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.
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
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 23F-H018-REL
Select all sources
1027023.aac
1031834.pdf
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
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
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.
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 2026-01-23T17:46:15 (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)
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
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.
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
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 2026-01-23T17:47:05 (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)
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
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.
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
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 22F-H2222062-REL
Select all sources
986010.pdf
990077.aac
991586.pdf
991600.pdf
996350.pdf
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
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
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
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
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
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)
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
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
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)
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 – 21F-H2121058-REL-RHG
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.
Blog Post – 21F-H2121058-REL-RHG
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 Member of Respondent's Board of Directors; testified for Respondent
President Mexal(board member) Beaver Valley Improvement Association President of Respondent's Board
Director Hallett(board member) Beaver Valley Improvement Association Director of Respondent's Board
Sarah Linkey(board member) Beaver Valley Improvement Association Treasurer of Respondent's Board
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ)
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Greg Hanchett(Director) Office of Administrative Hearings Issued an order regarding Petitioner’s pleading
c. serrano(admin staff) Signed transmittals
Miranda A.(admin staff) Signed transmittal
Other Participants
Petra Paul(witness, property manager) Planned Development Services HOA Management & Accounting Company (PDS) Managing Agent for PDS; testified regarding services provided to Respondent
Lori Rutledge(unknown) Recipient of official transmittal
Brandee Abraham(unknown) Recipient of official transmittal
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.
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 2026-01-23T17:42:27 (95.0 KB)
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
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
21F-H2121051-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2022-01-03
Administrative Law Judge
Thomas Shedden
Outcome
none
Filing Fees Refunded
$500.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Clifford (Norm) Burnes
Counsel
—
Respondent
Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
Counsel
John Crotty
Alleged Violations
ARIZ. REV STAT. 33-1804
Outcome Summary
The ALJ dismissed the Petitioner's complaint, finding that the Respondent HOA did not violate the open meeting law (A.R.S. § 33-1804) because the action was taken without a meeting via unanimous written consent as authorized by A.R.S. § 10-3821.
Why this result: The Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof to show that the alleged violation occurred, as the board acted without holding a formal meeting.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of open meeting law by taking action via unanimous written consent
Petitioner alleged that the Board of Directors violated the open meeting law (A.R.S. § 33-1804) on May 3, 2020, by taking two actions using unanimous written consent of the Board members, which the Respondent claimed was permissible under A.R.S. § 10-3821 as action without a meeting.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV STAT. 33-1804
ARIZ. REV STAT. 10-3821
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA, Open Meeting Law, Unanimous Written Consent, Rehearing, Planned Community
Briefing Document: Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes the legal proceedings and final decision in the case of Clifford (Norm) Burnes versus the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. (Case No. 21F-H2121051-REL). The core of the dispute was Petitioner Burnes’s allegation that the HOA Board of Directors violated Arizona’s open meeting law for planned communities by taking two official actions on May 3, 2020, without holding a public meeting. The HOA defended its actions, stating that it utilized a provision in the Arizona statutes for non-profit corporations (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821) that allows a board to take action “without a meeting” through the unanimous written consent of all directors.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Thomas Shedden, ultimately ruled in favor of the HOA. The key finding was that no “meeting” as defined by the open meeting law actually occurred on May 3, 2020. Instead, the Board President individually visited other board members to obtain signatures on consent forms. The ALJ concluded that the two relevant statutes—the open meeting law (§ 33-1803/1804) and the action-by-consent statute (§ 10-3821)—are not in conflict. An HOA board can legally use the action-by-consent procedure, but if it chooses to hold a meeting, it must comply with the open meeting law.
Mr. Burnes’s request for a rehearing, which raised several legal and jurisdictional arguments, was granted but ultimately denied on its merits. The ALJ systematically rejected each of Burnes’s arguments, reaffirming the original decision. The final order dismissed Mr. Burnes’s petition, making the HOA the prevailing party.
