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
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
An HOA Ballot Dispute, a 45-Day Picket, and 4 Shocking Lessons in Community Conflict
Introduction: When Neighborly Disagreements Go Nuclear
Disputes within Homeowners Associations (HOAs) are common, often revolving around landscaping, dues, or parking violations. But rarely do they escalate into a nearly year-long legal battle involving workplace harassment injunctions and vendor resignations. The story of one homeowner’s quest for election transparency in Arizona serves as a startling case study in how quickly a simple request can spiral out of control, offering crucial lessons for any community association. What began as a demand to see election ballots ended in a dismissed court case, but not before triggering a workplace harassment injunction, forcing its accounting firm to resign, and handing the HOA the bill for its legal fees.
——————————————————————————–
1.A Request for Ballots Can Escalate into a Harassment Injunction
The dispute began when petitioner Daniel B. Belt filed a petition against his HOA, the Beaver Valley Improvement Association. Alleging “voter fraud,” he demanded copies of unredacted election ballots in a conflict he framed as a “life and death matter.” When the HOA denied his request for unredacted copies, Mr. Belt’s tactics escalated from formal petitioning to direct, public confrontation aimed at the HOA’s accounting firm, Planned Development Services (PDS).
He picketed the PDS office for 45 consecutive days, holding a large sign that read, “PDS Embezzlers, Frauds, Liars.” According to court documents, he also allegedly made threats to PDS employees, stating, “You’ll be sorry,” “You’ll regret this,” and “You haven’t seen the end of me.” These actions crossed a critical legal line, resulting in PDS obtaining an Injunction Against Workplace Harassment against the petitioner.
This escalation provides a crucial lesson in community governance. The line between passionate advocacy and unlawful harassment is critical because volunteer boards and their essential vendors are uniquely vulnerable. Tactics involving defamatory signage and direct threats don’t just amplify a grievance; they can cripple an association’s ability to function, turning a dispute over records into an existential threat to its day-to-day management.
Ms. Paul described Petitioner’s behavior as “irrational, mean, and bullying” and that she and other employees were concerned for their personal safety.
——————————————————————————–
2.The “Right to Know” vs. The Right to Privacy and a Secret Ballot
The central conflict pitted one homeowner’s demand for total transparency against the community’s right to privacy. The petitioner insisted on receiving unredacted copies of all completed ballots, which contained the names, addresses, and signatures of every voter.
In response, the HOA did not deny access outright but instead offered a compromise. The petitioner was given the choice to either review the unredacted ballots in person under supervision or accept redacted copies with personal information removed. He refused both options. Notably, the HOA went a step further in its attempt to balance transparency with privacy. Board member William Campbell testified that he “devised a way in which he could match a members’ demographic information to the members’ vote if upon Petitioner’s inspection, something appeared irregular.”
The HOA grounded its refusal in multiple sources of authority, citing its own bylaws protecting member information, a long-standing practice of secret ballots, and, most critically, Arizona state law. A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) explicitly permits an association to withhold the personal records of its members. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately agreed, ruling that the HOA acted correctly and that state law sided with protecting member privacy.
Mr. Campbell referenced Article VII, Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution which provides that “all elections by the people shall be by ballot, or by such other method as may be prescribed by law; Provided, that secrecy in voting shall be preserved.”
——————————————————————————–
3.Third Parties Can Become Expensive Collateral Damage
This dispute demonstrates how community conflicts can ensnare and inflict significant damage on essential third-party vendors. The accounting firm, PDS, had a limited, non-managerial role. Its contract was for accounting services only; it facilitated the mailing of election documents, collected the returned ballots, and confirmed a quorum was met. PDS did not conduct the election or tabulate the votes.
Despite this narrow involvement, PDS bore the brunt of the petitioner’s aggressive campaign. The harassment severely impacted its business operations and, according to testimony, created an “abusive and erratic” environment. This led the firm to take two drastic steps: first, obtaining the legal injunction, and second, resigning its contract with the HOA. Critically, the collateral damage had a direct financial cost for the entire community. Court documents reveal that “PDS demanded its legal fees be paid by Respondent [the HOA]” for the costs of securing the harassment injunction.
This outcome reveals the cascading governance failures that result from such conflicts. When a key vendor like an accounting firm resigns under duress, it creates instability, raises the prospect of missed payments or financial errors, and makes it harder to secure a new vendor, who may now view the HOA as a high-risk client—with any increased costs ultimately passed on to all homeowners.
——————————————————————————–
4.You Can’t Win a Legal Battle You Refuse to Fight
In a final, counter-intuitive act, the petitioner successfully filed for a rehearing after losing his initial case, earning a second chance to argue his claims. His actions leading up to the new hearing, however, signaled a preference for performative conflict over substantive legal engagement. He attempted to have the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings review the case in an “appellate capacity,” a power the Director confirmed he did not possess, and threatened to escalate the matter to federal court.
Then came the final twist. After securing the rehearing, the petitioner submitted a filing stating he would “unequivocally not participate in the hearing.”
True to his word, on the day of the hearing—March 10, 2022—the petitioner failed to appear. As the party bringing the complaint, he carried the burden of proof. His absence meant the judge had no evidence to consider and was compelled to dismiss the case. This chapter serves as a stark lesson in strategic failure. After doing the difficult work of securing a second hearing, the petitioner abandoned the field. The legal system, for all its complexities, responds to procedure and participation, not to external threats or pronouncements. Passionate conviction is powerless if you refuse to show up and fight the battle you initiated.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: Drawing the Line Between Advocacy and Anarchy
The arc of this conflict—from a simple request for ballots to a multi-stage legal dispute that ended not with a bang, but a whimper—is a cautionary tale. It illustrates how a homeowner’s campaign for transparency, when pursued without regard for legal boundaries or civil discourse, can backfire completely. It left a vendor harassed, forced the community to pay its agent’s legal fees, and ultimately left the original issue unresolved. This case leaves all community leaders and members with a critical question: How can we foster a culture that balances the legitimate need for transparency with the equally important need for member privacy and basic civility?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Daniel B. Belt(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Ellen B. Davis(HOA attorney) HENZE COOK MURPHY, PLLC
William Campbell(board member/witness) Beaver Valley Improvement Association Vice President of the Board
Mexal(board member) Beaver Valley Improvement Association Identified as President in May 8, 2021 Meeting Minutes
Sarah Linkey(board member) Beaver Valley Improvement Association Identified as Treasurer in May 8, 2021 Meeting Minutes
Hallett(board member) Beaver Valley Improvement Association Identified as Director in May 8, 2021 Meeting Minutes
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) OAH
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) ADRE Listed on initial decision transmission
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) ADRE Listed on subsequent transmissions
Greg Hanchett(Director) OAH/ADRE Issued order regarding Petitioner's filing
c. serrano(administrative staff) OAH/ADRE Transmitted documents
Miranda A.(administrative staff) OAH/ADRE Transmitted documents
Other Participants
Petra Paul(managing agent/witness) Planned Development Services (PDS) Testified regarding PDS's role with Respondent's election
Lori Rutledge(unknown) Listed on transmission list
Brandee Abraham(unknown) Listed on transmission list
The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petition, finding that Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof that the Association violated state statute or community documents. The Association's Architectural Review Committee (ARC) refusal to approve the wall modification request was deemed reasonable because Petitioners failed to provide the supplemental information requested by the ARC.
Why this result: The record did not establish violation(s) of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3) or CC&Rs Article VII, Section 2 by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioners did not provide sufficient and/or requisite information necessary for the ARC to make a reasonably objective determination, nor did they attempt to cure the deficient application.
Key Issues & Findings
Arbitrary and capricious denial of architectural request to move garage-side yard block wall and install a double-wide gate.
Petitioners alleged the Association (ARC) arbitrarily and capriciously rejected their request to move their garage-side yard wall eight (8) feet forward on their property, using the same materials as the existing wall, except replacing the single-wide gate with a double-wide gate previously approved by Respondent.
This administrative law decision outlines a legal dispute between homeowners Arthur and Viktoriya Fisenko and the Bellvue Homeowners Association regarding property modifications. The petitioners alleged that the association’s Architectural Committee unfairly rejected their request to extend a boundary wall and install a double-wide gate. While the parties resolved disagreements over landscaping materials like artificial grass and pavers before the hearing, the conflict regarding the wall remained. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately ruled in favor of the Homeowners Association, finding that the residents failed to provide the specific plans and technical data required for approval. Consequently, the court determined the association did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in its refusal, leading to the formal denial of the petition.
What was the core legal dispute between the Fisenkos and the HOA?
Why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately rule against the homeowners?
How do Arizona statutes regulate the architectural approval process for HOAs?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 11:01 AM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 21F-H2121046-REL
Select all sources
912007.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
21F-H2121046-REL
1 source
This administrative law decision outlines a legal dispute between homeowners Arthur and Viktoriya Fisenko and the Bellvue Homeowners Association regarding property modifications. The petitioners alleged that the association’s Architectural Committee unfairly rejected their request to extend a boundary wall and install a double-wide gate. While the parties resolved disagreements over landscaping materials like artificial grass and pavers before the hearing, the conflict regarding the wall remained. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately ruled in favor of the Homeowners Association, finding that the residents failed to provide the specific plans and technical data required for approval. Consequently, the court determined the association did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in its refusal, leading to the formal denial of the petition.
What was the core legal dispute between the Fisenkos and the HOA?
Why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately rule against the homeowners?
How do Arizona statutes regulate the architectural approval process for HOAs?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 11:01 AM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Arthur Fisenko(petitioner) Testified on behalf of Petitioners
Viktoriya Tkach-Fisenko(petitioner)
Laurence Stevens(petitioner attorney) Stevens & Van Cott, PLLC
Respondent Side
Jamie Palfai(HOA attorney) O’Hagan Meyer LLC
Samuel Truett(witness) Bellvue Homeowners Association Witness for Bellvue Homeowners Association
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
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
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV STAT. 33-1804
ARIZ. REV STAT. 10-3821
ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199
ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. 41-1092.08
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. 10-3701(F)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. 10-3071
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
21F-H2121051-REL Decision – 899423.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-09T10:06:54 (101.7 KB)
21F-H2121051-REL Decision – 930803.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:15 (46.9 KB)
21F-H2121051-REL Decision – 935756.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:15 (124.8 KB)
Briefing Doc – 21F-H2121051-REL
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
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
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 at the original hearing
Respondent Side
John Crotty(HOA attorney) Law Offices of Farley, Choate & Wood Attorney for Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
Esmerelda Sarina Martinez(board president, witness) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Testified as a witness for Respondent
Madill(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Referred to as Mr. Madill
Neutral Parties
Thomas Shedden(ALJ)
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) ADRE Commissioner during original decision transmittal
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) ADRE Commissioner during rehearing transmittal
Miranda Alvarez(staff) Transmittal staff (also noted as Miranda A.)
c. serrano(staff) Transmittal staff
Other Participants
Jamie Argueta(staff) Conducted research; position and function apparently not in the record
The Petitioner prevailed on the claim of violating CC&R Article 11.3.2 (failure to negotiate in good faith) but was denied relief on the claim of violating A.R.S. § 33-1811 (conflict of interest). Petitioner was ordered reimbursed $500.00 for the filing fee.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the A.R.S. § 33-1811 violation because the statute was interpreted by the Tribunal to require the action to involve compensation.
Key Issues & Findings
Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1811 because the HOA President failed to disclose a conflict of interest during the approval of his own flagpole. The Tribunal found the statute requires the decision to involve compensation, and Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof.
Orders: Petition denied as to a violation of A.R.S. 33-1811. Tribunal declined to award a civil penalty.
Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1811
Failure to Negotiate Claim Resolution in Good Faith
Petitioner claimed Mountain Bridge failed to negotiate a resolution in good faith after he filed a claim notice. Mountain Bridge failed to communicate until approximately 35 days after the claim was noticed. The Tribunal found Respondent failed to negotiate in good faith.
Orders: Petitioner is deemed the prevailing party as to his claim of an Article 11 violation. Respondent must reimburse the $500.00 filing fee within 30 days. Tribunal declined to award a civil penalty.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
CC&R Article 11.3.2
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA, Conflict of Interest, Failure to Negotiate, Flagpole, Filing Fee
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1811
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
21F-H2121037-REL Decision – 887461.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:47 (121.4 KB)
Questions
Question
Does a board member violate conflict of interest laws by voting on their own architectural request if no money is exchanged?
Short Answer
Likely not. The ALJ ruled that the conflict of interest statute (A.R.S. § 33-1811) applies specifically to decisions involving compensation.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ interpreted A.R.S. § 33-1811 narrowly. While acknowledging that abstaining from voting on one's own request is 'best practice,' the Judge determined that the phrase 'contract, decision or other action for compensation' implies that the decision must involve compensation to trigger the statutory violation. Since the architectural approval was not for compensation, the statute was not violated.
Alj Quote
However, the word “other” would indicate that the contract or decision would involve compensation. … Therefore, the Tribunal finds that Mr. Smith has not sustained his burden in demonstrating that Mountain Bridge violated A.R.S. § 33-1811.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1811
Topic Tags
Conflict of Interest
Board Conduct
Architectural Review
Question
If the CC&Rs require the HOA to negotiate a dispute within a certain time, can they simply ignore it?
Short Answer
No. Ignoring a request for negotiation beyond the mandated timeframe can be considered a violation of the duty to negotiate in good faith.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the CC&Rs required the parties to make a reasonable effort to meet and confer. The HOA failed to communicate with the homeowner until 35 days after the claim was noticed (past the 30-day negotiation period). The ALJ found this lack of communication to be a violation of the specific CC&R article requiring good faith negotiation.
Alj Quote
The credible evidence presented demonstrated that Mountain Bridge, or its attorneys, did not communicate with Mr. Smith until October 13, 2020, approximately 35 days after the claim was noticed. … Therefore, the Tribunal finds that Mountain Bridge failed to negotiate in good faith and violated Article 11.3.2 of the CC&R’s.
Legal Basis
CC&R Article 11.3.2
Topic Tags
Dispute Resolution
Good Faith
HOA Obligations
Question
Can the HOA use the COVID-19 pandemic as a valid excuse for failing to communicate with me?
Short Answer
Not if they fail to send any updates. The HOA must at least inform the homeowner of potential delays.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ rejected the HOA's implicit defense that the pandemic justified the delay in communication. The ruling stated that even if the pandemic caused issues, the HOA had an obligation to at least inform the homeowner that delays were occurring. Total silence was not justified.
Alj Quote
While this dispute occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, certainly communications could have been sent to Mr. Smith informing him there may be some delays in communication. However, there were none, and thus no valid justification for the Board not entering into negotiations with the Smiths.
Legal Basis
Administrative Discretion / Good Faith
Topic Tags
Communication
Delays
Good Faith
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the rules during a hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning they must show it is more likely than not that the violation occurred. The HOA does not have to disprove the claim initially; the burden starts with the homeowner.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated CC&R § 3.1 by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
Legal Procedure
Burden of Proof
Evidence
Question
Can I claim the HOA violated a definition in the CC&Rs, such as 'Visible from Neighboring Property'?
