Tag Archives: HOA

Carolyn Wefsenmoe v. Summit View Homeowner’s Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H017-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-03-08
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, ruling that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the walls were built on the common area. Since HOA maintenance responsibility primarily attached to the common area, and the location of the walls relative to the lots remained unproven, the HOA was not found in violation of its maintenance obligations.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Carolyn Wefsenmoe Counsel —
Respondent Summit View Homeowner's Association Counsel Chad M. Gallacher, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R’s Article XI, Sections 1, 2, and 3; Summit View Community Plat Notes

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, ruling that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the walls were built on the common area. Since HOA maintenance responsibility primarily attached to the common area, and the location of the walls relative to the lots remained unproven, the HOA was not found in violation of its maintenance obligations.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the walls were located in a common area. No survey evidence was presented to determine whether the walls were on the individual lots (Owner responsibility) or the common area (HOA responsibility).

Key Issues & Findings

HOA failure to maintain perimeter walls and improper charging of homeowners for repairs.

Petitioner alleged that the HOA (SVHA) violated CC&R Article XI, Sections 1, 2, and 3, and the Community Plat Notes by failing to maintain the subdivision perimeter walls and charging homeowners for repairs, arguing the walls abutted and were part of the Common Area (NAOS), making maintenance the HOA's responsibility.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 1
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 2
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 3
  • Summit View Community Plat Notes

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Maintenance, Perimeter Walls, CC&R, Common Area, Burden of Proof, NAOS, Lot Line Dispute
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 1
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 2
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 3
  • Summit View Plat Notes

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1018596.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:58:24 (52.8 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1018616.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:58:28 (5.6 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1031301.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:58:32 (53.6 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032541.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:58:37 (258.1 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032542.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:58:41 (723.8 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032543.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:58:45 (487.6 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032544.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:58:50 (3029.4 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032545.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:58:53 (81.9 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032546.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:59:00 (3401.3 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032547.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:59:06 (2346.1 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1035846.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:59:09 (114.5 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1018596.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:51:50 (52.8 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1018616.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:51:54 (5.6 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1031301.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:51:57 (53.6 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032541.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:02 (258.1 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032542.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:05 (723.8 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032543.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:10 (487.6 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032544.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:15 (3029.4 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032545.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:21 (81.9 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032546.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:29 (3401.3 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032547.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:33 (2346.1 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1035846.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:37 (114.5 KB)

This summary addresses the legal case hearing concerning Petitioner Carolyn Wefsenmoe versus Respondent Summit View Homeowner's Association (SVHA), Case No. 23F-H017-REL, held before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) on February 21, 2023.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The dispute centered on the maintenance responsibility for the subdivision's perimeter walls and the SVHA's action of charging homeowners for repairs. Petitioner Wefsenmoe alleged the SVHA violated community documents, specifically CC&R's Article XI, Sections 1, 2, and 3, and the Summit View Community Plat Notes, by refusing to maintain the walls. The SVHA, represented by Chad Gallacher, Esq., argued the walls were located on individual Lots, making maintenance the homeowner's responsibility.

Key Legal Arguments and Proceedings

  1. Plat vs. CC&Rs: Petitioner relied heavily on language in the June 1996 Final Plat Notes, which stated that a Homeowners Association "WILL BE FORMED AND HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING ALL COMMON AREAS, TO BE NOTED AS… SUBDIVISION PERIMETER WALLS". Petitioner noted that her wall abutted the Natural Area Open Space (NAOS), designated as a Common Area.
  2. Governing Documents Hierarchy: Respondent countered that the Plat statement was a "forecasting" or "foreshadowing". This statement was qualified by the phrase "IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS," referring to the later Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) recorded in 2004.
  3. Lot Owner Responsibility: The SVHA argued that the CC&Rs placed maintenance burdens on the individual owner for all improvements on their Lot (Article III, Section 3). Furthermore, specific CC&R provisions required owners to obtain written architectural approval to perform maintenance or erect walls on their Lots (Article VIII, Sections 5 and 15), suggesting the maintenance obligation rested with the homeowner.
  4. Evidence of Location and Damage: The SVHA presented testimony that the walls in question were generally understood to be built on the individual lots, noting that the wall lines were not uniformly straight across the lots. SVHA's witness, Vic Smith, also testified that many wall damages were attributable to poor drainage and water runoff coming from the homeowner's Lot side, not the NAOS Common Area, which had no watering.
  5. Burden of Proof: Petitioner admitted on cross-examination that no professional survey had been conducted to definitively determine whether the walls were located on the Common Area or the individual Lots. The ALJ noted that Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision denying Petitioner's petition. The ALJ concluded that Petitioner failed to meet the required burden of proof. Absent persuasive evidence, such as a survey, demonstrating the walls were constructed in the Common Area, Petitioner could not establish that the SVHA was responsible for the maintenance or that the Association acted in violation of the community documents.

Questions

Question

Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner files a petition against their HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the person filing the petition is responsible for proving that the HOA committed the alleged violations. The HOA does not have to disprove the allegations initially; the homeowner must first provide sufficient evidence to support their claim.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • procedural requirements

Question

What level of evidence is required to win a dispute against an HOA?

Short Answer

A 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' like in criminal cases. Instead, the homeowner must show that their version of the facts is more probable than the HOA's version. It relies on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the number of witnesses.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

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

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • evidence
  • hearings

Question

If a wall touches an HOA common area, does the HOA automatically have to maintain it?

Short Answer

No. The location of the wall's foundation (on the lot vs. common area) determines responsibility.

Detailed Answer

Simply abutting a common area does not make a structure part of the common area. Unless the homeowner can prove the structure was actually built *on* the common area land, the HOA may not be responsible for its maintenance.

Alj Quote

There was no persuasive evidence presented that simply because on the other side of the wall there was a common area, does not prove that the wall was actually built on the common area.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

  • maintenance
  • common areas
  • boundaries

Question

Is a professional survey necessary to prove a boundary or maintenance dispute?

Short Answer

Yes, often. Without a survey, it is difficult to prove exactly where a structure lies.

Detailed Answer

If there is a dispute about whether a wall or structure is on private property or common area, failing to provide a professional survey can result in losing the case. The judge generally cannot assume a location without specific evidence.

Alj Quote

However, again, no evidence was presented to determine exactly where the wall was built. Perhaps if this evidence was presented there may be a different result.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • surveys
  • property lines

Question

Does the alignment of walls affect who is responsible for them?

Short Answer

Yes. If walls are not uniformly aligned, it suggests they follow individual lot lines rather than a subdivision perimeter.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, the judge noted that because the walls were not in a straight, uniform line across lots (likely due to varying lot sizes), it supported the conclusion that the walls were built on individual lots rather than being a single common area perimeter wall.

Alj Quote

Further, the tribunal notes that the walls were not uniformly even across the individual lots. This was presumably because each lot is a different size, which also would lead to the conclusion that each wall was built on each individual lot.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

  • maintenance
  • construction
  • HOA obligations

Question

Can I rely solely on Plat Notes to prove HOA maintenance responsibility?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, especially if physical evidence contradicts the interpretation that a structure is a 'perimeter wall'.

Detailed Answer

Even if a Plat Note says the HOA maintains 'subdivision perimeter walls,' the homeowner must still prove that the specific wall in question fits that definition and location. If the evidence suggests the wall is on a private lot, the general note may not apply.

Alj Quote

Petitioner testified that she believed that based upon the 'Notes' section on the plat map, this created an obligation on the SVHA… [However] Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the walls in questions are in a common area.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

  • cc&rs
  • plat maps
  • interpretation

Case

Docket No
23F-H017-REL
Case Title
Carolyn Wefsenmoe vs Summit View Homeowner's Association
Decision Date
2023-03-08
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner files a petition against their HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the person filing the petition is responsible for proving that the HOA committed the alleged violations. The HOA does not have to disprove the allegations initially; the homeowner must first provide sufficient evidence to support their claim.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • procedural requirements

Question

What level of evidence is required to win a dispute against an HOA?

Short Answer

A 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' like in criminal cases. Instead, the homeowner must show that their version of the facts is more probable than the HOA's version. It relies on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the number of witnesses.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

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

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • evidence
  • hearings

Question

If a wall touches an HOA common area, does the HOA automatically have to maintain it?

Short Answer

No. The location of the wall's foundation (on the lot vs. common area) determines responsibility.

Detailed Answer

Simply abutting a common area does not make a structure part of the common area. Unless the homeowner can prove the structure was actually built *on* the common area land, the HOA may not be responsible for its maintenance.

Alj Quote

There was no persuasive evidence presented that simply because on the other side of the wall there was a common area, does not prove that the wall was actually built on the common area.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

  • maintenance
  • common areas
  • boundaries

Question

Is a professional survey necessary to prove a boundary or maintenance dispute?

Short Answer

Yes, often. Without a survey, it is difficult to prove exactly where a structure lies.

Detailed Answer

If there is a dispute about whether a wall or structure is on private property or common area, failing to provide a professional survey can result in losing the case. The judge generally cannot assume a location without specific evidence.

Alj Quote

However, again, no evidence was presented to determine exactly where the wall was built. Perhaps if this evidence was presented there may be a different result.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • surveys
  • property lines

Question

Does the alignment of walls affect who is responsible for them?

Short Answer

Yes. If walls are not uniformly aligned, it suggests they follow individual lot lines rather than a subdivision perimeter.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, the judge noted that because the walls were not in a straight, uniform line across lots (likely due to varying lot sizes), it supported the conclusion that the walls were built on individual lots rather than being a single common area perimeter wall.

Alj Quote

Further, the tribunal notes that the walls were not uniformly even across the individual lots. This was presumably because each lot is a different size, which also would lead to the conclusion that each wall was built on each individual lot.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

  • maintenance
  • construction
  • HOA obligations

Question

Can I rely solely on Plat Notes to prove HOA maintenance responsibility?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, especially if physical evidence contradicts the interpretation that a structure is a 'perimeter wall'.

Detailed Answer

Even if a Plat Note says the HOA maintains 'subdivision perimeter walls,' the homeowner must still prove that the specific wall in question fits that definition and location. If the evidence suggests the wall is on a private lot, the general note may not apply.

Alj Quote

Petitioner testified that she believed that based upon the 'Notes' section on the plat map, this created an obligation on the SVHA… [However] Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the walls in questions are in a common area.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

  • cc&rs
  • plat maps
  • interpretation

Case

Docket No
23F-H017-REL
Case Title
Carolyn Wefsenmoe vs Summit View Homeowner's Association
Decision Date
2023-03-08
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Carolyn Wefsenmoe (petitioner)
    Appeared via Google Meet on her own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Chad M. Gallacher (HOA attorney)
    Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
  • Bick Smith (witness/board president)
    Summit View Homeowner's Association
    Also referred to as Vic Smith; testified for Respondent
  • Henry (board member)
    Summit View Homeowner's Association
    Discussed erosion issues; toured walls with Bick Smith
  • Denise (board member)
    Summit View Homeowner's Association
    Participated in special board meeting
  • Larry Burns (property manager/GM)
    Summit View Homeowner's Association
    General Manager who wrote community painting update; participated in board meeting

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmitted minute entry to
  • James Knupp (Acting Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmitted order to
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmitted ALJ decision to
  • AHansen (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient for transmitted documents
  • vnunez (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient for transmitted documents
  • djones (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient for transmitted documents
  • labril (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient for transmitted documents
  • c. serrano (OAH Staff)
    OAH
    Signed minute entries for transmission
  • Helen Purcell (county recorder)
    Maricopa County
    Recorded Amended CC&R Declaration in 2004
  • Maria Rosana Pira (notary public)
    Maricopa County
    Notarized Amended CC&R and Bylaws in 2004

Other Participants

  • Elelliana (unknown)
    Correspondent in objected-to email exhibit
  • Beth Mulcahy (attorney)
    Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C.
    Firm filed the Amended CC&R Declaration in 2004
  • LizzieG (customer service rep)
    Brown Community Management
    Customer service contact listed on billing document

Shawna Townsend v. North Canyon Ranch Owners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H018-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-02-07
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the North Canyon Ranch Owners Association violated its governing documents regarding the storage of a truck camper.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Shawna Townsend Counsel —
Respondent North Canyon Ranch Owners Association Counsel Haidyn DiLorenzo

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Section 4.3 Storage, Section 4.17 Motor Vehicles, Community Guidelines 2007

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the North Canyon Ranch Owners Association violated its governing documents regarding the storage of a truck camper.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner's 'truck camper' falls within the scope of prohibited items, specifically as 'other similar equipment' under the CC&Rs and rules, making her argument one of semantics.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the HOA violated its governing documents by issuing a fine for parking a mounted truck camper, based on the Petitioner's claimed 'legal loophole'.

Petitioner claimed a 'legal loophole' existed because the governing documents prohibited 'unmounted pickup camper units' or 'detached campers,' but not her currently mounted/attached truck camper. The ALJ found the truck camper was unequivocally prohibited as 'other similar equipment' under the CC&Rs and Rules, dismissing the petition.

Orders: Petition dismissed. No action is required of Respondent in this matter.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs § 4.3
  • CC&Rs § 4.17
  • Community Guidelines 2007
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 33-2102(18)(e)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, truck camper, recreational vehicle, storage violation, legal loophole, fines, administrative hearing, Arizona
Additional Citations:

  • CC&Rs § 4.3
  • CC&Rs § 4.17
  • Community Guidelines 2007
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 33-2102(18)(e)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H018-REL Decision – 1031834.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-27T09:47:34 (167.3 KB)

23F-H018-REL Decision – 1031834.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:42 (167.3 KB)

This summary details the administrative hearing held on January 19, 2023, in the matter of Shawna Townsend v. North Canyon Ranch Owners Association (Docket No. 23F-H018-REL). The Petitioner, Shauna Townsend, appeared self-represented, alleging the Respondent HOA violated community documents by fining her for storing a truck camper.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The dispute centered on the Petitioner storing her truck camper in her driveway, visible from neighboring properties. The Petitioner sought relief from fines imposed by the Respondent, arguing she had found a "legal loophole" in the association's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Community Guidelines.

The Respondent (HOA) maintained that the storage of the camper violated multiple governing documents, including:

  1. CC&R Section 4.3 (Storage): Prohibiting exterior storage of items like "unmounted pickup camper units" in the front yard.
  2. Architectural and Community Guidelines (2007): Prohibiting equipment such as "camper shell, detached camper, boat, boat trailer, hang glider, or other similar equipment or vehicle" from being parked or stored on lots if visible.
  3. Rules Regarding Recreational Type Vehicles (2000): Explicitly defining "Recreational Type Vehicles" to include "campers" and prohibiting their storage in driveways or front yards (allowing only brief loading/unloading, generally less than 24 consecutive hours).

Key Arguments and Legal Points

Petitioner's Argument (The "Loophole"): The Petitioner asserted that because her truck camper was mounted/attached to her truck, it did not fall under the specific prohibitions against "unmounted pickup camper units" (CC&Rs) or "detached campers" (Guidelines). She also argued that her truck camper was not technically an RV, trailer, or camper shell. She noted inconsistencies in the violation notices, which variously referred to the violation as an "RV," "trailer," or "camper shell".