——————————————————————————–
Case Overview
• Petitioner: Clifford (Norm) Burnes
• Respondent: Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
• Case Number: 21F-H2121051-REL (and 21F-H2121051-REL-RHG for rehearing)
• Adjudicating Body: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
• Administrative Law Judge: Thomas Shedden
• Core Allegation: The Petitioner alleged that on May 3, 2020, the Respondent’s Board of Directors violated Arizona’s open meeting law (cited as ARIZ. REV STAT. § 33-1803 in the initial decision and § 33-1804 in the rehearing decision) by taking two formal actions via unanimous written consent without allowing members to attend and speak.
• Respondent’s Defense: The Respondent acknowledged taking action by unanimous consent but asserted this was permissible under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821, which allows for action without a meeting. Therefore, the open meeting law did not apply.
Factual Background and Timeline
1. April 2020: Mr. Burnes and his wife raised two issues with the HOA Board concerning “lot 7,” which is adjacent to their property. The issues were related to a construction bond waiver and the placement of a house on the lot.
2. April 2020 (Post-Complaint): Following the complaint, research was conducted by Jamie Argueta, and emails were exchanged between Mr. Burnes, the Board members, and Mr. Argueta.
3. April 19 & 21, 2020: The Board members met with Mr. and Ms. Burnes to discuss the issues. Minutes were kept for these meetings.
4. Undated Discussions: Board President Esmerelda Sarina Martinez and Board member Mr. Madill had informal discussions with other HOA members, which Ms. Martinez characterized as “neighbors talking and not a meeting.”
5. May 3, 2020: Ms. Martinez, acting alone, drafted two unanimous consent forms. She personally brought the forms and related documents to the homes of the other Board members, who each read the information and signed. The two actions taken by consent were:
◦ Honoring a waiver of the construction deposit for lot 7.
◦ A decision regarding the placement of the home on lot 7.
6. August 29, 2020: The first regularly scheduled Board meeting after the May 3rd actions was held. The meeting minutes did not include an entry showing that the written consent documents had been filed with the corporate records, a requirement of § 10-3281(A).
Procedural History
• May 7, 2021: Mr. Burnes filed his petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, initially asserting seven violations but being required to select only one for adjudication due to paying a single fee. He selected the violation of members not being permitted to attend and speak before the Board took formal action on May 3, 2020.
• July 16, 2021: An initial hearing was held before ALJ Thomas Shedden.
• July 28, 2021: The ALJ issued a decision dismissing Mr. Burnes’s petition, finding he had not proven a violation because no meeting occurred on May 3, 2020.
• September 2, 2021 (approx.): Mr. Burnes filed a Rehearing Request.
• September 22, 2021: The Department of Real Estate granted the request for a rehearing.
• December 9, 2021: The ALJ issued an order concluding the rehearing matter, noting that since only legal issues were raised, the decision would be based on the existing record and supplemental briefs (though neither party filed one).
• January 3, 2022: The ALJ issued the final decision on the rehearing, once again dismissing the petition and upholding the original ruling. This order was final and binding, subject to judicial review in the Superior Court.
Analysis of Legal Arguments from Rehearing
In his request for a rehearing, Mr. Burnes raised six primary legal arguments against the initial decision. The ALJ addressed and rejected each one.
Petitioner’s Argument
ALJ’s Analysis and Conclusion
1. Limited Jurisdiction: The ALJ’s jurisdiction is limited to Title 33, Chapter 16 and does not include ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821.
Rejected. Jurisdiction was proper because Mr. Burnes alleged a violation of § 33-1804 (which is in Title 33, Ch. 16). Nothing prohibits a Respondent from raising defenses from outside Title 33, or the ALJ from considering them.
2. Inapplicability of § 10-3821: The statute for action-by-consent only applies to actions found in Title 10, Chapters 24-40. The actions the HOA took are not found there.
Rejected. The ALJ noted that Mr. Burnes himself acknowledged that “voting” is an action found within those chapters of Title 10, and voting is precisely the action that was taken by unanimous consent.
