Tag Archives: HOA Records Request

Tom Barrs vs Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-04-01
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge Decision granted the remanded petition based on the parties' stipulation that the Respondent Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to timely provide the membership roster. The ALJ ordered Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee and assessed a civil penalty of $25.00 against Respondent. All other respects of the previous ALJ Decision issued February 21, 2023, remain unchanged.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $25.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Tom Barrs Counsel Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq.
Respondent Desert Ranch Homeowners Association Counsel B. Austin Baillio, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge Decision granted the remanded petition based on the parties' stipulation that the Respondent Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to timely provide the membership roster. The ALJ ordered Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee and assessed a civil penalty of $25.00 against Respondent. All other respects of the previous ALJ Decision issued February 21, 2023, remain unchanged.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to timely provide full membership roster

The remanded issue concerned whether Respondent failed to timely fulfill records requests, specifically a full roster of Association Member names and corresponding property addresses, in violation of ARS § 33-1805. The parties stipulated that a violation of ARS § 33-1805 occurred.

Orders: Petitioner's remanded petition was granted. Respondent was ordered to reimburse Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee and pay a $25.00 civil penalty.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $25.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Records Request, Membership Roster, Records Disclosure, Statutory Violation, Stipulation, Remand
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-243
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09(A)(1)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1280942.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:56:28 (50.9 KB)

25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1285833.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:56:32 (107.0 KB)

25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1286292.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:56:36 (21.7 KB)

25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1288559.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:56:40 (149.2 KB)

Briefing Document: The Matter of Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the key events, legal arguments, and ultimate resolution of the administrative case Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (No. 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD). The dispute, which progressed through the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and the Maricopa County Superior Court, centered on a homeowner’s right to access association records, specifically the membership roster.

The case concluded on March 31, 2025, when the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA) stipulated to a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805. The HOA admitted it failed to timely fulfill a records request for the membership roster, which was submitted on October 21, 2021, and not fulfilled until May 2023—a delay of approximately 19 months.

The resolution required the HOA to pay petitioner Tom Barrs a total of $975.00, which included the reimbursement of a $500.00 filing fee. Citing the respondent’s “unconscionable conduct,” the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) also levied a nominal civil penalty of $25.00 against the association.

A critical turning point in the case was a landmark ruling by the Maricopa County Superior Court on April 4, 2024. The Court reversed an earlier OAH decision, establishing that HOA membership lists containing names and property addresses do not qualify as exempt personal records. The Court reasoned that access to such information is “essential to having a homeowners association” and necessary for members “to actively participate in HOA affairs.” This ruling, however, specified that more private data, such as email addresses and phone numbers, are not subject to mandatory disclosure. The matter was subsequently remanded to the OAH on this single issue, leading to the final stipulated resolution.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview and Parties Involved

This administrative action details a prolonged dispute between a homeowner and his planned community association regarding access to records.

• Case Name: In the Matter of: Tom Barrs, Petitioner, vs. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, Respondent.

• Docket Number: 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD

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

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark

• Petitioner: Tom Barrs (Appeared pro per initially, later represented by Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq.)

• Respondent: Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Represented by HOA President Michel Olley)

II. Procedural History: From Initial Petitions to Superior Court

The case originated from four separate petitions filed by Mr. Barrs with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, each incurring a $500 filing fee.

Petition Filing Date

Alleged Violation

Subject Matter

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Document requests from Apr 2021, Nov 2021, and Feb 2022.

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Alleged preclusion of audio recording at a meeting.

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Membership roster request from October 2021.

May 12, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Multiple document requests from Oct 2021 to Mar 2022.

• May 25, 2022: The Department of Real Estate consolidated the matters and referred them to the OAH for an evidentiary hearing.

• January 9-10, 2023: The consolidated hearing takes place before the OAH.

• February 21, 2023: The OAH issues an Administrative Law Judge Decision. It granted portions of the general document request petitions but denied the petitions regarding the audio recording and the membership roster in their entirety. The petitioner’s request for civil penalties was also denied.

• March 26, 2023: As the aggrieved party, Mr. Barrs files a timely Dispute Rehearing Petition with the Department of Real Estate.

• April 18, 2023: The Department of Real Estate issues an order denying the rehearing request.

• June 6, 2023: The Department is notified that Mr. Barrs has appealed its decision to the Maricopa County Superior Court.

III. The Superior Court Ruling: A Key Decision on HOA Record Transparency

On April 4, 2024, the Superior Court issued a pivotal order that reversed the Department of Real Estate’s decision in part, focusing squarely on the issue of membership lists.

The Court concluded that the ALJ had erred in treating the membership roster as exempt personal records. It ruled that such lists, containing names and property addresses, must be made available to all members unless they qualify for a specific statutory exception.

“In this case, Desert Ridge has kept membership lists as a part of their records undoubtedly for a variety of reasons. Unless those records qualify for an exception, they must be made available to all members… Those membership lists containing names and addresses, however, do not appear to fall within the exemption for personal records.”

The Court’s rationale was grounded in the principle of homeowner participation in association governance:

“In addition, in order to actively participate in HOA affairs, all members must have the ability to know who is in the Association and which home or land they own.”

The ruling drew a clear line between public-facing information and private contact details. It affirmed that while names and addresses are necessary for HOA functions, more personal data is not.

“The desire for additional personal information, including email addresses and phone numbers and the like, while understandable, is not necessary for active participation in the affairs of the Association… Email addresses and phone numbers, however, are more personal and less public in nature… While disclosure of names and property addresses… may be essential to having a homeowners association, the disclosure of email addresses and phone numbers is not.”

On August 2, 2024, the Court reaffirmed its ruling and remanded “only the reversed portion of the Department’s Decision” back to the OAH for “proceedings consistent” with its order. The petitioner’s request for attorneys’ fees for his pro per work was denied.

IV. The Remand Process and Clarification of Scope

Following the remand, the OAH scheduled a new hearing for March 31, 2025. A prehearing conference on March 18, 2025, revealed a significant disagreement between the parties on the scope of this new hearing.

• Petitioner’s Position: Mr. Barrs argued that the remand reopened all four of his original petitions for reconsideration.

• Respondent’s Position: Mr. Olley contended that the remand was narrowly focused on the single issue of the membership roster, as specified by the Superior Court.

ALJ Clark noted that the Department of Real Estate’s hearing notice was “deficient” because it failed to specify the issue for adjudication. To resolve the conflict, she issued a clarifying Minute Entry on March 24, 2025.

The Order explicitly narrowed the scope of the hearing:

“IT IS ORDERED that the issue to be addressed at the hearing… is whether Respondent failed to timely fulfill records requests submitted by Petitioner… by providing Petitioner with a full roster of Association Member names and corresponding property addresses per his request(s) in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”

The order further stated that in all other respects, the original ALJ Decision from February 21, 2023, “remains unchanged and in full force and effect,” thereby validating the respondent’s interpretation.

V. Final Hearing and Resolution

The remanded hearing convened on March 31, 2025. Before testimony could begin, the case moved swiftly to a resolution.

At the outset of the hearing, Mr. Olley, on behalf of the HOA, made a “motion for summary judgment,” conceding a violation of the statute regarding the withholding of the membership roster and offering to reimburse the petitioner’s $500 filing fee. The ALJ treated this as a settlement offer and allowed the parties to confer off the record.

The parties returned having reached a full agreement, which was entered into the record. The key stipulated facts were:

Stipulation

Details

Violation Admitted

The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide the membership roster.

Specific Request

The violation pertains to the request made by Mr. Barrs on October 21, 2021.

Untimeliness

The roster was not provided until May 2023, approximately 19 months after the request.

Monetary Settlement

The Association agreed to pay Mr. Barrs a total of $975.00.

Based on the parties’ stipulations, ALJ Clark issued a final decision on April 1, 2025, formalizing the outcome:

1. Petition Granted: The petitioner’s remanded petition was granted.

2. Civil Penalty: A civil penalty of $25.00 was assessed against the Respondent. In his closing argument, petitioner’s counsel argued this was warranted due to the HOA’s “unconscionable conduct” in delaying compliance for 19 months.

3. Filing Fee Reimbursement: Respondent was ordered to reimburse the petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee, as per the stipulation and statute.

4. Finality: The decision reaffirmed that all other elements of the original February 21, 2023, OAH decision remain in effect.

Questions

Question

Can my HOA refuse to give me a list of other homeowners' names and addresses?

Short Answer

No. Unless an exception applies, membership lists with names and addresses must be made available so members can participate in HOA affairs.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that membership lists containing names and addresses are not considered 'personal records' that can be withheld. Access to this information is deemed necessary for members to actively participate in the association, such as knowing who belongs to the association and which properties they own.

Alj Quote

Those membership lists containing names and addresses, however, do not appear to fall within the exemption for personal records. … In addition, in order to actively participate in HOA affairs, all members must have the ability to know who is in the Association and which home or land they own.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Membership List
  • Homeowner Rights

Question

Am I entitled to receive the email addresses and phone numbers of other homeowners?

Short Answer

No. Email addresses and phone numbers are considered personal and private, unlike physical addresses.

Detailed Answer

While names and physical addresses are necessary for HOA participation, the decision states that email addresses and phone numbers are more personal. Disclosure of this contact information is not essential for association business and could lead to harassment or marketing issues.

Alj Quote

The desire for additional personal information, including email addresses and phone numbers and the like, while understandable, is not necessary for active participation in the affairs of the Association. … Email addresses and phone numbers, however, are more personal and less public in nature.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)

Topic Tags

  • Privacy
  • Records Request
  • Personal Records

Question

How quickly must the HOA respond to my request to inspect records?

Short Answer

The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request.

Detailed Answer

Arizona law grants the association ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.

Alj Quote

The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies of records… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Timelines
  • Procedural Requirements

Question

Can the HOA charge me a fee for simply looking at the records?

Short Answer

No. The HOA cannot charge for making materials available for review.

Detailed Answer

The statute explicitly prohibits the association from charging a member for the act of making material available for review. Charges are only permitted for copies.

Alj Quote

The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Records Request

Question

How much can the HOA charge me for copies of records?

Short Answer

The HOA can charge a maximum of 15 cents per page.

Detailed Answer

If a member requests copies of records, the association is legally permitted to charge a fee, but it is capped at fifteen cents per page.

Alj Quote

An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Records Request

Question

What records is the HOA allowed to withhold from me?

Short Answer

The HOA can withhold privileged legal communications, pending litigation, closed meeting minutes, and specific personal or employee records.

Detailed Answer

The decision outlines specific statutory exceptions where records can be withheld, including attorney-client privilege, pending litigation, minutes from executive sessions, and personal/health/financial records of members or employees.

Alj Quote

Books and records… may be withheld… to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: 1. Privileged communication… 2. Pending litigation. 3. Meeting minutes… of a session… not required to be open… 4. Personal, health or financial records…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)

Topic Tags

  • Exceptions
  • Records Request
  • Privacy

Question

Can the HOA be penalized if they delay providing records for a long time?

Short Answer

Yes. Significant delays can result in a violation and civil penalties.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the HOA failed to provide a membership roster for approximately 19 months (from October 2021 to May 2023). This was deemed untimely and resulted in a civil penalty.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s response to Petitioner’s October 21, 2021, records request was untimely, as it was not fulfilled until May 2023. … Petitioner’s request to assess civil penalties totaling $25.00 against Respondent is granted.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • Penalties
  • Enforcement
  • Timelines

Question

If I win my hearing, will the HOA have to reimburse my filing fee?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The decision orders the Respondent (HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner's $500 filing fee as required by statute when the Petitioner prevails.

Alj Quote

Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01

Topic Tags

  • Costs
  • Remedies

Question

Who has to prove that the HOA broke the law?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the statute. This means showing that the contention is more probably true than not.

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

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Procedure

Case

Docket No
25F-H2222050-REL-RMD
Case Title
Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2025-04-01
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA refuse to give me a list of other homeowners' names and addresses?