Respondent's Argument: The Respondent contended that the documents, when read together, unambiguously prohibit the storage of the truck camper because it is captured by the broad language of "camper," "truck camper," or "other similar equipment". The Association provided evidence of multiple violation notices, appeals, and appeal denials (dated November 2021 through September 2022) demonstrating that the Petitioner was provided notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to fines being assessed, thereby validating the fines.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) noted that the Petitioner's argument was primarily one of semantics. The ALJ further referenced Arizona state statute A.R.S. § 33-2102(18), which defines a "Recreational vehicle" to include a "portable truck camper". Crucially, the Petitioner acknowledged during testimony that her truck camper is, in fact, a recreational vehicle.

Outcome

The burden of proof rested upon the Petitioner to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the governing documents.

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to meet this burden. The ALJ held that the Petitioner's truck camper clearly falls within the categories of prohibited equipment, particularly under the umbrella language of "other similar equipment" specified in the community documents.

The petition was dismissed, and no action was required of the Respondent. The decision became binding upon the parties pending any request for a rehearing.

Select all sources

No emoji found

Loading

23F-H018-REL

2 sources

This legal transcript and subsequent judicial decision detail a dispute between homeowner Shawna Townsend and the North Canyon Ranch Owners Association regarding a fine for storing a truck camper in public view. Townsend argued that her equipment fell into a legal loophole because the association’s rules specifically prohibited “unmounted” or “detached” campers, while hers remained attached to her vehicle. In contrast, the Homeowners Association maintained that the camper violated multiple regulations prohibiting the storage of recreational type vehicles and similar equipment in driveways. During the administrative hearing, testimony was provided regarding the enforcement consistency of the community’s governing documents and the specific definitions of recreational vehicles under Arizona law. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, determining that the truck camper was clearly prohibited as “similar equipment” regardless of its attachment status. The petition was dismissed, confirming that the association acted within its authority when issuing the violation notices and fines.

What are the core legal arguments regarding the truck camper loophole?
How did the Administrative Law Judge rule on the association’s enforcement?
How do North Canyon Ranch guidelines define recreational vehicles and storage?

Thursday, February 12

Save to note

Today • 2:12 PM

2 sources

Video Overview

Mind Map

Reports

Flashcards

Quiz

Infographic

Slide Deck

Data Table

NotebookLM can be inaccurate; please double check its responses.

Select all sources

No emoji found

Loading

23F-H018-REL

2 sources

This legal transcript and subsequent judicial decision detail a dispute between homeowner Shawna Townsend and the North Canyon Ranch Owners Association regarding a fine for storing a truck camper in public view. Townsend argued that her equipment fell into a legal loophole because the association’s rules specifically prohibited “unmounted” or “detached” campers, while hers remained attached to her vehicle. In contrast, the Homeowners Association maintained that the camper violated multiple regulations prohibiting the storage of recreational type vehicles and similar equipment in driveways. During the administrative hearing, testimony was provided regarding the enforcement consistency of the community’s governing documents and the specific definitions of recreational vehicles under Arizona law. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, determining that the truck camper was clearly prohibited as “similar equipment” regardless of its attachment status. The petition was dismissed, confirming that the association acted within its authority when issuing the violation notices and fines.

What are the core legal arguments regarding the truck camper loophole?
How did the Administrative Law Judge rule on the association’s enforcement?
How do North Canyon Ranch guidelines define recreational vehicles and storage?

Thursday, February 12

Save to note

Today • 2:12 PM

2 sources

Video Overview

Mind Map

Reports

Flashcards

Quiz

Infographic

Slide Deck

Data Table

NotebookLM can be inaccurate; please double check its responses.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Shawna Townsend (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf; also referred to as Shauna Townsen or Miss Townsen
  • Michael Townsen (co-owner)
    Co-owner and recipient of violation notices with Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Haidyn DiLorenzo (HOA attorney)
    Represented Respondent North Canyon Ranch Owners Association
  • Justin DeLuca (HOA attorney)
    Represented Respondent North Canyon Ranch Owners Association
  • Josey Perkins (community manager/witness)
    North Canyon Ranch Owners Association
    Community Manager for the association, testified as a witness (also referred to as Joy Perkins)
  • Riner (board member)
    North Canyon Ranch Owners Association Board of Directors
    Made motion to deny petitioner's appeal
  • Robera Holler (board member)
    North Canyon Ranch Owners Association Board of Directors
    Seconded motion to deny petitioner's appeal
  • Petra Paul (Executive VP of Management Services)
    Management Services
    Vice President of management services, communicated with Petitioner about the appeal
  • Beth Mulcahy (HOA attorney)
    Mulcahy Law Firm, PC
    Listed as contact for transmission of the decision

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge (also referred to as Sandra Vanella)
  • James Knupp (Acting Commissioner, ADRE)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of the decision

Oak Creek Knolls Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Kim. M. Grill

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222039-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-10-03
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the HOA failed to prove the homeowner violated the CC&Rs regarding leasing/occupancy rules, as the homeowner and her roommate's arrangement met the undefined term 'common household' required for a 'Single Family' occupancy.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Oak Creek Knolls Property Owners Association, Inc. Counsel Augustus H. Shaw, IV
Respondent Kim M. Grill Counsel Lawrence J. Felder

Alleged Violations

Article 2, Section 2.11 of the Restatement of Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the HOA failed to prove the homeowner violated the CC&Rs regarding leasing/occupancy rules, as the homeowner and her roommate's arrangement met the undefined term 'common household' required for a 'Single Family' occupancy.

Why this result: The HOA failed to meet the burden of proving that the homeowner's temporary roommate agreement constituted a violation of CC&R Article 2, Section 2.11.

Key Issues & Findings

Residential Use/Leasing Restrictions

Petitioner HOA alleged Respondent homeowner violated CC&R Article 2, Section 2.11 by entering into a roommate agreement while residing in the home, interpreting this as leasing less than the entire unit and arguing the parties did not constitute a 'Single Family' maintaining a 'common household.'

Orders: Petitioner’s petition denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Rental Restriction, Common Household, Single Family, Roommate, CC&R Enforcement, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • CC&Rs Article 2, Section 2.11

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 1003618.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:49:13 (125.6 KB)

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 972982.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:49:22 (47.8 KB)

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 973826.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:49:27 (50.2 KB)

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 974120.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:49:30 (50.6 KB)

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 1003618.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:46:15 (125.6 KB)

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 972982.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:46:18 (47.8 KB)

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 973826.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:46:21 (50.2 KB)

22F-H2222039-REL Decision – 974120.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:46:24 (50.6 KB)

This case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer at the Office of Administrative Hearings on August 4, 2022, concerning a dispute referred by the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The Petitioner, Oak Creek Knolls Property Owners Association, Inc., sought enforcement against the Respondent, property owner Kim M. Grill.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The Petitioner alleged that Respondent Grill violated Article 2, Section 2.11 of the Restatement of Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). This section requires that residential units be used exclusively by a "Single Family" and prohibits an owner from leasing "less than the entire unit" or using the unit for transient purposes, mandating a minimum 30-day lease term.

The dispute focused on a "Temporary roommate agreement" between Respondent Grill and Ken Snyder, a semi-retired attorney, for a period exceeding 30 days, where Mr. Snyder was afforded "full access to all living spaces" of the home. Although the Association's Disclosure Statement, signed by Grill, stated an owner "may NOT occupy a home at the same time as renting out the home," this statement was determined by the ALJ not to constitute a binding agreement, but merely the Association's interpretation.

Legal Arguments and Proceedings

  1. Jurisdiction: Initially, the question of whether the Association met the statutory definition of a planned community, vesting jurisdiction in the OAH, was raised. After receiving additional briefing, the ALJ concluded that the Petitioner did meet the statutory definition, confirming jurisdiction.
  2. Petitioner’s Argument: The Association argued that Grill's co-occupancy while receiving rent constituted a violation, primarily because she was leasing less than the entire unit to a non-family member while residing there. Witnesses argued that the owner's presence simultaneously with renters "is what causes the damage or detriment," asserting that failure to comply with the letter of the law harms the community scheme.
  3. Respondent’s Argument: Respondent argued the arrangement complied because the CC&Rs define "Single Family" to include a "group of not more than three (3) persons not all so related, who maintain a common household". Since the agreement was long-term and provided Mr. Snyder full access, the key legal question was whether Grill and Snyder maintained a "common household". Respondent emphasized that there was no evidence of noise, disturbance, or actual detriment caused by Mr. Snyder.

Outcome and Final Decision

The Petitioner bore the burden of proving the CC&R violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

The ALJ noted that the term "common household" was not defined in the CC&Rs and was "open to different interpretations". The arrangement, involving Mr. Snyder paying a share of living expenses (including utilities, internet, and cable TV) and having full access to the entire property, could "reasonably be interpreted to constitute evidence of a 'common household'".

The Administrative Law Judge Decision concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Agreement with Mr. Snyder violated Article 2, Section 2.11 of the CC&Rs. Therefore, the Petitioner's petition was denied. The decision was issued on October 3, 2022.

Questions

Question

Who has the burden of proof when an HOA alleges a violation of the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

The HOA (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

In a dispute before the OAH between an owner and an association, the HOA must prove that the homeowner violated the specific provision of the CC&Rs. The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more probable than not that the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Article 2, Section 2.11 of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • dispute resolution

Question

Can an HOA enforce a rule interpretation found in a 'Disclosure Statement' that isn't explicitly in the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

No, a disclosure statement representing the HOA's interpretation is not necessarily a binding agreement.

Detailed Answer

Even if a homeowner acknowledges a disclosure statement during purchase, if that statement merely reflects the HOA's interpretation of the governing documents (e.g., claiming an owner cannot occupy the home while renting it), it does not constitute a binding contract separate from the CC&Rs themselves.

Alj Quote

Notably, Petitioners assertion on the Disclosure Statement that '[a]n owner may NOT occupy a home at the same time as renting out the home' did not constitute a binding agreement between Petitioner and Respondent, but was merely Respondent’s statement indicating its interpretation of the governing documents.

Legal Basis

Contract Law Principles

Topic Tags

  • disclosure statements
  • enforceability
  • governing documents

Question

If my CC&Rs prohibit leasing 'less than the entire unit,' can I still have a roommate?

Short Answer

Potentially yes, if the roommate has full access to the entire property and shares living expenses.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that a 'roommate agreement' granting the tenant full access to all living spaces and sharing expenses (utilities, internet, etc.) did not violate a ban on leasing less than the entire unit, as the tenant was not restricted to a specific portion of the home.

Alj Quote

By its terms, the Agreement was for a period of greater than 30 days and afforded Mr. Snyder access to the entire unit.

Legal Basis

CC&R Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • rentals
  • roommates
  • leasing restrictions

Question

How does an HOA define a 'Single Family' if unrelated people live together?

Short Answer

It may depend on whether the group maintains a 'common household.'

Detailed Answer

If the CC&Rs define 'Single Family' to include a group of unrelated persons maintaining a 'common household,' acts like sharing utility costs, living expenses, and having full access to the property can serve as evidence of a common household.

Alj Quote

This arrangement, together with the fact that Mr. Snyder had full access to the entire property, could reasonably be interpreted to constitute evidence of a 'common household.'

Legal Basis

CC&R Definitions

Topic Tags

  • single family definition
  • occupancy limits
  • common household

Question

What happens if a key term like 'common household' is not defined in the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

Undefined terms are open to different reasonable interpretations.

Detailed Answer

When the governing documents fail to define a critical term, it creates ambiguity. In this case, the lack of a definition for 'common household' allowed for an interpretation that included a homeowner and a roommate sharing expenses.

Alj Quote

The term 'common household' was not defined in the CC&Rs and is open to different interpretations.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • ambiguity
  • definitions
  • legal interpretation

Question

Can I rent out a room if my CC&Rs require leases to be for a minimum of 30 days?

Short Answer

Yes, as long as the lease meets the time requirement and grants access to the whole unit (if partial leasing is banned).

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled in favor of the homeowner where the roommate agreement was for 12 months (satisfying the 30-day minimum) and granted access to the entire home, distinguishing it from short-term transient use or partial leasing.

Alj Quote

By its terms, the Agreement was for a period of greater than 30 days and afforded Mr. Snyder access to the entire unit.

Legal Basis

CC&R Compliance

Topic Tags

  • rental restrictions
  • lease terms
  • minimum stay

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222039-REL
Case Title
Oak Creek Knolls Property Owners Association, Inc. vs Kim M. Grill
Decision Date
2022-10-03
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Who has the burden of proof when an HOA alleges a violation of the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

The HOA (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

In a dispute before the OAH between an owner and an association, the HOA must prove that the homeowner violated the specific provision of the CC&Rs. The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more probable than not that the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Article 2, Section 2.11 of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • dispute resolution

Question

Can an HOA enforce a rule interpretation found in a 'Disclosure Statement' that isn't explicitly in the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

No, a disclosure statement representing the HOA's interpretation is not necessarily a binding agreement.

Detailed Answer

Even if a homeowner acknowledges a disclosure statement during purchase, if that statement merely reflects the HOA's interpretation of the governing documents (e.g., claiming an owner cannot occupy the home while renting it), it does not constitute a binding contract separate from the CC&Rs themselves.

Alj Quote

Notably, Petitioners assertion on the Disclosure Statement that '[a]n owner may NOT occupy a home at the same time as renting out the home' did not constitute a binding agreement between Petitioner and Respondent, but was merely Respondent’s statement indicating its interpretation of the governing documents.

Legal Basis

Contract Law Principles

Topic Tags

  • disclosure statements
  • enforceability
  • governing documents

Question

If my CC&Rs prohibit leasing 'less than the entire unit,' can I still have a roommate?

Short Answer

Potentially yes, if the roommate has full access to the entire property and shares living expenses.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that a 'roommate agreement' granting the tenant full access to all living spaces and sharing expenses (utilities, internet, etc.) did not violate a ban on leasing less than the entire unit, as the tenant was not restricted to a specific portion of the home.

Alj Quote

By its terms, the Agreement was for a period of greater than 30 days and afforded Mr. Snyder access to the entire unit.

Legal Basis

CC&R Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • rentals
  • roommates
  • leasing restrictions

Question

How does an HOA define a 'Single Family' if unrelated people live together?

Short Answer

It may depend on whether the group maintains a 'common household.'

Detailed Answer

If the CC&Rs define 'Single Family' to include a group of unrelated persons maintaining a 'common household,' acts like sharing utility costs, living expenses, and having full access to the property can serve as evidence of a common household.

Alj Quote

This arrangement, together with the fact that Mr. Snyder had full access to the entire property, could reasonably be interpreted to constitute evidence of a 'common household.'

Legal Basis

CC&R Definitions

Topic Tags

  • single family definition
  • occupancy limits
  • common household

Question

What happens if a key term like 'common household' is not defined in the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

Undefined terms are open to different reasonable interpretations.

Detailed Answer

When the governing documents fail to define a critical term, it creates ambiguity. In this case, the lack of a definition for 'common household' allowed for an interpretation that included a homeowner and a roommate sharing expenses.

