Robert Tomisak v. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association

Posted on July 17, 2020 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2020055-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2020-07-17
Administrative Law Judge	Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Condominium Association violated its governing documents or state statute regarding record inspection, specifically because the Association did not possess and was not required to create a Membership Register containing unit owners' email addresses.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Robert Tomisak	Counsel	—
Respondent	Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258; CC&Rs Article 11, Section 4.8; Bylaws, Article 10.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Condominium Association violated its governing documents or state statute regarding record inspection, specifically because the Association did not possess and was not required to create a Membership Register containing unit owners' email addresses.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the provisions of CC&Rs Section 11.4.8, Bylaws Section 10.3, or A.R.S. § 33-1158 (or § 33-1258) because the requested record (a Membership Register containing email addresses) did not exist, and the Association was not obligated to create it.

Key Issues & Findings

Refusal to provide access to the membership register (Owner Roster with emails)

Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated governing documents and statute by refusing access to the membership register containing email addresses. Respondent argued email addresses were protected 'personal records' under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4). The ALJ found the Petitioner failed to prove a violation because the requested document (a Membership Register containing emails) did not exist, and Respondent had no obligation to create it.

Orders: The petition is dismissed and no action is required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1258
CC&Rs 11.4.8
Bylaws 10.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: records inspection, membership roster, email addresses, HOA records, condominium association, A.R.S. 33-1258

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4)
A.R.S. § 33-1158
CC&Rs 11.4.8
Bylaws 10.3
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020055-REL Decision – 807817.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:26:50 (107.3 KB)

20F-H2020055-REL Decision – 807817.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:32:44 (107.3 KB)

Administrative Hearing Briefing: Tomisak v. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document outlines the findings and decision in the case of Robert Tomisak versus the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association (Case No. 20F-H2020055-REL), heard in the Office of Administrative Hearings. The petitioner, Mr. Tomisak, alleged that the Association violated its governing documents and Arizona state law by refusing his request for an owner roster that included member email addresses. The Association countered that email addresses constitute protected personal information and, more critically, that a membership register containing such information no longer exists.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed the petition. The decision did not hinge on whether email addresses are “personal records” under the law. Instead, the ruling was based on the factual determination that the Association cannot be compelled to produce a document that it does not maintain. Since the Association had ceased including email addresses in its Membership Register in 2018, the judge concluded that the petitioner had no right to a non-existent record and had failed to meet the burden of proof required to show a violation.

I. Case Overview

Case Name

Robert Tomisak v. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association

Case Number

20F-H2020055-REL

Office of Administrative Hearings

Administrative Law Judge

Sondra J. Vanella

Petitioner

Robert Tomisak, Owner of Unit 1902 (Appeared on his own behalf)

Respondent

Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association (Represented by Property Manager Terri Troy)

Hearing Date

July 9, 2020

Decision Date

July 17, 2020

II. Petitioner’s Allegations

On April 15, 2020, Robert Tomisak filed a single-issue petition alleging that the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association had violated its own governing documents and Arizona state law. The core of the complaint was the Association’s refusal to fulfill his March 11, 2020, email request “to provide access to the membership register” containing owner email addresses.

Mr. Tomisak specifically cited violations of the following provisions:

• Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs): Article 11, Section 4.8

• Bylaws: Article 10.3

• Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.): § 33-1258

III. Respondent’s Position and Defense

The Association, through its property management company AS&A Property Management, Inc., and represented by Property Manager Terri Troy, denied all allegations. The defense rested on two key arguments:

1. Privacy Exemption: The Association contended that members’ email addresses are “personal records” and therefore exempt from disclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4), which protects the “personal, health or financial records of an individual member.”

2. Non-Existence of the Record: Ms. Troy testified that while the Association would readily provide the official Membership Register (containing names and addresses), this document no longer includes email addresses. This practice of excluding emails from the register began in 2018.

IV. Key Evidence and Testimony

The March 11, 2020 Email Exchange

The dispute originated with a direct email exchange between the petitioner and the property manager.

• Petitioner’s Request (7:33 a.m.): Mr. Tomisak sent an email with the subject line “Owner Roster” stating:

• Respondent’s Denial (8:23 a.m.): Ms. Troy responded with a direct refusal, citing the statutory exemption for personal information:

Hearing Testimony

During the July 9, 2020 hearing, both parties presented their arguments:

• Robert Tomisak (Petitioner): Acknowledged that he already had access to member mailing addresses but specifically required their email addresses. He argued that email addresses are not “personal information” and cited “the internet” and “California case law” as authority for this position.

• Terri Troy (Respondent): Reiterated the Association’s willingness to provide the existing Membership Register, which contains names, addresses, and unit numbers. She explained that email addresses had been removed from this register starting in 2018 and that her refusal was based on the belief that emails are protected “personal records” under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4).

The Administrative Law Judge noted that neither party cited “any relevant or persuasive legal authority” to formally define “personal records” as used in the statute.

V. Legal Framework and Governing Documents

The case centered on the interpretation of three key provisions granting members access to Association records.

Document

Section

Key Provision

11.4.8

“The Association shall make available to Owners… current copies of the Declaration, Articles, Bylaws, rules of the Association and the books, records, and financial statements of the Association.”

Bylaws

“The membership register… shall be made available for inspection and copying by Members of the Association… for a purpose reasonably related to their interests as Members…”

A.R.S.

§ 33-1258(A)

“all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member…”

A.R.S.

§ 33-1258(B)(4)

“Books and records… may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to… Personal, health or financial records of an individual member of the association…”

VI. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Order

Burden of Proof

The judge established that the petitioner, Mr. Tomisak, bore the burden of proof to demonstrate by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association had committed the alleged violations. A preponderance of evidence is defined as that which is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Central Conclusion

The judge’s ruling was not based on the privacy argument regarding whether email addresses are “personal records.” Instead, the decision was grounded in a more fundamental point of fact regarding the existence of the requested document. The judge’s decisive conclusion of law stated:

While Petitioner has the right to enforce the requirements of the above provisions, Petitioner does not have the right to a record that does not exist, i.e., a Membership Register containing email addresses. Further, there is no requirement in the above provisions that Respondent has an obligation to create such a document.

Final Ruling

Based on this central finding, the judge held that Mr. Tomisak failed to meet his burden of proof and did not establish that the Association had violated its CC&Rs, its Bylaws, or A.R.S. § 33-1158.

IT IS ORDERED that no action is required of Respondent in this matter and that the petition is dismissed. The order is binding unless a rehearing is requested within 30 days of its service.

Study Guide: Tomisak v. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association

This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing decision in case number 20F-H2020055-REL, involving Petitioner Robert Tomisak and Respondent Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to test and deepen understanding of the case.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

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

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

2. What specific document and data did the petitioner request from the respondent in his email dated March 11, 2020?

3. On what legal grounds did the respondent deny the petitioner’s request? Cite the specific statutory provision they referenced.

4. Identify the three governing documents or statutes that the petitioner alleged the respondent had violated.

5. What information was the respondent, through its property manager Terri Troy, willing to provide to the petitioner?

6. What was the central reason cited by the Administrative Law Judge in the “Conclusions of Law” for dismissing the petition?

7. Define the “preponderance of the evidence” standard and identify which party had the burden of meeting this standard.

8. What authority did the petitioner cite during the hearing to support his argument that email addresses do not constitute “personal information”?

9. According to Property Manager Terri Troy’s testimony, when and why did the content of the Membership Register change?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge on July 17, 2020?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The petitioner was Robert Tomisak, who owns condominium unit 1902 in the Arrowhead Lakes development. The respondent was the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association, of which the petitioner is a member.

2. The petitioner requested an electronic copy of the “Owner’s Roster with emails.” He specifically wanted a membership list that included the email addresses of the other condominium owners.

3. The respondent denied the request based on A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4). They argued that this provision allows an association to withhold the “personal records of an individual member,” and they considered email addresses to fall under this category.

4. The petitioner alleged the respondent violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) Article 11, Section 4.8; its Bylaws, Article 10.3; and Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1258.

5. The respondent was willing to provide the Membership Register, which included the names, unit numbers, and mailing addresses of the members. However, this register did not contain email addresses.

6. The judge dismissed the petition because the petitioner did not have the right to a record that does not exist—namely, a Membership Register containing email addresses. The judge concluded there was no requirement in the governing provisions for the respondent to create such a document.

7. A “preponderance of the evidence” is the standard of proof requiring the trier of fact to be convinced that a contention is more probably true than not. The petitioner, Robert Tomisak, bore the burden of establishing his claim by this standard.

8. During the hearing, the petitioner cited “the internet” and “California case law” as his authority for the proposition that email addresses were not considered personal information.