Short Answer

No. Unless an exception applies, membership lists with names and addresses must be made available so members can participate in HOA affairs.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that membership lists containing names and addresses are not considered 'personal records' that can be withheld. Access to this information is deemed necessary for members to actively participate in the association, such as knowing who belongs to the association and which properties they own.

Alj Quote

Those membership lists containing names and addresses, however, do not appear to fall within the exemption for personal records. … In addition, in order to actively participate in HOA affairs, all members must have the ability to know who is in the Association and which home or land they own.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Membership List
  • Homeowner Rights

Question

Am I entitled to receive the email addresses and phone numbers of other homeowners?

Short Answer

No. Email addresses and phone numbers are considered personal and private, unlike physical addresses.

Detailed Answer

While names and physical addresses are necessary for HOA participation, the decision states that email addresses and phone numbers are more personal. Disclosure of this contact information is not essential for association business and could lead to harassment or marketing issues.

Alj Quote

The desire for additional personal information, including email addresses and phone numbers and the like, while understandable, is not necessary for active participation in the affairs of the Association. … Email addresses and phone numbers, however, are more personal and less public in nature.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)

Topic Tags

  • Privacy
  • Records Request
  • Personal Records

Question

How quickly must the HOA respond to my request to inspect records?

Short Answer

The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request.

Detailed Answer

Arizona law grants the association ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.

Alj Quote

The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies of records… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Timelines
  • Procedural Requirements

Question

Can the HOA charge me a fee for simply looking at the records?

Short Answer

No. The HOA cannot charge for making materials available for review.

Detailed Answer

The statute explicitly prohibits the association from charging a member for the act of making material available for review. Charges are only permitted for copies.

Alj Quote

The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Records Request

Question

How much can the HOA charge me for copies of records?

Short Answer

The HOA can charge a maximum of 15 cents per page.

Detailed Answer

If a member requests copies of records, the association is legally permitted to charge a fee, but it is capped at fifteen cents per page.

Alj Quote

An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Records Request

Question

What records is the HOA allowed to withhold from me?

Short Answer

The HOA can withhold privileged legal communications, pending litigation, closed meeting minutes, and specific personal or employee records.

Detailed Answer

The decision outlines specific statutory exceptions where records can be withheld, including attorney-client privilege, pending litigation, minutes from executive sessions, and personal/health/financial records of members or employees.

Alj Quote

Books and records… may be withheld… to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: 1. Privileged communication… 2. Pending litigation. 3. Meeting minutes… of a session… not required to be open… 4. Personal, health or financial records…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)

Topic Tags

  • Exceptions
  • Records Request
  • Privacy

Question

Can the HOA be penalized if they delay providing records for a long time?

Short Answer

Yes. Significant delays can result in a violation and civil penalties.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the HOA failed to provide a membership roster for approximately 19 months (from October 2021 to May 2023). This was deemed untimely and resulted in a civil penalty.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s response to Petitioner’s October 21, 2021, records request was untimely, as it was not fulfilled until May 2023. … Petitioner’s request to assess civil penalties totaling $25.00 against Respondent is granted.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • Penalties
  • Enforcement
  • Timelines

Question

If I win my hearing, will the HOA have to reimburse my filing fee?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The decision orders the Respondent (HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner's $500 filing fee as required by statute when the Petitioner prevails.

Alj Quote

Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01

Topic Tags

  • Costs
  • Remedies

Question

Who has to prove that the HOA broke the law?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the statute. This means showing that the contention is more probably true than not.

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

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Procedure

Case

Docket No
25F-H2222050-REL-RMD
Case Title
Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2025-04-01
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Tom Barrs (petitioner)
  • Jonathan A. Dessaules (petitioner attorney)
    Dessaules Law Group

Respondent Side

  • Michael Olley (HOA President)
    Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent. Also referred to as Michael Ali and Michel Olley.
  • B. Austin Baillio (respondent attorney)
    Maxwell & Morgan P.C.
    Counsel for Respondent in official correspondence.

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Judge Mikitish (Superior Court Judge)
    Superior Court of Arizona – Maricopa County
    Issued minute entries in related Superior Court proceedings.
  • vnunez (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.
  • mneat (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official correspondence.
  • lrecchia (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official correspondence.
  • gosborn (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official correspondence.
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official correspondence.

Other Participants

  • Brian Schoeffler (observer)
    Observed the hearing.
  • Stephen Barrs (observer)
    Observed the hearing. Also referred to as Steven Bar and Steven Bars.

John R Krahn Living Trust & Janet Krahn Living Trust v. Tonto Forest

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H013-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-12-19
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the Petitioner's petition, finding the Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to provide requested financial records (check registers) within the mandated ten business days. The request for civil penalties was denied, but the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John R Krahn Living Trust & Janet Krahn Living Trust Counsel —
Respondent Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the Petitioner's petition, finding the Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to provide requested financial records (check registers) within the mandated ten business days. The request for civil penalties was denied, but the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that Respondent's actions warranted the issuance of civil penalties.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide association financial records (check registers) within 10 business days

Respondent failed to provide the requested check registers within the ten business day statutory requirement for requests made on December 1, 2022, and July 26, 2023. The first request was fulfilled on April 6, 2023, and the second on November 21, 2023.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the petition, concluded Respondent violated ARS § 33-1805, and ordered Respondent to reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Records Request, Financial Records, Check Register, Timeliness Violation, Civil Penalties Denied
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H013-REL Decision – 1115590.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T10:04:33 (57.6 KB)

24F-H013-REL Decision – 1125702.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T10:04:41 (127.1 KB)

24F-H013-REL Decision – 1115590.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:02:05 (57.6 KB)

24F-H013-REL Decision – 1125702.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:02:10 (127.1 KB)

This summary details the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing in the matter of John R Krahn Living Trust & Janet Krahn Living Trust v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (HOA), Docket No. 24F-H013-REL, held on November 29, 2023.

Key Facts and Legal Issue

The case addressed whether the Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1805 by failing to provide association financial records, specifically check registers, within the required ten business days. The Petitioner, represented by John Krahn, filed a petition alleging violations stemming from two requests:

  1. December 1, 2022, Request: For the November 2022 check register, which was not fulfilled until April 13, 2023.
  2. July 26, 2023, Request: For January through July 2023 check registers, which was not fulfilled until November 21, 2023.

The HOA initially denied the claim, asserting that "all documents are available on the portal".

Hearing Arguments

Petitioner (Krahn) argued:

  • The check register is a recognized financial record that must be provided upon request.
  • The Respondent repeatedly missed the 10-business-day statutory deadline.
  • The HOA made false claims regarding the documents' availability on the online portal and imposed unwarranted restrictions, such as requiring future requests to be sent solely via US mail, indicating bad faith and punitive action.
  • Petitioner presented evidence of prior rulings against the HOA to establish a pattern of recurrent misconduct, justifying a request for a civil penalty.

Respondent (Gauer) argued:

  • The HOA President, Steve Gauer, admitted under oath that the association was "remiss in responding in the ten days".
  • Mr. Gauer testified that the Board was now attempting to correct past mistakes and ensure compliance, noting that the check registers were uploaded to the portal on November 21, 2023 (eight days before the hearing).
  • The Respondent did not present evidence to counter the core accusation of statutory non-compliance.

Outcome and Legal Decision

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Brian Del Vecchio issued a decision on December 19, 2023:

  1. Violation of Statute Affirmed: The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner sustained the burden of proof, finding that the Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 because both document requests were fulfilled beyond the ten business day statutory requirement.
  2. Civil Penalty Denied: The Petitioner's request to levy a civil penalty was denied, as the ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that Respondent’s actions warranted the issuance of penalties.
  3. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).
  4. Compliance Order: The Petitioner's petition was affirmed. The ALJ may order a party to abide by the statute at issue.

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H013-REL”, “case_title”: “John R Krahn Living Trust & Janet Krahn Living Trust v Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-12-19”, “alj_name”: “Brian Del Vecchio”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Is a check register considered an official financial record that an HOA must provide upon request?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The decision confirms that check registers are undisputed financial records under Arizona law.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge ruled that a check register qualifies as a financial record. Consequently, homeowners are entitled to review these documents when requested under A.R.S. § 33-1805.”, “alj_quote”: “It was undisputed that a check register is a financial record within the meaning of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. Thus, Mr. Krahn was entitled to the requested financial record.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “financial records”, “check register” ] }, { “question”: “How many days does the HOA have to fulfill my request to inspect records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona statute mandates a specific timeframe for HOAs to comply with record requests. Failure to provide access within ten business days constitutes a violation of the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “deadlines”, “records request”, “compliance” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA charge me a fee just to review the records?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA cannot charge a member for making material available for review.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the HOA can charge for copies (up to fifteen cents per page), they are explicitly prohibited from charging a fee for the act of making materials available for a member’s review.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review… An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “records request”, “homeowner rights” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA eventually provides the records months later, is it still a violation?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Providing records after the ten-business-day deadline is considered a violation of the statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if the HOA fulfills the request eventually, missing the ten-day statutory window establishes a violation. In this case, delays of several months were deemed violations despite the records ultimately being provided.”, “alj_quote”: “Both requests were fulfilled beyond the ten business day statutory requirement. Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent’s conduct… was in violation of the charged provision of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “compliance”, “deadlines”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my case against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. If the petitioner prevails, the judge must order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “Reimbursement of the filing fee is mandatory under A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A) when the homeowner prevails in the hearing.”, “alj_quote”: “If the petitioner prevails, the administrative law judge shall order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “filing fees”, “reimbursement”, “legal costs” ] }, { “question”: “Will the judge automatically fine the HOA (civil penalties) if they are found in violation?”, “short_answer”: “No. Civil penalties are not automatic; the homeowner must provide sufficient evidence that the HOA’s actions warrant them.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the judge has the authority to levy civil penalties for each violation, they may deny them if the petitioner fails to provide sufficient evidence justifying such penalties, even if a statutory violation is proven.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that Respondent’s actions warranted the issuance of civil penalties… Thus, civil penalties ought to be denied.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “civil penalties”, “fines”, “enforcement” ] }, { “question”: “Who has the burden of proof in an HOA dispute hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proving the violation.”, “detailed_answer”: “The party bringing the complaint must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning they must show it is more likely than not that the HOA violated the statute.”, “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”: “Ariz. Admin. Code R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “procedure”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA simply tell me the records are on an online portal if they aren’t actually there?”, “short_answer”: “No. Incorrectly stating records are on a portal does not satisfy the requirement if the records are not actually available.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA claimed records were available online, but the homeowner proved they were not. The ALJ found the HOA in violation for failing to provide the records within the statutory time, regardless of the portal claims.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent… stated he must submit a written request by certified mail and reiterated the financial documents were available through the online portal. At the time, the check registers were not available through the online portal… the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent’s conduct… was in violation”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “online portal”, “access to records”, “bad faith” ] } ] }