Short Answer
No. You cannot violate a definition; you can only violate the rules that use the definition.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner argued the HOA violated the definition of 'Visible from Neighboring Property.' The ALJ ruled that a definition is descriptive and cannot be violated in and of itself. Violations must be tied to specific covenants or restrictions.
Alj Quote
Further, because “Visible from Neighboring Property” as mentioned in Article 1 is a definition, it is impossible for Mountain Bridge to violate the same.
Legal Basis
Contract Interpretation
Topic Tags
CC&R Interpretation
Definitions
Legal Standards
Question
If I win my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes, if you prevail on a claim, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fee.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ deemed the homeowner the prevailing party regarding the 'failure to negotiate' claim (even though other claims were denied) and ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee within 30 days.
Alj Quote
Thus, Petitioner is entitled to his filing fee of $500.00 and Respondent must reimburse the same with 30 days.
Legal Basis
Administrative Remedy
Topic Tags
Remedies
Fees
Reimbursement
Case
Docket No
21F-H2121037-REL
Case Title
Gregory L. Smith vs. Mountain Bridge Community Association
Decision Date
2021-06-11
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Does a board member violate conflict of interest laws by voting on their own architectural request if no money is exchanged?
Short Answer
Likely not. The ALJ ruled that the conflict of interest statute (A.R.S. § 33-1811) applies specifically to decisions involving compensation.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ interpreted A.R.S. § 33-1811 narrowly. While acknowledging that abstaining from voting on one's own request is 'best practice,' the Judge determined that the phrase 'contract, decision or other action for compensation' implies that the decision must involve compensation to trigger the statutory violation. Since the architectural approval was not for compensation, the statute was not violated.
Alj Quote
However, the word “other” would indicate that the contract or decision would involve compensation. … Therefore, the Tribunal finds that Mr. Smith has not sustained his burden in demonstrating that Mountain Bridge violated A.R.S. § 33-1811.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1811
Topic Tags
Conflict of Interest
Board Conduct
Architectural Review
Question
If the CC&Rs require the HOA to negotiate a dispute within a certain time, can they simply ignore it?
Short Answer
No. Ignoring a request for negotiation beyond the mandated timeframe can be considered a violation of the duty to negotiate in good faith.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the CC&Rs required the parties to make a reasonable effort to meet and confer. The HOA failed to communicate with the homeowner until 35 days after the claim was noticed (past the 30-day negotiation period). The ALJ found this lack of communication to be a violation of the specific CC&R article requiring good faith negotiation.
Alj Quote
The credible evidence presented demonstrated that Mountain Bridge, or its attorneys, did not communicate with Mr. Smith until October 13, 2020, approximately 35 days after the claim was noticed. … Therefore, the Tribunal finds that Mountain Bridge failed to negotiate in good faith and violated Article 11.3.2 of the CC&R’s.
Legal Basis
CC&R Article 11.3.2
Topic Tags
Dispute Resolution
Good Faith
HOA Obligations
Question
Can the HOA use the COVID-19 pandemic as a valid excuse for failing to communicate with me?
Short Answer
Not if they fail to send any updates. The HOA must at least inform the homeowner of potential delays.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ rejected the HOA's implicit defense that the pandemic justified the delay in communication. The ruling stated that even if the pandemic caused issues, the HOA had an obligation to at least inform the homeowner that delays were occurring. Total silence was not justified.
Alj Quote
While this dispute occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, certainly communications could have been sent to Mr. Smith informing him there may be some delays in communication. However, there were none, and thus no valid justification for the Board not entering into negotiations with the Smiths.
Legal Basis
Administrative Discretion / Good Faith
Topic Tags
Communication
Delays
Good Faith
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the rules during a hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning they must show it is more likely than not that the violation occurred. The HOA does not have to disprove the claim initially; the burden starts with the homeowner.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated CC&R § 3.1 by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
Legal Procedure
Burden of Proof
Evidence
Question
Can I claim the HOA violated a definition in the CC&Rs, such as 'Visible from Neighboring Property'?
Short Answer
No. You cannot violate a definition; you can only violate the rules that use the definition.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner argued the HOA violated the definition of 'Visible from Neighboring Property.' The ALJ ruled that a definition is descriptive and cannot be violated in and of itself. Violations must be tied to specific covenants or restrictions.
Alj Quote
Further, because “Visible from Neighboring Property” as mentioned in Article 1 is a definition, it is impossible for Mountain Bridge to violate the same.
Legal Basis
Contract Interpretation
Topic Tags
CC&R Interpretation
Definitions
Legal Standards
Question
If I win my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes, if you prevail on a claim, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fee.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ deemed the homeowner the prevailing party regarding the 'failure to negotiate' claim (even though other claims were denied) and ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee within 30 days.
Alj Quote
Thus, Petitioner is entitled to his filing fee of $500.00 and Respondent must reimburse the same with 30 days.
Legal Basis
Administrative Remedy
Topic Tags
Remedies
Fees
Reimbursement
Case
Docket No
21F-H2121037-REL
Case Title
Gregory L. Smith vs. Mountain Bridge Community Association
Decision Date
2021-06-11
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Gregory L. Smith(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Christa Smith(witness) Called by Petitioner
Respondent Side
Nicole Payne(HOA attorney) Carpenter Hazlewood Appeared on behalf of Respondent
Amber Martin(community manager) Mountain Bridge Community Association Also testified as a witness
Jim Rayment(ARC Chair) Mountain Bridge Community Association Approved the flagpole; also testified as a witness
Mr. Riggs(HOA President) Mountain Bridge Community Association Petitioner's backyard neighbor
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) OAH Administrative Law Judge
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of decision transmission
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
20F-H2020042-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2021-04-27
Administrative Law Judge
Adam D. Stone
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$0.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Charles P Mandela
Counsel
—
Respondent
Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners' Association
Counsel
Nicholas Nogami, Esq.
Alleged Violations
CC&R Article X; A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated Article X of the CC&R’s regarding the denial of an architectural modification request (patio shade). The Respondent was found to be the prevailing party, and the appeal (rehearing) was dismissed.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation of the CC&R's by a preponderance of the evidence. The ALJ concluded the Respondent acted in compliance with the CC&R’s Section 10.2 and 10.3 when denying the request, and Petitioner failed to follow the requisite procedures in Section 10.3 to appeal the denial.
Key Issues & Findings
Denial of request for patio shade structure
Petitioner challenged the HOA's denial of his application to build a patio shade. The HOA denied the request stating that 'Only one structure other than the residence may be placed on the property,' and a shed already existed. Petitioner argued the shade, being attached, was not a stand-alone structure. The ALJ upheld the denial, finding the HOA acted in compliance with CC&Rs Article X, Sections 10.2 and 10.3, and that Petitioner failed to follow appeal procedures outlined in Section 10.3.
Orders: Petitioner's appeal (rehearing request) was dismissed, and Respondent was declared the prevailing party.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
CC&R Article X
CC&R Section 10.3
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA, CC&R, Architectural Review, Denial, Rehearing, Burden of proof
Briefing on Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings from two administrative law judge decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Charles P. Mandela and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association (“Blue Ridge”). The core issue was Blue Ridge’s denial of Mr. Mandela’s request to build a patio shade structure.
In the initial hearing on January 13, 2021, Mr. Mandela argued the denial was erroneous because the shade would be attached to his house, not a separate structure, and that similar structures existed in the community. Blue Ridge defended its decision based on Article X of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which limits properties to one structure besides the main residence. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Mr. Mandela’s petition, finding that Blue Ridge acted within the authority granted by its CC&Rs, as its architectural standards were not exhaustive and it provided a reasonably detailed written reason for the denial.
Following this decision, Mr. Mandela was granted a rehearing, which took place on April 16, 2021. During this second hearing, he introduced a new argument that Blue Ridge had violated Article 10.3 of the CC&Rs by failing to respond to his request within the stipulated 30-day timeframe. However, the ALJ found that the same article specifies that a failure to respond results in the request being “deemed disapproved.” The ALJ concluded that Mr. Mandela had failed to follow the subsequent appeal procedures outlined in the CC&Rs and again failed to meet his burden of proof. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Blue Ridge was declared the prevailing party. Notably, during the rehearing, Mr. Mandela testified that his request for the patio shade had since been approved by the Blue Ridge board.
Initial Hearing and Decision (Case No. 20F-H2020042-REL)
The first evidentiary hearing was held on January 13, 2021, before Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone to address Mr. Mandela’s petition alleging Blue Ridge violated its CC&Rs.
The Core Dispute
• Petitioner’s Request: On August 28, 2019, Charles P. Mandela submitted a request to build a “patio shade less than 200 sq. feet,” described as a four-post structure he intended to attach to the east wall of his residence.
• Respondent’s Denial: On October 25, 2019, Blue Ridge denied the request, stating: “Only one structure other than the residence may be placed on the property. The site plan that was given for review shows the residence and also a shed on property already existing, this would be the allowable limit per the Architectural Standards.”
Arguments Presented
• Petitioner (Charles P. Mandela):
◦ Argued passionately that the denial was erroneous because the patio shade was to be attached to the house, not a separate, stand-alone structure.
◦ Presented photographs of other properties within Blue Ridge Estates that had multiple structures and stand-alone patio shades similar to his proposal.
• Respondent (Blue Ridge Estates HOA):
◦ Contended it properly followed Article X of the CC&Rs in its denial.
◦ At the hearing, Blue Ridge pointed to Article III of the CC&Rs as justification, classifying the proposed shade as an additional structure on the property.
Judge’s Findings and Conclusions
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Mr. Mandela’s petition, concluding he had not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Blue Ridge violated Article X of the CC&Rs.
• Interpretation of CC&R Section 10.2: The judge found that the architectural standards listed in this section were explicitly not exhaustive. The text states standards “may include, without limitation, provisions regarding” aspects like size, design, and placement. This allowed the architectural committee to deny the request based on the “one additional structure” rule, even if not explicitly listed.
• Compliance with CC&R Section 10.3: This section requires the committee to provide “reasonably detailed written reasons for such disapproval.” The judge found that the denial email of October 25, 2019, fulfilled this requirement. The email did not need to cite a specific CC&R section, only to provide an explanation.
• On Precedent and Fairness: The ALJ acknowledged Mr. Mandela’s evidence of similar structures on other properties. However, the decision noted: “While those properties may have had their shades approved by different members of the Blue Ridge Architectural Committee that does not follow that Mr. Mandela’s request was improperly denied under Article X.”
• Final Ruling: The petition was denied in a decision dated January 29, 2021.
Rehearing and Final Decision (Case No. 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG)
Mr. Mandela filed for a rehearing on February 5, 2021, on the grounds that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence. The Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner granted the request, and a new hearing was held on April 16, 2021.
New Testimony and Arguments
• Petitioner (Charles P. Mandela):
◦ Subsequent Approval: Testified that since the January 29, 2021 decision, his request for the patio shade had been approved by the Blue Ridge board.
◦ Procedural Violation: Argued that Blue Ridge violated CC&R Section 10.3 by failing to respond to his August 28, 2019, request within the required 30-day period, as the denial was not issued until October 25, 2019.
◦ History of Denials: Stated he had made several previous requests in 2018 and 2019 that were either denied or ignored.
◦ Discrimination: Claimed he had been discriminated against due to the previous denials.
• Respondent (Blue Ridge Estates HOA):
◦ Interpretation of Section 10.3: Argued that while the section may be “confusingly drafted,” it stipulates that if the committee fails to respond within 30 days, the request is “deemed disapproved.” Therefore, the board acted within its authority.
◦ Failure to Appeal: Contended that Mr. Mandela failed to follow the proper appeal procedure outlined in the CC&Rs, as he never specifically requested a meeting to discuss the denial.
Judge’s Final Findings and Conclusions
The ALJ affirmed the original decision, finding for the Respondent as the prevailing party and dismissing Mr. Mandela’s appeal.
• Scope of Rehearing: The judge determined that the rehearing was limited to the August 28, 2019, request and its subsequent denial, as that was the sole focus of the original petition. Mr. Mandela’s arguments about prior denials were not considered new evidence relevant to the specific violation alleged.
• Interpretation of the 30-Day Rule: The ALJ sided with the HOA’s interpretation of Section 10.3. While acknowledging that Blue Ridge took more than thirty days to issue a written denial, the judge ruled that the CC&R’s provision for a “deemed disapproved” status meant the request was properly denied under the rules.
• Petitioner’s Failure to Follow Procedure: The judge noted that Mr. Mandela admitted he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee after the denial, which was the required next step in the appeal process under Section 10.3.
• Final Ruling: The final decision, dated April 27, 2021, concluded that Mr. Mandela failed to sustain his burden of proof. The HOA was found to have acted in compliance with the CC&Rs, and the appeal was dismissed. This order was declared binding on the parties.
Timeline of Key Events
August 28, 2019
Charles Mandela submits his request to build a patio shade.
October 25, 2019
Blue Ridge HOA denies the request via email, citing the one-additional-structure limit.
January 13, 2020
Mandela files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
January 13, 2021
The first evidentiary hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.
January 29, 2021
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues a decision denying Mandela’s petition.
February 5, 2021
Mandela files a request for a rehearing.
March 15, 2021
The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate grants the rehearing request.
April 16, 2021
The rehearing is conducted.
April 27, 2021
The ALJ issues a final decision, finding for the HOA and dismissing Mandela’s appeal.
Central CC&R Provision: Article X, Section 10.3
The most heavily debated provision was Section 10.3 of the Blue Ridge Estates CC&Rs, which outlines the procedure for architectural requests. Its language was central to the outcome of the rehearing.
Key text from Section 10.3:
“The Architectural Committee shall have thirty (30) days after receipt of such plans, specifications, and elevations to approve or disapprove of the proposed construction… In the event the Architectural Committee fails either to approve or disapprove the proposed construction… within said thirty (30) day period, such proposed construction… shall be deemed disapproved and the Owner can then request a meeting with the Architectural Committee to discuss the reasons for such disapproval…”
This clause was interpreted by the ALJ to mean that the HOA’s failure to provide a written response within 30 days automatically constituted a denial, shifting the burden to the homeowner to request a follow-up meeting, a step Mr. Mandela did not take.
Study Guide – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between homeowner Charles P. Mandela and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association, as detailed in the Administrative Law Judge Decisions from January 29, 2021, and April 27, 2021. The case centers on the denial of an architectural request and the interpretation of the association’s governing documents (CC&Rs).
——————————————————————————–
Quiz: Key Facts and Arguments
Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the provided legal decisions.
1. Who were the primary parties in this case, and what were their roles?
2. What specific structure did Charles P. Mandela request approval to build on August 28, 2019?
3. What was the initial reason given by the Blue Ridge Estates HOA for denying Mr. Mandela’s request on October 25, 2019?