Alj Quote

The term 'common household' was not defined in the CC&Rs and is open to different interpretations.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • ambiguity
  • definitions
  • legal interpretation

Question

Can I rent out a room if my CC&Rs require leases to be for a minimum of 30 days?

Short Answer

Yes, as long as the lease meets the time requirement and grants access to the whole unit (if partial leasing is banned).

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled in favor of the homeowner where the roommate agreement was for 12 months (satisfying the 30-day minimum) and granted access to the entire home, distinguishing it from short-term transient use or partial leasing.

Alj Quote

By its terms, the Agreement was for a period of greater than 30 days and afforded Mr. Snyder access to the entire unit.

Legal Basis

CC&R Compliance

Topic Tags

  • rental restrictions
  • lease terms
  • minimum stay

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222039-REL
Case Title
Oak Creek Knolls Property Owners Association, Inc. vs Kim M. Grill
Decision Date
2022-10-03
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Augustus H. Shaw, IV (HOA Attorney)
    SHAW & LINES LLC
    Represented Petitioner Oak Creek Knolls Property Owners Association, Inc.
  • Lisa Frost (Board Member/Witness)
    Oak Creek Knolls POA
    Association Secretary and testifying witness
  • Brenda Keller (Board Member/Witness)
    Oak Creek Knolls POA
    Alternate Director/Chair of the Architectural Committee and testifying witness
  • Dana Shel (Board Member)
    Oak Creek Knolls POA
    Association Board President
  • Denise Dotto (Neighbor/Complainant)
    Adjacent property owner whose concerns were noted by Petitioner's witnesses

Respondent Side

  • Kim M. Grill (Respondent)
    Property owner and Association member
  • Lawrence J. Felder (Respondent Attorney)
    Doncaster Law, PLLC
    Represented Respondent Kim M. Grill

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Louis Dettorre (ADRE Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Transmittal recipient
  • vnunez (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Transmittal recipient
  • djones (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Transmittal recipient
  • labril (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Transmittal recipient
  • Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
    Transmitting administrative staff
  • c. serrano (Administrative Staff)
    Transmitting administrative staff

Other Participants

  • Ken Snyder (Housemate/Non-party)
    Individual renting under the temporary roommate agreement with Respondent
  • David Goldman (Housemate/Non-party)
    Another individual residing at Respondent's property
  • Bruce Eert (Neighbor)
  • Chris Green (Neighbor)

Kathy J Green v. Cross Creek Ranch Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222064-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-09-29
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the petition, finding that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by improperly holding a closed executive session primarily focused on reviewing homeowner comments on design guidelines that did not meet the statutory exceptions for closure. The ALJ ordered the HOA to reimburse the petitioner's filing fee and comply with the statute in the future.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kathy J. Green, MD Counsel —
Respondent Cross Creek Ranch Community Association Counsel Nick Eicher, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the petition, finding that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by improperly holding a closed executive session primarily focused on reviewing homeowner comments on design guidelines that did not meet the statutory exceptions for closure. The ALJ ordered the HOA to reimburse the petitioner's filing fee and comply with the statute in the future.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of open meetings requirements regarding closed executive session.

The Respondent HOA held a closed executive session on June 9, 2022, noticed under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1) (legal advice), to discuss approximately 72 homeowner comments on proposed design guideline revisions. The ALJ found that the meeting did not qualify under exceptions (A)(1) or (A)(2) as no legal advice was given and the discussion of most comments did not constitute pending or contemplated litigation.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is affirmed. Respondent must reimburse the Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee and is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 33-1804(A)(1)
  • 33-1804(A)(2)
  • 33-1804(B)
  • 33-1804(F)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Open Meetings, Executive Session, Legal Advice, Contemplated Litigation, Design Guidelines
Additional Citations:

  • 33-1804
  • 33-1804(A)
  • 33-1804(A)(1)
  • 33-1804(A)(2)
  • 33-1804(F)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222064-REL Decision – 1003060.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:55:20 (149.0 KB)

22F-H2222064-REL Decision – 989940.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:55:23 (49.8 KB)

22F-H2222064-REL Decision – 1003060.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:38 (149.0 KB)

22F-H2222064-REL Decision – 989940.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:41 (49.8 KB)

This summary concerns the administrative hearing held on September 16, 2022, regarding the matter of Kathy J. Green (Petitioner) versus Cross Creek Ranch Community Association (Respondent), Docket No. 22F-H2222064-REL.

Key Facts and Legal Issue

The dispute centered on whether the Respondent Homeowners Association (HOA) violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1804 by holding a closed executive session on June 9, 2022. A.R.S. § 33-1804 establishes the state policy that all meetings of a planned community association's board of directors must be conducted openly and that any provisions of the statute must be construed in favor of open meetings. A meeting may only be closed if the portion is strictly limited to specific exceptions, such as legal advice (A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)) or pending or contemplated litigation (A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(2)).

The meeting was held to discuss 72 comments solicited from homeowners regarding proposed revisions to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) Design Guidelines.

Key Arguments

Petitioner's Position:

The Petitioner, Kathy Green, alleged that the closed session was improper because it was noticed under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1) (legal advice), yet the Board stipulated that no legal advice was given during the session. Evidence showed the Board President had emailed management prior to the meeting asking, "I don't want this to be an open meeting. Can we classify it under ARC Legal Review and keep it closed?". Petitioner argued that the meeting unlawfully conducted association business, noting that minutes showed a review of owner comments, non-board ARC members were present, and the minutes did not show discussion of legal advice or pending litigation. Furthermore, emails demonstrated that the Board later attempted to retroactively justify the meeting under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(2) (contemplated litigation).

Respondent's Position:

The Respondent, Cross Creek Ranch Community Association, argued that the closure was justified under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(2) because certain owner comments, including those from the Petitioner and her husband, were perceived as threats of litigation concerning the design guidelines. The Board testified that it met to holistically consider the risk of litigation, gauge membership sentiment, and conduct a cost-benefit analysis regarding the threatened lawsuits.

Final Decision and Outcome

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella found that the Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804.

  1. Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1): The stipulation that no legal advice was given established that the meeting did not meet the requirement for closure under the section for which it was noticed.
  2. Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(2): The ALJ found the argument for "pending or contemplated litigation" to be "tenuous at best". The discussion primarily involved 72 homeowner comments, and the ALJ concluded that none of the comments could be "reasonably construed as contemplating litigation".
  3. ALJ Finding: The ALJ noted that the Board acknowledged it could have held a separate executive session to discuss the one comment that copied an attorney while holding an open meeting for the majority of the solicited comments. The issue discussed did not fall under the statutory exceptions.

The ALJ affirmed the Petitioner's petition and ordered the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee. The Respondent was also directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 moving forward. No civil penalty was found appropriate.

Questions

Question

Can my HOA board hold a closed meeting to discuss homeowner feedback on design guidelines?

Short Answer

No, discussing general homeowner feedback does not qualify for a closed executive session unless it meets specific statutory exceptions like pending litigation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that reviewing general comments from homeowners regarding proposed changes to design guidelines is not a valid reason to close a meeting. Even if some comments are critical, the board must discuss them in an open meeting unless they specifically relate to pending or contemplated litigation or legal advice.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge concludes… that the issue discussed at the June 9, 2022 executive session does not fall under the exceptions listed in A.R.S. §§ 33-1804(A)(1) or (A)(2), and Respondent did not properly consider the issue in an executive session closed to its members.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Topic Tags

  • open meetings
  • design guidelines
  • executive session

Question

Does a homeowner saying they 'can and will challenge' a rule in court count as pending litigation?

Short Answer

No, vague statements about potential legal challenges do not necessarily constitute 'contemplated litigation' sufficient to close a meeting.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that comments stating changes 'can and will be challenged in court' did not put the Board on notice of imminent lawsuits. Therefore, such comments did not justify closing the meeting under the 'pending or contemplated litigation' exception.

Alj Quote

Further, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that none of the comments can be reasonably construed as contemplating litigation.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(2)

Topic Tags

  • litigation
  • definitions
  • executive session

Question

Can the board close an entire meeting if they receive just one threat of litigation?

Short Answer

No, the board should only close the portion of the meeting dealing with the specific threat.

Detailed Answer

If an HOA receives many comments and only one contains a potential legal threat (e.g., copying an attorney), the board should hold an executive session for that specific item and discuss the remaining general business in an open meeting.

Alj Quote

As acknowledged by Mr. Chambers, the Board could have held an executive session to discuss only that one comment/letter in which an attorney was copied, and held an open meeting to discuss the other solicited comments.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(2)

Topic Tags

  • procedure
  • litigation
  • open meetings

Question

Can the HOA claim 'legal advice' as a reason to close a meeting if no attorney is present?

Short Answer

No, the 'legal advice' exception generally requires actual advice being given or discussed from an attorney.

Detailed Answer

The board cannot use the 'legal advice' exception to close a meeting if they are simply preparing questions for an attorney or reviewing documents before sending them to counsel. In this case, the attorney had not yet reviewed the documents, so no legal advice could be discussed.

Alj Quote

Prior to the June 9, 2022 executive session, an attorney had not yet reviewed the proposed revisions to the Guidelines and therefore, did not provide feedback for discussion at that meeting.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)

Topic Tags

  • legal advice
  • attorney
  • executive session

Question

How should HOA board members and managers interpret open meeting laws?

Short Answer

They must interpret the laws in favor of open meetings.

Detailed Answer

Arizona statute explicitly states that the policy of the state is to conduct meetings openly. Any ambiguity in the law should be construed by board members and managers to support openness rather than secrecy.

Alj Quote

Toward this end, any person or entity that is charged with the interpretation of these provisions, including members of the board of directors and any community manager, shall take into account this declaration of policy and shall construe any provision of this section in favor of open meetings.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)

Topic Tags

  • statutory interpretation
  • policy
  • open meetings

Question

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

Short Answer

The petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) has the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the statute. This means they must show it is more probable than not that the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • hearing procedure
  • evidence

Question

Can I get my filing fee back if I win my case against the HOA?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ has the authority to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

If the homeowner prevails in showing a violation occurred, the judge may order the association to pay back the cost of filing the petition.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • fees
  • penalties

Question

Will the HOA always be fined if they violate open meeting laws?

Short Answer

Not necessarily; the judge has discretion on whether to impose a civil penalty.

Detailed Answer

Even if a violation is found, the judge may decide not to issue a civil penalty based on the specific facts of the case.

Alj Quote

Based on the facts presented, the Administrative Law Judge finds no civil penalty is appropriate in this matter.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • enforcement
  • fines

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222064-REL
Case Title
Kathy J. Green v. Cross Creek Ranch Community Association
Decision Date
2022-09-29
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA board hold a closed meeting to discuss homeowner feedback on design guidelines?

Short Answer

No, discussing general homeowner feedback does not qualify for a closed executive session unless it meets specific statutory exceptions like pending litigation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that reviewing general comments from homeowners regarding proposed changes to design guidelines is not a valid reason to close a meeting. Even if some comments are critical, the board must discuss them in an open meeting unless they specifically relate to pending or contemplated litigation or legal advice.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge concludes… that the issue discussed at the June 9, 2022 executive session does not fall under the exceptions listed in A.R.S. §§ 33-1804(A)(1) or (A)(2), and Respondent did not properly consider the issue in an executive session closed to its members.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Topic Tags

  • open meetings
  • design guidelines
  • executive session

Question

Does a homeowner saying they 'can and will challenge' a rule in court count as pending litigation?

Short Answer

No, vague statements about potential legal challenges do not necessarily constitute 'contemplated litigation' sufficient to close a meeting.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that comments stating changes 'can and will be challenged in court' did not put the Board on notice of imminent lawsuits. Therefore, such comments did not justify closing the meeting under the 'pending or contemplated litigation' exception.

Alj Quote

Further, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that none of the comments can be reasonably construed as contemplating litigation.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(2)

Topic Tags

  • litigation
  • definitions
  • executive session

Question

Can the board close an entire meeting if they receive just one threat of litigation?

Short Answer

No, the board should only close the portion of the meeting dealing with the specific threat.

Detailed Answer

If an HOA receives many comments and only one contains a potential legal threat (e.g., copying an attorney), the board should hold an executive session for that specific item and discuss the remaining general business in an open meeting.

Alj Quote

As acknowledged by Mr. Chambers, the Board could have held an executive session to discuss only that one comment/letter in which an attorney was copied, and held an open meeting to discuss the other solicited comments.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(2)

Topic Tags

  • procedure
  • litigation
  • open meetings

Question

Can the HOA claim 'legal advice' as a reason to close a meeting if no attorney is present?

Short Answer

No, the 'legal advice' exception generally requires actual advice being given or discussed from an attorney.

Detailed Answer

The board cannot use the 'legal advice' exception to close a meeting if they are simply preparing questions for an attorney or reviewing documents before sending them to counsel. In this case, the attorney had not yet reviewed the documents, so no legal advice could be discussed.

Alj Quote

Prior to the June 9, 2022 executive session, an attorney had not yet reviewed the proposed revisions to the Guidelines and therefore, did not provide feedback for discussion at that meeting.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)

Topic Tags

  • legal advice
  • attorney
  • executive session

Question

How should HOA board members and managers interpret open meeting laws?

Short Answer

They must interpret the laws in favor of open meetings.

Detailed Answer

Arizona statute explicitly states that the policy of the state is to conduct meetings openly. Any ambiguity in the law should be construed by board members and managers to support openness rather than secrecy.

Alj Quote

Toward this end, any person or entity that is charged with the interpretation of these provisions, including members of the board of directors and any community manager, shall take into account this declaration of policy and shall construe any provision of this section in favor of open meetings.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)

Topic Tags

  • statutory interpretation
  • policy
  • open meetings

Question

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

Short Answer

The petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) has the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the statute. This means they must show it is more probable than not that the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • hearing procedure
  • evidence

Question

Can I get my filing fee back if I win my case against the HOA?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ has the authority to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

If the homeowner prevails in showing a violation occurred, the judge may order the association to pay back the cost of filing the petition.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • fees
  • penalties

Question

Will the HOA always be fined if they violate open meeting laws?

Short Answer

Not necessarily; the judge has discretion on whether to impose a civil penalty.

Detailed Answer

Even if a violation is found, the judge may decide not to issue a civil penalty based on the specific facts of the case.