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H013-REL”, “case_title”: “John R Krahn Living Trust & Janet Krahn Living Trust v Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-12-19”, “alj_name”: “Brian Del Vecchio”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Is a check register considered an official financial record that an HOA must provide upon request?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The decision confirms that check registers are undisputed financial records under Arizona law.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge ruled that a check register qualifies as a financial record. Consequently, homeowners are entitled to review these documents when requested under A.R.S. § 33-1805.”, “alj_quote”: “It was undisputed that a check register is a financial record within the meaning of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. Thus, Mr. Krahn was entitled to the requested financial record.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “financial records”, “check register” ] }, { “question”: “How many days does the HOA have to fulfill my request to inspect records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona statute mandates a specific timeframe for HOAs to comply with record requests. Failure to provide access within ten business days constitutes a violation of the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “deadlines”, “records request”, “compliance” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA charge me a fee just to review the records?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA cannot charge a member for making material available for review.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the HOA can charge for copies (up to fifteen cents per page), they are explicitly prohibited from charging a fee for the act of making materials available for a member’s review.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review… An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “records request”, “homeowner rights” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA eventually provides the records months later, is it still a violation?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Providing records after the ten-business-day deadline is considered a violation of the statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if the HOA fulfills the request eventually, missing the ten-day statutory window establishes a violation. In this case, delays of several months were deemed violations despite the records ultimately being provided.”, “alj_quote”: “Both requests were fulfilled beyond the ten business day statutory requirement. Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent’s conduct… was in violation of the charged provision of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “compliance”, “deadlines”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my case against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. If the petitioner prevails, the judge must order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “Reimbursement of the filing fee is mandatory under A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A) when the homeowner prevails in the hearing.”, “alj_quote”: “If the petitioner prevails, the administrative law judge shall order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “filing fees”, “reimbursement”, “legal costs” ] }, { “question”: “Will the judge automatically fine the HOA (civil penalties) if they are found in violation?”, “short_answer”: “No. Civil penalties are not automatic; the homeowner must provide sufficient evidence that the HOA’s actions warrant them.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the judge has the authority to levy civil penalties for each violation, they may deny them if the petitioner fails to provide sufficient evidence justifying such penalties, even if a statutory violation is proven.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that Respondent’s actions warranted the issuance of civil penalties… Thus, civil penalties ought to be denied.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “civil penalties”, “fines”, “enforcement” ] }, { “question”: “Who has the burden of proof in an HOA dispute hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proving the violation.”, “detailed_answer”: “The party bringing the complaint must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning they must show it is more likely than not that the HOA violated the statute.”, “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”: “Ariz. Admin. Code R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “procedure”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA simply tell me the records are on an online portal if they aren’t actually there?”, “short_answer”: “No. Incorrectly stating records are on a portal does not satisfy the requirement if the records are not actually available.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA claimed records were available online, but the homeowner proved they were not. The ALJ found the HOA in violation for failing to provide the records within the statutory time, regardless of the portal claims.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent… stated he must submit a written request by certified mail and reiterated the financial documents were available through the online portal. At the time, the check registers were not available through the online portal… the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent’s conduct… was in violation”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “online portal”, “access to records”, “bad faith” ] } ] }

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John R Krahn (petitioner)
    John R Krahn Living Trust & Janet Krahn Living Trust
    Trustee and Hearing Representative for Petitioner
  • Janet Krahn (petitioner)
    John R Krahn Living Trust & Janet Krahn Living Trust

Respondent Side

  • Steve Gower (HOA president)
    Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
    Respondent representative at hearing
  • Kurt Meister (board member)
    Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
    Former Board President who filed initial response
  • Melissa Jordan (property manager)
    Ogden Community Management
    Former Community Manager who handled early communication (also referred to as 'Melissa')
  • Dan Francom (HOA attorney)
    Attorney for HOA (Tonto Forest Estates)
  • Barbara (property manager)
    Ogden Community Management
    Current Community Manager (referred to by first name only)
  • Ken (board member)
    Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
    Board member (referred to by first name only)
  • Todd (board member)
    Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
    Board member (referred to by first name only)
  • Jean (former board member)
    Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
    Former board member (referred to by first name only)

Neutral Parties

  • Brian Del Vecchio (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge for the hearing and decision
  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge who signed the initial Order
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official correspondence
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official correspondence
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official correspondence
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official correspondence
  • Diane Mahowski (ALJ)
    OAH
    Referenced in prior ALJ ruling cited as precedent
  • Lang (ALJ)
    OAH
    Referenced in prior ALJ ruling cited as precedent (last name only)

Other Participants

  • Michael Holland (party)
    Referenced as a party in a prior ADR dispute regarding records
  • Dennis Lair (HOA law advocate)
    Arizona Homeowners Coalition
    Referenced expert/advocate

Kimberly Martinez v. Pineglen Owner’s Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H027-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-03-09
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party on Petition Issues 1 and 3, establishing violations of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6) and A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). Respondent was deemed the prevailing party on Issue 2. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner $1,000.00 of the filing fee and directed to comply with the violated statutes going forward. No Civil Penalty was imposed.
Filing Fees Refunded $1,500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kimberly Martinez Counsel —
Respondent Pineglen Owner's Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6)
Bylaws, Article IV, Sections 1 and 2
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party on Petition Issues 1 and 3, establishing violations of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6) and A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). Respondent was deemed the prevailing party on Issue 2. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner $1,000.00 of the filing fee and directed to comply with the violated statutes going forward. No Civil Penalty was imposed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the violation related to the appointed board positions (Issue 2) by a preponderance of the evidence.

Key Issues & Findings

The ballot for the annual election of Board members did not have the proper resident identifiers, lot number or physical address; and the process for write-in candidates was not provided or outlined.

The ballots utilized by Respondent did not contain the address of the person voting, violating the requirement that completed ballots shall contain the name, address, and signature of the person voting.

Orders: Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6) going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6)
  • Bylaws, Article III, Section 3

At the Annual Meeting the Board President announced 2 new Board positions, but did not follow the electoral process for filling the 2 positions, instead appointed 2 residents to the new positions.

Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its Bylaws regarding the appointment of two board positions (RV Lot Manager and Architectural Review Manager), as the Board was within its limits to increase membership and fill vacancies until the next election.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Bylaws, Article IV, Section 1
  • Bylaws, Article IV, Section 2

The Board Secretary refused to comply to Petitioner's request, per ARS 33-1805(A), of supplying copies of HOA records, either electronically or by purchase of hard copies.

Petitioner requested copies in writing and offered to pay, but Respondent refused to provide copies, contrary to the statutory obligation that the association must provide copies of requested records upon request for purchase within ten business days.

Orders: Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
  • Bylaws, Article VII, Section 3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Election, Ballot Requirements, HOA Records Request, Board Appointments, Filing Fee Refund
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
  • Bylaws, Article IV, Section 1
  • Bylaws, Article IV, Section 2
  • Bylaws, Article III, Section 3
  • Bylaws, Article VII, Section 3

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H027-REL Decision – 1027053.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:00:34 (50.0 KB)

23F-H027-REL Decision – 1028006.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:00:38 (57.9 KB)

23F-H027-REL Decision – 1029880.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:00:43 (60.6 KB)

23F-H027-REL Decision – 1040305.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:00:50 (160.5 KB)

23F-H027-REL Decision – 1027053.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:20 (50.0 KB)

23F-H027-REL Decision – 1028006.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:24 (57.9 KB)

23F-H027-REL Decision – 1029880.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:28 (60.6 KB)

23F-H027-REL Decision – 1040305.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:33 (160.5 KB)

This concise summary details the proceedings, key arguments, and final decision in the matter of *Kimberly Martinez v. Pineglen Owner's Association*, case number 23F-H027-REL, heard before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Key Facts and Issues

The Petitioner, Kimberly Martinez, a homeowner in the Pineglen planned community, filed a Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department) alleging three specific violations by the Respondent, Pineglen Owner's Association (HOA). The hearing was held on February 17, 2023, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella.

The three issues were:

  1. Ballot Identifiers (A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6)): The annual election ballot lacked proper resident identifiers (address or lot number) for the person voting.
  2. Board Appointments (Bylaws Article IV, Section 1/2): The Board appointed two new voting members (RV Lot Manager and Architectural Review Manager) without following the proper electoral process.
  3. Records Request (A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)): The Board refused to provide copies of HOA records upon Petitioner’s written request and offer to purchase, instead insisting only on in-person viewing.

Key Arguments and Legal Points

Pre-Hearing Matters: The ALJ Denied the Respondent’s Motion to Continue the hearing.

Issue 1 (Ballots):

  • Petitioner's Argument: The ballot did not meet the statutory requirement of containing the name and address of the person voting, as mandated by A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6).
  • Respondent's Argument: The HOA utilized a door-to-door canvassing method and manually wrote the lot number on the ballot *after* it was received to ensure the voter was a member and to prevent duplication. They argued this process achieved compliance while protecting member privacy.

Issue 2 (Appointments):

  • Petitioner's Argument: Board members must be elected at the annual meeting, and the appointment of two new voting positions violated the electoral process outlined in the Bylaws.
  • Respondent's Argument: Citing Bylaws Article IV, Section 1, the HOA maintained they had the right to increase board membership (within the 3-to-7 member limit) and fill vacancies, with appointees serving until the next election. The positions were formalized from previously ambiguous roles to aid the Board, which is comprised of "elderly volunteers" who struggle to find recruits.

Issue 3 (Records Request):

  • Petitioner's Argument: A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) mandates that associations provide copies of records within ten business days upon written request for purchase, allowing a charge of up to fifteen cents per page. Petitioner specifically stated she fully expected an invoice to be delivered with the copies.
  • Respondent's Argument: The Board offered multiple opportunities for Petitioner to review the documents in person, believing they were making them "reasonably available" in compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) and their own bylaws. The Respondent admitted they initially failed to interpret the Petitioner's email as a request for *purchase* of copies.

Outcome and Final Decision

The ALJ issued a Decision on March 9, 2023, finding the Petitioner established violations on two of the three complaints by a preponderance of the evidence.

  • Complaint 1 (Ballots): Violation Found. Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6), as the ballots did not contain the address of the person voting.
  • Complaint 2 (Appointments): No Violation Found. The Board acted within its authority under Bylaws Article IV, Section 1, to increase membership and fill vacancies until the next election.
  • Complaint 3 (Records Request): Violation Found. Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by refusing to provide copies of the requested records for purchase, contrary to its statutory obligation.

Final Orders:

The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party on Issues 1 and 3. The ALJ Ordered Res

Questions

Question

Must HOA election ballots include the voter's address?

Short Answer

Yes, unless the community documents explicitly permit secret ballots.

Detailed Answer

According to Arizona law, completed ballots must contain the name, address, and signature of the voter. The only exception is if community documents allow for secret ballots, in which case this information must be on the envelope.

Alj Quote

The ballots utilized by Respondent did not contain the address of the person voting. Therefore, Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6).

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6)

Topic Tags

  • Elections
  • Ballots
  • Voting

Question

Can an HOA refuse to provide copies of records and force me to view them in person instead?

Short Answer

No. If a member requests to purchase copies, the HOA must provide them.

Detailed Answer

While an HOA can make records available for viewing, if a homeowner explicitly requests to purchase copies, the HOA is statutorily obligated to provide those copies within ten business days. Simply offering a viewing does not satisfy a request for copies.

Alj Quote

Respondent refused to provide copies of the requested documents and would only allow Petitioner to view the documents, contrary to its statutory obligation. … Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Transparency
  • HOA Obligations

Question

Can the HOA Board appoint people to fill vacancies or new positions without holding an election?

Short Answer

Yes, if the bylaws permit the Board to fill vacancies until the next election.

Detailed Answer

If the community bylaws allow the Board to increase its membership within certain limits and fill vacancies, the Board can appoint members to these positions. These appointees generally serve until the next scheduled election.

Alj Quote

The credible evidence of record established that Respondent appropriately appointed these positions and that the positions will appear on the ballot of the next election.

Legal Basis

Bylaws Article IV, Section 1

Topic Tags

  • Board Vacancies
  • Appointments
  • Bylaws

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the violation.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner filing the petition is responsible for providing sufficient evidence to prove that the HOA violated statutes or community documents. The standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Burden of Proof
  • Hearing Procedures

Question

How much can an HOA charge for copies of records?

Short Answer

The HOA may charge a fee of no more than 15 cents per page.

Detailed Answer

Arizona statute limits the fee an association can charge for making copies of records requested by a member to a maximum of fifteen cents per page.

Alj Quote

An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Fees
  • HOA Obligations

Question

If I win my case, will the HOA have to pay a civil penalty?

Short Answer

Not necessarily; civil penalties are discretionary.

Detailed Answer

Even if the HOA is found to have violated the law, the Administrative Law Judge is not required to impose a civil penalty. In this case, despite finding violations regarding ballots and records, the judge decided no penalty was appropriate.

Alj Quote

No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.

Legal Basis

Discretionary

Topic Tags

  • Penalties
  • Enforcement
  • Civil Penalty

Question

Can I get my filing fee reimbursed if the ALJ rules in my favor?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

If the homeowner prevails on the issues presented in the petition, the Administrative Law Judge has the authority to order the Respondent (HOA) to pay the filing fee back to the Petitioner.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner the filing fee of $1,000.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Filing Fees
  • Reimbursement

Case

Docket No
23F-H027-REL
Case Title
Kimberly Martinez v. Pineglen Owner's Association
Decision Date
2023-03-09
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Must HOA election ballots include the voter's address?

