will be retaliated against or harassed based on a member’s decision to support, or not support, the matters up for a decision.”
To manage these competing interests, the HOA took two primary actions:
1. NDA Requirement: An 8:1 Board vote mandated an NDA, which the Petitioners refused to sign.
2. Document Separation: During the February 7, 2020, inspection, the HOA provided two sets of documents: ballots with member information redacted and the corresponding unredacted envelopes. This method physically separated a voter’s identity from their specific vote, preventing direct correlation.
The HOA maintained that this process provided the totality of the requested information while protecting members.
IV. Legal Proceedings and Arguments
The dispute proceeded to an evidentiary hearing and a subsequent rehearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings.
A. Petitioners’ Position
The Petitioners argued that the HOA committed three distinct violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by:
1. Requiring an NDA: This was an unlawful prerequisite not supported by any statutory exception.
2. Providing Redacted Records: The statute requires access to original records, not redacted versions.
3. Failing to Provide Unredacted Copies: The records were never made “reasonably available” because the format prevented a meaningful review.
During the rehearing, the Petitioners’ counsel argued that the document separation method “erected an unlawful barrier” and that they “were unable to cross reference (i.e. match) the votes with the purported voters.” They also contended that because some ballots contained names or signatures, there was no reasonable expectation of privacy, rendering the ballots not truly “secret.”
B. Respondent’s (HOA) Position
The HOA’s defense rested on the argument that it had fulfilled its statutory obligations. Key points included:
• “Reasonably Available”: The HOA met its obligation by providing all requested records for a 3.5-hour inspection.
• No Prescribed Method: The statute dictates what must be provided but not how. The HOA devised a method to comply with the law while also fulfilling its duty to protect member safety and privacy.
• Totality of Information: All information was provided, even if in two separate stacks. The HOA argued it was possible for the Petitioners to “cross reference and discern the information they sought.”
• Irrelevance of NDA: The NDA was a moot point because the inspection proceeded even after the Petitioners declined to sign it.
V. Administrative Law Judge’s Decisions and Rationale
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the Petitioners’ petition in both the initial decision and the final order after rehearing, concluding that they failed to meet their burden of proof.
A. Initial Decision (May 17, 2021)
The ALJ’s initial findings were:
• The HOA’s request that Petitioners sign an NDA did not constitute a statutory violation.
• The Petitioners failed to prove the HOA did not make the documents available within the 10-day statutory timeframe. It was unclear if the records were available for inspection prior to the February 7, 2020, date chosen by the Petitioners.
• The statutory provision for purchasing copies was inapplicable, as Petitioners only requested to examine the records and never requested to pay for copies.
• The Petitioners did not provide binding authority compelling an HOA to make unredacted voting records available where privacy is a concern.
B. Rehearing and Final Order (February 2, 2022)
The Petitioners were granted a rehearing on the grounds that the initial decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” No new evidence was introduced; the parties presented oral arguments reiterating their positions. The ALJ’s final order affirmed the original decision, elaborating on the core issue:
• Reasonableness of Methodology: The ALJ concluded that the HOA’s method of document delivery did not violate the statute. The record reflected that the “Petitioners timely received the totality of the documents from their records request(s).”
• Final Conclusion: The order stated that while the HOA’s method “may have not been ideal, under the totality of underlying circumstances the decision [was] reasonable and within the requirements of the applicable statute(s).”
The final order denied the petition, making the decision binding unless appealed to the Superior Court.
VI. Key Statutory Language
The entire case hinged on the interpretation of a single statute.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(A):
“Except as provided in subsection B of this section, all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member’s representative. The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review. The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. On request for purchase of copies of records by any member… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records. An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.” (Emphasis added)
Study Guide: Swanson & Barnes v. Circle G Ranches 4 HOA
This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative legal case involving homeowners Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes and the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association, focusing on the dispute over access to voting records under Arizona law.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based on the information provided in the case documents.