9. Terri Troy testified that the Membership Register previously contained email addresses but that this practice was stopped beginning in 2018. The change was made based on the association’s belief that email addresses were the “personal records” of the owners.

10. The final order stated that no action was required of the respondent and that the petition was dismissed.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a longer, essay-style response. Use the case document to formulate a detailed and well-supported argument.

1. Analyze the central legal conflict in this case. Discuss the petitioner’s interpretation of a member’s right to access records under the CC&Rs, Bylaws, and A.R.S. § 33-1258 versus the respondent’s interpretation, focusing on the exemption for “personal records.”

2. Evaluate the evidence presented by both the petitioner and the respondent during the July 9, 2020 hearing. Explain why the judge ultimately found that the petitioner failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard.

3. The judge’s decision rested heavily on the finding that the respondent was not obligated to create a document that did not exist. Discuss the significance of this finding. How might the case outcome have differed if the Membership Register still actively contained member email addresses at the time of the request?

4. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this administrative hearing. Explain why this burden fell upon the petitioner and how the failure to meet this evidentiary standard was a determinative factor in the dismissal of the petition.

5. Examine the roles and interaction of the governing documents (CC&Rs, Bylaws) and state law (A.R.S. § 33-1258) in this dispute. Which provisions offered the petitioner the right to inspect records, and which specific clause provided the strongest defense for the respondent?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella.

A.R.S. § 33-1258

The Arizona Revised Statute that mandates associations make financial and other records “reasonably available” to members, while also providing exceptions for withholding certain information, such as “personal, health or financial records of an individual member.”

Association

The Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association, a condominium unit owners’ association responsible for managing the Arrowhead Lakes development.

Bylaws

The rules governing the internal operations of the association. Section 10.3 is referenced, which grants members the right to inspect the “membership register” and other books and records.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the primary governing legal documents for the condominium development. Section 11.4.8 is referenced, which requires the association to make its books and records available to owners.

Membership Register

A formal list of the members of the association. The respondent’s register included names and addresses with unit numbers but, as of 2018, no longer included email addresses.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, Robert Tomisak, a condominium owner and member of the association.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is met when the evidence presented is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other,” making a contention more probably true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association.

He Sued His Condo Association for an Email List. The Judge’s Reason for Saying No Will Surprise You.

If you live in a condominium or a community governed by a homeowners’ association, you’ve likely wondered what official records you’re entitled to see. From financial statements to meeting minutes, these documents are the backbone of a transparent community. But what happens when the information you want isn’t in a format the association readily provides?

This was the central conflict for Robert Tomisak, a condominium owner in Glendale, Arizona. At 7:33 a.m. on March 11, 2020, he sent an email to his association requesting an electronic copy of the “Owner’s Roster with emails.” Less than an hour later, at 8:23 a.m., the property manager refused. Believing he was legally entitled to the list, Mr. Tomisak sued. When the case went before an administrative law judge, the final decision hinged on a simple but powerful distinction that most people would never see coming. This case reveals some surprising truths about our rights to information and how they are applied in the real world.

1. Takeaway #1: Your right is to inspectexistingrecords, not to have new ones created for you.

The core of the judge’s decision came down to a simple, factual matter. While Mr. Tomisak had a legal right to inspect association records, the specific document he requested—a Membership Register that included email addresses—did not actually exist.

According to testimony from property manager Terri Troy, the association was perfectly willing to provide the official Membership Register, which contained owner names and mailing addresses. However, she clarified that the association had stopped including email addresses in that specific record back in 2018. The judge found this fact to be decisive. While the petitioner had the right to access existing records, the association had no legal duty to create a new one for him. The judge’s “Conclusions of Law” put it in unambiguous terms:

Petitioner does not have the right to a record that does not exist, i.e., a Membership Register containing email addresses. Further, there is no requirement in the above provisions that Respondent has an obligation to create such a document.

This is a counter-intuitive but crucial distinction. Many people assume that if an organization possesses individual pieces of data (like names in one file and emails in another), they are obligated to compile that data into the format you request. This ruling clarifies that the legal obligation is to provide access to records as they are currently maintained, not to perform data-compilation tasks on demand. For association boards, this is a critical clarification of their duties; for homeowners, it’s a lesson in the power of a precise request.

2. Takeaway #2: The legal definition of “personal records” can be surprisingly ambiguous.

The central argument between the two parties revolved around privacy. Mr. Tomisak requested the email list citing an Arizona statute (A.R.S. § 33-1258) that grants members access to association records. In response, Ms. Troy denied the request by citing a specific exemption in that same law—A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4)—which allows an association to withhold “personal… records of an individual member.” Ms. Troy believed email addresses fell under this category; Mr. Tomisak argued they did not.

Crucially, Mr. Tomisak acknowledged during the hearing that he already had access to the mailing addresses for all units. His demand was not about the fundamental ability to communicate with his neighbors, but about the specific method. This reframes the dispute away from pure access-to-information and toward convenience and the definition of privacy.

However, when it came time to define “personal records,” both sides faltered. The petitioner cited “the internet” and “California case law” as his authority—a common mistake litigants make, as vague or non-binding sources hold little weight with a judge focused on specific state statutes. The judge noted that “Neither party cited to any relevant or persuasive legal authority to establish the definition of ‘personal records’ as referenced in the relevant statute.” This failure by both parties essentially forced the judge’s hand, allowing her to bypass the murky privacy debate and settle the case on the much clearer, indisputable fact that the requested record did not exist.

3. Takeaway #3: Even with clear rules, the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim.

On paper, the rules seemed to be in the petitioner’s favor. Section 11.4.8 of the community’s CC&Rs, Section 10.3 of its Bylaws, and the state statute A.R.S. § 33-1258 all grant members the right to inspect association records. So why did he lose?

The answer lies in the legal concept of the “burden of proof.” According to the hearing decision, the petitioner “bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.”

“Preponderance of the evidence” simply means evidence that is more convincing and more likely true than not. In this case, because the petitioner could not prove that the specific document he wanted—a Membership Register containing emails—actually existed, he failed to meet this burden. He could not convince the judge that the association had violated its duties because the duty he claimed they violated (providing a non-existent record) was not one they actually had. This serves as a practical lesson for any homeowner: having a right on paper is not enough; you must be able to prove that the specific right was violated with convincing evidence.

Conclusion: A Lesson in Specificity

The case of Tomisak vs. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association is a masterclass in how legal rights and obligations are often more specific and literal than we assume. The final decision wasn’t based on broad principles of privacy versus access, but on the simple, verifiable fact that a non-existent document cannot be produced.

The judge’s final order was to dismiss the petition, requiring no action from the condo association. This case forces every resident and board member to ask a crucial question: Are you fighting over a principle, or are you making a specific request for a real, existing document? In the eyes of the law, only one of those will win you the day.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Robert Tomisak (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf; also testified

Respondent Side

Terri Troy (property manager)
Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association / AS&A Property Management, Inc.
Appeared and testified on behalf of Respondent

Neutral Parties

Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Linda Curtin vs. The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners

Posted on March 5, 2019 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1918034-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-03-05
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	Petitioner established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide access to requested association records within the statutory ten-day period. The petition was granted and Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Linda Curtin	Counsel	—
Respondent	The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc.	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide access to requested association records within the statutory ten-day period. The petition was granted and Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide timely access to association financial records

Petitioner filed a single-issue petition alleging Respondent violated CC&Rs § 4.8 and A.R.S. § 33-1805 by refusing to make available association records or to produce a receipt identifying a contractor and the amount paid for a cinderblock wall built by the community’s clubhouse.

Orders: The petition was granted because Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide access to records within ten days of Petitioner’s September 12, 2018 request. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
CC&R § 4.8

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Records, Record Inspection, Timely Disclosure, Statutory Violation, Filing Fee Reimbursement

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
CC&R § 4.8
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918034-REL Decision – 692859.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:18:05 (151.9 KB)

19F-H1918034-REL Decision – 692859.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:28:04 (151.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Curtin v. The Ridge at Diamante del Lago HOA

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case number 19F-H1918034-REL, a dispute between homeowner Linda Curtin and The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc. (HOA). The central conflict arose from the HOA’s failure to provide financial records related to a small construction project within the timeframe mandated by Arizona law.

The petitioner, Ms. Curtin, alleged that the HOA violated its own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 by not producing an invoice for a $1,000 cinderblock wall project at the community clubhouse. While the HOA did eventually provide the requested records, the ALJ found that it failed to do so within the legally required ten-day period following Ms. Curtin’s formal written request on September 12, 2018.