3. Conflict of Law (§ 10-3701(F)): Statute § 10-3701(F) states that in cases of inconsistency, Title 33 (planned communities) controls over Title 10.
Rejected. This analysis is flawed because § 10-3701(F) applies specifically to membership meetings (Title 10, Ch. 30). The statute for action by consent, § 10-3821, deals with directors’ meetings and is in a different chapter (Title 10, Ch. 31), which has no similar provision. The legislature’s choice to include this provision for membership meetings but not for board meetings indicates an intent to allow boards more latitude to act by consent.
4. Specific vs. General Statute: § 33-1804 is specific to planned communities and should control over § 10-3821, which applies to all non-profits. The policy of the state favors open meetings.
Rejected. This principle of statutory construction only applies when statutes are in conflict and cannot both be given effect. Here, they are not in conflict. Both can be given full effect: an HOA may take action without a meeting per § 10-3821, but if a meeting is held, it must follow the open meeting requirements of § 33-1804.
5. Bylaws Are Irrelevant: The ALJ wrongly cited the HOA’s bylaws allowing action-by-consent, because § 33-1804 applies “notwithstanding any provision in the… bylaws.”
Rejected. Mr. Burnes was correct that bylaws do not trump the open meeting law. However, he overlooked that § 10-3821 itself contains an exception: it does not apply if the corporation’s bylaws prohibit action by consent. The finding regarding the bylaws was necessary only to show that this exception did not apply to the HOA, thus making § 10-3821 available to them.
6. A Meeting Did Occur: Mr. Burnes asserted a meeting did take place on May 3, 2020.
Rejected. The ALJ found this position had several flaws: Mr. Burnes cited no evidence from the record to prove discussion occurred on May 3rd; he conflated prior meetings with the events of May 3rd; and he provided no legal authority to show that drawing on past discussions to draft a consent form constitutes a “meeting.” The ALJ also dismissed his reliance on new dictionary definitions not presented at the original hearing.
◦ Mandates that “all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors… are open to all members of the association.”
◦ Members “shall be permitted to attend and speak at an appropriate time during the deliberations and proceedings.”
◦ A “quorum of the board of directors that meets informally to discuss association business… shall comply with the open meeting and notice provisions.”
◦ Reflects a state policy that provisions should be construed “in favor of open meetings.”
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821 (Action Without Meeting):
◦ “Unless the articles of incorporation or bylaws provide otherwise, action… to be taken at a directors’ meeting may be taken without a meeting if the action is taken by all of the directors.”
◦ The action must be evidenced by one or more written consents, signed by each director, and included in the minutes filed with corporate records.
◦ A consent signed under this section has “the effect of a meeting vote.”
• Saguaro Crest HOA Bylaws (Section 3.5):
◦ The association’s bylaws explicitly provide directors with “the right to take any action in the absence of a meeting, which they could take at a meeting by obtaining the written consent of all the directors.”
Conclusion and Final Order
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Mr. Burnes failed to meet his burden of proof to show that the Saguaro Crest HOA violated the open meeting law. The central finding was that the HOA’s actions on May 3, 2020, did not constitute a “meeting” but were a legally permissible “action without a meeting” under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821. The subsequent rehearing confirmed this legal interpretation.
The final order, issued January 3, 2022, was:
“IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Clifford (Norm) Burnes’s petition is dismissed.”
The order was final and binding, with any further appeal requiring judicial review by the Superior Court within 35 days.
Study Guide – 21F-H2121051-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
This study guide provides a review of the administrative law case involving Petitioner Clifford (Norm) Burnes and Respondent Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, essay questions, and a glossary of key terms based on the provided legal decisions.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer each question in 2-3 sentences, based on the information in the case documents.
1. What was the single, specific violation that Clifford (Norm) Burnes alleged against the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association’s Board of Directors?