Alj Quote

Based on the facts presented, the Administrative Law Judge finds no civil penalty is appropriate in this matter.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • enforcement
  • fines

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222064-REL
Case Title
Kathy J. Green v. Cross Creek Ranch Community Association
Decision Date
2022-09-29
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Kathy J. Green (petitioner)
    Cross Creek Ranch Owner
    Also referred to as Dr. Green, Colonel (retired),
  • Peter Calogero (witness)
    Spouse of Petitioner,

Respondent Side

  • Cross Creek Ranch Community Association (respondent)
  • Nick Eicher (HOA attorney)
    Cross Creek Ranch Community Association,
    Also referred to as Nick Iker
  • Greg Chambers (board president)
    Cross Creek Ranch Board
    Also appeared as a witness,
  • Charles Olden (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazelwood
  • Steve Germaine (board member/ARC chair)
    Cross Creek Ranch Board/ARC,
    Subpoenaed individual,,
  • John Kinich (board member)
    Cross Creek Ranch Board
    Also referred to as John Halenich
  • Lynn Grigg (ARC member)
    Cross Creek Ranch ARC,
  • Dan Donahghue (board member)
    Cross Creek Ranch Board,
  • Lisa Henson (board member)
    Cross Creek Ranch Board
  • Laura Malone (property manager)
    Community association manager,,
  • Edith I. Rudder (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP,
    Recipient of final order
  • Edward D. O'Brien (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP,
    Recipient of final order

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
    Presided over the matter,
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE),

Other Participants

  • Brian (regional manager)
    Homeco/Property Management
    Provided guidance to Laura Malone
  • Miranda Alvarez (legal secretary)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP

David G. Iadevavia v. Ventana Shadows Homeowners Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222044-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-07-29
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome The HOA did not violate its duties by selectively enforcing CC&R Section 2.16 against Petitioner regarding his mobile observatory.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner David G. Iadevavia Counsel —
Respondent Ventana Shadows Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel Carolyn B. Goldschmidt, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Section 2.16

Outcome Summary

The HOA did not violate its duties by selectively enforcing CC&R Section 2.16 against Petitioner regarding his mobile observatory.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove that the mobile observatory was not a trailer under the plain and obvious meaning of CC&R Section 2.16, or that the HOA's enforcement constituted illegal selective enforcement.

Key Issues & Findings

Selective enforcement of CC&R Section 2.16 regarding vehicles/trailers.

Petitioner alleged that the HOA selectively enforced CC&R Section 2.16 (regarding parking/vehicles/trailers) against him concerning his 'mobile observatory' while failing to enforce the rule or similar rules against other homeowners (sheds).

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge determined that the HOA did not violate its duties by selectively enforcing CC&R Section 2.16 against the Petitioner.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Arizona Biltmore Estates vs. TZAC, 868 T2 1030
  • Arizona Biltmore Estates vs. TZAC, 177 Arizona 47
  • Burke versus Voice Screen Wireless Corporation, 87P381
  • Burke versus Voice Screen Wireless Corporation, 207 Arizona 393
  • Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 6.13(1)(b),(c) (2000)
  • A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
  • A.R.S. 41-1092.07
  • A.A.C. R2-19-106(D)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-113(A)(3) and (4)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-116

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&Rs, Selective Enforcement, Trailer, Mobile Observatory, Parking
Additional Citations:

  • CC&R Section 2.16
  • Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes
  • Arizona Biltmore Estates vs. TZAC
  • Burke versus Voice Screen Wireless Corporation

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 973802.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-29T11:07:26 (46.0 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 974694.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-29T11:07:28 (48.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 975118.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-29T11:07:30 (40.9 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 977059.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-29T11:07:33 (52.0 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 977202.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-29T11:07:35 (48.2 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 977294.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-29T11:07:40 (6.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 978417.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-29T11:07:42 (50.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 978990.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-29T11:07:44 (44.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 978991.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-29T11:07:46 (42.3 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 979005.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-29T11:07:49 (50.4 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 982403.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-29T11:07:51 (55.2 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 993469.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-29T11:07:53 (55.5 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 973802.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:05 (46.0 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 974694.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:08 (48.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 975118.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:12 (40.9 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 977059.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:15 (52.0 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 977202.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:20 (48.2 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 977294.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:23 (6.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 978417.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:26 (50.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 978990.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:31 (44.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 978991.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:34 (42.3 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 979005.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:38 (50.4 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 982403.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:42 (55.2 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 993469.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:44 (55.5 KB)

This summary addresses the hearing proceedings, key facts, main issues, and the status of the final decision in the matter of *David G. Iadevavia v. Ventana Shadows Homeowners Association, Inc.* (No. 22F-H2222044-REL) before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Summary of Hearing Proceedings

Key Facts & Procedural History

The Petitioner, David G. Iadevavia, proceeded *pro se* following the grant of his prior counsel's withdrawal. The Respondent, Ventana Shadows Homeowners Association, Inc. (HOA), was represented by Carolyn Goldmith. The hearing was conducted virtually on June 27, 2022, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Velva Moses-Thompson.

The ALJ initially identified three potential issues based on Iadevavia’s petition (CCNR 2.16, ARS 33-1803, ARS 33-1804), requiring $1,500 in fees, but since only $500 was paid, the matter was narrowed to a single issue. The final issue for determination, established after a pre-hearing conference and subsequent amendment, was: Whether the Respondent Ventana Shadows Homeowners Association, Inc. selectively enforced section 2.16 of the CC&Rs against Petitioner David G. Iadevavia while at the same time not enforcing it against other homeowners, including homeowners who currently serve on the board.

The ALJ denied Iadevavia's subsequent motion to amend the hearing issue further, citing lack of jurisdiction. The ALJ also denied Iadevavia's request for a subpoena because it did not satisfy the requirements of Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-113(A)(3) and (4).

Key Arguments and Legal Points

Petitioner's Argument (Iadevavia): Selective Enforcement and Ambiguity

Iadevavia, a retired professor of astronomy and physics, argued that the HOA selectively enforced the restrictive covenant, specifically CCNR 2.16, against him.

  1. Object Identification: He contended that his "mobile observatory" was factually a storage shed on a trailer, not a trailer or recreational vehicle. He presented photos showing that the HOA had seemingly "grandfathered" numerous storage sheds owned by other residents, including board members, that were visible above walls. Since "storage shed" was not defined in the CCNRs, he argued the board failed to act reasonably by not grandfathering his structure.
  2. CCNR Ambiguity: Iadevavia emphasized that the CCNRs lacked clear definitions for key terms like "trailer," "storage shed," "garage," or "driveway". He asserted that without unambiguous definitions, the board relied on subjectivity, leading to selective enforcement.
  3. Inconsistent Application: He noted the board's delay of 270 days in denying his Architectural Review Committee (ARC) request to shield the object, despite a 30-day requirement, demonstrating that the board does not follow its own rules.

Respondent's Argument (HOA): Plain Meaning and Contract Law

The HOA focused on the plain meaning of the CCNRs and legal standards governing restrictive covenants.

  1. Plain Meaning of "Trailer": The HOA asserted that Iadevavia’s object was commonly understood to be a trailer (utility trailer or RV). Witnesses confirmed the structure had features like axles, wheels, and a license plate.
  2. Contractual Interpretation: The HOA argued that CCNRs are considered a contract under Arizona law, and a term is only ambiguous if it defeats the plain and obvious meaning of the restriction. They cited case law (*Arizona Builtmore Estates v. TZAK*; *Burke v. Voice Screen Wireless Corporation*) to support the reliance on commonly accepted meanings when terms are undefined.
  3. Applicability of 2.16: CCNR 2.16.2 requires that vehicles like trailers must be stored in an enclosed garage or screened from view. The HOA noted that the specific violation regarding visibility was resolved when Iadevavia erected a wooden structure in early 2021. The HOA distinguished Iadevavia’s mobile trailer from stationary, constructed sheds, arguing that equating the two makes "no sense" und

Questions

Question

Can I claim that my HOA violated a CC&R provision meant to regulate homeowner behavior, such as parking rules?

Short Answer

No. CC&R provisions regulating conduct like parking are rules for homeowners to follow, not the HOA.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ clarified that a homeowner cannot successfully argue that the HOA violated a CC&R section designed to regulate homeowner conduct (e.g., parking restrictions). Such sections govern what a homeowner can or cannot do, but do not impose a direct duty on the HOA itself that can be violated in the manner described.

Alj Quote

This is a CC&R that regulates the homeowners. A homeowner may violate this section, but not the HOA… This is not a section that the HOA would violate in and of itself.

Legal Basis

CC&R Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • CC&R Violations
  • HOA Obligations
  • Legal Standards

Question

Am I entitled to a rebuttal closing argument after the hearing record closes?

Short Answer

No. Rebuttal closing arguments are generally not permitted under OAH rules.

Detailed Answer

Homeowners should make all necessary arguments during the hearing. The procedural rules for the Office of Administrative Hearings do not entitle a petitioner to a rebuttal closing argument, especially if one was not requested during the hearing itself.

Alj Quote

Petitioner is not entitled to a rebuttal closing argument pursuant to the rules that govern hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings. … Furthermore, Petitioner did not request a rebuttal closing at the time of the hearing.

Legal Basis

Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-116

Topic Tags

  • Hearing Procedures
  • Homeowner Rights
  • Closing Arguments

Question

Can I amend the hearing issue to include general claims about the HOA's duty to treat members fairly?

Short Answer

The tribunal may deny such amendments if it lacks jurisdiction over broad common law claims.

Detailed Answer

In this case, a motion to amend the hearing issue to include violations of duties to 'treat members fairly' and 'act reasonably' (citing the Restatement of Property) was denied by the ALJ specifically due to a lack of jurisdiction.

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to amend the hearing issue is denied due to lack of jurisdiction.

Legal Basis

Jurisdiction

Topic Tags

  • Jurisdiction
  • Amending Claims
  • Fairness

Question

Will my request for a subpoena automatically be granted?

Short Answer

No. Subpoena requests must strictly follow the Arizona Administrative Code requirements.

Detailed Answer

A homeowner's request for a subpoena will be denied if it fails to satisfy the specific requirements outlined in the administrative rules (R2-19-113). It is not automatic; the correct form and substance are required.

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that the request for subpoena is denied. The request does not satisfy the requirements of Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-113(A)(3) and (4).

Legal Basis

Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-113

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Subpoenas
  • Procedural Requirements

Question

Does the filing fee cover multiple unrelated issues in my petition?

Short Answer

No. The filing fee is tied to the number of issues; additional issues require additional payment.

Detailed Answer

If a petition includes multiple distinct issues (e.g., CC&R violation, notice violation, open meeting violation), the homeowner may be required to pay a higher fee. In this case, three issues required a total of $1,500, whereas a single issue was $500.

Alj Quote

With the violation of CC&R 2.16 and also 33-1803 and 33-1804. Those would be three separate issues and that would require a total payment of $1,500.

Legal Basis

Filing Fees

Topic Tags

  • Filing Fees
  • Petition Process
  • Costs

Question

Can the hearing be conducted virtually instead of in person?

Short Answer

Yes. The ALJ can order the hearing to be conducted via video conferencing or telephone.

Detailed Answer

The Office of Administrative Hearings utilizes platforms like Google Meet to allow parties to appear virtually for hearings.

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that the hearing in this matter will be conducted either by video conferencing or telephone participation through Google Meet

Legal Basis

Hearing Procedures

Topic Tags

  • Virtual Hearing
  • Accessibility
  • Procedure

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222044-REL
Case Title
David G. Iadevavia vs. Ventana Shadows Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2022-07-08
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can I claim that my HOA violated a CC&R provision meant to regulate homeowner behavior, such as parking rules?

Short Answer

No. CC&R provisions regulating conduct like parking are rules for homeowners to follow, not the HOA.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ clarified that a homeowner cannot successfully argue that the HOA violated a CC&R section designed to regulate homeowner conduct (e.g., parking restrictions). Such sections govern what a homeowner can or cannot do, but do not impose a direct duty on the HOA itself that can be violated in the manner described.

Alj Quote

This is a CC&R that regulates the homeowners. A homeowner may violate this section, but not the HOA… This is not a section that the HOA would violate in and of itself.

Legal Basis

CC&R Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • CC&R Violations
  • HOA Obligations
  • Legal Standards

Question

Am I entitled to a rebuttal closing argument after the hearing record closes?

Short Answer

No. Rebuttal closing arguments are generally not permitted under OAH rules.

Detailed Answer

Homeowners should make all necessary arguments during the hearing. The procedural rules for the Office of Administrative Hearings do not entitle a petitioner to a rebuttal closing argument, especially if one was not requested during the hearing itself.

Alj Quote

Petitioner is not entitled to a rebuttal closing argument pursuant to the rules that govern hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings. … Furthermore, Petitioner did not request a rebuttal closing at the time of the hearing.

Legal Basis

Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-116

Topic Tags

  • Hearing Procedures
  • Homeowner Rights
  • Closing Arguments

Question

Can I amend the hearing issue to include general claims about the HOA's duty to treat members fairly?

Short Answer

The tribunal may deny such amendments if it lacks jurisdiction over broad common law claims.

Detailed Answer

In this case, a motion to amend the hearing issue to include violations of duties to 'treat members fairly' and 'act reasonably' (citing the Restatement of Property) was denied by the ALJ specifically due to a lack of jurisdiction.

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to amend the hearing issue is denied due to lack of jurisdiction.

Legal Basis

Jurisdiction

Topic Tags

  • Jurisdiction
  • Amending Claims
  • Fairness

Question

Will my request for a subpoena automatically be granted?

Short Answer

No. Subpoena requests must strictly follow the Arizona Administrative Code requirements.

Detailed Answer

A homeowner's request for a subpoena will be denied if it fails to satisfy the specific requirements outlined in the administrative rules (R2-19-113). It is not automatic; the correct form and substance are required.

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that the request for subpoena is denied. The request does not satisfy the requirements of Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-113(A)(3) and (4).

Legal Basis

Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-113

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Subpoenas
  • Procedural Requirements

Question

Does the filing fee cover multiple unrelated issues in my petition?

Short Answer

No. The filing fee is tied to the number of issues; additional issues require additional payment.

Detailed Answer

If a petition includes multiple distinct issues (e.g., CC&R violation, notice violation, open meeting violation), the homeowner may be required to pay a higher fee. In this case, three issues required a total of $1,500, whereas a single issue was $500.

Alj Quote

With the violation of CC&R 2.16 and also 33-1803 and 33-1804. Those would be three separate issues and that would require a total payment of $1,500.

Legal Basis

Filing Fees

Topic Tags

  • Filing Fees
  • Petition Process
  • Costs

Question

Can the hearing be conducted virtually instead of in person?

Short Answer

Yes. The ALJ can order the hearing to be conducted via video conferencing or telephone.

Detailed Answer

The Office of Administrative Hearings utilizes platforms like Google Meet to allow parties to appear virtually for hearings.

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that the hearing in this matter will be conducted either by video conferencing or telephone participation through Google Meet

Legal Basis

Hearing Procedures

Topic Tags

  • Virtual Hearing
  • Accessibility
  • Procedure

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222044-REL
Case Title
David G. Iadevavia vs. Ventana Shadows Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2022-07-08
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • David G. Iadevavia (petitioner)
  • Jill H. Perrella (attorney)
    Snell & Wilmer LLP

Respondent Side

  • Carolyn B. Goldschmidt (HOA attorney)
    Goldschmidt | Shupe, PLLC
  • Bill Borg (witness/board member)
  • Jason Bader (witness/board member)

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • c. serrano (OAH staff)
  • M Alvarez (OAH staff)
  • A. Hansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • V. Nunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • D. Jones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • L. Abril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Rick Abbott (spectator)

Dennis Anderson v. Tara Condominiums Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222062-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-08-10
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome The Petition was dismissed because the Petitioners failed to meet the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Section 11. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioners themselves violated Section 11 by constructing the shed without prior written approval.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Dennis Anderson and Mary Scheller Counsel —
Respondent Tara Condominiums Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Section 11

Outcome Summary

The Petition was dismissed because the Petitioners failed to meet the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Section 11. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioners themselves violated Section 11 by constructing the shed without prior written approval.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated CC&R Section 11; the construction of the shed occurred prior to seeking or obtaining architectural approval, violating Section 11.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged unfair, arbitrary, and capricious rejection of Architectural Change Form based on a non-existent rule (shed must not be higher than patio wall).