Consequently, the ALJ granted the petition in favor of Ms. Curtin, ruling that the HOA was in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The HOA was ordered to reimburse Ms. Curtin for her $500 petition filing fee. However, the ALJ dismissed all of the petitioner’s ancillary complaints, including suspicions of forgery, concerns about the contractor’s licensing status, and other issues of HOA governance, deeming them either unsubstantiated or outside the narrow scope of the single-issue petition. The ruling underscores the strict procedural compliance required of HOAs regarding member record requests while limiting the scope of such legal challenges to the specific violations alleged.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview

• Case Number: 19F-H1918034-REL

• Forum: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

• Petitioner: Linda Curtin (“Complainant”), a homeowner and HOA member.

• Respondent: The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc. (“HOA”), represented by Community Manager Tracy Schofield.

• Administrative Law Judge: Diane Mihalsky

• Core Allegation: The HOA violated its governing documents and state law by failing to make association records available to a member upon request. Specifically, the petitioner sought a receipt and contractor details for a cinderblock wall built at the community clubhouse.

II. Governing Rules and Statutes

The case centered on the interpretation and enforcement of the HOA’s internal rules and a specific Arizona statute governing planned communities.

Rule/Statute

Key Provision

CC&R § 4.8

Requires the HOA Board to keep “true and correct records of account in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles” and to make such books and records available for inspection by all owners upon request during normal business hours.

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Mandates that all financial and other association records be made “reasonably available for examination” by any member. The statute explicitly requires the association to fulfill a request for examination within ten business days. A similar ten-day deadline applies for providing copies of records.

The respondent did not claim any legal privilege under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) that would permit it to withhold the requested documents.

III. Chronology of the Dispute

The conflict unfolded over several months, beginning with an informal inquiry and escalating to a formal legal petition.

• August 1, 2018: Petitioner Linda Curtin first emails Community Manager Tracy Schofield for a contractor recommendation.

• August 2 – September 11, 2018: In a subsequent email exchange, Ms. Curtin asks who built the garbage can walls at the clubhouse. Ms. Schofield provides the name “Roberto” but is unable to provide a contact number, stating that the Board’s Treasurer, Jim Mackiewicz, had arranged the work. The petitioner later characterized this exchange as “evasive.”

• September 12, 2018: Ms. Curtin sends a formal written letter requesting “a copy of the invoice submitted to The Ridge HOA” for the wall construction. This action officially started the ten-day clock under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

• September 24, 2018: Ms. Schofield responds, stating that she does not have the invoices at her office as records are retained “in the community.” She provides a printout of payments made to contractor Gualberto Castro, which includes a $1,000 check dated November 1, 2017, for “Block work – clubhouse.”

• November 5, 2018: Ms. Curtin requests that the invoice be brought to that day’s HOA board meeting. The document is not provided.

• November 28, 2018: After making an additional 15 phone calls regarding related meeting minutes without a satisfactory response, Ms. Curtin files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• December 10, 2018: The HOA files its answer, claiming the issue has been resolved. On the same day, Ms. Schofield emails the contractor’s invoice to Ms. Curtin. The invoice, from ValleyWide Custom Painting Inc. and dated November 2, 2017, details the $1,000 job.

• December 11, 2018: Ms. Curtin requests additional documents, including a copy of the cashed check and the Architectural Control Committee (ACC) application for the project. Ms. Schofield is reported to have stated that ACC approval was not applicable to work on common areas.

• Post-December 11, 2018: Ms. Schofield eventually provides a copy of the cancelled check for $1,000 made payable to Mr. Castro.

• February 20, 2019: An evidentiary hearing is held before the ALJ.

IV. Analysis of Evidence and Arguments

A. Petitioner’s Position

Ms. Curtin’s case was built on the initial failure to produce records and expanded to include broader suspicions about the HOA’s conduct.

• Primary Claim: The HOA violated state law by failing to fulfill her September 12, 2018 request for records within the ten-day statutory period.

• Suspicions about Documentation: The petitioner expressed dissatisfaction with the documents eventually provided. She opined that the November 2, 2017 receipt “appeared to have two different kinds of handwriting and might be a forgery.” She also pointed to the fact that the check for payment was dated one day before the invoice date.

• Ancillary Governance Concerns: Ms. Curtin raised several issues beyond the scope of her petition, including:

◦ The contractor, Mr. Castro, was not licensed as required by the Registrar of Contractors.

◦ The Board meeting minutes did not show authorization for the $1,000 expenditure.

◦ The HOA’s ACC approval process was not followed for the wall.

◦ A separate, unrelated $125,000 pool remodel project was approved improperly (this was refuted by Ms. Schofield’s testimony that it required a membership vote).

B. Respondent’s Position

The HOA, through Ms. Schofield, acknowledged the delay but argued it had ultimately complied and faced logistical constraints.

• Eventual Compliance: The HOA’s primary defense was that it eventually provided all the documents in its possession related to the expenditure, thereby resolving the complaint.

• Logistical Challenges: Ms. Schofield testified that she is an off-site community manager for numerous associations and does not keep records in her office. She stated that the HOA’s records are stored “in the community” at a separate depository.

• Commitment to Future Compliance: Ms. Schofield testified that for any future requests, she would schedule a time for the petitioner to review records at the depository within the ten-day window.

• Communication: Ms. Schofield maintained that she “communicated with Petitioner on every issue” and provided what information she had available.

V. Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s decision was narrowly focused on the statutory violation, setting aside the petitioner’s other grievances.

A. Conclusions of Law

1. Violation Confirmed: The judge concluded that the petitioner successfully established by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The HOA “acknowledged that it did not provide the documents or provide access to Petitioner to view the documents within ten days of Petitioner’s September 12, 2018 request.”

2. Scope of Relief Limited: The ALJ determined that the statute only requires that records be kept and made available in a timely manner. The law “has not authorized the Department… that HOAs produce records that satisfy all of a members’ stated concerns.”

3. Ancillary Claims Dismissed: The judge explicitly rejected the petitioner’s broader concerns, stating: “Petitioner’s concern with ‘transparency’ and dissatisfaction and suspicions about the records that were eventually provided do not entitle her to any additional relief in this forum.” The forgery claim was dismissed for lack of evidence, as Ms. Curtin did not present the opinion of a handwriting expert. The issues related to contractor licensing and internal HOA procedures were deemed outside the jurisdiction of the hearing for an HOA petition.

B. Recommended Order

Based on the findings, the ALJ issued a two-part order:

1. Petition Granted: The petition was granted on the grounds that Ms. Curtin had proven the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

2. Reimbursement of Filing Fee: The HOA was ordered to reimburse the petitioner the $500.00 she paid to file the single-issue petition.

The order, issued on March 5, 2019, was declared binding on both parties unless a request for rehearing was filed within 30 days.

Study Guide: Curtin v. The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc.

This guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1918034-REL, involving Petitioner Linda Curtin and Respondent The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc. It includes a quiz with an answer key to test comprehension, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, based exclusively on the information provided in the case document.

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

2. What was the central allegation in the single-issue petition filed by Linda Curtin on November 28, 2018?

3. Which specific Arizona Revised Statute and CC&R section did the Petitioner claim the Respondent violated?

4. How did the HOA, through its community manager, initially attempt to resolve the records request that led to the petition?

5. What additional documents did Ms. Curtin request after receiving the contractor’s invoice on December 10, 2018?

6. What were Ms. Curtin’s specific suspicions and complaints regarding the quality and validity of the documents she eventually received?

7. What was Community Manager Tracy Schofield’s testimony regarding her role and the location of the association’s records?

8. According to the “Conclusions of Law,” what is the primary requirement of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) regarding member requests for records?

9. On what specific point did the Administrative Law Judge find that the Respondent had violated the statute?

10. What was the final Recommended Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Linda Curtin, the Petitioner and a homeowner, and The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc., the Respondent. Tracy Schofield appeared for the HOA as its Community Manager, and Diane Mihalsky served as the Administrative Law Judge.

2. The central allegation was that the HOA violated its own rules and state law by refusing to make association records available. Specifically, Ms. Curtin sought a receipt identifying the contractor and the amount paid for a cinderblock wall built by the community clubhouse.

3. The Petitioner claimed the Respondent violated CC&R § 4.8, concerning the keeping and availability of accounting records, and A.R.S. § 33-1805, which governs the examination of association records by members.

4. On September 24, 2018, Ms. Schofield responded to Ms. Curtin’s written request by stating she did not have invoices at her office. She did, however, provide a printout of payments made to the contractor, Gaulberto Castro, which included a $1,000.00 payment for “Block work – clubhouse.”

5. After receiving the invoice, Ms. Curtin requested a copy of the cashed check (front and back), the payee’s mailing address, and the completed Architectural Control Committee Application for the project, including the contractor’s address, license number, and insurance company.