Short Answer

Yes, unless the community documents explicitly permit secret ballots.

Detailed Answer

According to Arizona law, completed ballots must contain the name, address, and signature of the voter. The only exception is if community documents allow for secret ballots, in which case this information must be on the envelope.

Alj Quote

The ballots utilized by Respondent did not contain the address of the person voting. Therefore, Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6).

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6)

Topic Tags

  • Elections
  • Ballots
  • Voting

Question

Can an HOA refuse to provide copies of records and force me to view them in person instead?

Short Answer

No. If a member requests to purchase copies, the HOA must provide them.

Detailed Answer

While an HOA can make records available for viewing, if a homeowner explicitly requests to purchase copies, the HOA is statutorily obligated to provide those copies within ten business days. Simply offering a viewing does not satisfy a request for copies.

Alj Quote

Respondent refused to provide copies of the requested documents and would only allow Petitioner to view the documents, contrary to its statutory obligation. … Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Transparency
  • HOA Obligations

Question

Can the HOA Board appoint people to fill vacancies or new positions without holding an election?

Short Answer

Yes, if the bylaws permit the Board to fill vacancies until the next election.

Detailed Answer

If the community bylaws allow the Board to increase its membership within certain limits and fill vacancies, the Board can appoint members to these positions. These appointees generally serve until the next scheduled election.

Alj Quote

The credible evidence of record established that Respondent appropriately appointed these positions and that the positions will appear on the ballot of the next election.

Legal Basis

Bylaws Article IV, Section 1

Topic Tags

  • Board Vacancies
  • Appointments
  • Bylaws

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the violation.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner filing the petition is responsible for providing sufficient evidence to prove that the HOA violated statutes or community documents. The standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Burden of Proof
  • Hearing Procedures

Question

How much can an HOA charge for copies of records?

Short Answer

The HOA may charge a fee of no more than 15 cents per page.

Detailed Answer

Arizona statute limits the fee an association can charge for making copies of records requested by a member to a maximum of fifteen cents per page.

Alj Quote

An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Fees
  • HOA Obligations

Question

If I win my case, will the HOA have to pay a civil penalty?

Short Answer

Not necessarily; civil penalties are discretionary.

Detailed Answer

Even if the HOA is found to have violated the law, the Administrative Law Judge is not required to impose a civil penalty. In this case, despite finding violations regarding ballots and records, the judge decided no penalty was appropriate.

Alj Quote

No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.

Legal Basis

Discretionary

Topic Tags

  • Penalties
  • Enforcement
  • Civil Penalty

Question

Can I get my filing fee reimbursed if the ALJ rules in my favor?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

If the homeowner prevails on the issues presented in the petition, the Administrative Law Judge has the authority to order the Respondent (HOA) to pay the filing fee back to the Petitioner.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner the filing fee of $1,000.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Filing Fees
  • Reimbursement

Case

Docket No
23F-H027-REL
Case Title
Kimberly Martinez v. Pineglen Owner's Association
Decision Date
2023-03-09
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Kimberly Martinez (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf
  • Christine McCabe (assistant/observer)
    Friend assisting Petitioner due to hearing deficit

Respondent Side

  • Susan Goeldner (HOA secretary/board member/representative)
    Pineglen Owner's Association
    Testified and acted as primary representative for Respondent
  • Warren Doty (HOA VP/board member/representative/witness)
    Pineglen Owner's Association
    Testified on Complaint Number 1
  • Tim Mahoney (HOA treasurer/board member/witness)
    Pineglen Owner's Association
    Observed proceedings; testified briefly on Complaint Number 3
  • Mark McElvain (former HOA president/observer)
    Pineglen Owner's Association
    Observed proceedings
  • Fred Bates (former board member/observer)
    Pineglen Owner's Association
    Observed proceedings
  • Addie Bassoon (HOA president)
    Pineglen Owner's Association
    Did not attend hearing due to personal issues; referenced in testimony/documents

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Recipient of initial correspondence/minute entries
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Recipient of final decision copies
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of correspondence/decision copies (listed by email attn)
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of correspondence/decision copies (listed by email attn)
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of correspondence/decision copies (listed by email attn)
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of correspondence/decision copies (listed by email attn)

Robert C. Ochs v. The Camelview Greens Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222048-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-10-04
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805, concluding that the requested materials lists and specifications were not 'financial and other records of the association' that the HOA was legally required to possess and provide within 10 business days.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Robert C. Ochs Counsel —
Respondent The Camelview Greens Homeowners Association Counsel Ashley Moscarello, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 A

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805, concluding that the requested materials lists and specifications were not 'financial and other records of the association' that the HOA was legally required to possess and provide within 10 business days.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent violated the records request statute.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of records request statute (failure to timely provide materials lists/specifications related to roof replacement/repairs).

Petitioner requested materials lists and specifications regarding recent (Sept 2021) and past (since 1986) roof work on February 27, 2022. The Association provided a scope of work document from the vendor on May 11, 2022, after the petition was filed. The ALJ determined the requested documents were not established to be 'financial and other records of the association' as contemplated by the statute, and TMT was not in possession of them at the time of the request.

Orders: Petitioner's petition and request for a civil penalty were denied. Respondent was not ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 A
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02 A
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA records request, Planned Community Act, Roof Repair/Replacement, Condominium, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • 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. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222048-REL Decision – 1003691.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:15 (160.6 KB)

22F-H2222048-REL Decision – 979940.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:17 (49.4 KB)

22F-H2222048-REL Decision – 979959.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:18 (7.1 KB)

22F-H2222048-REL Decision – 985762.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:20 (52.8 KB)

22F-H2222048-REL Decision – 986375.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:22 (52.8 KB)

This summary focuses on the hearing held on September 19, 2022, before Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark, regarding Petitioner Robert C. Ochs versus the Camel View Green Homeowners Association (HOA), concerning an alleged violation of Arizona Revised Statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1805 subsection A.

Key Facts and Underlying Dispute

The dispute arose after Petitioner Ochs' investment property sustained over $30,000 in interior damage following a severe storm in July 2021, necessitating roof replacement by the HOA's vendor around September/October 2021. When the roof leaked again in February 2022, Petitioner sought documentation regarding the repairs.

On February 27, 2022, Petitioner submitted a two-part records request to the HOA's management company (TMT), seeking: (1) materials lists and specifications for the most recent roof replacement, and (2) materials lists and specifications for all past replacements/repairs since 1986. The HOA manager replied on March 3, 2022, indicating she was "working on" the request. Petitioner filed a petition on or about April 24, 2022, after receiving no further documentation or substantive response. The HOA's legal counsel finally provided a "scope of work" document from the roofing vendor (dated September 7, 2021) on May 11, 2022, after the petition was filed.

Main Issues and Legal Arguments

The central issue was whether the HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805A, which requires an association to make "all financial and other records of the association" reasonably available for examination within ten business days of a request.

  1. Petitioner's Argument: Petitioner argued the HOA violated the 10-day requirement. He contended that the materials lists and specifications related to the recent repair were "other records of the association" because the HOA (Camel View Greens) would have received and retained this documentation (like the "scope of work") to verify and pay the vendor's invoice by the end of 2021.
  2. Respondent's Argument: The HOA denied the violation. They argued that the materials lists and specifications requested are not "association records" contemplated by the statute, nor are they records the nonprofit corporation keeps in the ordinary course of business (unlike meeting minutes or financial records). These records belong to the vendor, who is not subject to the 10-day statutory requirement. Furthermore, the witness (Carl Westlund) testified that the management company (TMT, which started managing in 2018) did not possess the specific documents requested at the time of the request.

Legal Points and Findings

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof.

  • The ALJ found that the request for 35 years of prior records (since 1986) was unreasonable because the current management company (TMT) confirmed it did not obtain those records from its predecessor.
  • Regarding the records for the recent replacement, the request was not unreasonable, but the documents sought were not records kept in the ordinary course of business.
  • The record did not establish *when* the HOA or TMT received the "scope of work" from the vendor (Ideal Roofing), so it could not be proven that the document should have been supplied within the 10-day statutory window (March 11, 2022).
  • The Petitioner failed to establish that the documents were "financial" or constituted "other records of the association" as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge issued a decision on October 4, 2022, concluding that the Association's conduct was not in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. Petitioner's petition and the request for a civil penalty were denied, and the Respondent was not required to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee.

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2222048-REL”, “case_title”: “Robert C. Ochs vs. The Camelview Greens Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2022-10-04”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If my HOA does not have a specific document I requested, are they required to obtain it from a vendor to fulfill my request?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA is not obligated to produce records it does not possess or keep in the ordinary course of business.”, “detailed_answer”: “If an HOA management company is not in possession of a specific document (such as a materials list held by a third-party contractor) at the time of the request, they are not legally obligated to obtain it or provide it within the 10-day statutory window. A failure to provide a document the HOA never possessed is not a statutory violation.”, “alj_quote”: “What the record reflects is that TMT was never in possession of the documents in Petitioner’s request. While TMT could have provided notice of such within 10 business days, they were under no legal obligation to do so. No statutory violation(s) exist.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “vendor documents”, “HOA obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA required to mail or email me copies of the records I request?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. The primary statutory requirement is to make records available for examination.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge clarified that the statute strictly requires the HOA to reasonably permit a homeowner to examine records. While providing copies is common, the explicit statutory requirement is for examination.”, “alj_quote”: “Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 does not require a Homeowner’s Association to provide copies of records upon request of a homeowner. Rather, the statute requires only that the association reasonably permit a homeowner to examine records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “procedural requirements”, “copies vs examination” ] }, { “question”: “Can I request historical records dating back several decades?”, “short_answer”: “Requests for very old records may be deemed unreasonable, especially if management companies have changed.”, “detailed_answer”: “A request for records spanning 35 years was found to be unreasonable in this case, particularly because the current management company testified they did not receive such records from the previous management company.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s secondary request for 35 years’ worth records was unreasonable, as uncontroverted testimony established that TMT did not obtain any records from its predecessor upon the commencement of its position.”, “legal_basis”: “Reasonableness standard”, “topic_tags”: [ “historical records”, “reasonableness”, “management transition” ] }, { “question”: “How many days does the HOA have to fulfill a request to examine records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days.”, “detailed_answer”: “Under Arizona law, an association must allow a member to examine financial and other records within ten business days of the request.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “deadlines”, “statutory requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Do detailed materials lists from contractors count as ‘official records’ of the association?”, “short_answer”: “Not automatically. If they are not kept in the ordinary course of business, they may not be considered association records.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that specific materials lists and specifications from a vendor, which were not kept by the HOA in the ordinary course of business, did not constitute ‘financial’ or ‘other records of the association’ that the HOA was mandated to provide.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner did not establish that the documents in his records request were ‘financial’ or constituted ‘other records of the association’ as required by law.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “definition of records”, “contractor documents” ] }, { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition must prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA violated the statute.”, “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”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “hearing procedures” ] } ] }

