Tag Archives: jurisdiction

Sally Magana v. Wynstone Park Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H070-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-10-29
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Sally Magana Counsel —
Respondent Wynstone Park Homeowners Association Counsel Ashley Turner

Alleged Violations

Title 8, Chapter 6, Article I – 8-6-3(T)
CC&Rs Section 7.1

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's two-issue petition. The OAH lacked jurisdiction over the alleged violation of the City of Mesa Code Ordinance (parking/nuisance). On the CC&R violation claim (mischaracterizing maintenance), Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated CC&Rs Section 7.1, as the evidence established that Petitioner made unapproved changes/alterations to the driveway extension.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs, and the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the municipal code violation claim.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA assessed a fine for public nuisances for parking on approved driveway extension

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated the Mesa City Ordinance by fining her for parking on her approved driveway extension. The extension approval dated back to 1998 and 2018.

Orders: Petition dismissed. The OAH determined it lacked jurisdiction to rule on alleged violations of City of Mesa Code Ordinances.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Title 8, Chapter 6, Article I – 8-6-3(T)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803

HOA mischaracterizing maintenance as an unauthorized modification

Petitioner claimed the work performed (lifting pavers, replacing sand with gravel/decomposed granite, and altering slope) was routine maintenance. Respondent argued this constituted an exterior change or alteration requiring prior written architectural approval, which Petitioner failed to obtain.

Orders: Petition dismissed. Petitioner failed to establish Respondent violated CC&Rs 7.1. Evidence showed Petitioner made changes to the surface under the pavers and the slope of the driveway extension without prior approval.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Section 7.1
  • CC&Rs Section 10.1
  • Powell v. Washburn
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs.
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Enforcement, Architectural Review, Maintenance vs Modification, Jurisdiction, Mesa Code Ordinance, Pavers, Driveway Extension
Additional Citations:

  • Title 8, Chapter 6, Article I – 8-6-3(T)
  • CC&Rs Section 7.1
  • CC&Rs Section 10.1
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Powell v. Washburn
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs.

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H070-REL Decision – 1350920.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:26:35 (50.9 KB)

25F-H070-REL Decision – 1352025.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:26:40 (48.7 KB)

25F-H070-REL Decision – 1355826.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:26:45 (59.1 KB)

25F-H070-REL Decision – 1363586.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:26:50 (144.5 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H070-REL


Briefing Document: Magana v. Wynstone Park Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision in case number 25F-H070-REL, Sally Magana v. Wynstone Park Homeowners Association. The petitioner, Sally Magana, filed a two-issue petition alleging the Homeowners Association (HOA) improperly fined her for a public nuisance related to parking and mischaracterized necessary property maintenance as an unauthorized architectural modification.

The respondent, Wynstone Park HOA, countered that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) lacked jurisdiction over the alleged city ordinance violation and that the work performed by the petitioner was, in fact, an unapproved “alteration” under the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The HOA maintained its enforcement actions were authorized and appropriate.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately dismissed the petitioner’s case in its entirety. The decision was based on two key findings: 1) The OAH does not have the jurisdiction to rule on violations of a municipal (City of Mesa) ordinance, and 2) The petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof to establish that the HOA violated its own governing documents. The ALJ concluded that the work performed—which included removing the original paver base, installing a new gravel surface, and altering the slope of the driveway—constituted a “change or alteration” requiring prior approval under CC&R Section 7.1, which the petitioner did not obtain.

Case Overview

Entity / Individual

Petitioner

Sally Magana (Homeowner)

Respondent

Wynstone Park Homeowners Association (HOA)

Presiding Judge

Velva Moses-Thompson, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

Case Number

25F-H070-REL

Hearing Date

October 9, 2025

Decision Date

October 29, 2025

Timeline of Key Events

July 3, 2019

HOA granted a variance allowing Ms. Magana to park anywhere on her driveway extension.

Feb 26, 2021

HOA sent a notice to Ms. Magana for parking past the garage, citing nuisance under CC&R Section 8.4.

Jan 27, 2025

Ms. Magana submitted a Design Review Application to modify drainage under her paver extension.

Feb 11, 2025

HOA’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) disapproved the application, citing the 50% lot coverage rule and nuisance complaints from a neighbor.

March 12, 2025

The HOA Board met with Ms. Magana at her property to discuss the matter.

May/June 2025

Ms. Magana proceeded with work on the pavers without ARC approval.