6. Ms. Curtin complained that the contractor, Mr. Castro, was not licensed and that the job did not meet the exemption requirements for the Registrar of Contractors. She also opined that the receipt from November 2, 2017, appeared to be a forgery with two different kinds of handwriting.

7. Ms. Schofield testified that she is not an onsite manager, works for numerous associations, and does not keep any association records in her office. She stated that for future requests, she would schedule a time for Ms. Curtin to view the records at the Respondent’s records depository.

8. The primary requirement of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) is that all financial and other records of an association must be made reasonably available for examination by any member. The statute mandates that the association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies.

9. The Judge found that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) because, while it eventually provided all documents in its possession, it failed to provide the documents or access to them within the statutorily required ten-day period following Ms. Curtin’s September 12, 2018 request.

10. The Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be granted because she established the violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The Judge further ordered that the Respondent reimburse Ms. Curtin the $500.00 she paid to file her single-issue petition.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage a deeper analysis of the case. Formulate comprehensive responses using only the evidence and legal reasoning presented in the source document.

1. Analyze the timeline of communication between Linda Curtin and Tracy Schofield, from the initial informal inquiry on August 1, 2018, to the formal petition. How did the nature of the requests and the quality of the responses contribute to the escalation of the dispute?

2. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined and applied in this case. Explain how the Administrative Law Judge used this standard to find the Respondent in violation of the ten-day rule while simultaneously dismissing the Petitioner’s other concerns about transparency and forgery.

3. The Petitioner raised several issues during the hearing that were not part of her original single-issue petition, such as the contractor’s licensing status, the lack of Board meeting minutes authorizing the project, and a proposed $125,000 pool remodel. Why did the Administrative Law Judge deem these points irrelevant to the final decision?

4. Evaluate the responsibilities of a Homeowners Association regarding record-keeping and member access as outlined in CC&R § 4.8 and A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). Based on the testimony and evidence, describe the specific procedural failures of The Ridge at Diamante del Lago HOA in this matter.

5. The Judge’s decision explicitly states that the Petitioner’s “dissatisfaction and suspicions about the records that were eventually provided do not entitle her to any additional relief in this forum.” Explore the distinction the ruling makes between a procedural violation (timeliness of access) and the substantive content or perceived legitimacy of the records themselves.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Diane Mihalsky of the Office of Administrative Hearings served as the ALJ.

A.R.S. § 33-1805

An Arizona Revised Statute requiring that all financial and other records of a homeowners association be made reasonably available for examination by any member within ten business days of a request.

Complainant

An alternative term used in the document to refer to the Petitioner, Linda Curtin.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The governing documents that create and define the rules for a planned community. In this case, CC&R § 4.8, which deals with accounting records, was cited.

Department (The)

Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings from HOA members and HOAs.

Evidentiary Hearing

A formal proceeding where evidence is presented and testimony is given before an administrative law judge to resolve a factual dispute. The hearing in this case took place on February 20, 2019.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

An organization in a planned community that creates and enforces rules for the properties and its members. The Respondent is The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, the Petitioner is Linda Curtin, a homeowner and member of the Respondent HOA.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case, defined as evidence that is more convincing and has greater weight, inclining an impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other. The Petitioner bears this burden of proof.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent is The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc.

Restrictive Covenants

Legal obligations imposed in a deed upon the buyer of real estate. The document notes that if unambiguous, they are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties.

Transparency as a Requirement: A $500 Lesson for Arizona HOAs

1. Introduction: The Price of Delay and the Statutory Hammer

In the realm of Arizona homeowners’ associations, transparency is often treated by boards as a courtesy rather than a mandate. However, the case of Linda Curtin vs. The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc. serves as a stark reminder that the law provides homeowners with a powerful "statutory hammer" to compel accountability.

What began as a simple request for a contractor’s receipt for a small masonry project—a $1,000 cinderblock garbage enclosure—escalated into a formal administrative hearing. Despite the HOA’s eventual production of the documents and their claim that the matter was "resolved," the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) delivered a $500 lesson in the importance of deadlines. This case proves that the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) is a viable, high-leverage forum for individual owners to level the playing field against well-funded boards.

2. Your Right to Audit the Paper Trail: Understanding A.R.S. § 33-1805

Arizona law provides homeowners with a clear, non-negotiable right to inspect the financial records of their association. Whether it is through state statute or the community’s own governing documents, the "10-day rule" is the gold standard for transparency.

The following table outlines the balance of power established under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) and CC&R § 4.8:

HOA Obligations (The Mandate)	Member Rights (The Leverage)
Must maintain true and correct records of account using generally accepted accounting principles.	The right to inspect all financial and other records upon request.
Must provide reasonable detail regarding all expenses incurred and funds accumulated.	The right to designate a representative in writing to review materials.
Must fulfill requests or provide copies within ten business days.	The right to obtain copies for a fee of no more than $0.15 per page.
Must make records available during normal business hours.	The right to review records without being charged for the association’s time.

The ten business day deadline is the most critical component. In the eyes of the law, "eventually" is a violation.

3. Case Study: Evasion and the "Day-After" Invoice

The dispute at The Ridge at Diamante del Lago began on August 1, 2018, when Ms. Curtin sought the identity of the contractor responsible for a $1,000 wall project. The ensuing timeline illustrates a pattern of "evasive" communication that frequently plagues HOA-member relations:

August – September 2018: The Community Manager initially claimed she did not know the contractor, then provided only a first name ("Roberto"), and finally claimed she could not obtain his phone number, directing the homeowner to the Board Treasurer instead.
September 12, 2018: Ms. Curtin sent a formal written request for the invoice.
September 24, 2018: The Manager claimed she did not have the records because they were kept "in the community" rather than at her office.
The Date Discrepancy: When a payment report was finally provided, Ms. Curtin noticed a glaring red flag: the check to the contractor was dated November 1, 2017, but the invoice was dated November 2, 2017.

This "day-after" invoice fueled the Petitioner’s suspicion of forgery and mismanagement. Seeking clarity, she petitioned the ADRE for:

The original contractor invoice.
A copy of the cancelled check (front and back).
The contractor’s contact info, license number, and insurance details.

4. The Administrative Ruling: The Myth of the "Resolved" Dispute

When the HOA finally produced the documents in December 2018—well past the deadline—they argued the case should be dismissed because the issue was "resolved." The Administrative Law Judge disagreed, focusing on the procedural violation of the 10-day rule.

The Failed "Non-Profit" Defense

In a notable attempt to evade the statute, the HOA argued that Title 33 did not apply to them because they were a non-profit organization. The ALJ flatly rejected this, confirming that the Department of Real Estate has clear jurisdiction over such disputes. HOAs cannot hide behind their corporate status to circumvent state transparency laws.

Findings of Law

The Judge’s logic in Conclusions of Law #6 and #7 was surgical:

Timing is Everything: While the HOA did provide the documents eventually, their failure to do so within the ten business day window starting from the September 12 request constituted a legal violation.
Narrow Scope: The ALJ dismissed the Petitioner’s claims regarding contractor licensing and forgery, noting the ADRE’s role is strictly to enforce HOA statutes, not to adjudicate Registrar of Contractors issues. However, the procedural victory remained.

5. Financial and Legal Consequences

The ADRE, through the Office of Administrative Hearings, serves as an essential forum for homeowners who are being stonewalled by their boards.

The Recommended Order was a definitive win for homeowner rights:

The Petitioner’s request was granted due to the statutory violation.
The Respondent (the HOA) was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.

This fee-shifting mechanism is vital. It ensures that when an HOA forces a member to file a petition just to see a basic receipt, the HOA—and by extension, the community’s budget—bears the cost of that recalcitrance.

6. Key Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards

For Homeowners: Protecting Your Rights

Start the Clock: Always submit record requests in writing (email and certified mail) to establish the exact start date of the 10-day window.
Be Granular: Specifically request "the invoice and cancelled check (front and back)" rather than general "information."
Leverage the Discrepancies: If dates don't align (like the Nov 1 vs. Nov 2 issue), document it. Even if the Judge cannot rule on "forgery," these facts prove your request was reasonable and necessary.

For HOA Boards & Managers: Avoiding the $500 Penalty

The "Knowledge of Agent" Rule: Boards are legally responsible for their managers. A manager claiming "I don't have the records in my office" is not a valid legal excuse.
Location Does Not Pause the Clock: Storing records "in the community" or at a Treasurer’s house does not exempt the Board from the 10-day deadline.
Stop the Evasion: Providing only a first name or claiming a lack of contact info for a paid contractor is seen by the court as evasive. If you paid a vendor $1,000 of the members' money, you must produce the paper trail immediately.

