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.
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 – 823263.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:33 (108.6 KB)
Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020064-REL
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 – 20F-H2020064-REL
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.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020064-REL
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.
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
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
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
19F-H1918037-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2019-09-12
Administrative Law Judge
Jenna Clark
Outcome
full
Filing Fees Refunded
$500.00
Civil Penalties
$500.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Tom Barrs
Counsel
Jonathan Dessaules, Esq.
Respondent
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Counsel
B. Austin Baillio
Alleged Violations
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to fully comply with Tom Barrs' records request. The petition was granted, requiring the Association to reimburse the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee and pay a $500.00 civil penalty.
Why this result: The Association failed to provide the full requested documentation (EDC actions, written requests, and approvals) within the deadline, providing only a summary table,. The Association's justification for non-compliance based on improper submission was rejected because the Petitioner had been directed by the Association to send requests to the EDC Chairman.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request.
Petitioner requested EDC records (submissions, requests, and approvals) for October 2017 through October 2018 on November 1, 2018,. The Association responded with only a summary table on November 18, 2018, which did not include the totality of the communications requested. The ALJ concluded that the Association's summary table provided was a violation of the statute,, especially since the Petitioner was not required to send the request to all Board members due to previous instructions.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was granted. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01 and tender a $500.00 civil penalty to the Department pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A),.
Briefing on Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This briefing synthesizes the legal proceedings and outcomes of case number 19F-H1918037-REL, a dispute between homeowner Tom Barrs (“Petitioner”) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (“Respondent”). The core issue was the Association’s alleged violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 for failing to completely fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner on November 1, 2018.
An initial hearing on March 21, 2019, resulted in a decision in favor of the Association. Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark found that the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request to all members of the Association’s Board, and therefore the Association’s provision of a summary table did not constitute a statutory violation.
Following an appeal by the Petitioner, a rehearing was held on August 27, 2019. New evidence was introduced demonstrating that the Petitioner had previously been expressly instructed by the Association’s President to direct records requests specifically to the Environmental Design Committee (EDC) Chairman, Brian Schoeffler, a directive the Petitioner followed. Consequently, Judge Clark reversed the initial decision, concluding that the request was properly submitted and the Association’s failure to provide the full records—offering only a summary table—was a clear violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805. The final order granted the Petitioner’s petition, ordered the reimbursement of his $500 filing fee, and levied a $500 civil penalty against the Association.
——————————————————————————–
Case Overview
Parties Involved
Name/Entity
Key Individuals
Tom Barrs
Petitioner, Homeowner
Represented himself initially; later by Jonathan Dessaules, Esq.
Desert Ranch Homeowners Assoc.
Respondent, HOA
Governed by CC&Rs and a Board of Directors.
Brian Schoeffler
Witness for Respondent
Chairman of the Environmental Design Committee (EDC).
Jenna Clark
Administrative Law Judge
Presided over both the initial hearing and the rehearing.
Catherine Overby
Association President
Appointed Schoeffler as Petitioner’s primary records contact.
Lori Loch-Lee
VP, Associated Asset Management (AAM)
Recipient of records request; AAM acted as the Association’s accounting firm.
Core Legal Issue
The central question adjudicated was whether the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request. This statute requires that an association’s records be made “reasonably available for examination” and that a request for copies be fulfilled within ten business days.
Timeline of Key Events
July 19, 2017
Association President Catherine Overby appoints EDC Director Brian Schoeffler as Petitioner’s primary records contact.
November 1, 2018
Petitioner emails a records request to Schoeffler, Overby, and Lori Loch-Lee.
November 18, 2018
The Association provides a summary table of EDC actions, not the full records requested.
December 17, 2018
Petitioner files a formal petition against the Association with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
March 6, 2019
Petitioner follows up via email, specifying the exact communications and documents he is seeking.
March 11, 2019
Schoeffler responds, asserting the request was fulfilled and directing Petitioner to submit a new one.
March 21, 2019
The first evidentiary hearing is held at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
April 10, 2019
The initial ALJ Decision is issued, denying the petition.
June 10, 2019
Petitioner submits a successful appeal to the Department.
August 27, 2019
A rehearing is held at the OAH.
September 12, 2019
The final ALJ Decision is issued, reversing the prior decision and ruling in favor of the Petitioner.
——————————————————————————–
Initial Hearing and Decision (No. 19F-H1918037-REL)
Petitioner’s Position (Tom Barrs)
• On November 1, 2018, Barrs requested “a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018.”
• The Association’s response on November 18, 2018, was a “summary table listing of some, not all, EDC actions,” which did not include the totality of communications requested.