4. What was Mr. Mandela’s central argument during the first hearing on January 13, 2021?
5. According to the decision from the first hearing, why did the Administrative Law Judge rule that the HOA’s denial was in compliance with Section 10.2 of the CC&Rs?
6. On what grounds did Mr. Mandela file his Homeowner’s Association (HOA) Dispute Rehearing Request on February 5, 2021?
7. During the rehearing, what new argument did Mr. Mandela raise concerning the timeline of the HOA’s denial of his August 28, 2019 request?
8. How did the HOA’s legal counsel counter Mr. Mandela’s argument regarding the 30-day response time outlined in Section 10.3?
9. What procedural step, outlined in Section 10.3, did Mr. Mandela admit he failed to take after his request was deemed denied?
10. What was the final outcome of the rehearing on April 16, 2021, and what was the judge’s conclusion regarding the HOA’s actions?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Petitioner Charles P. Mandela, a homeowner, and Respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association of Coconino County. Mr. Mandela filed the petition against the HOA after it denied his request to build a patio shade.
2. On August 28, 2019, Mr. Mandela requested approval to build a “patio shade less than 200 sq. feet.” The structure was a four-post shade that he intended to attach to the east side wall of his residence.
3. The HOA denied the request based on Architectural Committee Standards Article X. The denial stated that only one structure other than the residence may be placed on the property, and Mr. Mandela already had a residence and a shed.
4. Mr. Mandela’s central argument was that the denial was erroneous because the patio shade was not a separate stand-alone structure. He planned to attach it to his house, and he presented photographs of other properties with similar structures.
5. The judge ruled the denial complied with Section 10.2 because the list of standards the Architectural Committee could enforce was “not an exhaustive one.” This meant the committee could properly deny the request based on the one-structure limit, even if it wasn’t explicitly enumerated.
6. Mr. Mandela requested a rehearing on the grounds that the findings of fact were arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. He also claimed the decision was not supported by the evidence or was contrary to law.
7. During the rehearing, Mr. Mandela argued that the Board violated Section 10.3 of the CC&Rs. He contended that since he made his request on August 28, 2019, and the Board did not respond until October 25, 2019, it had failed to provide a written response within the required 30-day period.
8. The HOA’s counsel argued that while Section 10.3 may be “confusingly drafted,” it specifies that if the committee fails to approve or disapprove within the 30-day period, the request is “deemed disapproved.” Therefore, the Board was within its authority.
9. Mr. Mandela admitted that he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee to discuss the reasons for the disapproval. This is the procedural step required by Section 10.3 after a request is deemed denied.
10. The final outcome was that the petition was dismissed, and the Respondent (HOA) was declared the prevailing party. The judge concluded that the HOA had not violated the CC&Rs and had acted in compliance with its governing documents.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions for Further Study
The following questions are designed to promote a deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, citing specific details from the legal decisions.
1. Analyze the interpretation of CC&R Section 10.3, specifically the “deemed disapproved” clause. Discuss how this clause functioned as a key legal defense for the HOA and ultimately shaped the outcome of the rehearing.
2. The legal standard in this case was “a preponderance of the evidence.” Define this standard as described in the legal text and evaluate the evidence Mr. Mandela presented in both hearings. Why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude that Mr. Mandela failed to meet his burden of proof?
3. Compare and contrast the arguments presented by the Petitioner and Respondent in the initial hearing (January 13, 2021) versus the rehearing (April 16, 2021). How did the focus of the legal arguments shift between the two proceedings?
4. Examine the authority and jurisdiction of the Architectural Committee as outlined in CC&R Section 10.2. Discuss the significance of the phrase “Such standards and procedures may include, without limitation, provisions regarding…” in the judge’s initial decision.
5. Trace the procedural history of this case, from Mr. Mandela’s initial request in August 2019 to the final order in April 2021. Identify at least four key procedural milestones and explain their significance to the case’s progression and ultimate resolution.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge, in this case Adam D. Stone, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and makes decisions on petitions concerning disputes regulated by state agencies.
Architectural Committee
A body within the Blue Ridge Estates HOA established by Article X of the CC&Rs, with jurisdiction over all original construction and any modifications, additions, or alterations to the exterior of homes or properties.
Arizona Department of Real Estate
The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations and the associations themselves in Arizona.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to produce evidence that proves the facts it claims are true. In this case, the Petitioner (Mr. Mandela) bore the burden of proof.
An abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, which are the governing legal documents for a planned community like Blue Ridge Estates. This case centered on the interpretation of Article X of the Blue Ridge CC&Rs.
Homeowners’ Association (HOA)
The governing organization for a planned community. In this case, the Respondent was the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association of Coconino County.
Motion to Dismiss
A formal request filed by a party asking for a lawsuit or petition to be dismissed. The Blue Ridge HOA filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was denied on October 7, 2020, allowing the case to proceed.
Office of Administrative Hearings
An independent state agency in Arizona where petitions related to disputes with HOAs are sent for an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Charles P. Mandela was the Petitioner.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” representing the greater weight of evidence.
Rehearing
A second hearing granted to review a legal decision. Mr. Mandela was granted a rehearing after the initial decision, based on his claim that the findings were arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association was the Respondent.
Tribunal
A term used in the documents to refer to the judicial body hearing the case, specifically the Office of Administrative Hearings and the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG
He Fought the HOA Over a Patio and Lost. Here Are 5 Shocking Lessons Every Homeowner Needs to Learn.
Introduction: The Perils of a Simple Home Improvement Project
For any homeowner, the excitement of a new project—a deck, a fence, or a simple patio shade—can quickly turn to frustration when it collides with the dense rulebook of a Homeowners’ Association (HOA). What seems like a straightforward improvement can become a complex battle of bylaws and procedures.
This was the reality for Charles P. Mandela, a homeowner in the Blue Ridge Estates community. His plan to build a simple patio shade was denied by his HOA, sparking a legal challenge that went before an Administrative Law Judge. While Mr. Mandela ultimately lost his case on its legal merits, the details of his fight offer a masterclass in the surprising and often counter-intuitive world of HOA governance. This article distills the most shocking lessons from his case, providing critical insights for any homeowner living under an HOA.
——————————————————————————–
1. The “Deemed Disapproved” Clause: How an HOA’s Silence Becomes a Legal “No”
Mr. Mandela submitted his request to build a patio shade on August 28, 2019. He argued that the HOA, Blue Ridge Estates, violated its own rules, which required a response within 30 days. The HOA didn’t send its formal denial until October 25, 2019, well past the deadline. On the surface, it seemed like a clear procedural violation by the HOA.
However, a bizarre and “unartfully drafted” clause hidden in the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs) turned this logic on its head. The rule stated:
In the event the Architectural Committee fails either to approve or disapprove the proposed construction… within said thirty (30) day period, such proposed construction… shall be deemed disapproved…
Contrary to common sense, the rule meant that the HOA’s failure to respond on time resulted in an automatic denial, not a pending approval. The Administrative Law Judge was bound by this text, concluding that because the 30-day period had passed without a formal approval, the request was “properly deemed denied.”
2. The “My Neighbor Has One” Argument Is Weaker Than You Think
To support his case, Mr. Mandela presented photographs showing that “similar shades exist on other properties with additional structures.” He argued that the HOA was engaging in selective enforcement by denying his project while having approved others like it. This is one of the most frequent arguments homeowners make when they feel singled out by their HOA board.
The judge’s conclusion was a stunning reality check. The legal decision stated:
While those properties may have had their shades approved by different members of the Blue Ridge Architectural Committee that does not follow that Mr. Mandela’s request was improperly denied under Article X.
The legal reasoning here is crucial for homeowners to understand. Architectural committees are not static; members change, and so can their interpretation of aesthetic standards. Each application is legally considered a distinct request, evaluated under the rules in place at that moment. A previous committee’s approval—which may have even been a mistake or a variance granted under different circumstances—does not create a binding legal precedent that forces the current committee to repeat it.
3. Procedure is Everything: A Missed Step Can Cost You the Case
The HOA’s rules contained a specific process for appealing a denial. After a project is “deemed disapproved” because the 30-day clock ran out, the homeowner must then formally request a meeting with the committee to discuss the denial.
The judge found that Mr. Mandela had failed to take this critical next step. This procedural misstep, however small it might seem, became a key factor in the case against him. The decision hinged on this procedural failure, stating:
Further, Petitioner admitted that in his several email responses that he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee, thus he failed to follow the procedures in Section 10.3.
This highlights a crucial lesson: meticulously follow every single procedural step outlined in your HOA’s documents. Failure to do so, such as not using the correct language to request a meeting, can be used to dismiss your claim, regardless of its other merits.
4. “Unartfully Drafted” Rules Can Still Be Legally Binding
Even the Administrative Law Judge acknowledged the poor quality of the HOA’s rulebook. In the decision, the judge offered a candid assessment of the rule regarding the 30-day response time, stating, “Admittedly this section is unartfully drafted…”
Despite this observation, the rule was enforced exactly as written. The judge was bound by the text, however confusing, and concluded that “from the evidence presented, the request was properly deemed denied.”
This is perhaps the most sobering lesson. Homeowners often assume that a rule that is confusing or seems illogical won’t hold up under scrutiny. This case proves that the literal text of the governing documents possesses immense power. What a rule literally says is far more important than what one might assume it should mean.
5. The Final Twist: He Lost the Case But Got His Patio Anyway
After the initial decision was made against him, Mr. Mandela requested a rehearing. During this second hearing, a surprising fact emerged. Mr. Mandela testified that “since the decision on January 29, 2021, his request for the patio shade had been approved by the Board.”
This outcome highlights a crucial dynamic: while Mr. Mandela lost the legal argument based on procedural history, his persistent engagement in the process—including filing a formal appeal—likely created enough administrative and community pressure to compel the Board to find a practical, non-legal solution. It’s a powerful reminder that a legal loss on a technicality does not always foreclose a real-world victory.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: Do You Really Know Your HOA’s Rules?
The case of Charles Mandela serves as a powerful cautionary tale. It reveals that HOA disputes are rarely won on appeals to fairness or common sense. Instead, they are won or lost in the fine print of the governing documents—documents that can contain counter-intuitive clauses, procedural traps, and “unartfully drafted” rules that are nonetheless legally binding.
A homeowner’s best defense is not passion or conviction, but a deep and thorough understanding of the specific rules and procedures they agreed to live by. This case forces every homeowner to ask: Are you prepared to navigate the literal text of your community’s rules, where silence can mean “no” and a neighbor’s precedent is no precedent at all?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Charles P Mandela(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Nicholas Nogami(HOA attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
The Administrative Law Judge, following a rehearing, affirmed the original decision, concluding that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Article X regarding the denial of an architectural modification request for a patio shade. The Respondent was found to have acted in compliance with the community documents, and the appeal was dismissed.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish a violation of the CC&R's and failed to follow the procedural requirements necessary to appeal a deemed disapproval under CC&R Section 10.3.
Key Issues & Findings
Denial of request for patio shade structure and alleged violation of response timeline
Petitioner challenged the HOA's denial of his application for a patio shade, arguing the denial was improper because the shade would be attached (not a separate structure) and that the HOA missed the 30-day response deadline. The ALJ determined that the HOA's denial based on the 'only one structure other than the residence' rule (since a shed already existed) complied with the non-exhaustive Architectural Committee Standards (Article X, 10.2). Regarding the delayed response, the ALJ noted that Section 10.3 mandated that a late response results in the request being 'deemed disapproved,' and the Petitioner failed to subsequently request the required appeal meeting.
Orders: The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent violated Article X of the CC&R’s. The Respondent was declared the prevailing party, and the Petitioner's appeal (rehearing) was dismissed.
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
20F-H2020042-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2021-04-27
Administrative Law Judge
Adam D. Stone
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$0.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Charles P Mandela
Counsel
—
Respondent
Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners' Association
Counsel
Nicholas Nogami, Esq.
Alleged Violations
CC&R Article X; CC&R Section 10.3
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge, following a rehearing, affirmed the original decision, concluding that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Article X regarding the denial of an architectural modification request for a patio shade. The Respondent was found to have acted in compliance with the community documents, and the appeal was dismissed.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish a violation of the CC&R's and failed to follow the procedural requirements necessary to appeal a deemed disapproval under CC&R Section 10.3.
Key Issues & Findings
Denial of request for patio shade structure and alleged violation of response timeline
Petitioner challenged the HOA's denial of his application for a patio shade, arguing the denial was improper because the shade would be attached (not a separate structure) and that the HOA missed the 30-day response deadline. The ALJ determined that the HOA's denial based on the 'only one structure other than the residence' rule (since a shed already existed) complied with the non-exhaustive Architectural Committee Standards (Article X, 10.2). Regarding the delayed response, the ALJ noted that Section 10.3 mandated that a late response results in the request being 'deemed disapproved,' and the Petitioner failed to subsequently request the required appeal meeting.
Orders: The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent violated Article X of the CC&R’s. The Respondent was declared the prevailing party, and the Petitioner's appeal (rehearing) was dismissed.
Briefing on Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings from two administrative law judge decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Charles P. Mandela and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association (“Blue Ridge”). The core issue was Blue Ridge’s denial of Mr. Mandela’s request to build a patio shade structure.
In the initial hearing on January 13, 2021, Mr. Mandela argued the denial was erroneous because the shade would be attached to his house, not a separate structure, and that similar structures existed in the community. Blue Ridge defended its decision based on Article X of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which limits properties to one structure besides the main residence. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Mr. Mandela’s petition, finding that Blue Ridge acted within the authority granted by its CC&Rs, as its architectural standards were not exhaustive and it provided a reasonably detailed written reason for the denial.
Following this decision, Mr. Mandela was granted a rehearing, which took place on April 16, 2021. During this second hearing, he introduced a new argument that Blue Ridge had violated Article 10.3 of the CC&Rs by failing to respond to his request within the stipulated 30-day timeframe. However, the ALJ found that the same article specifies that a failure to respond results in the request being “deemed disapproved.” The ALJ concluded that Mr. Mandela had failed to follow the subsequent appeal procedures outlined in the CC&Rs and again failed to meet his burden of proof. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Blue Ridge was declared the prevailing party. Notably, during the rehearing, Mr. Mandela testified that his request for the patio shade had since been approved by the Blue Ridge board.
Initial Hearing and Decision (Case No. 20F-H2020042-REL)
The first evidentiary hearing was held on January 13, 2021, before Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone to address Mr. Mandela’s petition alleging Blue Ridge violated its CC&Rs.
The Core Dispute
• Petitioner’s Request: On August 28, 2019, Charles P. Mandela submitted a request to build a “patio shade less than 200 sq. feet,” described as a four-post structure he intended to attach to the east wall of his residence.
• Respondent’s Denial: On October 25, 2019, Blue Ridge denied the request, stating: “Only one structure other than the residence may be placed on the property. The site plan that was given for review shows the residence and also a shed on property already existing, this would be the allowable limit per the Architectural Standards.”