2. What was the Respondent’s primary legal justification for the actions its Board of Directors took on May 3, 2020?
3. What two specific decisions did the Board make using the unanimous consent forms on May 3, 2020?
4. According to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), how can both the open meeting law (§ 33-1804) and the statute allowing action without a meeting (§ 10-3821) be given effect without being in conflict?
5. What was the purpose of the rehearing granted to Mr. Burnes, and what was the outcome?
6. How did the HOA’s bylaws, specifically section 3.5, support the Respondent’s case?
7. What argument did Mr. Burnes make regarding the ALJ’s jurisdiction to consider ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 10-3821?
8. What is the standard of proof required in this matter, and who bears the burden of meeting it?
9. Mr. Burnes asserted that a meeting did occur on May 3, 2020. What flaws did the ALJ identify in this assertion?
10. What specific requests did Mr. Burnes make in his petition as a remedy for the alleged violation?
——————————————————————————–
Quiz Answer Key
1. Mr. Burnes’s single alleged violation was that at the “meeting” on May 3, 2020, HOA members were not permitted to attend and speak after discussion but before the Board took formal action. This, he claimed, was a violation of Arizona’s open meeting law, cited as ARIZ. REV STAT. § 33-1803 and later § 33-1804.
2. The Respondent acknowledged taking two actions by consent but argued that no meeting actually occurred. Their defense was that they acted under the authority of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821, which explicitly allows a board of directors to take action without a meeting if it is done via unanimous written consent of all directors.
3. The two decisions made via unanimous consent related to issues Mr. Burnes had raised about lot 7, which abuts his property. The first action was to honor a waiver of the construction deposit for lot 7, and the second action was regarding the placement of the home on lot 7.
4. The ALJ reasoned that the statutes are not in conflict because they apply to different situations. Respondent may take action without a meeting as allowed by § 10-3821, but if a meeting is held, Respondent must follow all the requirements of the open meeting law, § 33-1804.
5. Mr. Burnes requested a rehearing, alleging that the initial ALJ decision’s findings of fact were not supported by evidence or were contrary to law. The rehearing was granted to review these legal issues, but the outcome was the same: the ALJ once again concluded that no violation had occurred and dismissed Mr. Burnes’s petition.
6. Section 3.5 of the Association’s bylaws, titled “Action Without a Meeting,” explicitly provides the directors with “the right to take any action in the absence of a meeting, which they could take at a meeting by obtaining the written consent of all the directors.” This directly supported the Respondent’s claim that its actions were permissible under its own governing documents as well as state law.
7. Mr. Burnes argued that the ALJ’s jurisdiction is limited to Title 33, Chapter 16, and therefore the ALJ had no jurisdiction to consider section 10-3821 as a defense because it is not found in that title. The ALJ rejected this, stating that jurisdiction was proper because the complaint was about a violation of Title 33, and nothing prohibits a respondent from raising defenses from outside that title.
8. The standard of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence.” The Petitioner, Mr. Burnes, bore the burden of proof to show that the alleged violation occurred.
9. The ALJ found several flaws in this assertion: Mr. Burnes did not cite evidence from the record proving a discussion occurred on May 3rd, he conflated prior meetings with the events of May 3rd, and he provided no legal authority showing that prior discussions are pertinent to whether a meeting occurred on that specific day.
10. Mr. Burnes requested that the Respondent be ordered to rescind the consent actions, comply with the open meeting law, pay his filing fee, and be assessed a civil penalty.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
1. Analyze the central conflict between ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 (“Open meetings”) and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821 (“Action without meeting”) as presented in this case. Explain the ALJ’s reasoning for concluding that the statutes do not conflict and can both be given effect.
2. Describe the timeline of events leading up to the May 3, 2020 unanimous written consent. How did the meetings and communications in April 2020 between Mr. Burnes and the Board influence the context of the dispute, even though they were not the subject of the final legal violation claim?
3. Evaluate the six specific legal arguments Mr. Burnes raised in his request for rehearing. For each, summarize his point and the ALJ’s counter-argument or legal conclusion.
4. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the case documents. Explain why the ALJ concluded that Mr. Burnes failed to meet this standard of proof in both the initial hearing and the rehearing.
5. Examine the relationship between state statutes and an association’s governing documents (like bylaws) in this case. How did the ALJ address Mr. Burnes’s argument that § 33-1804 should apply “notwithstanding any provision in the…bylaws”?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Term / Statute
Definition
Action without meeting
A procedure allowed by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821 and the Association’s Bylaws (Section 3.5) where a board of directors may take action if it is evidenced by one or more written consents signed by all directors. The consent has the effect of a meeting vote.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official, in this case Thomas Shedden, assigned to adjudicate complaints and ensure compliance with relevant statutes for the Office of Administrative Hearings.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821
The state statute titled “Action without meeting” that permits a board of directors to take action without a meeting if all directors provide written consent, unless the articles of incorporation or bylaws provide otherwise.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803 / § 33-1804
The state’s “Open meetings” law for planned communities. It requires that all meetings of an HOA board be open to all members, who shall be permitted to attend and speak at an appropriate time.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party. In this case, the Petitioner (Mr. Burnes) bore the burden of proof.
Clifford (Norm) Burnes
The Petitioner in the case, a member of the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition or brings an action; in this case, Clifford (Norm) Burnes.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof in this case, defined as “The greater weight of the evidence…sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed; in this case, Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
The Respondent in the case; a planned community governed by a Board of Directors.
Unanimous Written Consent
The method used by the Respondent’s Board of Directors on May 3, 2020, to take action. It involved each board member signing written consent forms, as permitted by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821.
Blog Post – 21F-H2121051-REL-RHG
Your HOA Board Can Legally Make Decisions in Secret—Here’s How One Homeowner’s Lawsuit Proved It
1.0 Introduction: The Expectation vs. The Reality
For most homeowners living in a planned community, the principle of transparency is paramount. The common expectation is that all significant decisions made by the Homeowners Association (HOA) board of directors will happen in open meetings. These are forums where members can attend, listen to the deliberations, and, at the appropriate time, make their voices heard before the board takes a formal vote. This commitment to openness is often seen as a cornerstone of fair governance.
But what if a board could make a decision without ever holding a meeting at all? This question was at the heart of a legal dispute in Arizona, where a homeowner named Clifford (Norm) Burnes took his HOA, Saguaro Crest, to court. Mr. Burnes alleged that his board violated the state’s open meeting law when it took action on two separate issues without convening a meeting. The case worked its way through an administrative law court, and the final decision sided with the HOA, establishing a critical legal precedent that boards can, under specific circumstances, bypass open meetings entirely.
2.0 Takeaway 1: Boards Can Legally Act “Without a Meeting”
The central facts of the case were not in dispute. On May 3, 2020, the Saguaro Crest HOA board made two formal decisions concerning a neighboring lot, specifically regarding a construction bond waiver and home placement—issues that Mr. Burnes himself had previously raised. Instead of calling a meeting, the board used a procedure known as “unanimous written consent.” The Board President, Ms. Martinez, drafted two consent forms, personally brought them to the homes of the other board members, and had each director sign them.
This action, while sidestepping an open meeting, was found to be perfectly legal. The board was operating under the authority of a specific Arizona state law, ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 10-3821, titled “Action without meeting.” This statute explicitly allows the board of a non-profit corporation to take action without a meeting, provided the action is taken by all directors and is documented by written consent.
Furthermore, this power was not just granted by state law; it was also written directly into the HOA’s own governing documents. Section 3.5 of the Saguaro Crest HOA’s bylaws, titled “Action Without a Meeting,” explicitly grants its directors “the right to take any action in the absence of a meeting, which they could take at a meeting by obtaining the written consent of all the directors.”