• Barrs argued the Association willfully failed to comply, citing a similar previous dispute that required OAH adjudication.
• The dispute was clarified to be about the completeness of the response, not its timeliness.
Respondent’s Position (Desert Ranch HOA)
• Represented by Brian Schoeffler, the HOA argued it had fully, though untimelily, complied with the request.
• The core of the defense was that the request was improperly submitted because Barrs only sent it to two of the four Board members.
• Schoeffler reasoned that the Association’s response was guided by a prior OAH decision in a similar case that had been returned in the Association’s favor.
• Schoeffler also stated that fulfilling the more detailed request from March 6, 2019, could be interpreted as an “admission of guilt,” which is why he asked for a new request.
Initial Findings and Order (April 10, 2019)
• Key Finding: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to all members of the Association’s Board.
• Legal Conclusion: “Because the credible evidence of record reflects that Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to the Board, Petitioner has failed established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 for providing him with a summary table on November 18, 2018.”
• Order: The Petitioner’s petition was denied. His request for a civil penalty and reimbursement of his filing fee was also denied.
——————————————————————————–
Rehearing and Final Decision (No. 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG)
Basis for Rehearing
The Petitioner successfully appealed the initial decision, leading the Department of Real Estate to refer the matter back to the OAH for a new evidentiary hearing on the same issue.
New Evidence and Revised Testimony
• Petitioner’s New Evidence: Crucially, the Petitioner introduced evidence (Petitioner Exhibit 11) showing that on July 19, 2017, Association President Catherine Overby had appointed Brian Schoeffler as the Petitioner’s primary records request contact.
• Respondent’s Concession: The Association conceded that its governing documents do not require all Board members to be copied on records requests. It also conceded that its own bylaws regarding the submission of forms for records requests were not adhered to or enforced.
• Persistent Failure to Comply: It was established that as of the date of the rehearing (August 27, 2019), the Petitioner had still not received all of the documentation requested on November 1, 2018.
Final Findings and Order (September 12, 2019)
• Revised Key Finding: The ALJ found that the Petitioner’s request was not required to be sent to all Board members. Instead, the Petitioner had “expressly been instructed to only send his records requests to the Association’s EDC Chairman, Mr. Schoeffler, which he did.”
• Final Legal Conclusion: “Petitioner is correct that the Association did not fully comply with his specific request, and has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the summary table provided by the Association was a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”
• Final Order:
1. The Petitioner’s petition was granted.
2. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.
3. A civil penalty of $500.00 was levied against the Respondent, payable to the Department of Real Estate.
Key Judicial Quotes
On the Improper Submission Argument (First Decision): “Because the credible evidence of record reflects that Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to the Board, Petitioner has failed established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805…”
On the Proper Submission Argument (Final Decision): “Petitioner’s November 01, 2018, records request was not required to be sent to all members of the Association’s Board, as Petitioner had expressly been instructed to only send his records requests to the Association’s EDC Chairman, Mr. Schoeffler, which he did.”
On the Violation (Final Decision): “Petitioner is correct that the Association did not fully comply with his specific request, and has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the summary table provided by the Association was a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”
Study Guide – 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal case Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, Docket No. 19F-H1918037-REL. It covers the initial hearing, the subsequent rehearing, the key arguments, the relevant statutes, and the final outcome of the dispute. The case centers on a homeowner’s records request and the association’s legal obligations under Arizona state law.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing all information from the provided case documents.
1. Who are the Petitioner and Respondent in this case, and what is their relationship?
2. What was the central legal issue presented for adjudication at the Office of Administrative Hearings?
3. What specific records did the Petitioner, Tom Barrs, request from the Association on November 1, 2018?
4. What was the Association’s initial response to the Petitioner’s records request, and when was it provided?
5. What was the outcome of the first hearing on March 21, 2019, as detailed in the decision issued on April 10, 2019?
6. Why did the Administrative Law Judge initially rule in favor of the Respondent?
7. What new evidence presented at the rehearing on August 27, 2019, proved critical to reversing the initial decision?
8. According to Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805, what is the time frame for an association to fulfill a request for examination or copies of records?
9. What was the final outcome of the case after the rehearing, as ordered on September 12, 2019?
10. What specific penalties and reimbursements were levied against the Respondent in the final order?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner is Tom Barrs, a property owner in the Desert Ranch subdivision and a member of its homeowners’ association. The Respondent is the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (“the Association”), the governing body for the subdivision.
2. The central issue was whether the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 by failing to properly and completely fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner.
3. The Petitioner requested a copy of all Environmental Design Committee (EDC) actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018. He later clarified this included communications like letters, emails, and application forms related to specific EDC decisions.