Arguments Presented
• Petitioner (Charles P. Mandela):
◦ Argued passionately that the denial was erroneous because the patio shade was to be attached to the house, not a separate, stand-alone structure.
◦ Presented photographs of other properties within Blue Ridge Estates that had multiple structures and stand-alone patio shades similar to his proposal.
• Respondent (Blue Ridge Estates HOA):
◦ Contended it properly followed Article X of the CC&Rs in its denial.
◦ At the hearing, Blue Ridge pointed to Article III of the CC&Rs as justification, classifying the proposed shade as an additional structure on the property.
Judge’s Findings and Conclusions
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Mr. Mandela’s petition, concluding he had not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Blue Ridge violated Article X of the CC&Rs.
• Interpretation of CC&R Section 10.2: The judge found that the architectural standards listed in this section were explicitly not exhaustive. The text states standards “may include, without limitation, provisions regarding” aspects like size, design, and placement. This allowed the architectural committee to deny the request based on the “one additional structure” rule, even if not explicitly listed.
• Compliance with CC&R Section 10.3: This section requires the committee to provide “reasonably detailed written reasons for such disapproval.” The judge found that the denial email of October 25, 2019, fulfilled this requirement. The email did not need to cite a specific CC&R section, only to provide an explanation.
• On Precedent and Fairness: The ALJ acknowledged Mr. Mandela’s evidence of similar structures on other properties. However, the decision noted: “While those properties may have had their shades approved by different members of the Blue Ridge Architectural Committee that does not follow that Mr. Mandela’s request was improperly denied under Article X.”
• Final Ruling: The petition was denied in a decision dated January 29, 2021.
Rehearing and Final Decision (Case No. 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG)
Mr. Mandela filed for a rehearing on February 5, 2021, on the grounds that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence. The Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner granted the request, and a new hearing was held on April 16, 2021.
New Testimony and Arguments
• Petitioner (Charles P. Mandela):
◦ Subsequent Approval: Testified that since the January 29, 2021 decision, his request for the patio shade had been approved by the Blue Ridge board.
◦ Procedural Violation: Argued that Blue Ridge violated CC&R Section 10.3 by failing to respond to his August 28, 2019, request within the required 30-day period, as the denial was not issued until October 25, 2019.
◦ History of Denials: Stated he had made several previous requests in 2018 and 2019 that were either denied or ignored.
◦ Discrimination: Claimed he had been discriminated against due to the previous denials.
• Respondent (Blue Ridge Estates HOA):
◦ Interpretation of Section 10.3: Argued that while the section may be “confusingly drafted,” it stipulates that if the committee fails to respond within 30 days, the request is “deemed disapproved.” Therefore, the board acted within its authority.
◦ Failure to Appeal: Contended that Mr. Mandela failed to follow the proper appeal procedure outlined in the CC&Rs, as he never specifically requested a meeting to discuss the denial.
Judge’s Final Findings and Conclusions
The ALJ affirmed the original decision, finding for the Respondent as the prevailing party and dismissing Mr. Mandela’s appeal.
• Scope of Rehearing: The judge determined that the rehearing was limited to the August 28, 2019, request and its subsequent denial, as that was the sole focus of the original petition. Mr. Mandela’s arguments about prior denials were not considered new evidence relevant to the specific violation alleged.
• Interpretation of the 30-Day Rule: The ALJ sided with the HOA’s interpretation of Section 10.3. While acknowledging that Blue Ridge took more than thirty days to issue a written denial, the judge ruled that the CC&R’s provision for a “deemed disapproved” status meant the request was properly denied under the rules.
• Petitioner’s Failure to Follow Procedure: The judge noted that Mr. Mandela admitted he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee after the denial, which was the required next step in the appeal process under Section 10.3.
• Final Ruling: The final decision, dated April 27, 2021, concluded that Mr. Mandela failed to sustain his burden of proof. The HOA was found to have acted in compliance with the CC&Rs, and the appeal was dismissed. This order was declared binding on the parties.
Timeline of Key Events
August 28, 2019
Charles Mandela submits his request to build a patio shade.
October 25, 2019
Blue Ridge HOA denies the request via email, citing the one-additional-structure limit.
January 13, 2020
Mandela files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
January 13, 2021
The first evidentiary hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.
January 29, 2021
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues a decision denying Mandela’s petition.
February 5, 2021
Mandela files a request for a rehearing.
March 15, 2021
The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate grants the rehearing request.
April 16, 2021
The rehearing is conducted.
April 27, 2021
The ALJ issues a final decision, finding for the HOA and dismissing Mandela’s appeal.
Central CC&R Provision: Article X, Section 10.3
The most heavily debated provision was Section 10.3 of the Blue Ridge Estates CC&Rs, which outlines the procedure for architectural requests. Its language was central to the outcome of the rehearing.
Key text from Section 10.3:
“The Architectural Committee shall have thirty (30) days after receipt of such plans, specifications, and elevations to approve or disapprove of the proposed construction… In the event the Architectural Committee fails either to approve or disapprove the proposed construction… within said thirty (30) day period, such proposed construction… shall be deemed disapproved and the Owner can then request a meeting with the Architectural Committee to discuss the reasons for such disapproval…”
This clause was interpreted by the ALJ to mean that the HOA’s failure to provide a written response within 30 days automatically constituted a denial, shifting the burden to the homeowner to request a follow-up meeting, a step Mr. Mandela did not take.
Study Guide – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between homeowner Charles P. Mandela and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association, as detailed in the Administrative Law Judge Decisions from January 29, 2021, and April 27, 2021. The case centers on the denial of an architectural request and the interpretation of the association’s governing documents (CC&Rs).
——————————————————————————–
Quiz: Key Facts and Arguments
Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the provided legal decisions.
1. Who were the primary parties in this case, and what were their roles?
2. What specific structure did Charles P. Mandela request approval to build on August 28, 2019?
3. What was the initial reason given by the Blue Ridge Estates HOA for denying Mr. Mandela’s request on October 25, 2019?
4. What was Mr. Mandela’s central argument during the first hearing on January 13, 2021?
5. According to the decision from the first hearing, why did the Administrative Law Judge rule that the HOA’s denial was in compliance with Section 10.2 of the CC&Rs?
6. On what grounds did Mr. Mandela file his Homeowner’s Association (HOA) Dispute Rehearing Request on February 5, 2021?
7. During the rehearing, what new argument did Mr. Mandela raise concerning the timeline of the HOA’s denial of his August 28, 2019 request?
8. How did the HOA’s legal counsel counter Mr. Mandela’s argument regarding the 30-day response time outlined in Section 10.3?
9. What procedural step, outlined in Section 10.3, did Mr. Mandela admit he failed to take after his request was deemed denied?
10. What was the final outcome of the rehearing on April 16, 2021, and what was the judge’s conclusion regarding the HOA’s actions?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Petitioner Charles P. Mandela, a homeowner, and Respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association of Coconino County. Mr. Mandela filed the petition against the HOA after it denied his request to build a patio shade.
2. On August 28, 2019, Mr. Mandela requested approval to build a “patio shade less than 200 sq. feet.” The structure was a four-post shade that he intended to attach to the east side wall of his residence.
3. The HOA denied the request based on Architectural Committee Standards Article X. The denial stated that only one structure other than the residence may be placed on the property, and Mr. Mandela already had a residence and a shed.
4. Mr. Mandela’s central argument was that the denial was erroneous because the patio shade was not a separate stand-alone structure. He planned to attach it to his house, and he presented photographs of other properties with similar structures.
5. The judge ruled the denial complied with Section 10.2 because the list of standards the Architectural Committee could enforce was “not an exhaustive one.” This meant the committee could properly deny the request based on the one-structure limit, even if it wasn’t explicitly enumerated.
6. Mr. Mandela requested a rehearing on the grounds that the findings of fact were arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. He also claimed the decision was not supported by the evidence or was contrary to law.
7. During the rehearing, Mr. Mandela argued that the Board violated Section 10.3 of the CC&Rs. He contended that since he made his request on August 28, 2019, and the Board did not respond until October 25, 2019, it had failed to provide a written response within the required 30-day period.
8. The HOA’s counsel argued that while Section 10.3 may be “confusingly drafted,” it specifies that if the committee fails to approve or disapprove within the 30-day period, the request is “deemed disapproved.” Therefore, the Board was within its authority.
9. Mr. Mandela admitted that he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee to discuss the reasons for the disapproval. This is the procedural step required by Section 10.3 after a request is deemed denied.
10. The final outcome was that the petition was dismissed, and the Respondent (HOA) was declared the prevailing party. The judge concluded that the HOA had not violated the CC&Rs and had acted in compliance with its governing documents.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions for Further Study
The following questions are designed to promote a deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, citing specific details from the legal decisions.
1. Analyze the interpretation of CC&R Section 10.3, specifically the “deemed disapproved” clause. Discuss how this clause functioned as a key legal defense for the HOA and ultimately shaped the outcome of the rehearing.
2. The legal standard in this case was “a preponderance of the evidence.” Define this standard as described in the legal text and evaluate the evidence Mr. Mandela presented in both hearings. Why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude that Mr. Mandela failed to meet his burden of proof?
3. Compare and contrast the arguments presented by the Petitioner and Respondent in the initial hearing (January 13, 2021) versus the rehearing (April 16, 2021). How did the focus of the legal arguments shift between the two proceedings?
4. Examine the authority and jurisdiction of the Architectural Committee as outlined in CC&R Section 10.2. Discuss the significance of the phrase “Such standards and procedures may include, without limitation, provisions regarding…” in the judge’s initial decision.
5. Trace the procedural history of this case, from Mr. Mandela’s initial request in August 2019 to the final order in April 2021. Identify at least four key procedural milestones and explain their significance to the case’s progression and ultimate resolution.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge, in this case Adam D. Stone, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and makes decisions on petitions concerning disputes regulated by state agencies.
Architectural Committee
A body within the Blue Ridge Estates HOA established by Article X of the CC&Rs, with jurisdiction over all original construction and any modifications, additions, or alterations to the exterior of homes or properties.
Arizona Department of Real Estate
The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations and the associations themselves in Arizona.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to produce evidence that proves the facts it claims are true. In this case, the Petitioner (Mr. Mandela) bore the burden of proof.
An abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, which are the governing legal documents for a planned community like Blue Ridge Estates. This case centered on the interpretation of Article X of the Blue Ridge CC&Rs.
Homeowners’ Association (HOA)
The governing organization for a planned community. In this case, the Respondent was the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association of Coconino County.
Motion to Dismiss
A formal request filed by a party asking for a lawsuit or petition to be dismissed. The Blue Ridge HOA filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was denied on October 7, 2020, allowing the case to proceed.
Office of Administrative Hearings
An independent state agency in Arizona where petitions related to disputes with HOAs are sent for an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Charles P. Mandela was the Petitioner.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” representing the greater weight of evidence.
Rehearing
A second hearing granted to review a legal decision. Mr. Mandela was granted a rehearing after the initial decision, based on his claim that the findings were arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association was the Respondent.
Tribunal
A term used in the documents to refer to the judicial body hearing the case, specifically the Office of Administrative Hearings and the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG
He Fought the HOA Over a Patio and Lost. Here Are 5 Shocking Lessons Every Homeowner Needs to Learn.
Introduction: The Perils of a Simple Home Improvement Project
For any homeowner, the excitement of a new project—a deck, a fence, or a simple patio shade—can quickly turn to frustration when it collides with the dense rulebook of a Homeowners’ Association (HOA). What seems like a straightforward improvement can become a complex battle of bylaws and procedures.
This was the reality for Charles P. Mandela, a homeowner in the Blue Ridge Estates community. His plan to build a simple patio shade was denied by his HOA, sparking a legal challenge that went before an Administrative Law Judge. While Mr. Mandela ultimately lost his case on its legal merits, the details of his fight offer a masterclass in the surprising and often counter-intuitive world of HOA governance. This article distills the most shocking lessons from his case, providing critical insights for any homeowner living under an HOA.
——————————————————————————–
1. The “Deemed Disapproved” Clause: How an HOA’s Silence Becomes a Legal “No”
Mr. Mandela submitted his request to build a patio shade on August 28, 2019. He argued that the HOA, Blue Ridge Estates, violated its own rules, which required a response within 30 days. The HOA didn’t send its formal denial until October 25, 2019, well past the deadline. On the surface, it seemed like a clear procedural violation by the HOA.
However, a bizarre and “unartfully drafted” clause hidden in the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs) turned this logic on its head. The rule stated:
In the event the Architectural Committee fails either to approve or disapprove the proposed construction… within said thirty (30) day period, such proposed construction… shall be deemed disapproved…
Contrary to common sense, the rule meant that the HOA’s failure to respond on time resulted in an automatic denial, not a pending approval. The Administrative Law Judge was bound by this text, concluding that because the 30-day period had passed without a formal approval, the request was “properly deemed denied.”
2. The “My Neighbor Has One” Argument Is Weaker Than You Think
To support his case, Mr. Mandela presented photographs showing that “similar shades exist on other properties with additional structures.” He argued that the HOA was engaging in selective enforcement by denying his project while having approved others like it. This is one of the most frequent arguments homeowners make when they feel singled out by their HOA board.
The judge’s conclusion was a stunning reality check. The legal decision stated:
While those properties may have had their shades approved by different members of the Blue Ridge Architectural Committee that does not follow that Mr. Mandela’s request was improperly denied under Article X.
The legal reasoning here is crucial for homeowners to understand. Architectural committees are not static; members change, and so can their interpretation of aesthetic standards. Each application is legally considered a distinct request, evaluated under the rules in place at that moment. A previous committee’s approval—which may have even been a mistake or a variance granted under different circumstances—does not create a binding legal precedent that forces the current committee to repeat it.
3. Procedure is Everything: A Missed Step Can Cost You the Case
The HOA’s rules contained a specific process for appealing a denial. After a project is “deemed disapproved” because the 30-day clock ran out, the homeowner must then formally request a meeting with the committee to discuss the denial.
The judge found that Mr. Mandela had failed to take this critical next step. This procedural misstep, however small it might seem, became a key factor in the case against him. The decision hinged on this procedural failure, stating:
Further, Petitioner admitted that in his several email responses that he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee, thus he failed to follow the procedures in Section 10.3.
This highlights a crucial lesson: meticulously follow every single procedural step outlined in your HOA’s documents. Failure to do so, such as not using the correct language to request a meeting, can be used to dismiss your claim, regardless of its other merits.
4. “Unartfully Drafted” Rules Can Still Be Legally Binding
Even the Administrative Law Judge acknowledged the poor quality of the HOA’s rulebook. In the decision, the judge offered a candid assessment of the rule regarding the 30-day response time, stating, “Admittedly this section is unartfully drafted…”
Despite this observation, the rule was enforced exactly as written. The judge was bound by the text, however confusing, and concluded that “from the evidence presented, the request was properly deemed denied.”