1. Who were the primary parties (the Petitioners and the Respondent) in case number 21F-H2120020-REL?
2. What specific Arizona statute was the central subject of the legal dispute?
3. What two distinct sets of voting records did the Petitioners request in their formal letter dated January 16, 2020?
4. What condition did the Respondent’s Board of Directors initially try to impose on the Petitioners before they would be permitted to view the voting records?
5. Describe the format in which the Respondent provided the cumulative voting records to the Petitioners on February 7, 2020.
6. What was the Respondent’s primary justification for its actions, including the initial request for an NDA and the eventual provision of redacted documents?
7. What is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, and which party was assigned this burden of proof?
8. According to the Administrative Law Judge, why was the statutory 10-day provision for providing copies of records deemed inapplicable in this case?
9. What was the ultimate outcome of the initial Administrative Law Judge Decision on May 17, 2021, and the Final Order after the rehearing on February 2, 2022?
10. On what grounds did the Petitioners file their request for a rehearing on June 22, 2021?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioners were Sandra Swanson and Robert Barnes, who were property owners and members of the homeowners’ association. The Respondent was the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association (“the Association”).
2. The central subject of the dispute was Arizona Revised Statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1805. This statute governs the access of association members to the financial and other records of a homeowners’ association.
3. In their letter, the Petitioners requested all ballots and related documents from the vote on an increase in dues that occurred around October 28, 2019. They also requested the written consent forms and ballots for a proposed Declaration Amendment regarding cumulative voting from December 2019.
4. The Respondent’s Board of Directors voted 8-to-1 to require the Petitioners to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) before they could view the ballots. The Petitioners declined to sign the NDA.
5. On February 7, 2020, the Respondent provided the records as two separate stacks of documents. One stack contained redacted ballots, and the other contained unredacted envelopes, making it impossible for the Petitioners to discern which ballot belonged to which envelope.
6. The Respondent’s stated justification was the need to balance the Petitioners’ request against the privacy and safety of all owners. The Board expressed concern that personal information on the documents could lead to individual members being harassed or retaliated against based on their vote.
7. “Preponderance of the evidence” is the burden of proof required in this case, defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. The Petitioners bore this burden to prove the Respondent had violated the statute.
8. The judge found the 10-day copy provision inapplicable because the Petitioners had requested to examine the records, not to purchase copies of them. The statute has separate provisions for examination (which is free) and purchasing copies (for which a fee can be charged).
9. In both the initial decision and the Final Order after the rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioners’ petition. The judge concluded that the Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof that the Respondent had committed a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.
10. The Petitioners filed their DISPUTE REHEARING REQUEST on the grounds that the initial decision’s “findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a comprehensive understanding of the case. Formulate detailed essay responses that synthesize facts, legal arguments, and procedural history from the provided documents.
1. Analyze the core conflict between a homeowner’s right to access association records under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 and the association’s duty to protect member privacy. How did the Respondent attempt to balance these competing interests, and why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately find their method acceptable under the law?
2. Discuss the Petitioners’ multi-faceted argument that the Respondent violated the statute. Detail their specific claims regarding the NDA, the redaction of records, and the failure to provide unredacted copies, and explain the judge’s legal reasoning for rejecting each one.
3. Trace the complete procedural history of this case, from the initial records request in January 2020 to the Final Order in February 2022. Include key dates, specific requests, filings, hearings, and the progression from the initial decision to the rehearing and final judgment.
4. The concept of making records “reasonably available” is central to this case. Based on the arguments from both parties and the judge’s decision, construct a detailed definition of what “reasonably available” means in the context of this dispute, addressing both the timeliness and the format of the records provided.
5. Examine the legal standards and principles of statutory construction cited by the Administrative Law Judge. How were concepts like “preponderance of the evidence” and giving statutory words their “natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning” applied to the facts of this case to reach the final decision?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, reviews evidence, and makes legal findings and decisions. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
The Arizona statute at the heart of the case, which mandates that all financial and other records of a homeowners’ association be made “reasonably available” for examination by any member.