4. On November 18, 2018, the Association provided the Petitioner with a summary table listing some EDC actions. This response did not include the full scope of communications and underlying documents that the Petitioner had requested.
5. Following the first hearing, the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The judge ruled that the Association’s conduct did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1805, denied the request for a civil penalty, and ordered that the Association did not have to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee.
6. The judge initially ruled for the Respondent because the evidence suggested the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request to all members of the Association’s Board. This procedural error was seen as the reason the Association’s response (the summary table) was not a violation of the statute.
7. At the rehearing, evidence was introduced showing that on July 19, 2017, the Association’s President had explicitly appointed Brian Schoeffler, the EDC Chairman, as the Petitioner’s primary records request contact. This demonstrated that the Petitioner was not required to send his request to all Board members and had followed prior instructions correctly.
8. A.R.S. § 33-1805 states that an association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination of records. It also specifies that the association has ten business days to provide copies of requested records upon request.
9. After the rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge granted the Petitioner’s petition. The judge concluded that the Association’s conduct did violate A.R.S. § 33-1805 by providing only a summary table instead of the full records requested.
10. In the final order, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee. Additionally, a civil penalty of $500.00 was levied against the Respondent, payable to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more analytical understanding of the case. Formulate a detailed response for each, synthesizing facts and arguments presented in the source documents.
1. Compare and contrast the findings of fact and conclusions of law from the first hearing (April 10, 2019 decision) with those from the rehearing (September 12, 2019 decision). What specific evidence or legal reasoning led to the reversal of the initial order?
2. Analyze the arguments presented by both the Petitioner, Tom Barrs, and the Respondent’s representative, Brian Schoeffler. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s position across both hearings.
3. Explain the role and significance of Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805 in this case. How did the interpretation of the Association’s obligations under this statute differ between the initial ruling and the final ruling?
4. Trace the timeline of events from the initial records request on November 1, 2018, to the final order on September 12, 2019. Highlight the key communications and procedural steps that influenced the case’s progression and ultimate outcome.
5. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined in the case documents. How did the Petitioner successfully meet this burden of proof in the rehearing after failing to do so in the initial hearing?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, reviews evidence, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues orders. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.
A.R.S. § 33-1805
The section of the Arizona Revised Statutes that governs the rights of homeowners’ association members to access association records. It mandates that records be made “reasonably available for examination” and establishes a ten-business-day deadline for associations to fulfill such requests.
Associated Asset Management (AAM)
The management company that served as the Association’s accounting firm. Petitioner was at one point instructed to direct requests to an AAM representative.
Board of Directors (the Board)
The group that oversees the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. The dispute involved questions about whether a records request needed to be sent to all members of the Board.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing documents for the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association.
Environmental Design Committee (EDC)
A committee within the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, chaired by Brian Schoeffler. The records requested by the Petitioner pertained to the actions and decisions of this committee.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency in Arizona responsible for conducting evidentiary hearings for disputes referred by other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Tom Barrs.
Preponderance of the evidence
The burden of proof in this case. It is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and represents the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG
He Fought His HOA Over Public Records and Lost. Then One Old Email Changed Everything.
1.0 Introduction: The Familiar Frustration of Fighting the System
Almost everyone has a story about the maddening frustration of dealing with a bureaucratic organization. The rules can seem arbitrary, the answers vague, and the entire process engineered to make you give up. For homeowners, that organization is often their Homeowners Association (HOA). This was precisely the situation for Tom Barrs, a homeowner in Scottsdale, Arizona, when he made what seemed like a simple request for records from his HOA, the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. His straightforward request ignited a surprising legal battle, where an initial, demoralizing defeat in court was ultimately overturned by a single, crucial piece of evidence exhumed from the past.
2.0 Takeaway 1: The First Verdict Isn’t Always the Final Word
The dispute began with a formal records request. In November 2018, Tom Barrs asked to see documents related to the HOA’s Environmental Design Committee (EDC). His request was clear, specific, and cited the relevant state law:
“Pursuant to ARS 33-1805, I am requesting a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018. Soft copies via return email are preferable; otherwise, please let me know when hard copies are available for pickup.”
The HOA refused to provide the records, and the case went before Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark on March 21, 2019. The judge denied Mr. Barrs’s petition. The ruling was based on what seemed to be a fatal procedural error: the judge concluded that Mr. Barrs had failed to properly submit his request because he did not email it to all members of the Association’s Board.
Adding a potent dose of irony, the HOA’s representative at the hearing—Brian Schoeffler, the very EDC Chairman to whom Barrs had sent the request—successfully argued that a prior case meant Barrs “knew or should have known the requirements.” For many people, this initial loss, buttressed by the HOA weaponizing their past behavior against them, would have been the end of the road. But for Mr. Barrs, it was only the first chapter.