This is perhaps the most sobering lesson. Homeowners often assume that a rule that is confusing or seems illogical won’t hold up under scrutiny. This case proves that the literal text of the governing documents possesses immense power. What a rule literally says is far more important than what one might assume it should mean.
5. The Final Twist: He Lost the Case But Got His Patio Anyway
After the initial decision was made against him, Mr. Mandela requested a rehearing. During this second hearing, a surprising fact emerged. Mr. Mandela testified that “since the decision on January 29, 2021, his request for the patio shade had been approved by the Board.”
This outcome highlights a crucial dynamic: while Mr. Mandela lost the legal argument based on procedural history, his persistent engagement in the process—including filing a formal appeal—likely created enough administrative and community pressure to compel the Board to find a practical, non-legal solution. It’s a powerful reminder that a legal loss on a technicality does not always foreclose a real-world victory.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: Do You Really Know Your HOA’s Rules?
The case of Charles Mandela serves as a powerful cautionary tale. It reveals that HOA disputes are rarely won on appeals to fairness or common sense. Instead, they are won or lost in the fine print of the governing documents—documents that can contain counter-intuitive clauses, procedural traps, and “unartfully drafted” rules that are nonetheless legally binding.
A homeowner’s best defense is not passion or conviction, but a deep and thorough understanding of the specific rules and procedures they agreed to live by. This case forces every homeowner to ask: Are you prepared to navigate the literal text of your community’s rules, where silence can mean “no” and a neighbor’s precedent is no precedent at all?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Charles P Mandela(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Nicholas Nogami(HOA attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
20F-H2020051-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2021-01-08
Administrative Law Judge
Kay Abramsohn
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$0.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Debra K. Morin
Counsel
—
Respondent
Solera Chandler Homeowners' Association, Inc.
Counsel
Lydia A. Perce Linsmeier, Esq.
Alleged Violations
CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to sustain her burden to establish a violation by Solera of the governing documents regarding the maintenance of Areas of Association Responsibility (AREAS). The Tribunal dismissed the Petition and the subsequent Rehearing Appeal, finding Solera was in compliance with CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Solera violated its governing documents. The CC&Rs grant the Board the authority to be the "sole judge" as to appropriate maintenance, repair, and replacement of all AREAS.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to maintain Areas of Association Responsibility (AREAS) in good condition and repair at all times
Petitioner alleged that Solera failed to meet the maintenance standard required by CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1, citing various examples of disrepair, including weeds, sidewalks, and streets, and arguing the same standard applied to homeowners must apply to the HOA. The Tribunal rejected this, finding that the CC&Rs designate the Board as the sole judge regarding appropriate maintenance, and Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to show a violation.
Orders: The Administrative Law Judge concluded Solera was in compliance with its governing documents, including CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1, and the Petition/Rehearing Appeal was dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1
CC&R Article 9, Section 9.5
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA, Maintenance, CC&Rs, Jurisdiction, Burden of Proof, Rehearing
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
A.R.S. §§ 32-2199(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(D)
A.R.S. § 41-1092
A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Briefing Document: Morin v. Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc.
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes the findings and rulings from an administrative law case involving a homeowner, Debra K. Morin (Petitioner), and the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (Respondent/Solera). The case centered on the Petitioner’s allegations that the HOA failed to maintain common areas to the standards required by its own governing documents.
The Petitioner filed a two-issue petition, with the primary surviving issue being that Solera, its Board of Directors, and its management company were not maintaining the “Areas of Association Responsibility” (AREAS) in good condition and repair at all times. The Petitioner’s core argument was that the same stringent maintenance standard applied to individual homeowners must be equally applied to the HOA. She provided extensive photographic evidence of issues such as weeds, deteriorating sidewalks, street disrepair, and exposed wiring.
The HOA defended its actions by citing its established procedures for maintenance, including a committee review process, a scheduled Reserves plan, and the use of licensed contractors. Critically, Solera’s defense rested on provisions within its Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which grant the Board of Directors the exclusive right to interpret the CC&Rs and designate it as the “sole judge as to the appropriate maintenance, repair and replacement” of all common areas.
Following an initial hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner had not met the burden of proof. The ALJ ruled that under the governing documents, the HOA Board has sole discretion in maintenance matters, and the Petitioner’s subjective opinions on how and when work should be done were not relevant to determining a violation. The Petitioner was granted a rehearing, where she presented additional evidence and arguments. However, the ALJ upheld the original decision, reaffirming that the CC&Rs grant the Board authority superseding that of an individual homeowner in determining appropriate maintenance. The petition was dismissed, and Solera was deemed the prevailing party in both instances.
Case Overview
Case Name
Debra K. Morin, Petitioner, v. Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc., Respondent.
Case Number
No. 20F-H2020051-REL / 20F-H2020051-REL-RHG
Tribunal
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Kay Abramsohn
Petitioner
Debra K. Morin (represented herself)
Respondent
Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (represented by Lydia Linsmeier, Esq.)
Petition Filed
On or about March 12, 2020
Initial Hearing
May 20, 2020 and July 15, 2020
Initial Decision
August 19, 2020 (Petition Dismissed)
Rehearing Hearing
December 16, 2020
Rehearing Decision
January 8, 2021 (Original Dismissal Upheld)
Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments
The Petitioner, a resident of Solera for four years, filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging violations of Solera’s Articles of Incorporation, By-Laws, CC&Rs, and Rules and Regulations (R&Rs). The allegations were organized into two primary issues.
Issue #1: Lack of Direct Communication
• Allegation: Solera, its Board, and its management company, Premier Management Company (Premier), “do not allow direct communication from homeowners.”
• Requested Relief: The Petitioner sought to have this “policy” rescinded.
• Outcome: This issue was connected to allegations of ethics violations based on the Board’s Code of Ethics, which the Tribunal determined was a non-governing document outside its jurisdiction. As a result, the Petitioner withdrew Issue #1 during the May 20, 2020 hearing.
Issue #2: Failure to Maintain Common Areas
• Allegation: Solera, its Board, and Premier “are not providing oversight to the General Manager in maintaining all Areas of Association Responsibility … in good condition and repair at all times.” Specific complaints included “uncontrolled weeds” and poor maintenance of the Community Center and other AREAS.
• Core Argument: The Petitioner’s central thesis was that the HOA must be held to the identical maintenance standard it imposes on homeowners. She argued that just as homeowners are required to maintain their lots “in a weed free condition 365 days a year,” the HOA has no discretion for delays in addressing maintenance issues in common areas.
• Requested Relief:
1. A public admission by the Board of its failures to follow governing documents.
2. The establishment of “direct communication rules” for reporting management deficiencies.
3. Compliance monitoring by the “Real Estate Board.”
Evidence and Specific Complaints
The Petitioner presented over 80 photographs at the initial hearing (growing to 310 by the rehearing) and multiple emails to document a wide range of perceived maintenance failures.
Maintenance Issue
Petitioner’s Specific Complaint
Uncontrolled weeds in granite rock locations throughout the community.
Community Center
Poor exterior condition.
Streets & Curbs
Deteriorating asphalt, cracking, and issues with sealing.
Sidewalks
Trip hazards and disintegrating cool-decking.
Drainage
Clogged storm drains and water pooling issues.
Landscaping
Exposed wiring for lights, exposed drip irrigation lines, and unremoved tree stumps.
Disrepair of boundary walls.
A key piece of evidence was a February 21, 2020 email exchange regarding weeds, which the ALJ found “representative of the overall situation.”
Petitioner’s Complaint: “This is NOT being done and our HOA looks disgusting with the continued presence of unchecked weeds inside and outside our community! No excuses, you cannot hold homeowners to a higher standard than you are willing to do for our HOA. You are on notice to rectify this violation immediately!”
General Manager’s Response: “…the landscape crew hula hoes and sprays daily, based on routine maintenance cycle and location of site work… Considering that we have 1,143,550 square feet of granite and 270,933 square feet of turf, the maintenance of weeds is a continuous and ongoing concern that is constantly being addressed.”
Petitioner’s Rebuttal: “YOUR response is just more excuses!… It appears that since it is not your personal money being spent, it is ok to have substandard work performance.”
Respondent’s Position and Defense
Solera HOA moved to dismiss the petition, arguing the issues were outside the Department’s jurisdiction and the requested relief could not be granted. While the motion was effectively denied after Issue #1 was withdrawn, Solera’s core defense remained consistent throughout the proceedings.
• Central Legal Argument: Solera contended that its Board of Directors is vested with the ultimate authority on maintenance matters by the community’s governing documents. It repeatedly cited CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1, which states the Board “shall be the sole judge as to the appropriate maintenance, repair and replacement of all [AREAS].”
• Interpretation Authority: The HOA also pointed to CC&R Article 9, Section 9.5, which gives it the “exclusive right to construe and interpret the provisions of the [CC&Rs],” with such interpretations being “final, conclusive and binding.”
• Operational Defense: Denise Frazier, Solera’s on-site general manager, testified that the HOA has established processes for maintenance.
◦ Committee Structure: A Building and Grounds Committee (B&G) reviews projects, which are then assessed by a Finance Committee before going to the Board for approval.
◦ Reserves Schedule: Solera maintains a Reserves schedule for large projects, such as sidewalk repairs (every 4 years), street repairs (every 8 years), and sealing cracks (every 2 years).
◦ Vendor Management: The Board relies on licensed contractors for specialized work, including landscaping, tree trimming (by two different companies for different heights), and stump grinding.
• Response to Specific Issues:
◦ Weeds: Frazier attributed the prevalence of weeds in early 2020 to an unusual amount of rain, creating “optimal” conditions. She noted that Solera had instructed landscapers to use dye in the weed spray to demonstrate to residents that spraying was occurring.
◦ Sidewalks: Frazier acknowledged a several-month delay in repairing a specific sidewalk area but stated that warning cones had been placed in the interim. Solera uses a ¼ inch standard for review but the City of Chandler’s ½ inch trip-hazard guideline for repairs.
◦ Exposed Wiring: This was explained as a temporary measure by landscapers to avoid cutting electrical and irrigation lines during tree and granite replacement projects.
Rulings and Legal Conclusions
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner’s case after the initial hearing and reaffirmed this dismissal after a rehearing, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet her legal burden of proof.
Key Legal Principles Applied
• Burden of Proof: The ALJ established that the Petitioner “bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a respondent has violated the planned community document(s’) provisions.”
• Supremacy of Governing Documents: The case was decided on the interpretation of the HOA’s CC&Rs, which function as the binding contract between the association and its members.
• Board’s Discretionary Authority: The central and decisive legal conclusion was that the HOA’s governing documents explicitly grant the Board superior authority over maintenance decisions.
◦ CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1 (“sole judge”) was interpreted to mean that only Solera is charged with determining when and how to perform maintenance, repair, and replacement in common areas.
◦ The ALJ concluded this provision “lifts the Board’s authority above that of a homeowner.” The Petitioner failed to provide legal support for her argument that the same maintenance standard must be applied to the Board as is applied to homeowners.
• Jurisdictional Limits: The Tribunal’s role is limited to adjudicating alleged violations of governing documents or statutes. The ALJ noted that a “homeowner’s dissatisfaction with management is not within the purview of this process or the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.”
Final Order
The ALJ concluded that Solera was in compliance with its governing documents, including the critical CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1. The Petitioner’s subjective opinions about the timeliness or quality of repairs were deemed irrelevant in the face of the Board’s contractual authority to be the “sole judge.”
Initial Order (August 19, 2020): “IT IS ORDERED Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed and Solera is deemed the prevailing party.”
Rehearing Order (January 8, 2021): “IT IS ORDERED that Solera is the prevailing party with regard to the Rehearing, and Petitioner’s appeal is dismissed.” The order was declared binding on the parties.
Study Guide – 20F-H2020051-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Morin v. Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc.
This guide provides a review of the administrative case between Debra K. Morin (Petitioner) and the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (Respondent), as detailed in the Administrative Law Judge Decision of August 19, 2020, and the subsequent Rehearing Decision of January 8, 2021.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the provided case documents.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in this case, and what were their respective roles?
2. What were the two main issues the petitioner, Debra K. Morin, raised in her initial petition filed on March 12, 2020?
3. Why was the petitioner’s first issue, regarding direct communication, withdrawn during the initial hearing?
4. What was the petitioner’s central argument regarding the maintenance standard that Solera should be held to?
5. According to the CC&Rs, what specific authority does the Solera Board have regarding maintenance, which formed the core of its defense?
6. What type of evidence did the petitioner primarily use to document her claims of poor maintenance in the Areas of Association Responsibility (AREAS)?
7. Who is Denise Frazier, and what role did she play in the proceedings?
8. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision in the initial hearing on August 19, 2020?
9. On what grounds did the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate grant the petitioner’s request for a rehearing?
10. What was the final outcome of the case after the rehearing decision was issued on January 8, 2021?
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Debra K. Morin, the Petitioner and a homeowner, and the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (Solera), the Respondent. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Kay Abramsohn, and Solera was represented by Premier Management Company and its on-site general manager.
2. The petitioner’s Issue #1 alleged that Solera, its Board, and its management company “do not allow direct communication from homeowners.” Issue #2 alleged they were not providing oversight to the General Manager in maintaining all Areas of Association Responsibility in good condition and repair at all times.
3. The petitioner withdrew Issue #1 after it was determined that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction does not include interpreting or applying non-governing documents. Her complaint was based on the Solera Code of Ethics, which the Tribunal could not consider.
4. The petitioner argued that the same maintenance standard must be applied to Solera as is applied to homeowners. She contended that if homeowners are required by the governing documents to maintain their lots “in good condition and repair at all times,” then the HOA must be held to the identical standard for common areas (AREAS).
5. Solera’s defense centered on CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1, which states the Board “shall be the sole judge as to the appropriate maintenance, repair and replacement of all [AREAS].” Additionally, CC&R Article 9, Section 9.5 gives Solera the exclusive right to construe and interpret the CC&Rs.
6. The petitioner presented a large volume of photographic evidence, including over eighty photos for the initial hearing and more for the rehearing. These photographs were intended to document weeds, issues with sidewalks, exposed wiring, storm drains, and other maintenance problems in the common areas.
7. Denise Frazier is the on-site general manager for Solera and an employee of Premier Management Company. She testified on behalf of Solera regarding its maintenance schedules, procedures, reserve studies, and responses to the specific issues raised by the petitioner.
8. In the initial hearing, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petitioner’s petition and deemed Solera the prevailing party. The judge concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated a violation of the governing documents, as the CC&Rs grant the Board sole judgment on maintenance matters.
9. The request for a rehearing was granted because the petitioner claimed there were irregularities in the proceedings, misconduct by the prevailing party, and that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not supported by the evidence or contrary to law.
10. The rehearing affirmed the original decision. The Administrative Law Judge again concluded that the petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof and that Solera was in compliance with its governing documents, specifically CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1. The appeal was dismissed, and Solera was again named the prevailing party.