7. Conclusion: Building a Better Community

Transparency is the bedrock of a healthy association. As the Administrative Law Judge noted, the ultimate goal is for members and boards to move past "concerns and suspicions to cooperatively build a better community."

However, that cooperation can only exist when boards recognize that transparency is not a choice—it is a legal mandate. For Arizona HOAs, the lesson is clear: respect the 10-day rule, or be prepared to pay the price for your delay.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Linda Curtin (petitioner)
Also referred to as 'Complainant'; testified on her own behalf

Respondent Side

Tracy Schofield (community manager)
The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association
Appeared for Respondent and testified as Community Manager
Jim Mackiewicz (board member)
The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association
Board Treasurer
Mitch Kellogg (statutory agent)
The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc.

Neutral Parties

Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

Gualberto Castro (contractor)
Gualberto Stucco & Repairs
Contractor involved in the disputed work
Felicia Del Sol (administrative staff)
Transmitted decision electronically

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

Posted on July 15, 2017 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	17F-H1717032-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2017-07-14
Administrative Law Judge	Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome	The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The Respondent was ordered to comply with the statute within 10 days and refund the $500.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was found appropriate.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The Respondent was ordered to comply with the statute within 10 days and refund the $500.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was found appropriate.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to timely provide access to association records

The Respondent failed to fulfill the Petitioner's February 6, 2017, records request within 10 business days. The Respondent argued that disclosure was prohibited under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) due to pending criminal litigation against the Petitioner. The ALJ determined that the exception applies only to pending litigation between the association and the member, not a criminal case in which the association was not a party.

Orders: Respondent ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding the records request within 10 days and pay the Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee within 30 days.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: records request, access to records, pending litigation exception, HOA records, planned community

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717032-REL Decision – 575932.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:20:09 (79.9 KB)

17F-H1717032-REL Decision – 578529.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:20:12 (726.4 KB)

17F-H1717032-REL Decision – 586360.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:20:15 (95.9 KB)

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

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative case of William M. Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc., focusing on a homeowner association’s (HOA) obligation to provide records to a member under Arizona law. The core issue was the interpretation of the “pending litigation” exemption within A.R.S. § 33-1805, which allows an association to withhold certain records.

Terravita Country Club, Inc. (“Terravita”) denied a records request from its member, William M. Brown, citing a pending criminal case against him. However, Terravita was not a party to this criminal litigation. Mr. Brown contended this denial violated state law, arguing the exemption only applies when the association itself is a party to the litigation. Terravita argued for a broader interpretation, claiming the statute did not require the association to be a party.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled decisively in favor of Mr. Brown. The judge concluded that Terravita’s interpretation would lead to an “absurd result,” effectively allowing any HOA to deny records related to any litigation anywhere. The judge established that the sensible and plain meaning of the statute is that the exemption for “pending litigation” applies only to legal disputes between the association and the member.

The Arizona Department of Real Estate adopted the ALJ’s decision in a Final Order. Terravita was found in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805, ordered to produce the requested records, and mandated to reimburse Mr. Brown’s $500 filing fee.

Case Timeline and Factual Background

The dispute followed a clear sequence of events, beginning with the records request and culminating in a final administrative order.

February 6, 2017

William M. Brown, a member of Terravita, formally requests records from the association.

February 14, 2017

Terravita sends an email to Mr. Brown denying the request. The denial cites a “pending criminal litigation” against him and invokes A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) as justification.

Post-Feb. 6, 2017

Terravita fails to fulfill the records request within the statutory 10-business-day deadline.

April 13, 2017

The Arizona Department of Real Estate receives a Petition for Hearing from Mr. Brown, alleging Terravita’s failure to timely respond.

May 2, 2017

Terravita files its response, formally asserting as an affirmative defense that it was not required to disclose the records due to the pending criminal litigation against Mr. Brown.

May 3, 2017

The Department issues a Notice of Hearing, setting the matter for June 26, 2017, before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

June 26, 2017

The administrative hearing is conducted. Both parties present their arguments.

July 14, 2017

Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson issues a decision finding in favor of the Petitioner, Mr. Brown.

July 24, 2017

Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issues a Final Order adopting the ALJ’s decision in its entirety.

Core Dispute: Interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1805

The central conflict was the proper application of Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805, which governs a member’s right to access association records. Subsection (A) mandates that records be made available for examination within 10 business days. Subsection (B) provides exemptions, including for records related to “pending litigation.”

Petitioner’s Position (William M. Brown)

Mr. Brown’s argument was straightforward and focused on a narrow interpretation of the statutory exemption.

• Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A): Terravita failed to fulfill his February 6, 2017 records request within the legally mandated 10 business days.

• Limited Scope of Exemption: He contended that the exemption for “pending litigation” under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) applies only to litigation in which the association itself is a party.

• Factual Basis: Since Terravita was not a party to the criminal case brought against him by the City of Scottsdale, the exemption was inapplicable.

• Legislative Intent: Mr. Brown noted that the statute had been amended to remove the phrase “contemplated litigation,” suggesting the legislature intended to narrow, not broaden, the scope of the exemption.

Respondent’s Position (Terravita Country Club, Inc.)

Terravita argued for a broader interpretation of the statute, asserting that its non-party status was irrelevant.

• “Plain Meaning” of the Statute: Terravita’s position was that the plain meaning of A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) does not explicitly require the association to be a party to the pending litigation.

• Relevance of the Litigation: The association argued the criminal case was germane because it was “based upon an allegation that Mr. Brown threated Terravita’s board members and property.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s decision provided a comprehensive legal analysis, ultimately rejecting Terravita’s interpretation of the law and finding that Mr. Brown had established his case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Statutory Interpretation and the “Absurd Result” Doctrine

The decision hinged on the principle that legislation must be given a “sensible construction that avoids absurd results.” The judge analyzed the consequences of Terravita’s interpretation:

“Terravita’s interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) would allow the association to deny records request of documents that relate to pending litigation between any parties. Such an interpretation would lead to the absurd result of denying records requests of all documents that relate to pending litigation anywhere, between any two parties.”

Based on this reasoning, the judge rejected Terravita’s argument and established a clear standard for applying the exemption.

The Correct Interpretation of the Law

The ALJ articulated the “plain meaning” of the statute, establishing a critical precedent for its application:

“The plain meaning of A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) is that while homeowners’ associations must provide access to financial and other documents to its members within 10 business days, an association may withhold documents that relate to pending litigation between the association and the member.”

Final Conclusion

The judge applied this correct interpretation to the undisputed facts of the case:

1. At the time of Mr. Brown’s request, he was facing criminal charges initiated by the City of Scottsdale.

2. Terravita was not a party to that criminal case.

3. Therefore, the exemption did not apply, and Terravita violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill the records request within 10 business days.

Final Order and Mandates

The decision issued by the ALJ on July 14, 2017, became the basis for the Final Order issued by the Arizona Department of Real Estate on July 24, 2017. The Commissioner accepted and adopted the ALJ’s decision, making its mandates binding and effective immediately.

The key directives of the order were:

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

• Compliance: Terravita was ordered to comply with the applicable provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding the records request within 10 days of the order.

• Reimbursement of Fees: Terravita was ordered to pay Mr. Brown his filing fee of $500.00 directly within 30 days of the order.

• No Civil Penalty: The judge found that a civil penalty was not appropriate in the matter.

Study Guide: Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc.

This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case William M. Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc. (No. 17F-H1717032-REL), heard before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. It covers the central conflict, the legal arguments, the statutory interpretations, and the final resolution of the dispute.

——————————————————————————–

Short Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following ten questions based on the provided source documents. Each answer should be approximately 2-3 sentences.

1. What was the initial action taken by William M. Brown on February 6, 2017, and what was Terravita Country Club’s response?

2. On what legal grounds did Terravita justify its refusal to provide the requested records?

3. What was William M. Brown’s primary legal argument against Terravita’s position during the hearing?

4. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of Terravita’s argument regarding A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2), and why was it rejected?

5. What is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, and who bore the burden of proof in this case?

6. What key fact regarding the “pending litigation” was central to the Judge’s final decision?

7. What was the final conclusion reached by the Administrative Law Judge regarding Terravita’s actions?

8. Identify the three specific orders issued by the Administrative Law Judge in the “Recommended Order.”

9. What state department adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, making it a “Final Order”?

10. Besides complying with the records request and paying the filing fee, what specific penalty was explicitly not levied against Terravita?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. On February 6, 2017, William M. Brown requested records from Terravita Country Club. On February 14, 2017, Terravita responded via email, refusing to disclose the records because they were allegedly part of pending criminal litigation against Mr. Brown.

2. Terravita justified its refusal by citing Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1805(B)(2). The club argued that this statute allows an association to withhold records related to “pending litigation.”