Petitioners claimed the HOA violated CC&Rs Section 11 by arbitrarily denying their request to construct a shed based on an unwritten rule regarding shed height (must be 3 inches below the wall). Petitioners acknowledged they constructed the shed prior to obtaining approval.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 33-1221
  • CC&Rs Section 11

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Architectural Change, CC&R Violation, Prior Approval, Shed
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 33-1221
  • CC&Rs Section 11

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222062-REL Decision – 986010.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:54:09 (48.4 KB)

22F-H2222062-REL Decision – 991586.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:54:17 (114.3 KB)

22F-H2222062-REL Decision – 991600.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:54:21 (6.5 KB)

22F-H2222062-REL Decision – 996350.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:54:25 (47.3 KB)

22F-H2222062-REL Decision – 986010.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:53 (48.4 KB)

22F-H2222062-REL Decision – 991586.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:58 (114.3 KB)

22F-H2222062-REL Decision – 991600.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:04 (6.5 KB)

22F-H2222062-REL Decision – 996350.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:09 (47.3 KB)

This summary details the administrative hearing proceedings, key arguments, and final decision in the matter of *Dennis Anderson and Mary Scheller v. Tara Condominiums Association*. The hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella of the Office of Administrative Hearings on August 4, 2022.

Key Facts and Issues

Petitioners' Claim: Dennis Anderson and Mary Scheller (Petitioners) filed a Petition alleging that the Tara Condominiums Association (Respondent) violated Section 11 of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by "unfairly, arbitrarily, and capriciously" rejecting their Architectural Change Form (ACF) for the construction of a storage shed. The Petitioners asserted the rejection was based on a "non-existent rule" that the shed must not be higher than the patio wall.

Construction Timeline: Mr. Anderson constructed the shed on January 3, 2022. He subsequently submitted the ACF for approval on or about February 2, 2022, after the Respondent became aware of the structure during a walk-through and issued a violation letter on January 29, 2022. The Board denied the request on February 6, 2022.

CC&R Section 11: Section 11 of the CC&Rs explicitly states that no exterior additions or alterations "shall be commenced, erected or maintained until the plans and specifications…shall have been submitted to and approved in writing" by the architectural committee.

Key Arguments

Petitioners' Argument: Petitioners argued that the Board's denial was arbitrary because the rule requiring the shed to be unattached and three inches below the wall height was not contained within the written CC&Rs. They presented photographs showing other structures, including sheds and sun shades, that were built above the wall height in the community, suggesting unequal application of standards. Mr. Anderson admitted, however, that constructing the shed prior to obtaining approval was his mistake and a violation of CC&R Section 11.

Respondent's Argument: The Respondent's Board members maintained that their authority is limited to complying with the governing documents. They argued that the fundamental violation was the Petitioners' failure to obtain prior written approval as required by CC&R Section 11 before commencing construction. While acknowledging the "three inches below the wall" requirement was not in writing, the Board asserted it was an unwritten "standard in Sun City" that had been communicated by the previous Board President (Ms. Scheller).

Legal Outcome and Decision

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) noted that the Petitioners bore the burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs.

The ALJ found that while Petitioners have the right to enforce the CC&Rs, they were also required to abide by the same provisions. Since Mr. Anderson constructed the shed prior to submitting an Architectural Change Form and obtaining approval, the Petitioners were held to have violated Section 11 themselves.

The ALJ decision concluded that Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the provisions of Section 11 of the CC&Rs.

Final Order: The Petition was dismissed, and no action was required of the Respondent in this matter.

Select all sources

No emoji found

Loading

22F-H2222062-REL

5 sources

These sources document a legal dispute between homeowners Dennis Anderson and Mary Scheller and the Tara Condominiums Association regarding the unauthorized installation of a backyard storage shed. The conflict began when the association denied a retrospective architectural application, citing that the structure was too high and improperly attached to the building. During an evidentiary hearing held in August 2022, the petitioners argued that the board was enforcing non-existent rules, while the association maintained that the homeowners failed to seek the mandatory prior approval required by their governing documents. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately ruled in favor of the association, determining that the petitioners had violated the community’s CC&Rs by building the shed before obtaining written consent. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and a subsequent attempt by the homeowners to submit further evidence via email was rejected.

How did the lack of written rules influence the case?
Why did the judge ultimately dismiss the petitioners’ claim?
How does CC&R Section 11 impact homeowner architectural changes?

Thursday, February 12

Save to note

Today • 1:37 PM

5 sources

Video Overview

Mind Map

Reports

Flashcards

Quiz

Infographic

Slide Deck

Data Table

NotebookLM can be inaccurate; please double check its responses.

Select all sources

No emoji found

Loading

22F-H2222062-REL

5 sources

These sources document a legal dispute between homeowners Dennis Anderson and Mary Scheller and the Tara Condominiums Association regarding the unauthorized installation of a backyard storage shed. The conflict began when the association denied a retrospective architectural application, citing that the structure was too high and improperly attached to the building. During an evidentiary hearing held in August 2022, the petitioners argued that the board was enforcing non-existent rules, while the association maintained that the homeowners failed to seek the mandatory prior approval required by their governing documents. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately ruled in favor of the association, determining that the petitioners had violated the community’s CC&Rs by building the shed before obtaining written consent. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and a subsequent attempt by the homeowners to submit further evidence via email was rejected.

How did the lack of written rules influence the case?
Why did the judge ultimately dismiss the petitioners’ claim?
How does CC&R Section 11 impact homeowner architectural changes?

Thursday, February 12

Save to note

Today • 1:37 PM

5 sources

Video Overview

Mind Map

Reports

Flashcards

Quiz

Infographic

Slide Deck

Data Table

NotebookLM can be inaccurate; please double check its responses.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Dennis Anderson (petitioner)
  • Mary Scheller (petitioner)
    Tara Condominiums Association (former board)
    Former President of the HOA Board; also referred to as Mary Shell
  • Kiara (Owner)
    Daughter and co-owner who received violation letter

Respondent Side

  • Lisa Marks (board member)
    Tara Condominiums Association
    Chairperson and Secretary of the Board; testified for Respondent
  • Renee Snow (board member)
    Tara Condominiums Association
    Treasurer and President of the Board; testified for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official transmission
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official transmission
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official transmission
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official transmission
  • c. serrano (Clerk/Staff)
    OAH/ADRE
    Transmitting staff member
  • Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
    OAH/ADRE
    Transmitting staff member

John J Balaco v. Sun City Oro Valley Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221011-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-03-21
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The Petitioner's claim was denied because the ALJ concluded that the alleged violation of the 5th Amended Master Declaration Article 6.7 was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence; the argument was premature as the action (substantial change in use) had not yet come to fruition.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John J Balaco Counsel —
Respondent Sun City Oro Valley Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nicholas Nogami, Esq. & Sami Farhat, Esq.

Alleged Violations

5th Amended Master Declaration Article 6.7

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's claim was denied because the ALJ concluded that the alleged violation of the 5th Amended Master Declaration Article 6.7 was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence; the argument was premature as the action (substantial change in use) had not yet come to fruition.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; the argument was not ripe and predicated on actions that have yet to occur.

Key Issues & Findings

Change in Use of Common Area

Petitioner alleged that the Association violated Article 6.7 by modifying renovation plans for the Activity Center's coffee bar to include the sale of alcoholic beverages (cafe wine bar) without the requisite 60% membership vote, arguing this converted common area into a restricted commercial bar.

Orders: Petitioners' petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • 5th Amended Master Declaration Article 6.7

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Master Declaration, Change of Use, Common Area, Liquor License, Renovation, Ripeness, Cafe Wine Bar
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Related election workflow tool

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

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221011-REL Decision – 935334.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:39:39 (49.3 KB)

22F-H2221011-REL Decision – 956246.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:39:42 (138.2 KB)

22F-H2221011-REL Decision – 935334.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:40:43 (49.3 KB)

22F-H2221011-REL Decision – 956246.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:40:48 (138.2 KB)

The legal case involved Petitioner John J Balaco challenging the Sun City Oro Valley Community Association, Inc. (Respondent). The hearing took place over two sessions, on December 29, 2021, and a further hearing on March 1, 2022, presided over by Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The central legal issue was whether the Association violated Article 6.7 of the 5th Amended Master Declaration for substantially changing the use of a portion of the Common Area without approval of at least 60% of Members voting on the matter.

The specific action challenged was the modification of plans to renovate the 34-year-old Activity Center's coffee bar (approximately 1,400 square feet) to include the sale of alcoholic beverages, creating a café wine bar component.

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments

  1. Association's (Respondent's) Position:
  • The Association argued that offering wine sales was a minor component of the overall renovation of the approximately 22,000 square foot Activity Center and did not constitute a substantial change in use.
  • Association witnesses (including General Manager Mark Wade and Controller/Liquor License Agent Randy Trenary) testified that information regarding the renovation, including the wine bar component, was presented to members via multiple forums, presentations, and weekly newsletters.
  • Crucially, the membership voted on the renovation project, including the wine bar, on March 23, 2021. The vote passed with 1,121 votes (65%) in favor (only 859 votes were required to pass), thereby satisfying and exceeding the 60% requirement stipulated in Article 6.7.
  1. Petitioner's Position:
  • Petitioner Balaco argued that adding an Arizona liquor license to any portion of the common area significantly changes the character and nature of its use.
  • He contended that the license imposes restrictions, such as prohibiting the consumption of personal alcohol (BYOB) in the designated area and restricting access for minors unless accompanied by an adult 21 or older, thus restricting use residents had previously enjoyed.
  • Petitioner also argued that the board made a mistake, asserting that the area was covered by an existing license when, in fact, the Department of Liquor License and Control later confirmed no part of the activity center was currently covered. Petitioner requested an order requiring a specific resident vote prior to the board applying for any liquor license extension.

Final Decision and Legal Points

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the Petitioner did not sustain his burden of proving a violation of Article 6.7 by a preponderance of the evidence.

The ALJ emphasized the following legal points:

  • The Petitioner’s argument was not ripe.
  • As of the hearing date, no construction or structural modification of the coffee bar had taken place, and the Association had not submitted a new application to the DLLC to extend its liquor service area.
  • The ALJ found that the crux of the Petitioner’s grievance was "theoretical and predicated on action(s) that have yet to occur".
  • Therefore, the ALJ could not reasonably conclude that the Association had "substantially changed the use of a portion of a common area".

Outcome: The Petitioner’s petition was denied. The matter was taken under advisement on March 1, 2022, and the decision was issued on March 21, 2022.

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the community documents?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden falls on the homeowner filing the petition to prove that a violation occurred. The HOA does not have to disprove the claim; the petitioner must provide sufficient evidence to support their allegations.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • procedure

Question

How much evidence is required to win a case against an HOA?

Short Answer

A preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The standard of proof is 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means the evidence must show that the homeowner's claim is more likely true than not. It is based on the convincing force of the evidence rather than the quantity of witnesses.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • legal standards

Question

Can I file a petition against my HOA for a violation that hasn't happened yet but is planned?

Short Answer

Generally, no. The dispute must be 'ripe' and not theoretical.

Detailed Answer

Administrative Law Judges generally cannot rule on grievances that are theoretical or based on actions that have not yet occurred. If a construction project or change has not physically started, a claim that it 'will' cause a violation may be dismissed as not ripe.

Alj Quote

The crux of Petitioner’s is theoretical and predicated on action(s) that have yet to occur… Therefore, it cannot reasonably be concluded that the Association substantially changed the use of a portion of a common area.

Legal Basis

Ripeness Doctrine

Topic Tags

  • ripeness
  • future violations
  • construction

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge order an injunction to stop the HOA from doing something?

Short Answer

No, injunctive relief is unavailable in this administrative process.

Detailed Answer

The administrative hearing process in Arizona for HOA disputes does not grant the ALJ the authority to issue injunctions (orders to stop an action) or declaratory relief. The ALJ determines if a violation occurred based on past or present facts.

Alj Quote

Based on Petitioner’s arguments in closing, it is apparent that he is seeking injunctive and/or declaratory relief that is unavailable for litigants in the administrative hearing process in the State of Arizona.

Legal Basis

Administrative Hearing Limits

Topic Tags

  • injunctions
  • remedies
  • legal relief

Question

Does a renovation of a common area facility automatically count as a 'substantial change in use'?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, especially if the change hasn't occurred yet or doesn't alter the character of the area.

Detailed Answer

Whether a renovation is a 'substantial change in use' (which often requires a member vote) depends on if it changes the character and nature of the area. However, if the project is not yet built, an ALJ may be unable to determine if the change is substantial.

Alj Quote

Notably, the undersigned cannot make any determinations about whether the Association’s proposed voter-approved construction would alter the character and nature of the common area to such an extent that it would create a “substantial change of use” to the area.

Legal Basis

Master Declaration Article 6.7 (cited in decision)

Topic Tags

  • common areas
  • renovations
  • change of use

Question

Is the decision made by the Administrative Law Judge final and binding?

Short Answer

Yes, unless a rehearing is granted.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ's order is binding on both the homeowner and the HOA unless one party successfully files for a rehearing within 30 days of service of the order.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B), this Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)

Topic Tags

  • appeals
  • binding order
  • procedure

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221011-REL
Case Title
John J Balaco vs. Sun City Oro Valley Community Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2022-03-21
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the community documents?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden falls on the homeowner filing the petition to prove that a violation occurred. The HOA does not have to disprove the claim; the petitioner must provide sufficient evidence to support their allegations.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • procedure

Question

How much evidence is required to win a case against an HOA?

Short Answer

A preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The standard of proof is 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means the evidence must show that the homeowner's claim is more likely true than not. It is based on the convincing force of the evidence rather than the quantity of witnesses.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • legal standards

Question

Can I file a petition against my HOA for a violation that hasn't happened yet but is planned?

Short Answer

Generally, no. The dispute must be 'ripe' and not theoretical.

Detailed Answer

Administrative Law Judges generally cannot rule on grievances that are theoretical or based on actions that have not yet occurred. If a construction project or change has not physically started, a claim that it 'will' cause a violation may be dismissed as not ripe.

Alj Quote

The crux of Petitioner’s is theoretical and predicated on action(s) that have yet to occur… Therefore, it cannot reasonably be concluded that the Association substantially changed the use of a portion of a common area.

Legal Basis

Ripeness Doctrine

Topic Tags

  • ripeness
  • future violations
  • construction

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge order an injunction to stop the HOA from doing something?

Short Answer

No, injunctive relief is unavailable in this administrative process.