Essay Questions
The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. No answers are provided.
1. Analyze the central legal conflict in this case by contrasting the petitioner’s interpretation of CC&R Article 7, Section 7.2 with the respondent’s defense based on CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1 and Article 9, Section 9.5. How did the Administrative Law Judge resolve this interpretive dispute?
2. Discuss the concept of jurisdiction as it applied to this case. Explain why certain arguments and evidence presented by the petitioner—such as the Board’s Code of Ethics, Premier Management Company standards, and City of Chandler ordinances—were deemed outside the Tribunal’s authority to consider.
3. Evaluate the petitioner’s strategy and use of evidence. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of relying heavily on photographic evidence and detailed email complaints. Why did this “enormity” of evidence ultimately fail to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard?
4. Explain the significance of the phrase “sole judge” in CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1. How does this clause grant discretionary authority to the HOA Board, and how did it function as the key element in defeating the petitioner’s claim?
5. Trace the procedural history of the case, from the initial Petition and Motion to Dismiss through the original hearing, the Decision, the Rehearing Request, and the final Rehearing Decision. Identify the key rulings and turning points that determined the ultimate outcome.
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The judge presiding over the administrative hearing at the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. In this case, Judge Kay Abramsohn.
AREAS (Areas of Association Responsibility)
The common areas within the Solera development that the Homeowners’ Association is responsible for managing, maintaining, repairing, and replacing.
By-Laws
One of the governing documents for the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association.
CC&Rs (Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
A primary governing document for the Solera development, specifically the “Solera Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Springfield Lakes.” It outlines the rights and responsibilities of the homeowners and the association.
Denise Frazier
The on-site general manager for Solera, employed by Premier Management Company, who testified on behalf of the association regarding its maintenance operations.
Maintenance Standard
Defined in CC&R Article 1, Section 1.30 as “the standard of maintenance of Improvements established from time to time by the Board and/or the Architectural Review Committee in the Design Guidelines, or in the absence of any such standards, the standards of maintenance of Improvements generally prevailing through the Project.”
Motion to Dismiss
A formal request filed by Solera asking the Department of Real Estate to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the issues were outside the Department’s jurisdiction and the requested relief could not be granted.
Petitioner
The party who filed the petition initiating the legal action. In this case, Debra K. Morin, a homeowner in Solera.
Preponderance of the evidence
The burden of proof in this administrative proceeding. It is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.
Premier Management Company
The management company hired by Solera to handle day-to-day operations of the community.
Project Documents
The set of governing documents for the community, defined as the CC&Rs, any supplemental declarations, the By-Laws, the R&Rs, and the Design Guidelines.
Respondent
The party against whom the petition is filed. In this case, the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc.
R&Rs (Rules and Regulations)
One of the governing documents for the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association.
Tribunal
A term used in the documents to refer to the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), where the hearing was conducted.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020051-REL-RHG
A Homeowner Took on Her HOA with Over 300 Photos of Evidence. The Reason She Lost Is a Warning for Everyone.
Introduction: The Familiar Fight
It’s a scenario familiar to millions of Americans living in planned communities. You receive a violation notice for a minor infraction on your property, yet when you look at the common areas your HOA is responsible for, you see overgrown weeds, cracked sidewalks, and general disrepair. It feels deeply unfair. Why are homeowners held to a strict standard while the association itself seems to neglect its duties?
This exact frustration drove Debra K. Morin to take on her Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association. Armed with over 300 photographs documenting every weed and crack, she was certain her case was airtight. But she lost. The reasons why her case failed are a stark warning for any homeowner, revealing a legal battle that hinged entirely on the community’s binding contract: the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
——————————————————————————–
The 5 Surprising Lessons from One Homeowner’s HOA Lawsuit
1. The “Sole Judge” Clause: Your HOA’s Ultimate Defense
The single most critical factor in this case was a single clause buried in the HOA’s governing documents. Ms. Morin argued that the HOA must “maintain in good condition and repair at all times” the common areas, believing this was the same standard applied to homeowners. However, the HOA pointed to CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1, which designates the HOA Board as the “sole judge as to the appropriate maintenance, repair and replacement” of all common areas.
This clause proved to be an almost impenetrable defense. In essence, the legal standard for maintenance was not what a “reasonable person” would consider good repair, but whatever the Board, in its exclusive judgment, decided was appropriate. Even with extensive photo evidence, the case failed because the contract Ms. Morin agreed to when she bought her home gave the Board the ultimate discretion. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision made this crystal clear:
“While the CC&Rs allow an owner to bring to the Board a complaint, the CC&Rs specify that the Board is the sole judge regarding appropriate maintenance, repair and replacement of all AREAS.”
This “sole judge” clause is the cornerstone of a much broader power imbalance, one that is codified throughout the governing documents.
2. A Power Imbalance Is Written into the Rules
While Ms. Morin argued for an equal standard of responsibility, the legal documents revealed a clear and intentional power imbalance. CC&R Article 9, Section 9.5, granted the HOA the “exclusive right to construe and interpret the provisions of the [CC&Rs],” and stated that its interpretation is “final, conclusive and binding.”
This structure legally transforms the relationship from a partnership of equals into one of administrator and subject, where one party holds the power of final interpretation. The governing documents describe in detail how the HOA can levy penalties against an owner for violations, but they provide no equivalent process for an owner to penalize the HOA for its failures. The judge in the rehearing decision explicitly summarized this built-in hierarchy:
“Thus, it is clear, that pursuant to the governing documents, the Board’s authority is lifted above that of a homeowner.”
With the Board’s authority so clearly established, Ms. Morin’s mountain of evidence was about to run into a contractual brick wall.
3. An “Enormity of Evidence” Isn’t Always the Right Evidence
Ms. Morin presented a significant volume of evidence, starting with over 80 photographs in the first hearing and later referencing what she called an “enormity” of evidence totaling over 300 pictures of weeds, damaged sidewalks, and other maintenance issues.
The critical legal distinction the judge made was that the photographs documented the condition of the common areas, but they did not prove a violation of the governing documents. The legal question was not, “Are there weeds?” The question was, “Did the Board violate a contract that explicitly makes it the sole judge of maintenance?” This demonstrates that in a contract dispute, the quality of evidence is defined by its relevance to the specific contractual terms, not its sheer volume.
4. “At All Times” Doesn’t Mean “Instantly”
A key part of the homeowner’s argument was that the HOA was failing to “maintain in good condition and repair at all times” by allowing maintenance issues to persist for months. In response, the HOA detailed its operational reality. The HOA provided evidence of long-term capital plans, such as sealing street cracks every two years and major sidewalk repairs on a four-year cycle. Daily tasks, like weed control, were handled by landscape crews operating on a continuous, rotating schedule across the large community.
From a legal perspective, “at all times” is interpreted through the lens of operational reasonableness for a large entity, not as a guarantee of immediate perfection. For an organization managing a vast property, this standard is met through consistent processes and schedules, not by fixing every issue the moment it is reported.
5. Your Dissatisfaction Is Not a Lawsuit
At its heart, the case was driven by Ms. Morin’s deep frustration. The judge recognized that her petition stemmed from a core belief that the Board and its General Manager were unresponsive and providing poor oversight. While these feelings may have been valid, they were not legally actionable on their own. The judge’s decision in the rehearing drew a firm line between a homeowner’s frustration and a legal claim:
“However, a homeowner’s dissatisfaction with management is not within the purview of this process or the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.”
This highlights a common misconception: while feelings of poor customer service are valid, they are legally irrelevant unless they can be tied to a specific, provable breach of the governing documents or a violation of state law.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: Read Before You Sign
The primary lesson from this case is the absolute authority of a community’s governing documents. In any dispute, the specific, written words of the CC&Rs—the contract you sign when you buy your home—will almost always outweigh a homeowner’s subjective standards, sense of fairness, or even a mountain of photographic evidence.
This case serves as a powerful reminder that from a contractual standpoint, the rules are not always designed to be “fair,” but to be enforceable. It leaves every homeowner with a critical question:
Before you complain about your HOA, have you read the rulebook they’re playing by—and that you agreed to?
The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's single-issue petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish that the Respondent HOA violated the governing CC&R provisions.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the alleged CC&R violations; specifically, the HOA was found to have the right to enter property for certain conditions (including emergencies or maintenance) but was under no obligation to do so, and the situation was not determined to be a true emergency by the ALJ.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether 10000 North Central Homeowners Association violated the CC&R's Article XII, Section 6 & Article XIII, Section 1(d) & 4.
Petitioner claimed the Association violated specified CC&R sections by refusing to grant access to the neighboring property to determine and resolve the source of a water leak. Petitioner requested an ORDER requiring the Association to allow access. The ALJ found that the CC&Rs grant the HOA the right to enter, but not the obligation, and Petitioner failed to prove an emergency situation or a violation of the CC&Rs.
Orders: Petitioner's petition in this matter was denied.
Briefing Document: Abbass v. 10000 North Central Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings from two Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Susan E. Abbass (Petitioner) and the 10000 North Central Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute was the Petitioner’s request for the Association to exercise its authority under the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to enter a neighboring property to inspect the source of a persistent water leak affecting the Petitioner’s home.
The ALJ ultimately denied the Petitioner’s petition and subsequent appeal. The central conclusion across both hearings was that while the Association’s CC&Rs grant it the right to enter a member’s property under specific circumstances (such as for inspections or emergencies), they do not impose an obligation or duty to do so. The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to demonstrate that the Association violated any provision of the CC&Rs. The ALJ characterized the situation as a “neighbor versus neighbor dispute” and determined that the Association acted within its business judgment by requiring more definitive proof of the leak’s source before authorizing entry, citing concerns over potential liability.
Case Overview
This matter involves a single-issue petition filed by a homeowner against her Homeowners Association (HOA) with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The case was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for adjudication.
Case Details
Information
Case Number
20F-H2020057-REL
Petitioner
Susan E. Abbass
Respondent
10000 North Central Homeowners Association
Administrative Law Judge
Adam D. Stone
Initial Hearing Date
July 28, 2020
Rehearing Date
November 24, 2020
Core Allegation
The Association violated CC&Rs Article XII, Section 6 and Article XIII, Sections 1(d) & 4 by failing to grant access to a neighbor’s property to investigate a water leak.
Chronology of Key Events
1. November 14, 2019: Ronald Pick, residing with the Petitioner, discovers the home office carpet is “completely soaked with water.” He determines the drainage issue originates from the neighboring property.
2. November 2019: After the neighbor refuses to cooperate, the Petitioner contacts Robert Kersten, the Association’s Community Manager. Kersten sends a violation notice to the neighbor.
3. January 2020: The Association’s Board of Directors informs Kersten that they will handle the matter directly, and he ceases interaction with the Petitioner.
4. May 5, 2020: The Petitioner files a single-issue petition against the Association with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, paying a $500.00 fee.
5. July 28, 2020: The initial evidentiary hearing is held before an Administrative Law Judge.
6. August 17, 2020: The ALJ issues a decision denying the Petitioner’s petition, finding she failed to meet her burden of proof.
7. August 31, 2020: The Petitioner files a request for a rehearing.
8. October 14, 2020: The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate grants the request for a rehearing.
9. November 24, 2020: The rehearing is conducted.
10. December 1, 2020: The ALJ issues a final decision, again finding for the Respondent and dismissing the Petitioner’s appeal.
Summary of Arguments
Petitioner’s Position (Susan E. Abbass)
• The Problem: A water leak originating from a neighboring property caused damage, with recurring water intrusion during rainfall.
• Attempted Resolution: The Petitioner and Mr. Pick attempted to work with the neighbor, who was uncooperative on the advice of her insurance company. They then sought the Association’s help to gain access for inspection.
• Core Argument: The Petitioner argued that the water leak constituted an “emergency situation” and that the Association had an obligation under the CC&Rs to grant access to the neighbor’s property for inspection.
• Evidence Provided: The Petitioner provided the Association with all available evidence, including a report from the City of Phoenix.
• Financial Responsibility: The Petitioner offered to pay for a geotechnical engineer and any associated costs for the inspection.
• Legal Basis: The Petitioner claimed the Association violated CC&Rs Article XII, Section 6 and Article XIII, Sections 1(d) and 4.
Respondent’s Position (10000 North Central HOA)
• Actions Taken: The Association, through its manager Robert Kersten, acknowledged the complaint and sent a violation notice to the neighbor regarding improper vegetation. They also contacted the neighbor to request access.
• Core Argument: The Association contended that the CC&Rs do not allow its manager to authorize entry “whenever they feel like it.” Entry requires “reasonable justification” and “some type of proof,” which the Board determined had not been provided by the Petitioner.
• Business Judgment and Liability: Respondent’s counsel argued the Board was exercising its business judgment to avoid potential liability that could arise from granting third-party access to a member’s property without sufficient cause.
• Neighbor’s Actions: The Association stated that, to its knowledge, the neighbor’s insurance company inspected the water flow and determined the neighbor was not at fault.
• Evidence Provided: At the rehearing, the Association submitted photographs (Exhibits K, L, M) purportedly showing a fixed pipe and drainage flowing away from the Petitioner’s property.
Analysis of CC&R Provisions
The dispute centered on the interpretation of specific articles within the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions.
Article
Provision Summary
XII, Section 6
Easement in Favor of Association: Grants the Association and its agents the right to enter Lots for specific purposes, including: (a) inspection of owner maintenance, (c) correction of emergency conditions, and (d) exercising its powers and duties.
XIII, Section 1(d)
Drainage Flow: States that “nothing shall be erected, planted or maintained to impede or interrupt said or normal drainage flow” in patio or yard areas that have been graded for drainage.
XIII, Section 4
Owner Maintenance and Association’s Right to Enter: Requires owners to keep their Lot in good order and repair. If an owner fails, the Association “shall have the right to enter upon said Lot or Patio to correct drainage and to repair, maintain and restore the Lot…” after providing notice to the owner and receiving approval from the Board.
Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Rulings
The ALJ’s conclusions were consistent across both the initial decision and the rehearing. The Petitioner bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association violated the CC&Rs.
Key Findings from the Initial Decision (August 17, 2020)
• Right vs. Obligation: The judge’s central finding was that the Petitioner was “incorrect that the Respondent has an ‘obligation’ to enter the property.” The CC&Rs grant the Association a right to enter but do not impose a duty or obligation to do so.
• Lack of “True Emergency”: While Mr. Pick testified about water damage during rain, the judge noted a lack of testimony on the extent of the damage. The fact that over eight months had passed since the initial leak discovery indicated there was “no true emergency situation.”
• Stalemate and Business Judgment: The judge acknowledged the “stalemate” where the Petitioner could not obtain more proof without access, and the Association would not grant access without more proof. The Association’s decision was framed as an exercise of business judgment based on its determination that the submitted proof did not meet its standard for entry.
• Nature of the Dispute: The matter was characterized as a “neighbor versus neighbor dispute,” implying the Association was not the proper party to compel action.