3. Mr. Brown’s primary argument was that Terravita had violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide records within 10 business days. He contended that the exemption for “pending litigation” in § 33-1805(B)(2) applies only when the association itself is a party to that litigation, which Terravita was not in his criminal case.

4. The Judge interpreted Terravita’s argument to mean that an association could deny any records request if the documents related to pending litigation between any two parties anywhere. This interpretation was rejected because it would lead to the “absurd result” of broadly denying access to records, which was not the statute’s intent.

5. “Preponderance of the evidence” is the evidentiary standard where the trier of fact must be convinced that a contention is more probably true than not. In this case, the Petitioner (Mr. Brown) bore the burden of proving that Terravita violated the statute, while the Respondent (Terravita) bore the burden of proving its affirmative defenses.

6. The central fact was that Terravita Country Club was not a party to the criminal case brought against Mr. Brown by the City of Scottsdale. Because the association was not a party, the judge ruled that the statutory exemption for withholding records related to pending litigation did not apply.

7. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Mr. Brown had established by a preponderance of the evidence that Terravita failed to fulfill his records request within the required 10 business days. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that Terravita violated the charged provision of A.R.S. § 33-1805.

8. The Judge ordered that: (1) the Petitioner (Mr. Brown) be deemed the prevailing party; (2) Terravita must comply with the records request within 10 days of the Order; and (3) Terravita must pay the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee within 30 days of the Order.

9. The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. This action, dated July 24, 2017, made the decision a binding Final Order.

10. The Recommended Order, which was adopted as the Final Order, explicitly states that “No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.”

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more analytical understanding of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response for each, drawing upon the facts, legal principles, and arguments presented in the source documents.

1. Analyze the conflicting interpretations of A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) presented by William M. Brown and Terravita Country Club. Explain the legal reasoning the Administrative Law Judge used to resolve this dispute, including the principle of avoiding “absurd results.”

2. Describe the complete timeline of the case, from the initial records request to the issuance of the Final Order. For each key date, explain the event’s significance to the progression and outcome of the dispute.

3. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the case documents. Explain how this standard was applied to both the Petitioner’s claim and the Respondent’s affirmative defense and why the Judge ultimately found that the Petitioner had met this burden.

4. Examine the role of the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Department of Real Estate in resolving disputes within planned communities, as demonstrated by this case. How does the process flow from an initial petition to a binding order?

5. Based on the Judge’s decision, formulate an argument about the balance between a homeowner’s right to access association records and an association’s right to protect its interests in legal matters. How does A.R.S. § 33-1805 attempt to strike this balance, and how did the ruling in this case clarify its limits?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings. In this case, Velva Moses-Thompson served as the ALJ.

Affirmative Defense

A set of facts or legal arguments raised by the respondent that, if proven, can defeat or mitigate the petitioner’s claim. Terravita’s claim that A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) exempted them was their affirmative defense.

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

The section of Arizona Revised Statutes that requires a planned community association to make financial and other records available for member examination within 10 business days.

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2)

The section of Arizona Revised Statutes that allows an association to withhold books and records from disclosure if the portion withheld relates to “pending litigation.”

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

The Arizona statute that permits an owner or planned community organization to file a petition with the Department of Real Estate for a hearing concerning violations of statutes or community documents.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party. The Petitioner bore the burden to prove the violation, and the Respondent bore the burden to establish its defense.

Department of Real Estate

The Arizona state agency that received the Petition for Hearing from Mr. Brown and ultimately adopted the ALJ’s decision, making it final.

Final Order

The binding decision issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, which adopted the ALJ’s Recommended Order. This order is an administrative action and is effective immediately upon service.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency in Arizona where administrative law judges conduct hearings on disputes, such as the one between Mr. Brown and Terravita.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a lawsuit or hearing by filing a petition. In this case, William M. Brown was the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and represents “the greater weight of the evidence.”

Prevailing Party

The party who is successful in a legal case. The Final Order deemed William M. Brown the prevailing party.

Recommended Order

The initial decision and orders issued by the Administrative Law Judge following a hearing. This decision is then sent to the relevant state agency (in this case, the Department of Real Estate) for adoption.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed; the party who must respond to the claims. In this case, Terravita Country Club, Inc. was the Respondent.

Your HOA Can’t Use “Pending Litigation” to Hide Records. This Homeowner Proved It.

Introduction: The Wall of Secrecy

For many homeowners, dealing with a Homeowners Association (HOA) can feel like confronting an organization that operates with total authority and little transparency. Board decisions can seem arbitrary, and getting straight answers or access to official documents can be a frustrating, uphill battle. But what happens when an HOA flatly denies a simple request for records, citing a vague legal reason?

One homeowner decided to find out. The case of William M. Brown versus the Terravita Country Club provides a fascinating look at how a single individual challenged his HOA’s interpretation of state law. In doing so, he not only won access to the records he sought but also revealed a crucial limit on an HOA’s power to operate in secret.

The Takeaways: Four Lessons from a Landmark HOA Dispute

This case offers several powerful and practical lessons for any homeowner who has ever felt stonewalled by their association’s board.

Takeaway 1: “Pending Litigation” Isn’t a Blank Check to Deny Records

At the heart of the dispute was a simple request. On February 6, 2017, William M. Brown asked his HOA, Terravita, for access to association records. The HOA denied the request, citing an exemption in Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2)) that allows an association to withhold records related to “pending litigation.”

Terravita’s argument was that this exemption applied because of a pending criminal case against Mr. Brown. Crucially, they argued this was not just any unrelated case; the criminal charges stemmed from allegations that Mr. Brown had threatened the HOA’s board members and property. From their perspective, the records request was directly linked to a hostile legal situation involving the association’s leadership. However, the critical fact remained that the HOA itself was not a formal party to the criminal case.

The judge’s ruling was definitive and clear: the “pending litigation” exemption can only be used to withhold records if the litigation is between the association and the member. Because Terravita was not a party to Mr. Brown’s criminal case, it had no legal grounds to use that case as an excuse to withhold its records from him. This ruling draws a bright line: The “pending litigation” shield cannot be borrowed from a separate case, even one that feels highly relevant to the HOA.

Takeaway 2: Legal Interpretations Must Be Sensible, Not Absurd

The HOA argued for a literal interpretation of the law, claiming the statute didn’t explicitly state that the association had to be a party to the litigation. Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson rejected this line of reasoning, stating that it would lead to an “absurd result.”

This is a critical lesson for homeowners. Judges are tasked with ensuring laws are applied sensibly. When an HOA’s interpretation of a rule would create an illogical or unfair outcome, it is vulnerable to legal challenge. The judge highlighted the flaw in the HOA’s logic with a powerful statement in her decision:

Terravita’s interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) would allow the association to deny records request of documents that relate to pending litigation between any parties. Such an interpretation would lead to the absurd result of denying records requests of all documents that relate to pending litigation anywhere, between any two parties.

Takeaway 3: A Single Homeowner Can Successfully Challenge Their HOA

Perhaps the most empowering aspect of this case is who argued it. The court documents show that while the HOA was represented by legal counsel (“Joshua Bolen, Esq. appeared on behalf of Respondent Terravita Country Club, Inc.”), Mr. Brown represented himself (“Petitioner William M. Brown appeared on behalf of himself”).

Despite being outmatched on paper, Mr. Brown successfully researched the law, presented a logical argument, and held his ground. His victory demonstrates that the legal process is not just for lawyers. A well-researched, logical argument from a homeowner can be more powerful than a law firm’s flawed interpretation of a statute. The judge ultimately found that “Mr. Brown established by a preponderance of the evidence that Terravita failed to fulfill his February 6, 2017 records request within 10 business days.”

Takeaway 4: Misapplying the Law Can Have Financial Consequences

This wasn’t just a moral victory. The final order, adopted by the Arizona Department of Real Estate on July 24, 2017, came with tangible consequences for the HOA. For its failure to correctly apply the law, Terravita faced direct and tangible consequences.

• The HOA was ordered to provide the requested records within 10 days.

• The homeowner, Mr. Brown, was deemed the “prevailing party.”

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

This outcome underscores a critical point: when an HOA oversteps its authority or misinterprets the law, it can be held financially responsible for the costs incurred by the homeowner forced to challenge its actions.

Conclusion: Knowledge is Power

The story of William M. Brown’s dispute with his HOA serves as a powerful reminder that HOAs do not have unlimited power. They are governed by specific state laws, and understanding those laws is the most effective tool a homeowner possesses.

The central lesson is that an HOA’s authority is not absolute, and its interpretation of its own rules—and, more importantly, state law—must be reasonable and sensible. This case affirms the right of members to transparency and proves that a single, well-prepared homeowner can successfully stand up for those rights.