Detailed Answer

The administrative hearing process in Arizona for HOA disputes does not grant the ALJ the authority to issue injunctions (orders to stop an action) or declaratory relief. The ALJ determines if a violation occurred based on past or present facts.

Alj Quote

Based on Petitioner’s arguments in closing, it is apparent that he is seeking injunctive and/or declaratory relief that is unavailable for litigants in the administrative hearing process in the State of Arizona.

Legal Basis

Administrative Hearing Limits

Topic Tags

  • injunctions
  • remedies
  • legal relief

Question

Does a renovation of a common area facility automatically count as a 'substantial change in use'?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, especially if the change hasn't occurred yet or doesn't alter the character of the area.

Detailed Answer

Whether a renovation is a 'substantial change in use' (which often requires a member vote) depends on if it changes the character and nature of the area. However, if the project is not yet built, an ALJ may be unable to determine if the change is substantial.

Alj Quote

Notably, the undersigned cannot make any determinations about whether the Association’s proposed voter-approved construction would alter the character and nature of the common area to such an extent that it would create a “substantial change of use” to the area.

Legal Basis

Master Declaration Article 6.7 (cited in decision)

Topic Tags

  • common areas
  • renovations
  • change of use

Question

Is the decision made by the Administrative Law Judge final and binding?

Short Answer

Yes, unless a rehearing is granted.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ's order is binding on both the homeowner and the HOA unless one party successfully files for a rehearing within 30 days of service of the order.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B), this Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)

Topic Tags

  • appeals
  • binding order
  • procedure

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221011-REL
Case Title
John J Balaco vs. Sun City Oro Valley Community Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2022-03-21
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John J Balaco (petitioner)
  • Diane Paton (witness)
  • James Gearhart (helper / observer)
    Assisted Petitioner with documents; observed hearing

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas Nogami (attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP
    Counsel for Respondent
  • Sami Farhat (attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP
    Counsel for Respondent
  • Mark Wade (general manager / witness)
  • Randall Jean Trenary (controller / witness)
    Liquor license agent
  • James Henry Mitchell (witness)
    Also referred to as Jim Mitchell or Randall James Mitchell

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Contact for appeal procedure
  • c. serrano (OAH staff)
    OAH
    Transmitter of Minute Entry
  • Miranda Alvarez (OAH staff)
    OAH
    Transmitter of ALJ Decision

Other Participants

  • Marla Balaco (observer)
  • Janet Ambrosio (observer)
  • Sheila Helmuth (observer)
  • Sherokee Ilse (observer)
  • Edward Zwerling (observer)
  • Robin Coulter (observer)
  • Rocky Gedrose (observer)
  • Thelma LaFleur (observer)
  • Tim Kelley (observer)
  • Vicki McFadden (observer)
  • Allan Mashburn (observer)
  • Cathy Winje (observer)
  • Chris Ludwig (observer)
  • Dan Edward (observer)
  • Dibri Ruiz (observer)
  • Donna Harting (observer)
  • Eric Meyers (observer)
  • Anthony Denaro (observer)
  • Melanie Stenson (observer)
  • Bertha Medina (observer)
  • Carol Johnson (observer)
  • Rita Petterson (observer)
  • David Sullivan (observer)
  • Gary Lurch (observer)
  • Janet Keller (observer)
  • Joanne Keck (observer)
  • Kaaren Brent (observer)
  • Karen Roche (observer)
  • Ken Sandrick (observer)
  • Kristi Halverson (observer)
  • Lindsay Welbers (observer)
  • Marie Scarpulla (observer)
  • Maxine Yunker (observer)
  • Pamela Sarpalius (observer)
  • Phyliss Austin (observer)
  • Robert Watson (observer)
  • Sandra Fischer (observer)
  • Sharon Kennedy (observer)
  • Vicki McFadin (observer)
  • William Whitney (observer)

Brenda C Norman v. Rancho Del Lago Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221019-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-01-18
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party and RDLCA was ordered to comply with CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3) and refund the $500.00 filing fee. The specific remedy requested by Petitioner (ordering RDLCA to fine the neighbor or force light removal) was denied as the ALJ lacked statutory authority (A.R.S. § 32-2199.02) to grant that relief.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Brenda C Norman Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Del Lago Community Association Counsel Mackenzie Hill, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Section 3.1(D)(3) of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party and RDLCA was ordered to comply with CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3) and refund the $500.00 filing fee. The specific remedy requested by Petitioner (ordering RDLCA to fine the neighbor or force light removal) was denied as the ALJ lacked statutory authority (A.R.S. § 32-2199.02) to grant that relief.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&R regarding flood illumination direction and ARC approval process.

Petitioner alleged that Respondent (RDLCA) violated CC&R 3.1(D)(3) because a neighbor installed flood lights shining onto Petitioner's property without RDLCA approval (ARC approval). The ALJ found RDLCA in violation because the lights were never approved.

Orders: RDLCA must comply with CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3) and pay Petitioner her $500.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was levied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Lighting, Architectural Review, Filing Fee Refund
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221019-REL Decision – 939490.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:57:40 (95.0 KB)

22F-H2221019-REL Decision – 939490.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:27 (95.0 KB)

This summary details the administrative hearing proceedings in the matter of *Brenda C Norman v. Rancho Del Lago Community Association* (RDLCA), held on January 14, 2022, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Adam D. Stone.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The Petitioner, Brenda C Norman, filed a Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition on or about October 23, 2021, alleging that RDLCA violated the community documents. The specific issue was RDLCA's alleged failure to enforce Section 3.1(D)(3) of the CC&Rs, which mandates that flood illumination must be directed at the owner’s property away from neighboring property. The Petitioner testified that her neighbor installed flood lights that shined into her backyard and residence, and she requested RDLCA fine the neighbors or force the removal of the fixture. The Petitioner paid a $500.00 filing fee.

Hearing Proceedings and Arguments

The Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

  • Petitioner’s Argument: The neighbor's lights continued to shine onto her property, and RDLCA had not adequately remedied the situation.
  • Respondent’s Argument: RDLCA, through community manager Spencer Brod, testified that upon receiving the complaint, they investigated and sent correspondence (August 17, 2021) to the neighbor requesting light removal. The neighbor subsequently replaced the fixture, and RDLCA later informed the Petitioner that the floodlights were now angled downward and were in compliance (September 2021). RDLCA also argued that the specific CC&R section applied only to lights on the front of the house, meaning neighbor approval was not required for the side/backyard fixture.

Legal Points and Final Decision

The ALJ found RDLCA in violation of the CC&Rs.

  • Legal Rationale: The ALJ could not definitively rule on RDLCA’s defense that the CC&R section applied only to front yards, as neither party submitted the full Section 3.1. However, the ALJ noted that RDLCA’s own correspondence referenced Section 3.1 and indicated the light was installed without ARC approval. Since no evidence demonstrated that ARC approval occurred, RDLCA was found to be in violation of CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3).
  • Outcome and Order: The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party in this matter. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.02, the ALJ ordered RDLCA to comply with Section 3.1(D)(3). The ALJ explicitly stated that he did not have the statutory authority to order RDLCA to fine or force the neighbor to remove the lights, thus denying the Petitioner's requested specific remedies. RDLCA was ordered to pay the Petitioner her $500.00 filing fee within thirty days. No civil penalty was deemed appropriate.

Questions

Question

Can an Administrative Law Judge order my HOA to fine a neighbor for a violation?

Short Answer

No, the ALJ does not have the statutory authority to order fines against neighbors.

Detailed Answer

Even if a violation is found, the ALJ explicitly stated that the statute does not grant them the power to order the HOA to fine a neighbor or to force a neighbor to remove non-compliant items.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority under the applicable statute to order that RDLCA fine or order the neighbor remove the lights.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Fines
  • Authority

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the community documents?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner filing the dispute must prove the HOA's violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence'. It is not the HOA's job to disprove it initially.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Evidence
  • Procedure

Question

If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

In this decision, because the homeowner was the prevailing party, the HOA was ordered to pay the $500 filing fee directly to the homeowner within 30 days.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Reimbursement
  • Prevailing Party

Question

Can I challenge my HOA for failing to enforce architectural rules on a neighbor?

Short Answer

Yes, if the HOA allows modifications without the required approval.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found the HOA in violation of the CC&Rs because the neighbor installed lights without the required Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approval, and the HOA failed to address this specific lack of approval.

Alj Quote

Because this never occurred, Respondent is in violation of CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3).

Legal Basis

CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3)

Topic Tags

  • Enforcement
  • Architectural Review
  • Lighting

Question

What happens if we don't provide the full text of the CC&Rs during the hearing?

Short Answer

The judge cannot rule on parts of the rules that are not provided.

Detailed Answer

The HOA tried to argue a rule applied only to the front yard, but because neither party submitted the full section of the CC&Rs, the judge could not verify that claim and had to rule based only on the evidence available.

Alj Quote

At the outset, neither party submitted the full Section 3.1 of the CC&R’s and the ALJ therefore cannot determine if the section in question applies to the front yard only.

Legal Basis

Evidentiary Standard

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • CC&Rs
  • Documentation

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?

Short Answer

It means the claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The decision defines this legal standard as proof that convinces the judge that a contention is 'more probably true than not,' even if there is still some doubt.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Arizona Law of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • Legal Definitions
  • Standards

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221019-REL
Case Title
Brenda C Norman vs. Rancho Del Lago Community Association
Decision Date
2022-01-18
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can an Administrative Law Judge order my HOA to fine a neighbor for a violation?

Short Answer

No, the ALJ does not have the statutory authority to order fines against neighbors.

Detailed Answer

Even if a violation is found, the ALJ explicitly stated that the statute does not grant them the power to order the HOA to fine a neighbor or to force a neighbor to remove non-compliant items.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority under the applicable statute to order that RDLCA fine or order the neighbor remove the lights.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Fines
  • Authority

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the community documents?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner filing the dispute must prove the HOA's violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence'. It is not the HOA's job to disprove it initially.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Evidence
  • Procedure

Question

If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

In this decision, because the homeowner was the prevailing party, the HOA was ordered to pay the $500 filing fee directly to the homeowner within 30 days.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Reimbursement
  • Prevailing Party

Question

Can I challenge my HOA for failing to enforce architectural rules on a neighbor?

Short Answer

Yes, if the HOA allows modifications without the required approval.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found the HOA in violation of the CC&Rs because the neighbor installed lights without the required Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approval, and the HOA failed to address this specific lack of approval.

Alj Quote

Because this never occurred, Respondent is in violation of CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3).

Legal Basis

CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3)

Topic Tags

  • Enforcement
  • Architectural Review
  • Lighting

Question

What happens if we don't provide the full text of the CC&Rs during the hearing?

Short Answer

The judge cannot rule on parts of the rules that are not provided.

Detailed Answer

The HOA tried to argue a rule applied only to the front yard, but because neither party submitted the full section of the CC&Rs, the judge could not verify that claim and had to rule based only on the evidence available.

Alj Quote

At the outset, neither party submitted the full Section 3.1 of the CC&R’s and the ALJ therefore cannot determine if the section in question applies to the front yard only.

Legal Basis

Evidentiary Standard

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • CC&Rs
  • Documentation

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?

Short Answer

It means the claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The decision defines this legal standard as proof that convinces the judge that a contention is 'more probably true than not,' even if there is still some doubt.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Arizona Law of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • Legal Definitions
  • Standards

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221019-REL
Case Title
Brenda C Norman vs. Rancho Del Lago Community Association
Decision Date
2022-01-18
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Brenda C Norman (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Mackenzie Hill (HOA attorney)
    The Brown Law Group, PLLC
    Represented Rancho Del Lago Community Association
  • Nathan Tennyson (HOA attorney)
    Represented Rancho Del Lago Community Association
  • Spencer Brod (community manager)
    Testified for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of order transmission
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of order transmission
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of order transmission
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of order transmission

Clifford Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221010-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-12-09
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome The ALJ granted the Petitioner's petition, finding the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by requiring the Petitioner to inspect records before providing copies and failing to comply with the 10-day statutory deadline. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Clifford Burnes Counsel —
Respondent Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel John T. Crotty

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted the Petitioner's petition, finding the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by requiring the Petitioner to inspect records before providing copies and failing to comply with the 10-day statutory deadline. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to fulfill records request

Petitioner alleged the Association failed to fulfill his request for copies of records within the statutory 10-day period because the Association improperly required him to inspect the documents first. The ALJ found the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805, as the statute does not permit an HOA to mandate prior inspection before providing requested copies.

Orders: Petition granted. Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds and ordered to henceforth comply with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2), 32-2199.01(A), 32-2199.01(D), 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Arpaio v. Steinle, 201 Ariz. 353, 355 ¶ 5, 35 P.3d 114, 116 (App. 2001)
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
  • State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
  • U.S. Parking v. City of Phoenix, 160 Ariz. 210, 772 P.2d 33 (App. 1989)
  • Deer Valley, v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 296, 152 P.3d 490, 493 (2007)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Records Request, ARS 33-1805, Records Inspection, Timeliness, Filing Fee Refund
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2), 32-2199.01(A), 32-2199.01(D), 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Arpaio v. Steinle, 201 Ariz. 353, 355 ¶ 5, 35 P.3d 114, 116 (App. 2001)
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
  • State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
  • U.S. Parking v. City of Phoenix, 160 Ariz. 210, 772 P.2d 33 (App. 1989)
  • Deer Valley, v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 296, 152 P.3d 490, 493 (2007)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221010-REL Decision – 930949.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:39:31 (139.0 KB)

22F-H2221010-REL Decision – 930949.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:40:34 (139.0 KB)

This summary outlines the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Clifford Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc..

Key Facts and Background

Petitioner Clifford Burnes, a member of the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association (HOA), filed a petition alleging the HOA failed to fulfill his request for records in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

On or about December 31, 2020, Petitioner submitted a certified letter and email requesting COPIES of specific Association documents and acknowledged the statutory fee of fifteen cents per page. The Association received the request on January 5, 2021, meaning the statutory 10-business-day deadline to provide copies expired on or about January 15, 2021.

The Association failed to provide the documents within this deadline. Instead, the HOA made delayed and erroneous attempts to schedule document review and send copies. Early communications were misaddressed or misnamed (using "Norm Burnes" or an incorrect address), delaying the Petitioner's ability to review or receive documents. Petitioner only had the opportunity to inspect the records on February 4, 2021, and did not receive copies until February 27, 2021, after the Association resent the package using his correct legal name, Clifford Burnes.

Main Issues and Arguments

The core legal issue was whether the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide copies of requested records within ten business days.

  • Petitioner’s Argument: Petitioner asserted the Association wrongly required him to inspect the documents prior to providing copies and failed to provide copies within the statutory ten-day period. Petitioner sought an order requiring compliance, reimbursement of his filing fee, and imposition of a civil fine.
  • Respondent’s Argument: The Association argued that it interpreted A.R.S. § 33-1805 to allow them to require a homeowner to inspect documents before providing copies for "efficiency". The HOA claimed to have acted in good faith, attempting to shift the blame for mailing errors to the Petitioner's inconsistent use of the name "Norm Burnes," although counsel acknowledged the HOA possessed the Petitioner's correct legal name and address.