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2222048-REL”, “case_title”: “Robert C. Ochs vs. The Camelview Greens Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2022-10-04”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If my HOA does not have a specific document I requested, are they required to obtain it from a vendor to fulfill my request?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA is not obligated to produce records it does not possess or keep in the ordinary course of business.”, “detailed_answer”: “If an HOA management company is not in possession of a specific document (such as a materials list held by a third-party contractor) at the time of the request, they are not legally obligated to obtain it or provide it within the 10-day statutory window. A failure to provide a document the HOA never possessed is not a statutory violation.”, “alj_quote”: “What the record reflects is that TMT was never in possession of the documents in Petitioner’s request. While TMT could have provided notice of such within 10 business days, they were under no legal obligation to do so. No statutory violation(s) exist.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “vendor documents”, “HOA obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA required to mail or email me copies of the records I request?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. The primary statutory requirement is to make records available for examination.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge clarified that the statute strictly requires the HOA to reasonably permit a homeowner to examine records. While providing copies is common, the explicit statutory requirement is for examination.”, “alj_quote”: “Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 does not require a Homeowner’s Association to provide copies of records upon request of a homeowner. Rather, the statute requires only that the association reasonably permit a homeowner to examine records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “procedural requirements”, “copies vs examination” ] }, { “question”: “Can I request historical records dating back several decades?”, “short_answer”: “Requests for very old records may be deemed unreasonable, especially if management companies have changed.”, “detailed_answer”: “A request for records spanning 35 years was found to be unreasonable in this case, particularly because the current management company testified they did not receive such records from the previous management company.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s secondary request for 35 years’ worth records was unreasonable, as uncontroverted testimony established that TMT did not obtain any records from its predecessor upon the commencement of its position.”, “legal_basis”: “Reasonableness standard”, “topic_tags”: [ “historical records”, “reasonableness”, “management transition” ] }, { “question”: “How many days does the HOA have to fulfill a request to examine records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days.”, “detailed_answer”: “Under Arizona law, an association must allow a member to examine financial and other records within ten business days of the request.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “deadlines”, “statutory requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Do detailed materials lists from contractors count as ‘official records’ of the association?”, “short_answer”: “Not automatically. If they are not kept in the ordinary course of business, they may not be considered association records.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that specific materials lists and specifications from a vendor, which were not kept by the HOA in the ordinary course of business, did not constitute ‘financial’ or ‘other records of the association’ that the HOA was mandated to provide.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner did not establish that the documents in his records request were ‘financial’ or constituted ‘other records of the association’ as required by law.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “definition of records”, “contractor documents” ] }, { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition must prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA violated the statute.”, “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”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “hearing procedures” ] } ] }

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Robert C. Ochs (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Ashley N. Moscarello (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Holmgren
    Appeared on behalf of respondent
  • Carl Westlund (witness)
    The Management Trust
    Division Vice President of Community Management at TMT
  • Shauna Carr (property manager)
    The Management Trust
    Former executive community manager for Camel View Greens
  • Dameon Cons (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Holmgren
    Sent response letter to Petitioner
  • Mark A. Holmgren (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Holmgren
    Counsel for Respondent listed on transmittals

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
    OAH
    Transmitted orders/minute entries
  • AHansen (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official documents
  • vnunez (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official documents
  • djones (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official documents
  • labril (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official documents

Other Participants

  • Jeff Centers (vendor/project manager)
    Vendor
    Contractor hired by the community

Douglas E Kupel v. Hidden Valley Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120006-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-10-30
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Association's conduct did not violate ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 because the Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the requested records were in existence and subject to disclosure.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Douglas E. Kupel Counsel —
Respondent Hidden Valley Association Counsel Timothy Butterfield, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Association's conduct did not violate ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 because the Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the requested records were in existence and subject to disclosure.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish that the requested records (communications) were in existence and subject to disclosure.

Key Issues & Findings

Failing to fulfill Petitioner’s records request

Petitioner claimed the HOA failed to provide copies of all communications (written/electronic) related to information requests, open meeting law compliance, and changes to bylaws, arguing they were not exempt from disclosure under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(B). The HOA asserted no disclosable records existed.

Orders: Petitioner's petition and request for civil penalty are denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner's filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Records Request, Records Disclosure, ARIZ. REV. STAT. 33-1805, Burden of Proof, Preponderance of Evidence
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120006-REL Decision – 834142.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:29:50 (147.6 KB)

21F-H2120006-REL Decision – 834142.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:34:55 (147.6 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Kupel vs. Hidden Valley Association

Executive Summary

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings denied a petition filed by homeowner Douglas E. Kupel against the Hidden Valley Association (HVA). The core of the dispute was Kupel’s allegation that HVA violated Arizona statute ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to completely fulfill a comprehensive records request. While HVA provided its records retention policy and legal invoices, it withheld two categories of electronic and hard copy communications, claiming no such disclosable records existed.

Kupel argued that statements made in emails by HVA Board President Gary Freed—specifically that certain communications would be “filed as an HVA business record”—proved the existence of the requested records. HVA countered that this statement was a mistake on Freed’s part, resulting from an initial misunderstanding of retention requirements, and that no records subject to disclosure actually existed.

The ALJ ultimately concluded that Kupel failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard required to prove his claim. The judge found that the evidence presented was not sufficient to prove that the requested records existed and were being improperly withheld. Consequently, the petition was denied, and Kupel’s requests for reimbursement of his filing fee and the imposition of a civil penalty against HVA were also denied.

Case Overview

Case Name

Douglas E Kupel, Petitioner, vs. Hidden Valley Association, Respondent

Case Number

21F-H2120006-REL

Jurisdiction

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone

Hearing Date

October 22, 2020

Decision Date

October 30, 2020

Key Parties

Douglas E. Kupel (Petitioner), Hidden Valley Association (Respondent), Gary Freed (HVA Board President)

Core Dispute: The Records Request

The central issue of the hearing was whether the Hidden Valley Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to fully comply with a records request submitted by Kupel on June 22, 2020. HVA, through its community manager HOAMCO, provided a partial response on July 1, 2020.

Breakdown of the Records Request:

• Request 1 (Fulfilled): A copy of the HVA records retention policy adopted on January 15, 2020.

• Request 2 (Denied): Copies of all communications (email and hard copy) to or from current and former HVA Board and committee members regarding “information requests or open meeting law compliance” from July 2019 to the present.

• Request 3 (Denied): Copies of all communications (email and hard copy) to or from current and former HVA Board and committee members regarding any proposed, discussed, or adopted changes to the Association bylaws from January 2019 to the present.

• Request 4 (Fulfilled): Copies of invoices, billing statements, and payment records for legal services associated with revisions to the Association bylaws from January 2019 to the present.

HVA and its President, Gary Freed, asserted that the denied communications were not subject to disclosure under the exceptions outlined in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(B).

Petitioner’s Position and Evidence (Douglas E. Kupel)

• Allegation: Kupel accused HVA of willfully failing to fulfill his request, alleging that non-exempt records did exist and should have been disclosed.

• Primary Evidence: Kupel submitted several email messages from HVA President Gary Freed which contained the statement: “This communication has been received, and will be filed as an HVA business record in the files maintained by HOAMCO for the benefit of HVA” or substantially similar language.

• Argument: Kupel testified that these emails proved the existence of communications that did not meet the statutory exclusions and, therefore, HVA had failed to fully respond to his request.

• Requested Relief:

1. An order compelling HVA to abide by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

2. Reimbursement of the $500 filing fee.

3. The levying of a civil penalty against HVA.

Respondent’s Position and Evidence (Hidden Valley Association)

• Witness Testimony: HVA Board President Gary Freed testified on behalf of the association.

• Core Defense: Freed testified that based on HVA’s records retention policy and his understanding of open meeting laws, “no records existed which were subject to disclosure.”

• Explanation of Contested Emails: Freed explained that his prior email statements about filing all communications were a mistake. He testified that he initially believed all communications needed to be retained but later learned this was incorrect.

• Search Process: Freed admitted that neither he nor other board members conducted a one-by-one search of every single email. However, he testified that he “may have scanned his personal e-mail” and did not dismiss the petitioner’s request “out-of-hand.”

• Association Practices: Freed asserted that HVA business was conducted via open meetings, with the exception of a single emergency situation, implying that no discoverable email correspondence regarding official business would exist.

Administrative Law Judge’s Analysis and Conclusion

The ALJ’s decision rested on the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as proof convincing the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. The petitioner, Kupel, bore the burden of meeting this standard.

• Evaluation of Evidence: The judge found Kupel’s primary argument unpersuasive. The decision states, “Essentially, Petitioner is claiming that there must be other records in existence because of the language that Mr. Freed used… This is not persuasive as there was no evidence presented by Petitioner to prove that the records were in existence.”

• Credibility of Testimony: The judge gave weight to Freed’s testimony that he had been mistaken about record-keeping protocols. The decision also noted that HVA’s official records retention policy, adopted six months prior to the request, specifically outlined which communications were to be kept.

• Lack of Proof: The judge concluded that Freed believed any documents that might have existed were subject to statutory exemptions and that all relevant business was conducted in open meetings. Ultimately, Kupel failed to provide sufficient proof that discoverable records actually existed.

• Final Ruling: The ALJ concluded that “the Association’s conduct, as outlined above, did not violate the charged provisions of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”

Final Order

Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders:

Outcome

Petitioner’s Petition

Denied

Request for Civil Penalty

Denied

Reimbursement of Filing Fee

Denied (Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s fee)

The decision is binding on the parties unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within thirty days of the order’s service.

Study Guide: Kupel v. Hidden Valley Association, No. 21F-H2120006-REL

This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing decision in the matter of Douglas E. Kupel versus the Hidden Valley Association. It includes a quiz with an answer key to test comprehension of the facts, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.

——————————————————————————–

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the provided source document.

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

2. What was the specific violation alleged by the Petitioner in his petition to the Department of Real Estate?

3. What four categories of records did the Petitioner request from the Hidden Valley Association (HVA) on June 22, 2020?

4. Which parts of the Petitioner’s records request did the HVA fulfill, and which parts did it deny?

5. What was the Petitioner’s central piece of evidence to argue that the HVA was improperly withholding existing communications?

6. How did HVA Board President Gary Freed explain the discrepancy between his email statements and the association’s refusal to provide the requested communications?

7. What is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, and which party was required to meet this standard?

8. According to Mr. Freed’s testimony, where was all official HVA business conducted?

9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding the HVA’s conduct in this matter?

10. What three specific outcomes were mandated by the final ORDER issued on October 30, 2020?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Douglas E. Kupel, a property owner and member of the Hidden Valley Association, and the Respondent, the Hidden Valley Association (HVA). The Petitioner brought the complaint against the Respondent, alleging a violation of state law.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Hidden Valley Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to completely fulfill his records request. Specifically, he claimed the association improperly withheld communications records.

3. The Petitioner requested: (1) the records retention policy; (2) communications regarding information requests or open meeting law compliance; (3) communications regarding proposed changes to the association bylaws; and (4) legal invoices and payment records related to bylaw revisions.

4. The HVA fulfilled the request for the records retention policy and the legal invoices. It denied the two requests for communications between board and committee members, claiming the requested records were not subject to disclosure.

5. The Petitioner’s central evidence consisted of several emails from HVA Board President Gary Freed in which Mr. Freed stated, “[t]his communication has been received, and will be filed as an HVA business record.” The Petitioner argued this proved that such communications existed and were official records.

6. Mr. Freed testified that he was initially mistaken in his belief that all communications needed to be retained and that this was why he included that language in his emails. He clarified that based on the HVA’s records retention policy and open meeting laws, no disclosable records of the type requested existed.

7. “Preponderance of the evidence” is the standard of proof requiring the evidence to convince the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. The Petitioner, Douglas E. Kupel, bore the burden of proving his case by this standard.

8. Mr. Freed testified that all HVA business was conducted via open meetings. He stated that there were no meetings conducted solely by email, with the exception of a single emergency situation.

9. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HVA was in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. The judge found the HVA’s conduct did not violate the charged statute.

10. The final ORDER (1) denied the Petitioner’s petition, (2) denied the Petitioner’s request for a civil penalty against the Respondent, and (3) ordered that the Respondent shall not be required to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for in-depth analysis and discussion. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the legal arguments presented by both the Petitioner, Douglas E. Kupel, and the Respondent, Hidden Valley Association. How did each party use the evidence and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 to support their position?

2. Discuss the significance of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in this case. Explain how the Administrative Law Judge determined that the Petitioner failed to meet this burden of proof.

3. Evaluate the testimony of HVA Board President Gary Freed. How did his explanations regarding his email statements and the association’s record-keeping practices influence the judge’s final decision?

4. Examine ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(B), which outlines the exceptions for withholding records. Based on the case details, explain why the communications requested by the Petitioner were ultimately deemed non-disclosable or non-existent under this statute.