After seeing how one homeowner held his board accountable, will you take the time to learn your rights before you need them?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

William M. Brown (petitioner)
Appeared on behalf of himself

Respondent Side

Joshua Bolen (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC

Neutral Parties

Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Abby Hansen (HOA coordinator)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

John Sellers vs. Grayhawk Community Association

Posted on February 21, 2017 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	17F-H1716016-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2017-02-21
Administrative Law Judge	Suzanne Marwil
Outcome	The Petitioner's petition was denied. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof showing Respondent restricted electronic access to the bank account, and the issue was moot since the bank closed the account. Respondent complied with the statutory requirement to make records reasonably available.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John Sellers	Counsel	—
Respondent	Grayhawk Community Association	Counsel	Curtis Ekmark, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition was denied. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof showing Respondent restricted electronic access to the bank account, and the issue was moot since the bank closed the account. Respondent complied with the statutory requirement to make records reasonably available.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; lack of evidence that Respondent restricted access; issue was moot due to account closure; Respondent complied with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by offering paper copies of documents.

Key Issues & Findings

Wrongful denial of electronic access to the bank account's electronic information

Petitioner alleged Respondent unilaterally restricted his access to online, view-only bank account information and refused to restore access by November 25, 2016, in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

Orders: Petition denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.R.S. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
32-2199.02
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Access, HOA Records, Mootness, Burden of Proof

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.R.S. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
32-2199.02
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716016-REL Decision – 546761.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:01:29 (61.1 KB)

17F-H1716016-REL Decision – 552261.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:01:34 (553.3 KB)

17F-H1716016-REL Decision – 546761.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:18:32 (61.1 KB)

17F-H1716016-REL Decision – 552261.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:18:37 (553.3 KB)

Administrative Hearing Briefing: Sellers vs. Grayhawk Community Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and rulings in the administrative case of John Sellers (Petitioner) versus the Grayhawk Community Association (Respondent), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings and finalized by the Department of Real Estate. The core of the dispute was the Petitioner’s claim that the Respondent unlawfully restricted his electronic, view-only access to a bank account in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805(A).

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof. The evidence showed the Respondent initially provided the requested electronic access, which the Petitioner successfully used before changing the password. The Petitioner offered no evidence that the Respondent subsequently interfered with or restricted this access. Furthermore, the issue was rendered moot when the bank in question closed the account. The ALJ affirmed that the Respondent’s offer to provide paper records satisfied the statutory requirement to make records “reasonably available.” This decision was subsequently adopted as a Final Order by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate.

Case Overview

Details

Case Name

John Sellers, Petitioner, vs. Grayhawk Community Association, Respondent.

Case Numbers

Docket No. 17F-H1716016-REL; Case No. HO 17-16/016

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Administrative Law Judge

Suzanne Marwil

Hearing Date

February 16, 2017

ALJ Decision Date

February 21, 2017

Final Order Date

March 3, 2017

Final Order Issued By

Judy Lowe, Commissioner, Department of Real Estate

The Core Dispute

Petitioner’s Position

John Sellers alleged that after he requested and received view-only access to the Association’s Alliance Association Bank account, the Respondent unilaterally restricted that access. He claimed the Respondent’s failure to restore access by his deadline of the close of business on November 25, 2016, constituted a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), which governs a member’s right to examine association records. The petition, for which a $500 fee was paid, was specifically focused on this single issue.

Respondent’s Position

The Grayhawk Community Association argued that it had gone beyond its statutory obligations by arranging for the bank to create a new online password specifically for the Petitioner. They maintained that after providing this access, they did not interfere with or restrict it in any way. They contended that the Petitioner’s subsequent inability to access the account was due to unknown reasons. The Respondent noted that the bank closed the account on November 28, 2016, making any form of electronic access permanently unavailable and rendering the issue moot. They also offered to provide paper copies of the relevant bank records.

Chronology of Key Events

• October 18, 2016: Petitioner John Sellers requests, among other items, an electronic, read-only password for the Respondent’s Alliance Association Bank account.

• November 2, 2016: The Respondent notifies the Petitioner that such a password did not exist at the time of the request.

• November 16, 2016: After requesting the bank create a password, the Respondent forwards the new login information to the Petitioner.

• Post-November 16, 2016: The Petitioner successfully logs into the bank account using the provided information and changes the password.

• Thanksgiving Day (November 24, 2016): The Petitioner attempts to log in again but “could not see anything.” Based on the assumption that the Respondent had restricted his access, he emails community manager Michael Fee.

• Thanksgiving Day Demand: In his email, the Petitioner sets a deadline for the Respondent to restore his access by the end of the business day on Friday, November 25, 2016, threatening to file a petition if the deadline is not met. Mr. Fee replies that he will contact the bank.

• November 28, 2016: Having not heard further from the Respondent, the Petitioner files the petition in this matter.

• November 28, 2016: On the same day, the Respondent informs the Petitioner that they do not know the reason for the lack of access and denies that anyone affiliated with the association interfered. It is also on this date that Alliance Association Bank closes the account in question.

Analysis of the Administrative Law Judge’s Decision

The ALJ’s decision was based on a hearing held on February 16, 2017. The ruling systematically dismantled the Petitioner’s case based on the evidence presented.

Burden and Standard of Proof

• Pursuant to Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R2-19-119(B), the Petitioner held the burden of proof.

• The required standard of proof was a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the Petitioner had to show it was more likely than not that his claim was true.

Key Findings of Fact

1. Access Was Provided: It was undisputed that the Respondent provided the Petitioner with login information and that this information initially worked, enabling him to access the account.

2. Petitioner Changed Password: After gaining access, the Petitioner changed the password.

3. No Evidence of Interference: The Petitioner offered “no evidence that Respondent took any action to deny Petitioner online access.” His belief that access was restricted was a “unilateral assumption.” The record did not establish why the new password failed to work on Thanksgiving Day.

4. Issue Rendered Moot: The undisputed closure of the bank account by the bank on November 28, 2016, made the request for electronic access moot, as such access was no longer available to anyone.

Key Conclusions of Law

1. Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: The ALJ concluded that the “Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proof.” The record was “devoid of any evidence” that the Respondent denied the requested information or took any action to restrict access.

2. Compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A): The statute requires that association records “be made reasonably available for examination.” The ALJ found that the Respondent complied with the statute by initially providing electronic access and later offering to “furnish the Petitioner paper copies of documents it possessed related to that bank account.”

3. Electronic vs. Paper Access: The Petitioner’s argument that paper access is inferior to electronic access was dismissed as a “policy argument that should be addressed to the Legislature.” The plain language of the existing statute does not mandate a specific format for record examination.

Final Order and Outcome

On March 3, 2017, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate issued a Final Order, which fully adopted the ALJ’s decision.

• Petition Denied: The Commissioner accepted the ALJ’s decision that the petition be denied.

• Future Compliance Directive: The order stated, “The Commissioner accepts the Recommended Order that Respondent shall comply with the applicable provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes (‘A.R.S.’) § 33-1804 (A) in the future.”

• Binding Decision: The order became a final administrative action, effective immediately and binding on the parties.

• Rehearing and Appeal Process: Parties were notified that a motion for rehearing or review could be filed within 30 days. A request for rehearing should be addressed to Abby Hansen, 2910 N. 44th Street, Suite 100, Phoenix, Arizona, 85018. The order could also be appealed via a complaint for judicial review.

Study Guide: Sellers v. Grayhawk Community Association

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal case No. 17F-H1716016-REL, John Sellers v. Grayhawk Community Association, based on the Administrative Law Judge Decision and the subsequent Final Order from the Department of Real Estate.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, based on the information provided in the case documents.

1. Identify the primary parties involved in this case and state their respective roles.

2. What was the central accusation made by the Petitioner against the Respondent?

3. According to the Respondent’s argument, what actions did it take in response to the Petitioner’s initial request for electronic bank records?

4. What specific event occurred on Thanksgiving Day that directly prompted the Petitioner to file his petition?

5. What was the required standard of proof in this hearing, and which party was assigned the burden of meeting it?

6. Which specific Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) did the Petitioner allege the Respondent had violated?

7. Summarize the primary reason the Administrative Law Judge found that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof.

8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge determine that the issue of electronic access had become moot?

9. What was the final decision issued by the Administrative Law Judge, and was it accepted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate?

10. How did the Administrative Law Judge address the Petitioner’s argument that paper records are an inferior substitute for electronic access?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were John Sellers, who served as the Petitioner, and the Grayhawk Community Association, which was the Respondent. The Petitioner, Mr. Sellers, brought the complaint, and the Respondent, Grayhawk Community Association, was the party accused of wrongdoing.