3.0 Takeaway 2: The Paper Trail is Your Most Powerful Weapon
Unwilling to accept the verdict, Mr. Barrs appealed and was granted a rehearing. The case was heard again before the very same judge, Jenna Clark. This time, however, Mr. Barrs had a new piece of evidence—a single, forgotten email that would force the judge to re-evaluate her own initial conclusion.
The case hinged on a communication from sixteen months prior. In July 2017, the Association’s President, Catherine Overby, had sent an email specifically appointing EDC Chairman Brian Schoeffler as Mr. Barrs’s “primary records request contact.”
This single document completely dismantled the HOA’s central argument. It proved that a specific, documented protocol existed that superseded any unwritten procedure the HOA later tried to enforce. Based on this prior instruction, Judge Clark’s new conclusion was decisive: Mr. Barrs was not required to send his request to the entire board. He had, in fact, followed the HOA’s own explicit directive perfectly. The HOA’s argument, built on chastising Mr. Barrs for not knowing the rules, crumbled under the weight of a rule they themselves had established and forgotten.
4.0 Takeaway 3: A “Summary” Isn’t the Same as “The Records”
Another key issue was the HOA’s attempt to control the information it released. Instead of providing the actual letters, emails, and applications Mr. Barrs had asked for, the HOA sent him a “summary table” of the EDC’s actions.
This defense initially worked. In the first ruling, Judge Clark concluded that because the request itself was improperly submitted, the summary table was not a violation of the statute. The HOA’s failure to provide the actual records was excused on a technicality.
But once the old email proved the request was valid, that technicality vanished and the summary table argument collapsed. In her final ruling, Judge Clark determined that providing a summary was a clear violation of Arizona law (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805). The statute is unambiguous: records must be made “reasonably available for examination,” and copies must be provided upon request. The HOA’s attempt to substitute its interpretation of the records for the records themselves was not just unhelpful—it was illegal.
5.0 Takeaway 4: Resistance Can Be More Costly Than Compliance
The final, reversed decision was issued on September 12, 2019. Mr. Barrs’s petition was granted, and the HOA faced direct financial consequences for its stonewalling. The Desert Ranch HOA was ordered to:
• Reimburse Mr. Barrs’s $500.00 filing fee.
• Pay a separate $500.00 civil penalty to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
For the price of a few photocopies, the HOA chose instead to pay for a protracted legal battle, a public loss, and $1,000 in fees and penalties—a steep cost for refusing transparency. The outcome is a stark reminder that an organization’s attempt to obstruct access to information can be far more damaging to its finances and reputation than simple compliance.
6.0 Conclusion: The Power of a Single Fact
The story of Tom Barrs’s dispute offers powerful, practical lessons for anyone facing a similar challenge. It highlights the importance of persistence, the legal weight of true transparency, and, above all, the critical power of documentation. One old email—one documented fact—was enough to level the playing field, force a judge to reverse her own decision, and ensure the rules were applied fairly. It leaves us with a compelling question to consider.
How might meticulous record-keeping change the outcome of a dispute in your own life?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Tom Barrs(petitioner/witness) Appeared on his own behalf initially; appeared as witness at rehearing
Jonathan Dessaules(attorney) Dessaules Law Group Appeared on behalf of Petitioner at rehearing
Respondent Side
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association(respondent)
Brian Schoeffler(EDC chairman/witness) Desert Ranch Homeowners Association Appeared on behalf of Respondent; Chairman of the Association’s EDC
Catherine Overby(HOA president) Desert Ranch Homeowners Association Association President; records request recipient
Lori Loch-Lee(VP Client Services) Associated Asset Management (AAM) Management company contact; records request recipient
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 2026-01-23T17:17:51 (87.9 KB)
17F-H1716005-REL Decision – 575115.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:17:55 (789.4 KB)
Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716005-REL
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 – 17F-H1716005-REL
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.
Blog Post – 17F-H1716005-REL
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
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
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
17F-H1716005-REL Decision – 574630.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:56:51 (87.9 KB)
17F-H1716005-REL Decision – 575115.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:56:51 (789.4 KB)
Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716005-REL
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.
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
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
17F-H1716005-REL Decision – 574630.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:00:58 (87.9 KB)
17F-H1716005-REL Decision – 575115.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:01:00 (789.4 KB)
Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716005-REL
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.
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 2025-10-09T03:31:03 (87.9 KB)
17F-H1716005-REL Decision – 575115.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:03 (789.4 KB)
Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716005-REL
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 – 17F-H1716005-REL
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.
Blog Post – 17F-H1716005-REL
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