3.0 Takeaway 2: A Legal Puzzle—When Two State Laws Seem to Conflict
Mr. Burnes’s case created a compelling legal puzzle by highlighting two state laws that appeared to be in direct opposition. On one side was Arizona’s Planned Community law (ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804), which strongly mandates open meetings for HOA boards and includes a policy statement that any interpretation of the law should be construed “in favor of open meetings.”
On the other side was the state’s Nonprofit Corporation law (ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 10-3821), which, as noted, expressly permits a board to act without a meeting. Mr. Burnes argued that the open meeting law should take precedence.
The Administrative Law Judge, however, made a crucial distinction. Applying a standard legal principle that courts must try to give effect to both laws if possible, the judge determined the two statutes do not actually conflict. The judge’s reasoning clarifies how both can exist and be applied legally.
In this case, both sections 10-3821 and 33-1804 can be given effect in that Respondent may take action without a meeting as allowed by section 10-3821, but if a meeting is held, Respondent must follow the requirements of section 33-1804.
This interpretation is the core of the decision. The open meeting law, with all its requirements for notice and member participation, only applies if a meeting is held. By using the “action without meeting” statute, the Saguaro Crest board legally sidestepped the requirement to hold a meeting in the first place, thereby rendering the open meeting law inapplicable to their actions on that day.
4.0 Takeaway 3: Legislative Intent Can Be Read in a Law’s Silence
Mr. Burnes also advanced a more sophisticated legal argument: that in any conflict, the specific laws written for HOAs (found in Title 33 of the state code) should overrule the more general laws for non-profit corporations (found in Title 10).
The judge’s response to this provided a fascinating lesson in how courts interpret legislative intent, not just from what a law says, but from what it doesn’t say. The judge noted that the section of law governing general membership meetings does contain a specific clause stating that in the case of an inconsistency, the HOA laws control.
Crucially, the section of law governing board meetings, where the “action without meeting” statute is found, has no such clause. The judge interpreted this difference not as an oversight, but as a deliberate choice by lawmakers. This “silence” in the statute was read as a “legislative intent to allow boards latitude to act by consent.” In other words, if the legislature had intended for the open meeting law to always override the board’s ability to act by written consent, it would have explicitly said so, just as it did for membership meetings.
5.0 Conclusion: Efficiency vs. Transparency
While homeowners understandably value and expect open meetings as a tool for transparency and participation, the law also recognizes the need for boards to operate efficiently. The unanimous written consent procedure provides a legal mechanism for boards to make decisions, particularly on straightforward matters, without the time and expense of convening a formal meeting.
This case is more than a legal curiosity; it’s a practical lesson for every homeowner. The power wielded by the Saguaro Crest board is not unique to Arizona. If you want to understand the true scope of your own board’s authority, take these two steps:
1. Review your HOA’s bylaws. Look for a clause titled “Action Without a Meeting” or similar language that grants the board the right to act via written consent. This is the internal authorization.
2. Check your state’s Nonprofit Corporation Act. Search for a statute similar to Arizona’s § 10-3821. This is the ultimate source of the board’s power, and it likely exists in some form in your state, defining the boundary between efficiency and transparency for your community.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Clifford (Norm) Burnes(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Ms. Burnes(spouse of petitioner) Wife of Clifford (Norm) Burnes; raised issues with the Board
Respondent Side
John Crotty(HOA attorney) Law Offices of Farley, Choate & Wood
Esmerelda Sarina Martinez(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Board president and witness
Madill(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Referred to as 'Mr. Madill'
Jennifer Elias(HOA attorney) Law Offices of Farley, Choate & Wood
Neutral Parties
Thomas Shedden(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Addressee of original decision
Miranda Alvarez(clerk) Transmitted original decision and final rehearing decision (By Miranda Alvarez/Miranda A.)
Louis Dettorre(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Addressee of documents relating to the rehearing
c. serrano(clerk) Transmitted Order Concluding Matter
Other Participants
Jamie Argueta(researcher/staff) Conducted research regarding issues raised by Petitioner
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.
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 2026-01-23T17:40:34 (139.0 KB)
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.