Legal Conclusion and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that nothing in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 permits a homeowners’ association to require members to first inspect records before providing copies requested by members.

Since the Petitioner specifically requested copies and the statute clearly states the association has ten business days to provide copies "On request for purchase of copies of records," the Association was determined to have failed to comply with the statutory mandate.

The ALJ found that Petitioner sustained his burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, establishing that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Final Decision

The Petitioner’s petition was granted.

The Administrative Law Judge ORDERED:

  1. Respondent must reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds.
  2. Respondent shall henceforth comply with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

Questions

Question

Can my HOA force me to inspect records in person before they will provide me with copies?

Short Answer

No. The HOA cannot require an in-person inspection as a prerequisite to providing copies.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that Arizona statute allows homeowners to request copies directly. While the HOA can make records available for inspection, they cannot force a member to inspect them first if the member has requested copies. Doing so violates the statutory requirement to provide copies within ten business days.

Alj Quote

Nothing in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 can be read to permit an HOA to require members to first inspect records before it provides copies of records requested by members.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • inspection
  • homeowner rights

Question

How many days does the HOA have to provide copies of records I requested?

Short Answer

The HOA must provide copies within 10 business days.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law, once a member requests to purchase copies of records, the association has a strict deadline of ten business days to fulfill that request.

Alj Quote

On request for purchase of copies of records by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative, the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • deadlines
  • records request
  • HOA obligations

Question

What is the maximum amount the HOA can charge me for copies of records?

Short Answer

The HOA cannot charge more than 15 cents per page.

Detailed Answer

The statute limits the fee an association may charge for copying records to a maximum of fifteen cents per page.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • records request
  • costs

Question

Can the HOA charge me a fee just to look at or review records?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

While the HOA can charge for copies, they are explicitly prohibited from charging a member for the act of making the material available for examination/review.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • records review
  • homeowner rights

Question

If I win my hearing against the HOA, can I get my $500 filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, the judge can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fee.

Detailed Answer

In this case, because the homeowner prevailed in proving the violation, the Administrative Law Judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • reimbursement
  • penalties
  • legal costs

Question

Can I authorize someone else to look at the HOA records for me?

Short Answer

Yes, if you designate them in writing.

Detailed Answer

The statute allows records to be examined by the member or any person the member designates in writing as their representative.

Alj Quote

…all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • representation
  • records request
  • homeowner rights

Question

What standard of proof do I need to meet to win a case against my HOA?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The petitioner (homeowner) must prove that their contention is more probably true than not. It requires superior evidentiary weight, though not necessarily freedom from all doubt.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Legal Standard

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • hearing procedure

Question

Is it a valid excuse if the HOA says mailing the records to the wrong name/address was just a mistake?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA has the correct legal name and address on file, mailing to a nickname or wrong address does not satisfy the requirement to provide records on time.

Detailed Answer

The HOA attempted to shift blame to the homeowner for using a nickname in emails, but the judge noted the HOA had the official member list with the legal name. Failing to use the correct information resulted in a violation of the 10-day deadline.

Alj Quote

Respondent cannot be said to have provided Petitioner with copies of the records he requested within 10 days of his request.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • excuses
  • mailing
  • HOA obligations

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221010-REL
Case Title
Clifford Burnes vs. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-12-09
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA force me to inspect records in person before they will provide me with copies?

Short Answer

No. The HOA cannot require an in-person inspection as a prerequisite to providing copies.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that Arizona statute allows homeowners to request copies directly. While the HOA can make records available for inspection, they cannot force a member to inspect them first if the member has requested copies. Doing so violates the statutory requirement to provide copies within ten business days.

Alj Quote

Nothing in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 can be read to permit an HOA to require members to first inspect records before it provides copies of records requested by members.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • inspection
  • homeowner rights

Question

How many days does the HOA have to provide copies of records I requested?

Short Answer

The HOA must provide copies within 10 business days.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law, once a member requests to purchase copies of records, the association has a strict deadline of ten business days to fulfill that request.

Alj Quote

On request for purchase of copies of records by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative, the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • deadlines
  • records request
  • HOA obligations

Question

What is the maximum amount the HOA can charge me for copies of records?

Short Answer

The HOA cannot charge more than 15 cents per page.

Detailed Answer

The statute limits the fee an association may charge for copying records to a maximum of fifteen cents per page.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • records request
  • costs

Question

Can the HOA charge me a fee just to look at or review records?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

While the HOA can charge for copies, they are explicitly prohibited from charging a member for the act of making the material available for examination/review.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • records review
  • homeowner rights

Question

If I win my hearing against the HOA, can I get my $500 filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, the judge can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fee.

Detailed Answer

In this case, because the homeowner prevailed in proving the violation, the Administrative Law Judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • reimbursement
  • penalties
  • legal costs

Question

Can I authorize someone else to look at the HOA records for me?

Short Answer

Yes, if you designate them in writing.

Detailed Answer

The statute allows records to be examined by the member or any person the member designates in writing as their representative.

Alj Quote

…all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • representation
  • records request
  • homeowner rights

Question

What standard of proof do I need to meet to win a case against my HOA?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The petitioner (homeowner) must prove that their contention is more probably true than not. It requires superior evidentiary weight, though not necessarily freedom from all doubt.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Legal Standard

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • hearing procedure

Question

Is it a valid excuse if the HOA says mailing the records to the wrong name/address was just a mistake?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA has the correct legal name and address on file, mailing to a nickname or wrong address does not satisfy the requirement to provide records on time.

Detailed Answer

The HOA attempted to shift blame to the homeowner for using a nickname in emails, but the judge noted the HOA had the official member list with the legal name. Failing to use the correct information resulted in a violation of the 10-day deadline.

Alj Quote

Respondent cannot be said to have provided Petitioner with copies of the records he requested within 10 days of his request.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • excuses
  • mailing
  • HOA obligations

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221010-REL
Case Title
Clifford Burnes vs. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-12-09
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Clifford Burnes (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf; also identified as Clifford (Norm) Burnes or Norm Burnes,,,.

Respondent Side

  • John T. Crotty (respondent attorney)
    Farley, Choate & Wood
    Represented Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association,,.

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Listed as Administrative Law Judge.
  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Signed the Administrative Law Judge Decision.
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission of the Decision.
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email contact listed for transmission ([email protected]).
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email contact listed for transmission ([email protected]).
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email contact listed for transmission ([email protected]).
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email contact listed for transmission ([email protected]).

Other Participants

  • Joseph Martinez (unknown)
    Petitioner verbally notified him regarding the undelivered certified mail package.

Daniel B Belt v. Beaver Valley Improvement Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121058-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-03-11
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Daniel B Belt Counsel —
Respondent Beaver Valley Improvement Association Counsel Ellen B. Davis, Esq.

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order dismissing the Petitioner’s Petition because the Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing on March 10, 2022, and thus failed to meet the burden of proof.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to appear for the hearing. Petitioner had previously indicated he would unequivocally not participate in the hearing.

Key Issues & Findings

Petition alleging violation

Petitioner failed to appear for the hearing and thus failed to sustain the burden of proof required to establish the alleged violation.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed because Petitioner failed to appear for the hearing and failed to sustain the burden of proof.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, failure_to_appear, dismissal, rehearing, OAH
Additional Citations:

  • 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • R2-19-119(A)
  • R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • 32-2199.02(B)
  • 12-904(A)
  • 41-1092.01
  • 41-1092.07(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121058-REL Decision – 936420.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:36:34 (52.8 KB)

21F-H2121058-REL Decision – 936523.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:36:37 (6.7 KB)

21F-H2121058-REL Decision – 942810.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:36:41 (53.5 KB)

21F-H2121058-REL Decision – 954077.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:36:46 (66.4 KB)

21F-H2121058-REL Decision – 915454.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:36:49 (133.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Daniel B. Belt v. Beaver Valley Improvement Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcomes of the administrative case Daniel B. Belt v. Beaver Valley Improvement Association (No. 21F-H2121058-REL), a dispute adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The petitioner, Daniel B. Belt, alleged that the Beaver Valley Improvement Association (BVIA) violated Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1812(6) by refusing to provide him with unredacted copies of election ballots, a matter he characterized as “voter fraud” and of “life and death” importance.

The case was ultimately dismissed twice. The initial decision on October 5, 2021, dismissed the petition on its merits. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the petitioner failed to prove a violation, concluding that the HOA’s community documents permitted secret ballots and that state law (A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)) prohibited the disclosure of the personal voting information requested. Following the petitioner’s request for a rehearing, the case was dismissed a second time on March 11, 2022, after the petitioner failed to appear at the scheduled hearing, thereby failing to meet his burden of proof.

A significant theme throughout the proceedings was the petitioner’s conduct. Testimony from the HOA’s accounting services provider, Planned Development Services (PDS), described the petitioner’s behavior as “irrational, mean, and bullying.” This conduct included a 45-day picket of the PDS office, verbal threats, and behavior that led PDS to obtain an Injunction Against Workplace Harassment against the petitioner and ultimately resign its contract with the HOA. After the initial dismissal, the petitioner filed pleadings demanding that the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings act in an “appellate capacity” to “dispense justice,” a request the Director found he had no legal authority to grant. The petitioner also indicated his intent to not participate in the rehearing and to pursue the matter in federal court.

I. Case Overview and Procedural History

The Core Dispute: Access to Election Ballots

On June 8, 2021, Daniel B. Belt filed a Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The petition alleged a single violation by the Beaver Valley Improvement Association of A.R.S. § 33-1812(6), a statute governing election materials.

The specific allegation, as articulated in the petition narrative, was that “…PDS refused to give petitioner the ballots containing the names, addresses and signatures, in compliance with ARS 33-1812(6)…”. The petitioner asserted that his petition, which he characterized as addressing “voter fraud,” was a “life and death matter.”

Key Parties

Name/Entity

Representation/Affiliation

Petitioner

Daniel B. Belt

Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent

Beaver Valley Improvement Association

Represented by Ellen B. Davis, Esq.

Witness (Initial Hearing)

Petra Paul

Managing Agent, Planned Development Services (PDS)

Witness (Initial & Final Hearing)

William Campbell

Member, BVIA Board of Directors

Administrative Law Judge

Sondra J. Vanella

Office of Administrative Hearings

Director

Greg Hanchett

Office of Administrative Hearings

Procedural Timeline

• June 8, 2021: Petitioner Daniel B. Belt files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• September 10, 2021: An initial hearing is held before ALJ Sondra J. Vanella.

• October 5, 2021: ALJ Vanella issues a decision dismissing the petition.

• January 4, 2022: A minute entry is issued continuing a scheduled rehearing to March 10, 2022.

• January 14, 2022: Petitioner files a pleading perceived by the Director as a motion for a change of judge.

• January 28, 2022: Petitioner files a subsequent pleading clarifying he is not seeking a change of judge but is demanding the Director review the prior proceeding.

• January 31, 2022: Director Greg Hanchett issues an order stating he lacks the statutory authority to review the case in an “appellate capacity” as requested.

• March 10, 2022: The rehearing convenes. The petitioner fails to appear. Respondent’s counsel moves for dismissal.

• March 11, 2022: ALJ Vanella issues a final decision dismissing the petition due to the petitioner’s failure to appear and sustain his burden of proof.

II. Analysis of the Initial Hearing and Decision

Respondent’s Defense and Evidence

The BVIA’s defense centered on the established practice and legal basis for maintaining voter privacy through secret ballots. Key points included:

• Policy on Secret Ballots: The BVIA Board of Directors approved a “Ballot/Proxy Handling Procedure” on July 10, 2004, which explicitly states that ballots will be folded “TO MAINTAIN THE SECRECY OF THE BALLOT.”

• Reaffirmation of Policy: In a meeting on May 8, 2021, the Board unanimously passed two motions: one to allow members to review ballots without personally identifying information, and a second to “reaffirm that all Board of Directors elections be conducted with a secret ballot.”

• Bylaws Protecting Privacy: The BVIA’s Bylaws (Article VII) explicitly state that “Personal . . . information about an individual Member of the Association” is not subject to inspection by parties other than the Board or its agent.

• Statutory Protection: Respondent argued that A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) prohibits the disclosure of personal records of an individual member, which includes how they voted.

• Constitutional Basis: Board member William Campbell cited Article VII, Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution, which provides that “secrecy in voting shall be preserved,” opining that non-secret ballots would have a “chilling effect” on member participation.

• Accommodations Offered: The petitioner was offered the opportunity to review the un-redacted ballots in person (but not take copies) and was provided with redacted copies of the ballots. He refused both offers.

Key Witness Testimony

Petra Paul, Managing Agent for PDS, testified that her company’s contract with BVIA was for accounting services only, not HOA management. PDS’s involvement in the election was limited to mailing ballots, collecting returns, and verifying a quorum.

Ms. Paul’s testimony detailed the petitioner’s conduct:

• Escalating Demands: The petitioner demanded ballots before the election (which was denied) and demanded un-redacted copies the Monday after the election.

• Harassment and Intimidation: Ms. Paul described the petitioner’s behavior as “irrational, mean, and bullying.” She testified that his actions grew increasingly agitated, that he refused to leave PDS’s premises, and that PDS staff was intimidated and concerned for their personal safety.

• Workplace Injunction: The petitioner’s behavior, which impacted PDS’s business operations, culminated in PDS obtaining an Injunction Against Workplace Harassment against him. This came after he spent 45 days picketing outside the PDS office with a large sign that stated, “PDS Embezzlers, Frauds, Liars.”

• Threats: The injunction noted threats made by the petitioner against PDS employees, including, “You’ll be sorry,” “You’ll regret this,” and “You haven’t seen the end of me.”

• Contract Resignation: Due to the petitioner’s “abusive and erratic” interactions, PDS resigned its contract with the BVIA and demanded its legal fees be paid by the association.

William Campbell testified about the association’s long-standing policy of secret ballots. He acknowledged a procedural deviation—the ballots were folded for secrecy rather than being placed in manila envelopes as stipulated by the 2004 policy—but maintained that secrecy was preserved. Mr. Campbell also testified that multiple opportunities were provided in May, June, and July 2021 for members to view the ballots and confirm their votes were counted, but no one took advantage of the offers in June or July.

ALJ’s Conclusions of Law and Order (October 5, 2021)

ALJ Vanella concluded that the petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the BVIA violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6). The decision found that:

1. The credible evidence established that the ballots were intended to be secret pursuant to community documents.

2. The Respondent was precluded by A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) from disclosing the personal voting information demanded by the petitioner.

3. The petitioner was offered the chance to review the ballots and was provided redacted copies, both of which he declined. Based on these findings, the petition was ordered dismissed.

III. Rehearing Proceedings and Final Disposition

Petitioner’s Post-Decision Filings

Following the initial dismissal, the petitioner requested a rehearing. In subsequent filings, he created confusion regarding his intentions. A January 14, 2022 filing was perceived as a motion for a change of judge. However, in a January 28, 2022 pleading, the petitioner clarified this was not his intent. Instead, he demanded the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings intervene directly:

“if Director Hanchett declines to make the case, with rationale, that the actions of Petra Paul and ALJ Vanella did not constitute the felony crimes as cited by the Petitioner, and if Director Hanchett declines to dispense justice in this case . . . as outlined by Petitioner, those issues will be decided in federal court.“

He further stated that the Director did not have the right to “pervert Petitioner’s request… for Impartial Justice and Equal Protection of the Laws, into a motion for a Change of Judge.”