5. Describe the complete procedural history of the case, from the initial filing of the petition to the final order. Include key dates, entities involved (such as the Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings), and the final remedies sought by the Petitioner versus the actual outcome.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings and makes decisions on behalf of a government agency. In this case, the ALJ was Adam D. Stone.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

The Arizona Revised Statute that governs the examination and disclosure of a homeowners’ association’s financial and other records by its members. It outlines the process for requests, a ten-business-day fulfillment window, and specific exemptions allowing an association to withhold certain records.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)

The Arizona Revised Statute cited by the Petitioner that allows an administrative law judge to levy a civil penalty against a party found to be in violation of the law.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a legal case to provide sufficient evidence to prove their allegations. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The official governing documents that establish the rules and obligations for a homeowners’ association and its members.

Department of Real Estate (“Department”)

The Arizona state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings involving disputes between homeowners and their associations.

Hidden Valley Association (HVA)

The Respondent in the case; a homeowners’ association for the Hidden Valley Ranch subdivision in Prescott, Arizona, governed by CC&Rs and a Board of Directors.

HOAMCO

The company that served as the Community Manager for the Hidden Valley Association and initially responded to the Petitioner’s records request.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency in Arizona to which the Department of Real Estate referred this matter for an evidentiary hearing.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, the Petitioner was Douglas E. Kupel, a homeowner and member of the HVA.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this hearing. It is defined as evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other, making the contention more probably true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who is required to respond to the allegations. In this case, the Respondent was the Hidden Valley Association.

Select all sources
834142.pdf

No emoji found

Loading

21F-H2120006-REL

1 source

The provided text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings in Arizona, concerning a dispute between Petitioner Douglas E. Kupel and the Hidden Valley Association (HVA), a homeowners’ association. The core issue of the hearing, held on October 22, 2020, was whether the HVA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill Kupel’s records request for communications regarding open meeting law compliance and bylaw changes. Petitioner Kupel argued that undisclosed records existed based on emails sent by HVA Board President Gary Freed, while Freed testified that no disclosable records existed due to statutory exceptions and a mistaken belief about record retention. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s claim, concluding that Kupel failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the statute, thereby also denying his request for reimbursement and civil penalties.

1 source

What are the legal requirements governing homeowner association record disclosure in Arizona?
What was the core dispute between the petitioner and the homeowner association?
How did the Administrative Law Judge decide the outcome of this specific case?

Audio Overview

Video Overview

Video Overview

Mind Map Mind Map

Reports Reports

Flashcards

Flashcards

Quiz

Quiz

00:00 / 00:00

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Douglas E. Kupel (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Timothy Butterfield (HOA attorney)
    Hidden Valley Association
    Represented Respondent
  • Gary Freed (board member)
    Hidden Valley Association
    Hidden Valley Ranch Association Board President and witness for HVA
  • Mark K. Sahl (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
    Received service of the Order

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of the Administrative Law Judge Decision

Nancy L Babington v. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation

Posted on by

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 and Scott B. Carpenter

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)

Outcome Summary

Following a rehearing based on newly discovered evidence, the Administrative Law Judge found that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) by failing to timely provide records it possessed. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee and pay a $2,500.00 civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.

Key Issues & Findings

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

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by failing to provide requested records (including bank statements and contracts) following a formal request on May 1, 2020. The Administrative Law Judge, in the rehearing, found that the evidence showed Respondent was in possession of bank statements and two signed contracts at the time of the request, contradicting prior testimony, thereby establishing a violation of the statute.

Orders: Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee reimbursement and pay a civil penalty of $2,500.00 to the Department of Real Estate, both payments due within 30 days.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA records request, A.R.S. 33-1258, Rehearing, Civil Penalty, Possession of Records
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020064-REL Decision – 866802.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:28:35 (123.5 KB)

20F-H2020064-REL Decision – 823263.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:28:38 (108.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Babington v. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from two administrative hearings concerning a records request dispute between homeowner Nancy L. Babington (Petitioner) and the Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation (Respondent). The case, No. 20F-H2020064-REL, culminated in a reversal of an initial ruling, finding the Respondent in violation of Arizona law A.R.S. § 33-1258 for failing to provide association records within the statutory timeframe.

The initial hearing on August 28, 2020, resulted in a denial of the petition. The Respondent successfully argued that it could not produce the requested documents because they were not in its possession, largely due to a dispute with a former management company. However, a rehearing was granted after the Petitioner discovered new evidence.

The rehearing on March 4, 2021, established that the Respondent, through its management company Associa Arizona, was in possession of key requested documents—specifically bank statements and signed contracts—at the time of the initial request. Evidence revealed the bank statements were held at a central corporate office in Texas and were not retrieved, while signed contracts had not been forwarded to the management company by board members. The Administrative Law Judge found this directly contradicted the Respondent’s initial defense.

As a result, the Administrative Law Judge reversed the earlier decision, ordering the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee and imposing a $2,500 civil penalty payable to the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The case underscores an association’s responsibility to produce all records in its possession, regardless of physical location within the corporate structure, and affirms the court’s authority to levy penalties for violations.

——————————————————————————–

1. Case Overview

• Case Number: 20F-H2020064-REL

• Petitioner: Nancy L. Babington

• Respondent: Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation

• Core Allegation: Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258, which mandates that a condominium owners’ association must make its financial and other records reasonably available for examination by a member within ten business days of a request.

• Hearings Conducted:

◦ Initial Hearing: August 28, 2020

◦ Rehearing: March 4, 2021

• Presiding Administrative Law Judge: Tammy L. Eigenheer

2. Chronology of the Dispute

The dispute originated from difficulties following a change in the Respondent’s management company and subsequent records requests by the Petitioner.

• June-July 2019: The previous management company, Community Management & Consulting, LLC (CMC), terminated its agreement with the Respondent. A “financial disagreement” led to CMC withholding records, complicating the transition.

• Post-July 2019: Respondent hired Associa Arizona as its new management company. Associa and the Respondent’s counsel attempted to obtain the withheld records from CMC.

• April 29, 2020: After previous attempts to get information, Petitioner Nancy L. Babington sent a formal email to Associa and the Respondent’s Board of Directors. In the email, she stated:

• May 1, 2020: Linda Parker, Director of Client Services with Associa, replied, stating the request was not specific and asked the Petitioner to identify the exact records needed.

• May 1, 2020: The Petitioner responded with a detailed list of nine specific items:

1. All bank statements with copies of cancelled checks since Sept 1, 2019.

2. Any and all financial statements since Sept 1, 2019.

3. Any and all 1099s issued for 2019.

4. Any and all Executive Session meeting minutes conducted in 2020 (excluding statutory exemptions).

5. Any and all contracts signed in 2020.

6. Any and all outstanding invoices with a due date over 45 days.

7. Any documentation regarding the legality of the $204.75 maintenance fee.

8. Any proof of Stephen Silberschlag’s liability insurance.

9. Any landscaping plans.

• May 4, 2020: Ms. Parker from Associa responded that the company could only provide records within its possession.

• May 15, 2020: Following another email from the Petitioner, Ms. Parker stated that Associa had scheduled a meeting with the board on May 20 to discuss the request further.

• May 28, 2020: Having not received any of the requested documents, the Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

3. The Initial Hearing and Decision (August – September 2020)

The first hearing focused on whether the Respondent had violated the statute by failing to produce the documents.

• The Respondent argued that it was unable to provide documents that were not in its possession.

• Joseph Silberschlag, Secretary of the Board of Directors, testified that issues with the former management company (CMC) meant neither the Respondent nor Associa had possession of many necessary documents.

• Specifically, he stated that without previous financial documents and starting balances from CMC, the association was unable to create current financial statements.

• The Respondent maintained it was under no statutory obligation to create documents to fulfill the Petitioner’s request.

• The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the Petitioner “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).”

• The finding was based on the Respondent’s argument that it did not possess the requested documents at the time of the request.

• On September 17, 2020, the ALJ issued a decision denying the Petitioner’s petition.

4. The Rehearing and Reversal (March 2021)

Following the initial decision, the case was reopened based on new evidence presented by the Petitioner.

• After the September 2020 decision, the Respondent provided some of the requested documents to the Petitioner.

• Upon reviewing these documents, the Petitioner realized that the Respondent had, in fact, been in possession of several key records prior to her May 1, 2020 request.

• She filed a Rehearing Request with the Department of Real Estate, citing “newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.” The request was granted.

The rehearing revealed crucial details about the location and accessibility of the requested records.

Record Type

Petitioner’s Evidence

Respondent’s Testimony/Explanation

Bank Statements

The documents received post-hearing showed that bank statements had been sent to Associa starting in August 2019.

Evelyn Shanley, Community Director for Associa, testified that statements for all HOAs were sent to a central office in Richardson, Texas. She admitted she did not contact the Texas office to obtain the statements for the Petitioner’s request. Counsel for the Respondent conceded the statements in Texas were in the possession of Associa.

Contracts

Petitioner presented two contracts signed by Board members on March 27 and March 31, 2020, prior to her request.

Ms. Shanley admitted the two signed contracts existed but stated that the Board of Directors members had not provided them to Associa.

1099 Forms

Petitioner noted a document indicating four vendors were eligible for 1099s.

Ms. Shanley denied that any 1099s had been issued.

• The documents were not in the “immediate possession” of the local Associa office.

• The matter was now moot because the Petitioner had received all requested documents.

• A civil penalty was inappropriate because the Petitioner did not specifically request one on her initial petition form.

• The evidence presented at the rehearing was “directly contradictory” to the representations made by the Respondent at the initial hearing.

• The Petitioner successfully established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) by failing to provide documents (bank statements and contracts) that were in its possession.

• The ALJ rejected the Respondent’s argument against a civil penalty, stating that the plain language of A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 allows the judge to levy a penalty for established violations, and “nothing in the statute limits the available remedies to those specifically requested by a petitioner.”

5. Final Order and Penalties

The Administrative Law Judge Decision issued on March 24, 2021, reversed the initial finding and imposed penalties on the Respondent.

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Respondent must pay the Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00 within 30 days.

2. Respondent must pay to the Department of Real Estate a civil penalty in the amount of $2,500.00 within 30 days.

Study Guide: Babington v. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation

This study guide provides a review of the administrative case involving Petitioner Nancy L. Babington and Respondent Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation. It includes a short-answer quiz to test factual recall, a separate answer key, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms and entities involved in the proceedings.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer each question in 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the case documents.

1. Who were the primary parties in this case, and what was the Petitioner’s central allegation?

2. What specific Arizona statute was the Respondent accused of violating, and what does this law generally require?

3. What was the Respondent’s main defense during the initial hearing on August 28, 2020, for not providing the requested records?

4. What was the conclusion of the Administrative Law Judge in the first decision, issued on September 17, 2020?

5. On what legal grounds did the Petitioner successfully file for a rehearing of her case?

6. What new evidence regarding bank statements was presented by the Petitioner at the March 4, 2021, rehearing?

7. How did the Respondent’s management company, Associa Arizona, explain its failure to produce the bank statements and signed contracts in response to the initial request?

8. What was the final outcome of the rehearing, and how did it contradict the initial decision?

9. What two financial penalties were imposed upon the Respondent in the final order of March 24, 2021?

10. What was the Respondent’s argument against the imposition of a civil penalty, and why did the Administrative Law Judge reject it?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Petitioner Nancy L. Babington, a property owner, and Respondent Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation, a condominium owners association. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent failed to provide association records she formally requested, in violation of Arizona law.

2. The Respondent was accused of violating A.R.S. § 33-1258. This statute requires a condominium owners association to make its financial and other records reasonably available for examination by a member and to provide copies of requested records within ten business days.

3. During the initial hearing, the Respondent’s main defense was that it was unable to provide the documents because they were not in its possession. The Respondent claimed its former management company, CMC, was withholding records and that without starting balances, it could not create new financial documents.

4. The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition in the first decision. The judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the statute because the Respondent did not possess the documents and was not required to create them.