• Conclusion: The Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof.
Key Findings from the Rehearing Decision (December 1, 2020)
• No New Evidence: The Petitioner “failed to provide new evidence or witness testimony” that would alter the original conclusion.
• Petitioner’s Concession: During the rehearing, the Petitioner “agreed that Respondent does not have an obligation to enter the property, only the right.”
• Respondent’s Compliance: The ALJ concluded that the Association “acted in compliance with the CC&Rs.” It was “receptive to the information provided by Petitioner and requested the neighboring property owners cooperation.” The lack of the neighbor’s full cooperation did not constitute a violation by the Association.
• Jurisdictional Limits: The judge stated that under statute A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A), an ALJ can only order a party to abide by the community documents. The judge “cannot force the neighbor or the Respondent to grant access to the property.”
• Incorrect Venue: The decision noted that “it appears that Petitioner has or the incorrect venue and possibly party to grant the relief for which it seeks.”
Final Disposition
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition in this matter be denied. The final decision from the rehearing on December 1, 2020, named the Respondent as the prevailing party and dismissed the Petitioner’s appeal. This order is binding on the parties, with any further appeal requiring judicial review in the superior court within thirty-five days of the order being served.
Study Guide – 20F-H2020057-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Abbass v. 10000 North Central Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a review of the administrative case involving Petitioner Susan E. Abbass and Respondent 10000 North Central Homeowners Association. It covers the initial hearing and the subsequent rehearing concerning an alleged violation of the Association’s governing documents. The materials are designed to test and deepen understanding of the case facts, legal arguments, and final rulings.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based on the information provided in the case documents.
1. Who are the primary parties in this case, and what are their respective roles?
2. What specific event on November 14, 2019, initiated the dispute between the Petitioner and her neighbor?
3. Identify the specific articles and sections of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that the Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated.
4. According to the Respondent’s property manager, Robert Kersten, what was required before the Association could authorize entry onto a member’s property?
5. What was the central legal distinction made by the Administrative Law Judge regarding the Association’s power to enter a property under the CC&Rs?
6. What was the outcome of the initial hearing on July 28, 2020, and what was the judge’s primary reason for this decision?
7. On what grounds did the Petitioner file her request for a rehearing after the initial decision?
8. Did the Petitioner present new evidence or testimony at the rehearing that changed the outcome? Explain briefly.
9. According to the Administrative Law Judge, what is the legal definition of “preponderance of the evidence”?
10. What limitations on the Administrative Law Judge’s authority are described in A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A), and how did this affect the final order?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Susan E. Abbass, the Petitioner, and the 10000 North Central Homeowners Association, the Respondent. The Petitioner is a property owner and Association member who filed a complaint, while the Respondent is the homeowners’ association responsible for governing the community.
2. On or about November 14, 2019, Ronald Pick, who resides with the Petitioner, discovered that the carpet in their home office was completely soaked with water. He ultimately determined the drainage problem originated from the neighboring property, which sparked the dispute.
3. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated Article XII, Section 6, as well as Article XIII, Sections 1(d) and 4 of the CC&Rs. These sections relate to the Association’s easement rights for inspection and maintenance, rules against impeding drainage flow, and an owner’s duty to keep their lot in good repair.
4. Robert Kersten testified that the Association could not authorize entrance onto another’s property “whenever they feel like it.” He stated there must be “reasonable justification” and “some type of proof” to allow for access, which he determined the Petitioner had not provided.
5. The Administrative Law Judge determined that the CC&Rs give the Respondent the right to enter a property for specific purposes, but they do not impose an obligation to do so. This distinction was crucial, as the judge concluded the Association was not required to act, even if it had the authority.
6. In the initial hearing, the judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The primary reason was that the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Respondent had violated a provision of the CC&Rs.
7. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on the grounds that the initial findings of fact were “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion” and that the decision was “not supported by the evidence or is contrary to law.”
8. No, the Petitioner failed to provide new evidence or witness testimony at the rehearing that demonstrated a violation by the Respondent. The judge concluded that the Petitioner again failed to sustain her burden of proof, leading to the dismissal of her appeal.
9. The judge cites two definitions for “preponderance of the evidence.” The first is “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” The second, from Black’s Law Dictionary, is “The greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
10. A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A) states that the judge “may order any party to abide by the statutes, condominium documents, community documents or contract provision at issue.” The judge interpreted this to mean he could not force the Respondent or the neighbor to grant access to the property, as his only power was to order compliance with the CC&Rs, which had not been violated.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses. Use the details from the case documents to construct a thorough and well-supported argument for each prompt. (Answers not provided).
1. Analyze the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. Explain what the Petitioner needed to demonstrate to prevail and detail the specific reasons cited by the Administrative Law Judge for why she failed to meet this standard in both the initial hearing and the rehearing.
2. Discuss the legal and practical reasoning behind the Respondent’s decision not to grant access to the neighboring property. Evaluate the “business judgment” defense, the potential liability concerns, and the characterization of the issue as a “neighbor versus neighbor dispute.”
3. Examine the distinction between a “right” and an “obligation” as interpreted by the Administrative Law Judge from the CC&Rs. How did this interpretation become the central pillar of the decisions in this case, and what does it reveal about the scope of a homeowners’ association’s power?
4. Trace the procedural history of this case from the initial filing of the petition to the final order after the rehearing. Identify each key date and procedural step, and explain the purpose and outcome of each stage of the administrative hearing process.
5. Imagine you are advising the Petitioner after the final decision. Based on the judge’s conclusions that the Petitioner was in the “incorrect venue and possibly party,” what alternative legal avenues might she pursue to resolve the underlying water leak issue? Use evidence from the text to support your suggestions.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, hears evidence, and makes legal rulings and decisions, in this case for the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Arizona Department of Real Estate
The state agency in Arizona authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings involving disputes between homeowners and their homeowners’ associations.
Burden of Proof
The duty of a party in a legal proceeding to prove a disputed assertion or charge. In this case, the Petitioner had the burden to prove her claims by a preponderance of the evidence.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community or subdivision. The Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated specific articles within these documents.
Easement
A legal right to use another person’s land for a specific, limited purpose. In this case, Article XII Section 6 of the CC&Rs granted an easement to the Association for purposes such as inspection, maintenance, and correction of emergencies.
Jurisdiction
The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings had jurisdiction to hear and decide this case pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency in Arizona responsible for conducting evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, providing an impartial forum for disputes like the one in this case.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this matter, Susan E. Abbass was the Petitioner.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in most civil cases. It is defined in the text as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and as evidence with “the most convincing force.”
Prevailing Party
The party who wins a lawsuit or legal action. In the rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent was the prevailing party.
Rehearing
A second hearing of a case to reconsider the issues and decision. A rehearing was granted in this case after the Petitioner claimed the initial decision was arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the 10000 North Central Homeowners Association was the Respondent.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020057-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Abbass v. 10000 North Central Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a review of the administrative case involving Petitioner Susan E. Abbass and Respondent 10000 North Central Homeowners Association. It covers the initial hearing and the subsequent rehearing concerning an alleged violation of the Association’s governing documents. The materials are designed to test and deepen understanding of the case facts, legal arguments, and final rulings.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based on the information provided in the case documents.
1. Who are the primary parties in this case, and what are their respective roles?
2. What specific event on November 14, 2019, initiated the dispute between the Petitioner and her neighbor?
3. Identify the specific articles and sections of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that the Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated.
4. According to the Respondent’s property manager, Robert Kersten, what was required before the Association could authorize entry onto a member’s property?
5. What was the central legal distinction made by the Administrative Law Judge regarding the Association’s power to enter a property under the CC&Rs?
6. What was the outcome of the initial hearing on July 28, 2020, and what was the judge’s primary reason for this decision?
7. On what grounds did the Petitioner file her request for a rehearing after the initial decision?
8. Did the Petitioner present new evidence or testimony at the rehearing that changed the outcome? Explain briefly.
9. According to the Administrative Law Judge, what is the legal definition of “preponderance of the evidence”?
10. What limitations on the Administrative Law Judge’s authority are described in A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A), and how did this affect the final order?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Susan E. Abbass, the Petitioner, and the 10000 North Central Homeowners Association, the Respondent. The Petitioner is a property owner and Association member who filed a complaint, while the Respondent is the homeowners’ association responsible for governing the community.
2. On or about November 14, 2019, Ronald Pick, who resides with the Petitioner, discovered that the carpet in their home office was completely soaked with water. He ultimately determined the drainage problem originated from the neighboring property, which sparked the dispute.
3. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated Article XII, Section 6, as well as Article XIII, Sections 1(d) and 4 of the CC&Rs. These sections relate to the Association’s easement rights for inspection and maintenance, rules against impeding drainage flow, and an owner’s duty to keep their lot in good repair.
4. Robert Kersten testified that the Association could not authorize entrance onto another’s property “whenever they feel like it.” He stated there must be “reasonable justification” and “some type of proof” to allow for access, which he determined the Petitioner had not provided.
5. The Administrative Law Judge determined that the CC&Rs give the Respondent the right to enter a property for specific purposes, but they do not impose an obligation to do so. This distinction was crucial, as the judge concluded the Association was not required to act, even if it had the authority.
6. In the initial hearing, the judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The primary reason was that the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Respondent had violated a provision of the CC&Rs.
7. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on the grounds that the initial findings of fact were “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion” and that the decision was “not supported by the evidence or is contrary to law.”
8. No, the Petitioner failed to provide new evidence or witness testimony at the rehearing that demonstrated a violation by the Respondent. The judge concluded that the Petitioner again failed to sustain her burden of proof, leading to the dismissal of her appeal.
9. The judge cites two definitions for “preponderance of the evidence.” The first is “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” The second, from Black’s Law Dictionary, is “The greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
10. A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A) states that the judge “may order any party to abide by the statutes, condominium documents, community documents or contract provision at issue.” The judge interpreted this to mean he could not force the Respondent or the neighbor to grant access to the property, as his only power was to order compliance with the CC&Rs, which had not been violated.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses. Use the details from the case documents to construct a thorough and well-supported argument for each prompt. (Answers not provided).
1. Analyze the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. Explain what the Petitioner needed to demonstrate to prevail and detail the specific reasons cited by the Administrative Law Judge for why she failed to meet this standard in both the initial hearing and the rehearing.
2. Discuss the legal and practical reasoning behind the Respondent’s decision not to grant access to the neighboring property. Evaluate the “business judgment” defense, the potential liability concerns, and the characterization of the issue as a “neighbor versus neighbor dispute.”
3. Examine the distinction between a “right” and an “obligation” as interpreted by the Administrative Law Judge from the CC&Rs. How did this interpretation become the central pillar of the decisions in this case, and what does it reveal about the scope of a homeowners’ association’s power?
4. Trace the procedural history of this case from the initial filing of the petition to the final order after the rehearing. Identify each key date and procedural step, and explain the purpose and outcome of each stage of the administrative hearing process.
5. Imagine you are advising the Petitioner after the final decision. Based on the judge’s conclusions that the Petitioner was in the “incorrect venue and possibly party,” what alternative legal avenues might she pursue to resolve the underlying water leak issue? Use evidence from the text to support your suggestions.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, hears evidence, and makes legal rulings and decisions, in this case for the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Arizona Department of Real Estate
The state agency in Arizona authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings involving disputes between homeowners and their homeowners’ associations.
Burden of Proof
The duty of a party in a legal proceeding to prove a disputed assertion or charge. In this case, the Petitioner had the burden to prove her claims by a preponderance of the evidence.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community or subdivision. The Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated specific articles within these documents.
Easement
A legal right to use another person’s land for a specific, limited purpose. In this case, Article XII Section 6 of the CC&Rs granted an easement to the Association for purposes such as inspection, maintenance, and correction of emergencies.
Jurisdiction
The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings had jurisdiction to hear and decide this case pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency in Arizona responsible for conducting evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, providing an impartial forum for disputes like the one in this case.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this matter, Susan E. Abbass was the Petitioner.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in most civil cases. It is defined in the text as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and as evidence with “the most convincing force.”
Prevailing Party
The party who wins a lawsuit or legal action. In the rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent was the prevailing party.
Rehearing
A second hearing of a case to reconsider the issues and decision. A rehearing was granted in this case after the Petitioner claimed the initial decision was arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the 10000 North Central Homeowners Association was the Respondent.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Susan E Abbass(petitioner)
Ronald Pick(witness) witness for Petitioner
Respondent Side
Blake Johnson(HOA attorney) Brown Olcott, PLLC
Robert Kersten(property manager) witness for Respondent
Kelly Oetinger(HOA attorney) Brown Olcott, PLLC
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ)
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's single-issue petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish that the Respondent HOA violated the governing CC&R provisions.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the alleged CC&R violations; specifically, the HOA was found to have the right to enter property for certain conditions (including emergencies or maintenance) but was under no obligation to do so, and the situation was not determined to be a true emergency by the ALJ.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether 10000 North Central Homeowners Association violated the CC&R's Article XII, Section 6 & Article XIII, Section 1(d) & 4.
Petitioner claimed the Association violated specified CC&R sections by refusing to grant access to the neighboring property to determine and resolve the source of a water leak. Petitioner requested an ORDER requiring the Association to allow access. The ALJ found that the CC&Rs grant the HOA the right to enter, but not the obligation, and Petitioner failed to prove an emergency situation or a violation of the CC&Rs.
Orders: Petitioner's petition in this matter was denied.
Briefing Document: Abbass vs. 10000 North Central Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and final order from the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in case number 20F-H2020057-REL-RHG, a dispute between homeowner Susan E. Abbass (Petitioner) and the 10000 North Central Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute was the Petitioner’s request for the HOA to compel an inspection of a neighboring property, believed to be the source of a recurring water leak into her home.
The ALJ ultimately dismissed the Petitioner’s case, ruling in favor of the Respondent. The decision hinged on a critical distinction within the community’s governing documents (CCR’s): while the HOA possesses the right to enter a property under certain conditions, it does not have an explicit obligation to do so. The Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the HOA had violated the CCR’s. The ALJ concluded that the HOA acted reasonably by contacting the neighbor and reviewing the provided information, and that forcing access without more definitive proof could expose the HOA to legal risk. The decision suggests the Petitioner may be pursuing relief in an incorrect venue or against the incorrect party.
Case Overview
Case Name
Susan E Abbass vs. 10000 North Central Homeowners Association
Case Number
20F-H2020057-REL-RHG
Jurisdiction
In the Office of Administrative Hearings (Arizona)
Administrative Law Judge
Adam D. Stone
Petitioner
Susan E. Abbass
Respondent
10000 North Central Homeowners Association (represented by Blake Johnson, Esq.)
Hearing Date
November 24, 2020 (Rehearing)
Decision Date
December 1, 2020
Core Dispute and Allegations
Petitioner’s Central Claim
The Petitioner, Susan E. Abbass, alleged that the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCR’s) by failing to authorize an inspection on a neighboring property. The Petitioner’s home was experiencing water intrusion every time it rained, and she believed the leak originated from the adjacent lot.