Board of Directors (the Board)
The governing body that oversees the Homeowners Association. The Board voted to require an NDA and was concerned about member privacy.
Burden of Proof
The obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the Petitioners had the burden of proof.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing legal documents that set up the guidelines for a planned community or subdivision. The Circle G Ranches 4 HOA is governed by its CC&Rs.
Department
The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings regarding disputes within homeowners’ associations.
Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA)
A legal contract creating a confidential relationship. The Respondent’s Board requested the Petitioners sign an NDA before viewing voting records, which they declined.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent Arizona state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies. The Department referred this case to the OAH.
Petitioners
The party who initiates a lawsuit or petition. In this case, Sandra Swanson and Robert Barnes, homeowners in the Circle G Ranches 4 subdivision.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in most civil cases, meaning that the evidence presented is more likely to be true than not. This was the evidentiary burden placed on the Petitioners.
Redacted
Edited to remove or black out confidential information. The Respondent provided redacted ballots to the Petitioners.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association.
Secret Ballot
A voting method in which a voter’s choices are anonymous. The HOA had a “Rule Requiring Secret Ballots” for special assessments, which became relevant to the privacy arguments.
Tribunal
A general term for a body established to settle a dispute. In these documents, it refers to the Office of Administrative Hearings and the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Vision Community Management, LLC (Vision)
The management company for the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association. The initial records requests were submitted to Vision.
5 Surprising Lessons from a Homeowner’s Fight to See HOA Records
For many homeowners, transparency from their Homeowners Association (HOA) is the bedrock of fair governance. But what happens when one member’s right to scrutinize the board collides with the board’s duty to protect the entire community from potential harm? The Arizona legal case of Swanson & Barnes vs. Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association offers a fascinating and cautionary answer. A seemingly straightforward request to inspect voting records escalated into a legal battle that reveals surprising truths about the balance between a homeowner’s right to know and an association’s responsibility to keep its members safe. This article breaks down the key lessons from this dispute, offering sharp, practical insights for any homeowner seeking clarity from their board.
The Letter of the Law: “Reasonably Available” Doesn’t Mean Convenient
The central conflict hinged on the interpretation of Arizona law (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805), which mandates that an HOA’s records be made “reasonably available” for examination. When homeowners Sandra Swanson and Robert Barnes requested to see ballots for a dues increase and a voting amendment, their HOA complied—but not in the way they expected.
They were presented with two separate stacks of documents: one of anonymous, redacted ballots and another of unredacted envelopes bearing member names and addresses. This separation made it impossible to match a specific vote to a specific homeowner without significant effort. The homeowners argued this was an “unlawful barrier.” The HOA countered that the statute doesn’t dictate the methodology of delivery, only that the information be provided.
The judge affirmed the HOA’s interpretation, ruling that the statute governs what must be provided but grants the association discretion in the methodology of its delivery. Because the homeowners “timely received the totality of the documents,” the HOA had met its legal obligation. In the final rehearing decision, the judge reflected on this point, noting that, “While Respondent’s methodology of document delivery to Petitioners may have not been ideal, under the totality of underlying circumstances the decision [was] reasonable…” The ruling underscores a critical distinction for homeowners: the legal standard of “reasonably available” focuses on the completeness of the information, not the convenience of its format. The lesson for homeowners is to be precise in your records request and prepared for the possibility that the HOA will provide the data in a format that requires you to do the analytical work of connecting the dots.
Privacy vs. Transparency: Why Your HOA Can Protect Its Members
The HOA’s core defense for its cumbersome delivery method was its duty to balance the homeowners’ request against the privacy and safety of all its members. This was not a theoretical concern. The case file reveals a complex community dynamic, noting, “While it has never been Petitioners’ intention to harass other Members of the Association, many homeowners have complained to Vision [the management company] regarding behaviors they have labeled ‘harassing’ by Petitioners.”