5. The Petitioner was granted a rehearing based on the discovery of “newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.” After the first decision, the Respondent provided documents that proved it had, in fact, been in possession of some of the requested records prior to her request.

6. At the rehearing, the Petitioner testified that after receiving the documents, she realized bank statements had been sent to Associa’s central office in Richardson, Texas, starting in August 2019. This demonstrated that the records were in the management company’s possession when she made her request.

7. Associa’s representative testified that bank statements went to a central office in Texas and were not forwarded to the local office because financial packets could not be prepared without starting balances from the previous management company. Regarding the contracts, Associa claimed that the Board of Directors members who signed them had not provided the contracts to Associa.

8. The final outcome of the rehearing was a ruling in favor of the Petitioner. The judge found that evidence presented at the rehearing directly contradicted the Respondent’s earlier claims, establishing that the Respondent did possess bank statements and contracts and had violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).

9. In the final order, the Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s 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 Respondent argued that a civil penalty was not appropriate because the Petitioner did not specifically request one by checking the box on the petition form. The judge rejected this, stating that the plain language of A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 allows the judge to levy a civil penalty for established violations, and this authority is not limited by the remedies requested by a petitioner.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for analytical and in-depth responses. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the concept of “possession” of records as it evolved from the first hearing to the second. How did the Respondent’s initial interpretation of “immediate possession” differ from the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding the records held by Associa’s Texas office?

2. Discuss the significance of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in this case. Explain specifically how the Petitioner failed to meet this standard in the first hearing but succeeded in the second, citing the key pieces of evidence that shifted the outcome.

3. Evaluate the role and responsibilities of the management company, Associa Arizona, in this dispute. To what extent were its internal procedures and actions (or inactions) the primary cause of the Respondent’s violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258?

4. Trace the timeline of communication between Nancy Babington and Associa Arizona from April 29, 2020, to May 15, 2020. Analyze how the responses from Associa may have contributed to the perception that the Respondent was refusing to provide information, ultimately leading to the petition being filed.

5. The Administrative Law Judge has the statutory authority to levy a civil penalty for each violation found. Based on the facts of this case, including the Respondent’s representations at the first hearing and the contradictory evidence presented at the second, construct an argument justifying the imposition of the $2,500 civil penalty.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Term / Entity

Definition

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

The Arizona Revised Statute cited as giving the Arizona Department of Real Estate jurisdiction to hear disputes between a property owner and a condominium owners association.

A.R.S. § 33-1258

The Arizona Revised Statute at the core of the dispute. It requires that an association’s financial and other records be made “reasonably available” for examination and that the association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official from the Office of Administrative Hearings (Tammy L. Eigenheer in this case) responsible for conducting the hearings, weighing evidence, and issuing a legally binding decision and order.

Associa Arizona

The management company hired by the Respondent to handle its operations after the termination of the previous management agreement. It was the primary point of contact for the Petitioner’s records request.

Civil Penalty

A monetary fine levied by the Administrative Law Judge for a violation of the law. In this case, a $2,500 penalty was ordered to be paid to the Department of Real Estate.

Community Management & Consulting, LLC (CMC)

The Respondent’s former management company. CMC terminated its agreement with the Respondent and was withholding association records due to a financial disagreement, which was a key part of the Respondent’s defense in the initial hearing.

Department of Real Estate (Department)

The Arizona state agency with which the Petitioner filed her petition and which has jurisdiction over such disputes.

A legal argument made by the Respondent’s counsel during the rehearing. Counsel asserted that the matter was moot (no longer relevant or in dispute) because, by the time of the rehearing, the Petitioner had received all the documents she requested.

Newly Discovered Material Evidence

The legal basis upon which the Petitioner was granted a rehearing. It refers to significant evidence that was not available at the time of the original hearing despite reasonable diligence.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or petition. In this case, Nancy L. Babington, a condominium owner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required for the Petitioner to win her case. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and shows that the fact sought to be proved is “more probable than not.”

Rehearing

A second hearing granted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate to re-examine a case, which was held on March 4, 2021, after the Petitioner presented newly discovered evidence.

Respondent

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

Select all sources
823263.pdf
866802.pdf

No emoji found

Loading

20F-H2020064-REL-RHG

2 sources

These two sources are Administrative Law Judge Decisions concerning a dispute between Nancy L. Babington, a homeowner, and the Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation, her condominium owners association, regarding the provision of association records under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1258. The first document details the initial hearing, held in August 2020, where the judge ruled in favor of the association, concluding that the association was not in violation because it lacked possession of the requested documents due to issues with its former management company. The second document outlines the rehearing, granted due to newly discovered evidence suggesting the association or its new management company, Associa Arizona, actually possessed some records, such as bank statements and contracts, despite earlier claims. Based on the rehearing’s findings, the judge determined the association violated the statute by not providing the records within the ten-day requirement and ordered the association to reimburse the petitioner’s filing fee and pay a civil penalty.

2 sources

How did newly discovered evidence lead to reversal of the initial legal decision?
What were the specific consequences for the respondent following the administrative rehearing?
How did the interpretation of statutory record possession requirements change between hearings?

Based on 2 sources

00:00
00:00

NotebookLM can be inaccurate; please double check its responses.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Nancy L. Babington (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
    Represented Respondent at initial hearing
  • Mark K. Sahl (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
    Represented Respondent at rehearing
  • Scott B. Carpenter (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
    Represented Respondent at rehearing
  • Debbie Schumacher (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
  • Marty Shuford (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
  • Joseph Silberschlag (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
    Secretary; testified
  • Angelina Rajenovich (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
  • Dermot Brown (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
  • Lori Nusbaum (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
  • Linda Parker (HOA staff)
    Associa Arizona
    Director of Client Services for property manager
  • Evelyn Shanley (HOA staff)
    Associa Arizona
    Community Director for property manager; testified at rehearing
  • Laura Smith (HOA staff)
    Associa Arizona

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • LDettorre (ADRE staff)
    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
  • ncano (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • c. serrano (staff)
    Signed order transmission

Other Participants

  • Stephen Silberschlag (unknown)
    Subject of Petitioner's record request

William M. Brown vs. Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716005-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-07-10
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party after the Tribunal concluded that the Respondent, Terravita Country Club, Inc., violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to timely provide access to records within the mandated 10 business days. The Respondent was ordered to comply with the statute and refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was imposed.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner William M. Brown Counsel —
Respondent Terravita Country Club, Inc. Counsel Joshua Bolen

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party after the Tribunal concluded that the Respondent, Terravita Country Club, Inc., violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to timely provide access to records within the mandated 10 business days. The Respondent was ordered to comply with the statute and refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was imposed.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to timely respond to records request

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to timely respond to his July 30, 2016 records request, pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The Tribunal found that Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent failed to fulfill the request for examination of records within 10 business days, violating A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Orders: Respondent is ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding Petitioner’s request for records within 10 days of the Order. Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Records Request, Failure to Respond, Statutory Violation, Filing Fee Refund
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.01

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716005-REL Decision – 574630.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:42:37 (87.9 KB)

17F-H1716005-REL Decision – 575115.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:42:43 (789.4 KB)

17F-H1716005-REL Decision – 574630.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:17:51 (87.9 KB)

17F-H1716005-REL Decision – 575115.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:17:55 (789.4 KB)

Briefing Document: Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the administrative hearing and final order in the case of William M. Brown (Petitioner) versus Terravita Country Club, Inc. (Respondent), Case No. 17F-H1716005-REL. The central issue was Terravita’s failure to respond to a member’s request for records within the 10-business-day timeframe mandated by Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the Petitioner’s testimony and evidence to be credible, establishing that Mr. Brown submitted a valid records request via e-mail on July 30, 2016, to which Terravita did not timely respond. The ALJ found the testimony of Terravita’s key witness to be unreliable and rejected Terravita’s defenses, which included claims of non-receipt, improper submission procedure, and falsified evidence.

Ultimately, the ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner, concluding that Terravita violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. The recommended order, which was subsequently adopted as a Final Order by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, mandated that Terravita comply with the records request, reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee, and deemed the Petitioner the prevailing party. No civil penalty was assessed.

Case Overview

Case Detail

Information

Case Number

17F-H1716005-REL (OAH) / HO 17-16/005 (DRE)

Petitioner

William M. Brown (Appeared on behalf of himself)

Respondent

Terravita Country Club, Inc. (Represented by Joshua Bolen, Esq.)

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Adopting Authority

Arizona Department of Real Estate

Administrative Law Judge

Velva Moses-Thompson

Commissioner

Judy Lowe

Hearing Date

June 19, 2017

ALJ Decision Date

July 10, 2017

Final Order Date

July 11, 2017

Chronology of Events

• February 12, 2016: Anita Bell requests records from Terravita via Mr. Brown’s e-mail account. The request is forwarded to General Manager Tom Forbes.

• February 19, 2016: Mr. Forbes informs Ms. Bell that the records will be ready on February 22.

• March 14, 2016: Ms. Bell submits another records request from Mr. Brown’s e-mail account.

• March 18, 2016: Cici Rausch, Terravita’s Director of Administration, informs Ms. Bell when the records can be retrieved.

• July 29, 2016: Date of the records request at the center of the legal dispute.

• July 30, 2016: Mr. Brown e-mails the records request to Terravita’s Secretary, Fran Wiley. On the same day, he separately requests records from the Terravita Community Association, Inc. (TCA).

• August 6, 2016: Mr. Brown sends another records request to Ms. Wiley.

• August 8, 2016: TCA responds to Mr. Brown’s July 30 request.

• August 12, 2016: Terravita responds to Mr. Brown’s August 6 request.

• August 18, 2016: Mr. Brown files a Petition for Hearing with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging Terravita’s failure to timely respond to his July 30 request.

• September 9, 2016: Terravita files a response, alleging it did not receive the July 30 records request.

• June 19, 2017: The administrative hearing is held.

• July 10, 2017: The ALJ issues a decision finding in favor of Mr. Brown.

• July 11, 2017: The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate accepts the ALJ’s decision and issues a Final Order.

Analysis of the Central Dispute

The core of the case revolved around whether Terravita violated its statutory duty to respond to Mr. Brown’s records request dated July 29, 2016, which he e-mailed on July 30, 2016.

Petitioner’s Position and Evidence

• Core Allegation: Mr. Brown testified that he sent the records request via e-mail to Terravita’s Secretary, Fran Wiley, on July 30, 2016, and that Terravita failed to respond within the 10-business-day period mandated by law.

• Evidence: Mr. Brown submitted an August 12, 2016 forwarded e-mail (Exhibit P2) that contained the original July 30, 2016 e-mail sent to Ms. Wiley.

• Judicial Finding: The ALJ found Mr. Brown’s testimony to be “credible.”

Respondent’s Defenses and the Court’s Findings

Terravita presented several arguments to contest the allegation, all of which were ultimately unpersuasive to the court.

1. Claim of Non-Receipt: Terravita contended it never received the July 30, 2016 request. Ms. Wiley testified she did not receive a request from Mr. Brown on July 29 or July 30.

◦ Court’s Finding: The ALJ found Ms. Wiley’s testimony to be “unreliable.” The decision noted that Ms. Wiley testified that Terravita was “indirectly” informed around August 5 that “perhaps Mr. Brown had made the request,” which undermined the claim of complete non-awareness.

2. Use of an Incorrect E-mail Address: Ms. Wiley testified that she did not use the e-mail address to which Mr. Brown sent the request for Terravita affairs, claiming she used a different one in her official capacity as Secretary.

◦ Court’s Finding: This argument was implicitly rejected, as the ALJ concluded that Mr. Brown had successfully proven he submitted the request “to its Secretary, Ms. Wiley.”

3. Allegation of Falsified Evidence: Terravita contended that the forwarded e-mail evidence offered by Mr. Brown was falsified.

◦ Court’s Finding: The ALJ noted an inconsistency in Terravita’s position, stating, “Terravita did not contend that the written evidence of Mr. Brown’s August 5, 2016 records request, sent by e-mail to Ms. Wiley, was falsified.” This weakened the credibility of the falsification claim against the July 30 e-mail.