2. The Petitioner accused the Respondent of violating A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by unilaterally restricting his online, view-only access to a bank account. He claimed they wrongfully denied him this access and failed to restore it by his deadline of November 25, 2016.

3. The Respondent argued it went beyond its statutory obligation by requesting that Alliance Association Bank create an online, view-only password specifically for the Petitioner, as one did not previously exist. The Respondent then forwarded this new login information to the Petitioner on November 16, 2016.

4. On Thanksgiving Day, the Petitioner attempted to log on to the bank account but could not see anything. Based on the assumption that the Respondent had restricted his access, he emailed the community manager and set a deadline for the next business day, which ultimately led to him filing the petition when access was not restored.

5. The standard of proof required was a “preponderance of the evidence.” Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-19-119(B), the Petitioner, John Sellers, had the burden of proof in this matter.

6. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). This statute requires that all financial and other records of an association be made reasonably available for examination by any member.

7. The Judge found that the Petitioner offered no proof that the Respondent took any action to restrict or interfere with his access to the bank account. The record showed the Respondent provided the initial access, and it was not established why the Petitioner’s new password later failed to work.

8. The issue of electronic access was deemed moot for two reasons. First, the bank closed the account in question on November 28, 2016, making electronic access impossible. Second, the Respondent had offered to furnish the Petitioner with paper copies of the documents it possessed related to that account.

9. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate accepted this recommended decision and issued a Final Order denying the petition.

10. The Judge characterized the Petitioner’s argument as a policy argument that should be addressed to the Legislature, not the court. The Judge stated that the plain language of the statute only requires records to be made “reasonably available,” and concluded the Respondent complied with the law by offering paper copies.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Construct detailed, essay-format responses to the following prompts. Do not provide answers.

1. Analyze the timeline of events from October 18, 2016, to November 28, 2016. How did the Petitioner’s actions, particularly his assumptions and deadlines, impact the outcome of the case as determined by the Administrative Law Judge?

2. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. Explain why the Petitioner, John Sellers, failed to meet the standard of “preponderance of the evidence” according to the Administrative Law Judge’s findings.

3. Examine the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). How does the judge’s distinction between “reasonably available” records and the specific format of access (electronic vs. paper) form the core of the legal conclusion?

4. The Respondent argued it went “beyond its statutory obligation.” Based on the facts presented in the decision, construct an argument either supporting or refuting this claim.

5. Explain the concept of “mootness” in the context of this legal dispute. How did the closure of the Alliance Association Bank account on November 28, 2016, render the central issue of the petition moot?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A judge who presides over hearings at an administrative agency. In this case, Suzanne Marwil presided for the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.A.C.

An abbreviation for the Arizona Administrative Code, which is the official compilation of rules and regulations of Arizona state agencies.

A.R.S.

An abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which is the codified collection of laws passed by the Arizona state legislature.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation of a party in a proceeding to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this matter, the burden of proof was on the Petitioner.

Conclusions of Law

The section of a legal decision where the judge applies legal principles and statutes to the established facts of the case to reach a ruling.

Final Order

An official, binding decision issued by an administrative body that resolves a legal dispute. In this case, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate issued the Final Order adopting the ALJ’s decision.

Findings of Fact

The section of a legal decision that details the facts of the case as determined by the judge based on the evidence presented during the hearing.

A legal term describing an issue that is no longer in dispute or has become irrelevant due to changed circumstances, making a judicial decision unnecessary. The account’s closure made the access issue moot.

A formal, written direction from a judge or administrative body. The ALJ issued an Order denying the petition.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, John Sellers.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It means that the evidence must demonstrate that a claim is more likely to be true than not true.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who is required to respond to the claims. In this case, the Grayhawk Community Association.

How a Thanksgiving Day Login Failure Cost a Homeowner $500: Key Lessons from a Bizarre HOA Dispute

Almost everyone knows the modern frustration of a forgotten password or a website that simply won’t cooperate. But in a peculiar 2017 case, a homeowner’s inability to access a bank account online on Thanksgiving Day escalated from a simple tech issue into a formal legal petition against his Homeowners Association (HOA). The official court ruling offers a case study in failed conflict resolution, with surprising and critical lessons for any homeowner navigating the complex world of community association governance.

——————————————————————————–

1. An Unproven Assumption Can Be a Costly Mistake

The entire legal dispute was triggered by a critical strategic miscalculation based on an unverified assumption. The sequence of events began when petitioner John Sellers, after having previously changed the password himself, logged in to his HOA’s bank account on Thanksgiving Day and “could not see anything.”

Instead of exploring technical explanations, like a server issue over the holiday, he “unilaterally assumed” that the HOA (the Respondent, Grayhawk Community Association) had intentionally restricted his access. Acting immediately on this assumption, he emailed the community manager, Michael Fee, setting an aggressive deadline for the end of business the following day to have his access restored. When that deadline passed, he filed a formal petition. Crucially, the record notes the petitioner paid a $500.00 fee to file it.

However, the petitioner’s narrative omits a key fact: the community manager was not unresponsive. The case file shows that “Mr. Fee advised he would contact the bank.” This detail reveals the petitioner’s precipitous rush to litigation, bypassing any opportunity for simple clarification. The judge’s finding was decisive, underscoring this failure in de-escalation: the petitioner “offered no evidence that Respondent took any action to deny Petitioner online access to the account.” Acting on a costly assumption led directly to a lost case and a forfeited $500 fee.

——————————————————————————–

2. The Law Requires “Reasonable Access,” Not Your Preferred Method

The petitioner’s central legal argument was that he was wrongfully denied electronic access to the bank’s information. This complaint, however, was fundamentally misaligned with the plain language of the governing statute.

The relevant law, A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), states that “all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member.” The Administrative Law Judge found that the HOA had fully complied with this duty. When the login issue persisted and the account was later closed by the bank, the Respondent “offered to furnish the Petitioner paper copies of documents it possessed related to that bank account.” This distinction is legally significant; the law does not mandate a specific method of access—especially a preferred or more convenient one—only that the access provided be “reasonable.”

The judge’s decision explicitly rejected the petitioner’s policy argument:

Petitioner’s argument that paper access to the account information is inferior to electronic access constitutes a policy argument that should be addressed to the Legislature. The plain language of the statute requires only that records of Respondent be made reasonable available for Petitioner’s examination. Respondent complied with the statute.

This highlights an important takeaway for all homeowners: understanding the difference between what is legally required versus what is simply convenient can prevent unnecessary and unwinnable disputes.

——————————————————————————–

3. Even “Going the Extra Mile” Can Lead to a Lawsuit

One of the most ironic details of the case is that the HOA was never obligated to provide online access in the first place. According to the case file, when the petitioner first requested electronic access on October 18, 2016, “such a password did not exist.”

In its defense, the HOA argued—and the facts seem to support—that it went “beyond its statutory obligation” by requesting that its bank create a special view-only password specifically for the petitioner. This was a proactive accommodation, not a statutory duty.

This situation reveals a paradox often seen in community management, where proactive efforts to accommodate a resident can inadvertently create new avenues for conflict. The very courtesy the HOA extended—creating an online access portal that wasn’t legally required—became the foundation of the legal petition filed against them, illustrating the complex and often thankless nature of community governance.

——————————————————————————–

4. The Burden of Proof Is on the Accuser

In any formal legal dispute, the question of who must prove their case is critical. According to the case file, the “Petitioner has the burden of proof in this matter.” The legal standard he had to meet was a “preponderance of the evidence,” which is the standard of proof required in most civil, non-criminal matters.

In simple terms, this means John Sellers had the responsibility to prove that it was more likely than not that the Grayhawk Community Association actively and intentionally restricted his access. He failed to provide any such proof.

The judge’s conclusion on this point was unambiguous: “Petitioner offered no proof that the Respondent restricted his access to the account in any way.” His case failed because it was built entirely on an assumption, with no evidence to support the accusation. This serves as a fundamental lesson in legal disputes: an accusation alone is not enough; it must be backed by credible evidence to prevail.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: A Final Thought Before You Escalate

A simple holiday login error became a failed legal petition due to a cascade of unverified assumptions and a fundamental misunderstanding of statutory requirements. This strange case serves as a potent reminder for homeowners and board members alike about the risks of escalating a grievance without first establishing the facts and understanding the law.

Before launching a formal, and potentially costly, complaint, it’s worth asking two simple questions: What does the law actually require, and what can I definitively prove?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

John Sellers (petitioner)

Respondent Side

Curtis Ekmark (HOA attorney)
Grayhawk Community Association
Michael Fee (community manager)
Grayhawk Community Association

Neutral Parties

Suzanne Marwil (ALJ)
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)