Director’s Response

On January 31, 2022, Director Greg Hanchett issued an order rescinding a prior order that required the respondent to reply to the petitioner’s motion. The Director stated that the petitioner was not seeking a change of judge, but rather “seeks to have the Director review the earlier proceeding in some appellate capacity and pass judgment on the propriety of that proceeding.” Director Hanchett concluded that “There is no authority contained in either statute or rule that would permit the Director to undertake such action,” as an administrative agency has only those powers prescribed by law.

The Final Hearing and Dismissal (March 10-11, 2022)

The rehearing was held on March 10, 2022. The petitioner, Daniel Belt, failed to appear, despite having received proper notice at his address of record and email addresses. The hearing transcript notes that the petitioner had previously stated in a January 14 filing that he “would unequivocally not participate in the hearing.”

As the petitioner bears the burden of proof, and having failed to appear to present his case, the respondent’s counsel made a motion to dismiss. ALJ Vanella granted the motion. The final order, issued March 11, 2022, dismissed the petition, stating: “Because Petitioner failed to appear, Petitioner failed to sustain his burden to establish a violation by Respondent.” This decision was binding on the parties.

Study Guide for the Case of Belt v. Beaver Valley Improvement Association

Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. Identify the petitioner and respondent in this case and state the petitioner’s central allegation.

2. What specific Arizona Revised Statute did the petitioner claim the respondent violated, and what does this statute generally require?

3. What was the role of Planned Development Services (PDS) in the respondent’s election process, according to the testimony of Petra Paul?

4. Describe the petitioner’s behavior that prompted PDS to obtain an Injunction Against Workplace Harassment.

5. According to William Campbell, what was the respondent’s long-standing policy regarding elections, and what documents supported this policy?

6. Explain the two offers the respondent and its agent made to the petitioner to allow him to review the election ballots.

7. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final order in the initial decision on October 5, 2021, and what were the two key statutes cited to support this conclusion?

8. After filing for a rehearing, what was the petitioner’s stated intention regarding his participation, and what was the ultimate outcome of the March 10, 2022, hearing?

9. What did the petitioner demand from the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings in January 2022, and how did the Director respond?

10. What evidentiary standard was the petitioner required to meet, and did the judge find that he met this standard in either the initial hearing or the rehearing?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The petitioner was Daniel B. Belt, and the respondent was the Beaver Valley Improvement Association (HOA). Belt alleged the HOA violated state law by refusing to provide him with election ballots containing the names, addresses, and signatures of the voters, an act he characterized as “voter fraud.”

2. The petitioner claimed a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1812(6). This statute requires completed ballots to contain the voter’s name, address, and signature, but it provides an exception for secret ballots, where this identifying information need only appear on the envelope.

3. Petra Paul testified that PDS was contracted for accounting services only, not HOA management. PDS’s involvement in the election was limited to mailing the annual meeting documents, collecting the returned ballots, and reviewing the number of returns to ensure a quorum was met. PDS did not conduct the election or tabulate the ballots.

4. The petitioner’s behavior was described as “irrational, mean, and bullying.” He picketed the PDS office for 45 days with a sign calling employees “Embezzlers, Frauds, Liars,” made threats such as “You’ll be sorry,” and refused to leave the premises, causing employees to fear for their personal safety.

5. William Campbell testified that the respondent had a long-standing practice of using a secret ballot. This was supported by a Ballot/Proxy Handling Procedure approved in 2004 and a unanimous Board vote on May 8, 2021, to reaffirm that all Board of Directors elections would be conducted with a secret ballot.

6. First, Petra Paul of PDS offered the petitioner copies of the ballots with personal information such as names and signatures redacted, which he refused. Paul also offered him the opportunity to review the non-redacted ballots in the office but advised him he could not take them with him.

7. The judge ordered that the petitioner’s Petition be dismissed. The judge cited A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6), noting that the community’s documents permitted secret ballots, and A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4), which precludes an HOA from disclosing personal records of its members.

8. In a January 14, 2022, filing, the petitioner stated he would “unequivocally not participate in the hearing.” Consequently, the petitioner failed to appear at the March 10, 2022, hearing, and the judge dismissed his petition for failure to sustain his burden of proof.

9. The petitioner demanded that the Director, Greg Hanchett, review the previous hearing in an appellate capacity, determine if felony crimes were committed, and “dispense justice.” The Director responded that he had no statutory authority to perform such an appellate review and rescinded his order related to what he had mistakenly perceived as a motion for a change of judge.

10. The petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” In the initial hearing, the judge found he failed to meet this burden because the evidence showed the respondent had not violated the law. In the rehearing, he failed to meet the burden because he did not appear to present any evidence at all.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to promote a deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each prompt, incorporating specific details and legal principles from the provided source documents.

1. Analyze the conflict between a member’s right to inspect association records under A.R.S. § 33-1805 and the protection of individual members’ personal information and voting privacy as outlined in the same statute and the association’s bylaws.

2. Discuss the legal concept of “burden of proof” as it applied to the petitioner in both the initial hearing and the subsequent rehearing. How did the petitioner’s actions (and inaction) directly lead to the dismissal of his case on two separate occasions?

3. Evaluate the actions of the Beaver Valley Improvement Association and its agent, PDS, in response to the petitioner’s demands for election materials. Did their responses align with their own bylaws, state law, and established procedures as presented in the hearings?

4. Trace the petitioner’s escalating behavior as described in the testimony of Petra Paul. How did this behavior impact PDS and ultimately factor into the context of the hearing, even if it was not the direct legal violation being adjudicated?

5. Examine the petitioner’s apparent misunderstanding of the administrative legal process, as evidenced by his filings with Director Greg Hanchett. Contrast what the petitioner demanded of the Director with the actual legal authority vested in the Director’s office according to the case documents.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent, impartial judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella served as the ALJ.

A.R.S. § 33-1805

An Arizona Revised Statute concerning the examination of a homeowners association’s financial and other records. It grants members the right to inspect records but also allows the association to withhold certain information, including personal records of individual members.

A.R.S. § 33-1812(6)

An Arizona Revised Statute detailing requirements for ballots used in HOA meetings. It mandates that ballots contain the voter’s name, address, and signature, but creates an exception for secret ballots permitted by community documents.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this case, the petitioner had the burden to prove the respondent committed the alleged violation.

Bylaws

The official rules and regulations that govern a corporation or association. The respondent’s Bylaws, specifically Article VII, were cited to justify withholding personal member information.

Homeowners Association (HOA)

An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium building that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. The Beaver Valley Improvement Association is the HOA in this case.

Injunction Against Workplace Harassment

A court order obtained by an employer to prohibit a person from committing acts of harassment against the business and its employees. PDS obtained one against Daniel B. Belt.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or initiates a legal action. In this case, Daniel B. Belt is the petitioner.

Planned Development Services (PDS)

An HOA management and accounting company. PDS provided accounting-only services to the respondent and was the entity that interacted directly with the petitioner regarding his ballot requests.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative case. It means that the trier of fact must be convinced that it is more probably true than not that the contention is correct.

Quorum

The minimum number of members of an association that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid. PDS reviewed ballot returns to ensure a quorum was established for the respondent’s election.

Redacted

Edited to remove or obscure confidential or private information. The respondent offered the petitioner redacted copies of the ballots with names, email addresses, and signatures removed.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case to reconsider the issues and evidence, which may be granted upon request after an initial decision. The petitioner was granted a rehearing but failed to appear.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed or an appeal is brought. In this case, the Beaver Valley Improvement Association is the respondent.

Secret Ballot

A voting method in which a voter’s choices are anonymous, preventing intimidation and protecting privacy. The respondent’s bylaws and policies permitted the use of secret ballots for its elections.

An HOA Ballot Dispute, a 45-Day Picket, and 4 Shocking Lessons in Community Conflict

Introduction: When Neighborly Disagreements Go Nuclear

Disputes within Homeowners Associations (HOAs) are common, often revolving around landscaping, dues, or parking violations. But rarely do they escalate into a nearly year-long legal battle involving workplace harassment injunctions and vendor resignations. The story of one homeowner’s quest for election transparency in Arizona serves as a startling case study in how quickly a simple request can spiral out of control, offering crucial lessons for any community association. What began as a demand to see election ballots ended in a dismissed court case, but not before triggering a workplace harassment injunction, forcing its accounting firm to resign, and handing the HOA the bill for its legal fees.

——————————————————————————–

1.A Request for Ballots Can Escalate into a Harassment Injunction

The dispute began when petitioner Daniel B. Belt filed a petition against his HOA, the Beaver Valley Improvement Association. Alleging “voter fraud,” he demanded copies of unredacted election ballots in a conflict he framed as a “life and death matter.” When the HOA denied his request for unredacted copies, Mr. Belt’s tactics escalated from formal petitioning to direct, public confrontation aimed at the HOA’s accounting firm, Planned Development Services (PDS).

He picketed the PDS office for 45 consecutive days, holding a large sign that read, “PDS Embezzlers, Frauds, Liars.” According to court documents, he also allegedly made threats to PDS employees, stating, “You’ll be sorry,” “You’ll regret this,” and “You haven’t seen the end of me.” These actions crossed a critical legal line, resulting in PDS obtaining an Injunction Against Workplace Harassment against the petitioner.

This escalation provides a crucial lesson in community governance. The line between passionate advocacy and unlawful harassment is critical because volunteer boards and their essential vendors are uniquely vulnerable. Tactics involving defamatory signage and direct threats don’t just amplify a grievance; they can cripple an association’s ability to function, turning a dispute over records into an existential threat to its day-to-day management.

Ms. Paul described Petitioner’s behavior as “irrational, mean, and bullying” and that she and other employees were concerned for their personal safety.

——————————————————————————–

2.The “Right to Know” vs. The Right to Privacy and a Secret Ballot

The central conflict pitted one homeowner’s demand for total transparency against the community’s right to privacy. The petitioner insisted on receiving unredacted copies of all completed ballots, which contained the names, addresses, and signatures of every voter.

In response, the HOA did not deny access outright but instead offered a compromise. The petitioner was given the choice to either review the unredacted ballots in person under supervision or accept redacted copies with personal information removed. He refused both options. Notably, the HOA went a step further in its attempt to balance transparency with privacy. Board member William Campbell testified that he “devised a way in which he could match a members’ demographic information to the members’ vote if upon Petitioner’s inspection, something appeared irregular.”

The HOA grounded its refusal in multiple sources of authority, citing its own bylaws protecting member information, a long-standing practice of secret ballots, and, most critically, Arizona state law. A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) explicitly permits an association to withhold the personal records of its members. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately agreed, ruling that the HOA acted correctly and that state law sided with protecting member privacy.

Mr. Campbell referenced Article VII, Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution which provides that “all elections by the people shall be by ballot, or by such other method as may be prescribed by law; Provided, that secrecy in voting shall be preserved.”

——————————————————————————–

3.Third Parties Can Become Expensive Collateral Damage

This dispute demonstrates how community conflicts can ensnare and inflict significant damage on essential third-party vendors. The accounting firm, PDS, had a limited, non-managerial role. Its contract was for accounting services only; it facilitated the mailing of election documents, collected the returned ballots, and confirmed a quorum was met. PDS did not conduct the election or tabulate the votes.

Despite this narrow involvement, PDS bore the brunt of the petitioner’s aggressive campaign. The harassment severely impacted its business operations and, according to testimony, created an “abusive and erratic” environment. This led the firm to take two drastic steps: first, obtaining the legal injunction, and second, resigning its contract with the HOA. Critically, the collateral damage had a direct financial cost for the entire community. Court documents reveal that “PDS demanded its legal fees be paid by Respondent [the HOA]” for the costs of securing the harassment injunction.

This outcome reveals the cascading governance failures that result from such conflicts. When a key vendor like an accounting firm resigns under duress, it creates instability, raises the prospect of missed payments or financial errors, and makes it harder to secure a new vendor, who may now view the HOA as a high-risk client—with any increased costs ultimately passed on to all homeowners.

——————————————————————————–

4.You Can’t Win a Legal Battle You Refuse to Fight

In a final, counter-intuitive act, the petitioner successfully filed for a rehearing after losing his initial case, earning a second chance to argue his claims. His actions leading up to the new hearing, however, signaled a preference for performative conflict over substantive legal engagement. He attempted to have the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings review the case in an “appellate capacity,” a power the Director confirmed he did not possess, and threatened to escalate the matter to federal court.

Then came the final twist. After securing the rehearing, the petitioner submitted a filing stating he would “unequivocally not participate in the hearing.”

True to his word, on the day of the hearing—March 10, 2022—the petitioner failed to appear. As the party bringing the complaint, he carried the burden of proof. His absence meant the judge had no evidence to consider and was compelled to dismiss the case. This chapter serves as a stark lesson in strategic failure. After doing the difficult work of securing a second hearing, the petitioner abandoned the field. The legal system, for all its complexities, responds to procedure and participation, not to external threats or pronouncements. Passionate conviction is powerless if you refuse to show up and fight the battle you initiated.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Drawing the Line Between Advocacy and Anarchy

The arc of this conflict—from a simple request for ballots to a multi-stage legal dispute that ended not with a bang, but a whimper—is a cautionary tale. It illustrates how a homeowner’s campaign for transparency, when pursued without regard for legal boundaries or civil discourse, can backfire completely. It left a vendor harassed, forced the community to pay its agent’s legal fees, and ultimately left the original issue unresolved. This case leaves all community leaders and members with a critical question: How can we foster a culture that balances the legitimate need for transparency with the equally important need for member privacy and basic civility?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Daniel B. Belt (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Ellen B. Davis (HOA attorney)
    HENZE COOK MURPHY, PLLC
  • William Campbell (board member/witness)
    Beaver Valley Improvement Association
    Vice President of the Board
  • Mexal (board member)
    Beaver Valley Improvement Association
    Identified as President in May 8, 2021 Meeting Minutes
  • Sarah Linkey (board member)
    Beaver Valley Improvement Association
    Identified as Treasurer in May 8, 2021 Meeting Minutes
  • Hallett (board member)
    Beaver Valley Improvement Association
    Identified as Director in May 8, 2021 Meeting Minutes

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Listed on initial decision transmission
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Listed on subsequent transmissions
  • Greg Hanchett (Director)
    OAH/ADRE
    Issued order regarding Petitioner's filing
  • c. serrano (administrative staff)
    OAH/ADRE
    Transmitted documents
  • Miranda A. (administrative staff)
    OAH/ADRE
    Transmitted documents

Other Participants

  • Petra Paul (managing agent/witness)
    Planned Development Services (PDS)
    Testified regarding PDS's role with Respondent's election
  • Lori Rutledge (unknown)
    Listed on transmission list
  • Brandee Abraham (unknown)
    Listed on transmission list