This context illuminates the difficult position of the board. The HOA’s attorney, Clint Goodman, articulated this balancing act in a letter to the homeowners’ counsel:
The Association’s position is that it has to balance your clients’ requests against the privacy and safety of all Owners within the Association. The Board is concerned with the personal information contained on the written consent forms or other documents and fears that individual members will be retaliated against or harassed based on a member’s decision to support, or not support, the matters up for a decision.
The court’s validation of this approach signals that an HOA’s right to take proactive steps to protect member privacy can outweigh an individual member’s demand for perfectly convenient access, especially when there are documented concerns about potential harassment.
An NDA Isn’t an Automatic Red Flag: Why HOAs Can Request Confidentiality
Early in the dispute, the HOA Board took a step that many homeowners would assume is illegal: citing privacy concerns, it voted 8-to-1 to require the homeowners to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) before viewing the ballots. The homeowners refused.
While an NDA might seem like an unlawful impediment to a statutory right, the Administrative Law Judge found otherwise. The decision explicitly states that the HOA’s request for the homeowners to sign an NDA did not constitute a violation of the statute. Though the homeowners ultimately viewed the records without signing the agreement, the ruling is clear. It affirms that an HOA’s attempt to use an NDA as a tool to protect sensitive member information is not, in and of itself, an illegal act. This stands as a counter-intuitive but vital lesson: a request for confidentiality is a legally permissible option for a board concerned about its duty to protect member data.
Feeling Wronged Isn’t Enough: The High Bar of Proving an HOA Violation
This case is a potent reminder of the legal realities facing homeowners. The petitioners had the “burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence” that the HOA violated the statute. The court defines this standard as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Despite their persistence through an initial hearing and a rehearing, the judge concluded in both decisions that the homeowners “did not sustain their burden of proof.” A critical insider detail from the judge reveals one reason why: the case was “skewed, as Petitioners only paid to have 1 issue adjudicated” despite splicing their complaint into three subparts. This suggests that procedural missteps or a narrowly defined petition can weaken a homeowner’s case from the start.
This legal standard means that a successful petition requires more than a feeling of being wronged; it demands a well-documented case proving a specific statutory violation with clear evidence. Simply showing that an HOA’s actions were inconvenient, frustrating, or fell short of personal expectations is not enough to win in court.
Conclusion: Drawing the Line Between Scrutiny and Safety
The case of Swanson & Barnes vs. Circle G Ranches 4 illuminates the inherent tension between a homeowner’s right to scrutinize their association and an HOA’s duty to protect the entire community. While the law provides for access, this ruling demonstrates that it also grants HOAs significant and reasonable discretion in how they provide it, particularly when member safety is a documented concern. The court’s decision prioritizes protecting members from potential harassment over providing perfect, convenient transparency.
It leaves every community member with a thought-provoking question: In your own community, how do you think the balance should be struck between total transparency and protecting your neighbors from potential harassment?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Sandra Swanson (petitioner)
Also listed as a witness - Robert Barnes (petitioner)
Also listed as a witness - Kristin Roebuck (attorney)
Horne Siaton, PLLC
Appeared as Kristin Roebuck Bethell, Esq. in rehearing,
Respondent Side
- Jeremy Johnson (attorney)
Joes, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC - Samantha Cote (attorney)
Joes, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
Also referred to as Sam Cote, Esq.,,, - Patricia Ahler (witness)
- Amanda Stewart (witness)
- Jennifer Amundson (witness)
- Regis Salazar (witness)
- Clint Goodman (HOA attorney)
Vision Community Management, LLC
Attorney for Vision, the Association's property manager,,
Neutral Parties
- Jenna Clark (ALJ)
OAH - Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Commissioner listed on original decision transmission - Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Commissioner listed on rehearing decision transmission, - Dan Gardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Transmission recipient c/o Commissioner,,