• Alleged Violations: The petition cited violations of the CCR’s Article XII, Section 6 and Article XIII, Sections 1(d) and 4.
• Argument: The Petitioner contended that the recurring water leak constituted an “emergency” situation, obligating the HOA to act.
Petitioner’s Position and Evidence
• Financial Responsibility: The Petitioner stated she was “ready, willing and able to be financially responsible for the cost of any inspections/surveys which needed to be performed on the neighboring property.”
• Due Diligence: Inspections and surveys conducted on her own property determined that the leak was not originating from there.
• Frustration: The Petitioner noted that over a year had passed since the leaking first occurred with no resolution from the HOA or the neighbor.
• Key Concession: During the rehearing, the Petitioner “agreed that Respondent does not have an obligation to enter the property, only the right.”
Respondent’s Defense and Actions
Respondent’s Position
The HOA argued that it did not have sufficient evidence to justify compelling access to the neighboring property. The property manager, Robert Kersten, testified for the Respondent.
• Lack of Proof: The HOA determined that the information provided by the Petitioner did not meet the criteria for forcing entry onto the neighbor’s property.
• Legal Risk: The Respondent expressed concern that if it “overstepped its authority, it could open itself up to other causes of action.”
Actions Taken by the HOA
Despite denying the Petitioner’s request to force an inspection, the HOA took the following steps:
• It reached out to the neighboring property owner to request access.
• It sent a warning letter to the neighbor regarding “improper vegetation” on the property.
• It contacted the neighbor, who, upon information and belief, had her insurance company inspect the water flow. The insurance company reportedly determined the neighbor was not at fault.
• At the rehearing, the Respondent submitted photographic evidence (Exhibits K, L, and M) purportedly showing a fixed pipe and drainage moving away from the Petitioner’s property.
Procedural History and Rehearing
1. Petition Filed (May 5, 2020): Petitioner filed a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
2. Initial Hearing (July 28, 2020): The first hearing was conducted.
3. Initial Decision (August 17, 2020): The ALJ issued a decision concluding the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof, as the HOA only had the right to enter the property, not an obligation.
4. Rehearing Request (August 31, 2020): Petitioner requested a rehearing, claiming the decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion” and “not supported by the evidence or is contrary to law.”
5. Rehearing Granted (October 14, 2020): The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate granted the rehearing request.
6. Rehearing Conducted (November 24, 2020): The ALJ conducted a new hearing to reconsider the evidence.
Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions
Burden of Proof
The ALJ reiterated that the Petitioner bears the burden to prove the alleged violations by a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as evidence with “the most convincing force” that is “sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
• Conclusion on Evidence: The ALJ found that on rehearing, the “Petitioner failed to provide new evidence or witness testimony demonstrating that Respondent violated Article XII and Article XIII of the CCR’s.”
Key Judicial Determinations
• Right vs. Obligation: The central legal conclusion is that the HOA’s authority is discretionary. The CCR’s grant a right to enter property but do not impose an obligation to do so upon a homeowner’s request.
• HOA’s Conduct: The judge determined that the HOA had acted appropriately and in compliance with the CCR’s. The decision notes, “Respondent was receptive to the information provided by Petitioner and requested the neighboring property owners cooperation. While the neighboring owner may not have fully cooperated to the liking of Petitioner, Respondent still followed the CCR’s to the best of its ability at this point.”
• Statutory Limitations on ALJ: The ALJ is bound by Arizona statute A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A), which limits the judge’s authority to ordering a party to “abide by the statutes, condominium documents, community documents or contract provision at issue.” The ALJ concluded, “it too cannot force the neighbor or the Respondent to grant access to the property.”
• Incorrect Venue: The decision strongly suggests the Petitioner is pursuing the wrong legal remedy: “While the possibility of future leaking is certainly frustrating, it appears that Petitioner has or the incorrect venue and possibly party to grant the relief for which it seeks.”
Final Order and Implications
• Ruling: The ALJ ordered that “the Respondent is the prevailing party with regard to the rehearing, and Petitioner’s appeal is dismissed.”
• Binding Nature: As a result of a rehearing, the administrative law judge order is binding on the parties.
• Appeal Process: Any party wishing to appeal the order must seek judicial review by filing with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served.
Study Guide – 20F-H2020057-REL
Study Guide: Abbass v. 10000 North Central Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 20F-H2020057-REL-RHG, involving Petitioner Susan E. Abbass and Respondent 10000 North Central Homeowners Association. It includes a short-answer quiz with an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a thorough understanding of the case’s facts, legal arguments, and procedural history.
——————————————————————————–
Short Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the case document.
1. Who were the primary parties in this case, and what was the central dispute?
2. What specific articles of the community documents did the Petitioner allege the Respondent had violated?
3. What was the outcome of the initial administrative hearing held on July 28, 2020?
4. On what legal grounds did the Petitioner successfully request a rehearing of the case?
5. What was the Respondent’s main argument for not forcing an inspection of the neighboring property?
6. What key point regarding the Respondent’s authority did the Petitioner concede during the rehearing?
7. According to the decision, who bears the burden of proof, and what is the evidentiary standard required to meet it?
8. What evidence did the Respondent introduce during the rehearing on November 24, 2020?
9. What was the final ruling of the Administrative Law Judge, and what did the order state?
10. What specific limitation on the Administrative Law Judge’s power is cited in the Conclusions of Law?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Susan E. Abbass, and the Respondent, 10000 North Central Homeowners Association. The central dispute was the Petitioner’s claim that the Respondent failed to fulfill its duty by not allowing an inspection on a neighboring property to find the source of a water leak affecting the Petitioner’s home.
2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had violated Article XII, Section 6 and Article XIII, Sections 1(d) and 4 of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCR’s).
3. Following the July 28, 2020 hearing, the Administrative Law Judge issued a decision on August 17, 2020, concluding that the Petitioner had failed to meet her burden of proof. The judge found that the Respondent only had the right to enter the neighboring property, not an obligation to do so.
4. The Petitioner’s request for rehearing was granted based on her claims that the initial findings of fact were “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion” and that the decision was “not supported by the evidence or is contrary to law.”
5. The Respondent argued that the Petitioner had not provided sufficient proof of the neighbor’s fault to justify forcing access. The Respondent was also concerned that overstepping its authority could expose the association to other legal actions.
6. During the rehearing, the Petitioner agreed with the Respondent’s position that the association does not have an obligation to enter the neighboring property, only the right to do so.
7. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof. The evidentiary standard is “preponderance of the evidence,” which is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.
8. At the rehearing, the Respondent introduced Exhibits K, L, and M. These were photographs that purportedly showed where a pipe was fixed and how drainage moves away from the Petitioner’s property.
9. The final ruling concluded that the Respondent had not violated the CCR’s and was the prevailing party. The order dismissed the Petitioner’s appeal.
10. The decision cites A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A), which states that an Administrative Law Judge may only order a party to abide by the statutes, community documents, or contract provisions at issue. The judge cannot force the Respondent or the neighbor to grant access to the property.
——————————————————————————–
Suggested Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth, essay-format response. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the legal distinction between a “right” and an “obligation” as it pertains to the Homeowners Association’s authority under the CCR’s in this case. How was this distinction central to the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision?
2. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the legal decision. Detail the evidence and arguments presented by both the Petitioner and Respondent, and explain why the judge ultimately concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet this standard.
3. Trace the complete procedural history of this case, from the filing of the initial petition to the final order. Identify the key dates, actions taken by each party, and the rulings made at each stage of the administrative process.
4. Evaluate the actions taken by the Respondent (10000 North Central Homeowners Association) in response to the Petitioner’s complaint. Based on the Findings of Fact, did the association act reasonably and in compliance with the CCR’s?
5. Explain the jurisdiction and statutory limitations of the Office of Administrative Hearings in resolving disputes between homeowners and their associations, as outlined in the decision. What remedies were available to the Petitioner through this venue, and why was the specific relief she sought beyond the judge’s power to grant?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over administrative hearings, considers evidence, and issues a legal decision. In this case, the ALJ was Adam D. Stone.
A.R.S.
Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
Arizona Department of Real Estate
The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings involving homeowners’ associations in Arizona.
Burden of Proof
The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this case, the burden of proof was on the Petitioner.
An abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community or subdivision.
Office of Administrative Hearings
The government office where administrative law judges hear disputes concerning state agencies.
Order Granting Rehearing
A formal order issued by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate that approved the Petitioner’s request for a second hearing.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action or files a petition. In this case, the Petitioner was Susan E. Abbass.
Planned Community
A real estate development that includes common property and is governed by a homeowners’ association.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this case. It is met when the evidence presented is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Prevailing Party
The party who wins a legal case or dispute. In the final decision, the Respondent was named the prevailing party.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent was the 10000 North Central Homeowners Association.
Tribunal
A body established to settle certain types of disputes. In this context, it refers to the Office of Administrative Hearings where the case was heard.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020057-REL
Briefing Document: Abbass vs. 10000 North Central Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and final order from the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in case number 20F-H2020057-REL-RHG, a dispute between homeowner Susan E. Abbass (Petitioner) and the 10000 North Central Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute was the Petitioner’s request for the HOA to compel an inspection of a neighboring property, believed to be the source of a recurring water leak into her home.
The ALJ ultimately dismissed the Petitioner’s case, ruling in favor of the Respondent. The decision hinged on a critical distinction within the community’s governing documents (CCR’s): while the HOA possesses the right to enter a property under certain conditions, it does not have an explicit obligation to do so. The Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the HOA had violated the CCR’s. The ALJ concluded that the HOA acted reasonably by contacting the neighbor and reviewing the provided information, and that forcing access without more definitive proof could expose the HOA to legal risk. The decision suggests the Petitioner may be pursuing relief in an incorrect venue or against the incorrect party.
Case Overview
Case Name
Susan E Abbass vs. 10000 North Central Homeowners Association
Case Number
20F-H2020057-REL-RHG
Jurisdiction
In the Office of Administrative Hearings (Arizona)
Administrative Law Judge
Adam D. Stone
Petitioner
Susan E. Abbass
Respondent
10000 North Central Homeowners Association (represented by Blake Johnson, Esq.)
Hearing Date
November 24, 2020 (Rehearing)
Decision Date
December 1, 2020
Core Dispute and Allegations
Petitioner’s Central Claim
The Petitioner, Susan E. Abbass, alleged that the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCR’s) by failing to authorize an inspection on a neighboring property. The Petitioner’s home was experiencing water intrusion every time it rained, and she believed the leak originated from the adjacent lot.
• Alleged Violations: The petition cited violations of the CCR’s Article XII, Section 6 and Article XIII, Sections 1(d) and 4.
• Argument: The Petitioner contended that the recurring water leak constituted an “emergency” situation, obligating the HOA to act.
Petitioner’s Position and Evidence
• Financial Responsibility: The Petitioner stated she was “ready, willing and able to be financially responsible for the cost of any inspections/surveys which needed to be performed on the neighboring property.”
• Due Diligence: Inspections and surveys conducted on her own property determined that the leak was not originating from there.
• Frustration: The Petitioner noted that over a year had passed since the leaking first occurred with no resolution from the HOA or the neighbor.
• Key Concession: During the rehearing, the Petitioner “agreed that Respondent does not have an obligation to enter the property, only the right.”
Respondent’s Defense and Actions
Respondent’s Position
The HOA argued that it did not have sufficient evidence to justify compelling access to the neighboring property. The property manager, Robert Kersten, testified for the Respondent.
• Lack of Proof: The HOA determined that the information provided by the Petitioner did not meet the criteria for forcing entry onto the neighbor’s property.
• Legal Risk: The Respondent expressed concern that if it “overstepped its authority, it could open itself up to other causes of action.”
Actions Taken by the HOA
Despite denying the Petitioner’s request to force an inspection, the HOA took the following steps:
• It reached out to the neighboring property owner to request access.
• It sent a warning letter to the neighbor regarding “improper vegetation” on the property.
• It contacted the neighbor, who, upon information and belief, had her insurance company inspect the water flow. The insurance company reportedly determined the neighbor was not at fault.
• At the rehearing, the Respondent submitted photographic evidence (Exhibits K, L, and M) purportedly showing a fixed pipe and drainage moving away from the Petitioner’s property.
Procedural History and Rehearing
1. Petition Filed (May 5, 2020): Petitioner filed a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
2. Initial Hearing (July 28, 2020): The first hearing was conducted.
3. Initial Decision (August 17, 2020): The ALJ issued a decision concluding the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof, as the HOA only had the right to enter the property, not an obligation.
4. Rehearing Request (August 31, 2020): Petitioner requested a rehearing, claiming the decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion” and “not supported by the evidence or is contrary to law.”
5. Rehearing Granted (October 14, 2020): The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate granted the rehearing request.
6. Rehearing Conducted (November 24, 2020): The ALJ conducted a new hearing to reconsider the evidence.
Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions
Burden of Proof
The ALJ reiterated that the Petitioner bears the burden to prove the alleged violations by a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as evidence with “the most convincing force” that is “sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
• Conclusion on Evidence: The ALJ found that on rehearing, the “Petitioner failed to provide new evidence or witness testimony demonstrating that Respondent violated Article XII and Article XIII of the CCR’s.”
Key Judicial Determinations
• Right vs. Obligation: The central legal conclusion is that the HOA’s authority is discretionary. The CCR’s grant a right to enter property but do not impose an obligation to do so upon a homeowner’s request.
• HOA’s Conduct: The judge determined that the HOA had acted appropriately and in compliance with the CCR’s. The decision notes, “Respondent was receptive to the information provided by Petitioner and requested the neighboring property owners cooperation. While the neighboring owner may not have fully cooperated to the liking of Petitioner, Respondent still followed the CCR’s to the best of its ability at this point.”
• Statutory Limitations on ALJ: The ALJ is bound by Arizona statute A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A), which limits the judge’s authority to ordering a party to “abide by the statutes, condominium documents, community documents or contract provision at issue.” The ALJ concluded, “it too cannot force the neighbor or the Respondent to grant access to the property.”
• Incorrect Venue: The decision strongly suggests the Petitioner is pursuing the wrong legal remedy: “While the possibility of future leaking is certainly frustrating, it appears that Petitioner has or the incorrect venue and possibly party to grant the relief for which it seeks.”
Final Order and Implications
• Ruling: The ALJ ordered that “the Respondent is the prevailing party with regard to the rehearing, and Petitioner’s appeal is dismissed.”
• Binding Nature: As a result of a rehearing, the administrative law judge order is binding on the parties.
• Appeal Process: Any party wishing to appeal the order must seek judicial review by filing with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Susan E Abbass(petitioner)
Ronald Pick(witness) Witness for Petitioner
Respondent Side
Blake Johnson(attorney) Brown Olcott, PLLC Represented Respondent
Robert Kersten(property manager) Property manager, appeared as a witness for Respondent