4. Non-Compliance with Internal Policy: Terravita argued that its own Rules, Policies, and Procedures required members to submit records requests to the General Manager and/or Director of Administration, not the Secretary.

◦ Court’s Finding: The decision focused entirely on the violation of the state statute, A.R.S. § 33-1805, indicating that the statutory obligation superseded the association’s internal procedural preferences.

Legal Framework and Conclusions of Law

• Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) mandates that a homeowners’ association “shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination” of its financial and other records by a member.

• Burden of Proof: The Petitioner was required to prove the violation by a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

• Conclusion of Law: The ALJ determined that Mr. Brown successfully established by a preponderance of the evidence that:

1. He submitted a request for records to Terravita’s Secretary via e-mail on July 30, 2016.

2. Terravita failed to fulfill this request within the statutory 10-business-day deadline.

• Final Judgment: The Tribunal concluded that “Terravita violated the charged provision of A.R.S. § 33-1805.” It was also noted that Terravita did not contend that any of the statutory exceptions to disclosure, such as privileged communication or pending litigation, applied.

Final Order and Directives

The ALJ’s decision was formally adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate on July 11, 2017, making it a Final Order with the following mandates:

• Prevailing Party: Petitioner William M. Brown was deemed the prevailing party.

• Compliance with Request: Terravita was ordered to “comply with the applicable provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding Petitioner’s request of Terravita’s records” within 10 days of the Order.

• Reimbursement of Filing Fee: Terravita was ordered to pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 directly to him within thirty (30) days.

• Civil Penalty: The court determined that “No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.”

• Effective Date: The Order was made effective five (5) days from the date of its certification. The Final Order itself is effective immediately from the date of service, July 11, 2017.

Study Guide: Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc. (Case No. 17F-H1716005-REL)

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative hearing decision concerning William M. Brown’s records request to the Terravita Country Club. The case centers on the interpretation and application of Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805, which governs a member’s right to access association records. The guide includes a short-answer quiz, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms as defined and used within the legal documents.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing information exclusively from the provided case documents.

1. Who were the Petitioner and Respondent in this case, and what was their established relationship?

2. What specific failure by Terravita Country Club, Inc. led Mr. Brown to file his Petition for Hearing with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?

3. According to A.R.S. § 33-1805, what is the required timeframe for an association to fulfill a member’s request to examine its records?

4. What were the primary arguments Terravita presented to defend its failure to provide the requested records?

5. How did the Administrative Law Judge assess the credibility of the testimony provided by Mr. Brown and Terravita’s witness, Ms. Fran Wiley?

6. What piece of documentary evidence did Mr. Brown submit to prove he had sent the records request on July 30, 2016?

7. What is the standard of proof required in this hearing, and how is that standard defined in the decision?

8. What two specific actions did the final Recommended Order compel Terravita to take as a result of the ruling?

9. Why was Terravita’s argument that Mr. Brown failed to follow its internal rules for submitting records requests ultimately unsuccessful?

10. What was the role of the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate after the Administrative Law Judge issued her decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was William M. Brown, and the Respondent was Terravita Country Club, Inc. At all times relevant to the matter, Mr. Brown was a member of the Terravita Country Club.

2. Mr. Brown filed the petition because Terravita failed to respond to his July 30, 2016, request for records within the 10-business-day timeframe mandated by A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). This failure to provide timely access to the records was the central violation alleged.

3. A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) states that the association must fulfill a request for examination of its records within ten business days. If copies are requested, the association has ten business days to provide them and may charge up to fifteen cents per page.

4. Terravita argued that it never received the July 30, 2016, request from Mr. Brown. They also contended that his email evidence was falsified and that he failed to comply with their internal policy requiring such requests be sent to the General Manager or Director of Administration.

5. The Administrative Law Judge found Mr. Brown’s testimony to be credible. Conversely, the Judge found the testimony of Ms. Wiley, who testified on behalf of Terravita, to be unreliable.

6. Mr. Brown submitted an August 12, 2016, forwarded email that contained his original July 30, 2016, email to Ms. Wiley. This original email contained the records request dated July 29, 2016.

7. The standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence.” The decision defines this as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and as having “the most convincing force” or “superior evidentiary weight.”

8. The Recommended Order compelled Terravita to pay Mr. Brown’s $500 filing fee within thirty days of the order. It also ordered Terravita to comply with the records request and provide the documents within ten days of the order.

9. The argument was unsuccessful because the Judge concluded that Terravita violated the plain meaning of the state statute, A.R.S. § 33-1805. The ruling focused on this statutory violation, noting that Terravita did not contend that any of the law’s specific exceptions for withholding records applied.

10. The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, was responsible for reviewing the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. The Commissioner accepted the decision and issued a Final Order, which made the Judge’s recommendations legally binding and enforceable.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate comprehensive responses based solely on the provided source documents.

1. Analyze Terravita’s defense strategy. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments regarding not receiving the email, the alleged falsification of evidence, and the club’s internal policies for records requests.

2. Explain the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the case documents. How did the Administrative Law Judge apply this standard to the conflicting testimonies of William Brown and Fran Wiley to reach her conclusion?

3. Discuss the significance of A.R.S. § 33-1805 in the context of planned communities. Based on the details in the case, why is a member’s right to access association records important, and what protections does this statute provide?

4. Trace the procedural path of this dispute from Mr. Brown’s initial records request to the Final Order. What roles did the Petitioner, the Respondent, the Office of Administrative Hearings, and the Department of Real Estate play in this process?

5. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision rested heavily on findings of credibility. Explore the factors detailed in the case documents that might have led the judge to find Mr. Brown’s testimony “credible” and Ms. Wiley’s “unreliable.”

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official (Velva Moses-Thompson) who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings, evaluates evidence and testimony, and issues a recommended decision based on the law.

A.R.S. § 33-1805

The Arizona Revised Statute at the heart of the case. It mandates that a planned community association must make all financial and other records reasonably available for a member’s examination within ten business days of a request.

Burden of Proof

The obligation to prove an assertion. The Petitioner (Mr. Brown) bore the burden of proving that the Respondent (Terravita) violated the statute.

Department of Real Estate

The Arizona state agency where Mr. Brown filed his Petition for Hearing. Its Commissioner (Judy Lowe) has the authority to accept an ALJ’s decision and issue a final, binding order.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent agency that conducts formal hearings for disputes concerning violations of planned community statutes, as authorized by A.R.S. § 41-1092.01.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this matter, the Petitioner was William M. Brown.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioner to prove his case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and as evidence with “the most convincing force.”

Prevailing Party

The party who is successful and wins the legal dispute. The Administrative Law Judge’s order deemed the Petitioner, William M. Brown, to be the prevailing party.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who must respond to the allegations. In this matter, the Respondent was Terravita Country Club, Inc.

He Sued His HOA Over an Unanswered Email—And Won. Here Are 4 Lessons from the Judge’s Ruling.

1. Introduction: The Black Hole of Bureaucracy

We’ve all been there. You draft a clear, important request, send it to a large organization, and wait. And wait. The silence that follows can feel like your message was sent into a black hole. This frustration is especially common for homeowners dealing with their Homeowners’ Association (HOA), where getting a straight answer or a timely response can seem impossible.

But what if being ignored is more than just frustrating? What if it’s a violation of the law? The case of William M. Brown versus the Terravita Country Club provides a powerful real-world example of one member who fought back against being ignored—and won. His persistence offers crucial lessons for any homeowner who has ever felt powerless against their association’s bureaucracy.

2. Takeaway 1: The “We Never Got the Email” Defense Isn’t Bulletproof

When faced with Mr. Brown’s petition, Terravita’s primary defense was simple: they claimed they never received his July 30, 2016, email requesting association records. They went even further, contending that the email evidence he provided was falsified.

This defense crumbled under scrutiny. Mr. Brown presented a forwarded email as evidence of his original request. In the end, the case came down to witness testimony, and the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion was direct and unambiguous. The judge made two critical findings on the credibility of the parties involved:

I find Mr. Brown’s testimony to be credible.

And regarding the testimony from Terravita’s representative, the Secretary Ms. Wiley:

I find Ms. Wiley’s testimony to be unreliable.

The judge’s conclusion was not arbitrary; it was based on a clear contradiction in the evidence. Ms. Wiley testified that she did not use the specific email address where Mr. Brown sent the request for association business. However, evidence presented to the court showed that just a few months prior, she had successfully received and processed two separate records requests sent to that very same email address, proving it was a valid and functioning channel for communication. This detail demonstrates how an individual’s careful documentation can expose an organization’s flawed defense.

3. Takeaway 2: State Law Overrules Internal Red Tape

Terravita offered a second line of defense: even if they had received the email, Mr. Brown hadn’t followed their internal “Rules, Policies and Procedures.” The association argued that members were required to submit records requests to the General Manager or Director of Administration, not the association’s Secretary, whom Mr. Brown had emailed.

This argument was deemed irrelevant by the judge. The decision hinged not on Terravita’s internal rules, but on the plain language of Arizona state law, A.R.S. § 33-1805. The statute simply requires the association to make records available within ten business days of a request; it does not specify which officer or employee must receive that request.

By failing to respond, Terravita violated the statute, regardless of its own procedural preferences. This is a critical reminder for all homeowners: your rights are often enshrined in state law, and those rights cannot be diminished or negated by an HOA’s internal bylaws or policies.

4. Takeaway 3: A Simple Request Has a Firm Deadline

The core violation in this case was a failure to meet a specific, legally mandated deadline. Under Arizona law A.R.S. § 33-1805, an association has ten business days to fulfill a member’s request for the examination of records.

The timeline of events was clear:

• Mr. Brown sent his records request via email on July 30, 2016.

• The judge found that “Terravita did not respond to Mr. Brown’s records request within 10 business days.”

Adding weight to this was the fact that the association had previously proven itself more than capable of handling requests sent from Mr. Brown’s email account. Earlier that year, another individual had successfully requested records through the same channel. In those instances, Terravita had been prompt, often acknowledging requests within a day or two and making records available well within the legal deadline. This history undermined any claim of inability to respond. The law’s ten-day deadline is not a vague guideline; it is a specific and enforceable protection for members’ right to information.

5. Takeaway 4: Persistence Can Literally Pay Off

After reviewing the evidence, the judge ruled that Mr. Brown was the “prevailing party.” This victory was not just symbolic; it came with concrete orders that held the association accountable.

The judge’s final decision included the following orders:

• Terravita was ordered to comply with the records request within 10 days.

• Terravita was ordered to pay Mr. Brown his filing fee of $500.00.

Mr. Brown’s persistence didn’t just get him the documents he was legally entitled to; it also resulted in the full reimbursement of his filing costs. This outcome serves as a powerful example that standing up for your rights as a homeowner is not always a futile or expensive endeavor. With proper documentation and an understanding of the law, a single member can hold their association accountable.

6. Conclusion: Your Rights Are Written in Law

While homeowners are obligated to follow their HOA’s rules, the association is equally obligated to follow state law. These laws provide clear rights and protections designed to ensure transparency and fairness. The case of William M. Brown is a testament to the power of a single, well-documented request and the importance of understanding the laws that govern your association.

The next time you feel ignored by a large organization, what’s the one simple step you can take to ensure your request is not only heard, but documented?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • William M. Brown (petitioner)
    Appeared on behalf of himself
  • Anita Bell (records requester)
    Requested records via Mr. Brown's e-mail account

Respondent Side

  • Joshua Bolen (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Appeared for Respondent Terravita Country Club, Inc.
  • Fran Wiley (secretary/witness)
    Terravita Country Club, Inc.
    Terravita Secretary; testified on behalf of Terravita
  • Tom Forbes (general manager)
    Terravita Country Club, Inc.
  • Cici Rausch (director of administration)
    Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Signed the Final Order
  • Abby Hansen (HOA coordinator)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Addressed for rehearing requests and signed mailing notice