June 2, 2025

HOA issued a courtesy notice for an unapproved architectural change under CC&R Section 7.1.

June 11, 2025

HOA issued a Violation Notice with a $25 fine for the unapproved change.

July 14, 2025

HOA issued a second Violation Notice with a $50 fine.

July 17, 2025

Ms. Magana filed her petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Oct 29, 2025

The ALJ issued a decision dismissing the petition.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments

Ms. Magana’s case was centered on two primary allegations:

1. Violation of Public Nuisance Ordinance: The petitioner alleged the HOA violated “Title 8, Chapter 6, Article I, 8-6-3: PUBLIC NUISANCES PROHIBITED” of the City of Mesa code by fining her for parking on her driveway extension. She argued that the extension was approved in 1998 and reaffirmed by an HOA variance in 2019, making the fine improper.

2. Violation of CC&R Section 7.1 (Architectural Approval): The petitioner contended that the HOA mischaracterized routine maintenance as an “unauthorized modification.” She argued the work was necessary to correct a drainage issue causing water pooling against her foundation and creating a risk of termites. Her position was that since no new pavers were installed and the layout was not changed, the work did not constitute an architectural change requiring ARC approval. She also raised the issue of selective enforcement, providing photos of other homes with alleged violations that had not been cited.

Respondent’s Position and Defense

The HOA’s defense, presented by attorney Ashley Turner and Board President Andrew Hancock, rested on the following points:

1. Jurisdictional Challenge: The HOA argued that the OAH does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the association violated a City of Mesa ordinance, and that this issue should be dismissed on that basis alone.

2. The Work Was an “Alteration,” Not “Maintenance”: The HOA asserted that the work performed went beyond simple maintenance. Testimony revealed that the original play sand base was removed, a new decomposed granite base was installed, and the grade of the surface was altered to change the slope and water flow. The HOA considered these actions a “change or alteration” as defined in CC&R Section 7.1, which explicitly requires prior written approval from the ARC.

3. Proper Denial and Enforcement: The HOA’s denial of Ms. Magana’s initial application was based on established Design Guidelines, specifically that the total parking area “may not exceed… fifty percent (50%) of the lot width.” The denial also cited ongoing nuisance complaints from a neighbor regarding noise and access issues caused by vehicles parked on the extension. The subsequent fines were issued in accordance with the HOA’s enforcement policy after Ms. Magana completed the work without approval.

4. Authority to Enforce: The HOA cited CC&R Section 10.1, which grants it the right to enforce all covenants and restrictions in the governing documents.

Key Testimonies and Evidence

Witness Testimony

• Rita Elizalde (Petitioner’s Witness; Owner, JLE Heartscape and Design):

◦ Testified that the initial proposal, which included drains, was not executed due to the HOA’s denial.

◦ Characterized the work performed as “a maintenance on what you already had” to correct sinking pavers and water pooling against the foundation.

◦ Confirmed that the previous installer had used an improper “play sand base,” which her company removed.

◦ Stated they installed a new base of “decomposite granite,” replaced the original pavers in the same design, and added polymeric sand to lock them in.

◦ Confirmed the ground “had to be sloped back a little bit” to ensure water ran toward the street and not toward the neighbor’s property or the house foundation.

• Andrew Hancock (Respondent’s Witness; HOA Board President):

◦ Testified that the board considered the work a “change to the design of the pavers” because it addressed slope and drainage issues, which is more than basic maintenance.

◦ Stated that the board denied the initial application due to the 50% lot coverage rule and nuisance complaints from the neighbor, which included “the sound of the vehicle’s wake child” and the car blocking the neighbor’s access for taking out trash cans.

◦ Clarified that the board offered Ms. Magana two potential compromises: stopping the pavers at the garage line or bringing her fence/gate forward to be in line with the garage.

◦ Testified that photos of the work in progress (Exhibit G) showed all pavers removed and the base grading “manipulated.” He also noted what appeared to be new PVC piping.

◦ Referencing a photo of the pre-maintenance water pooling (Exhibit E), he testified that it showed water flowing “over the end border into the gravel and the neighbor’s yard.”

Key Exhibits

Exhibit #

Description & Significance

Respondent

The HOA’s CC&Rs, establishing the rules for architectural approval (Sec 7.1) and enforcement (Sec 10.1).

Respondent

Ms. Magana’s initial Design Review Application (denied) and a photo showing significant water pooling on the pavers and onto the neighboring lot.

Petitioner

Before and after photos of the paver extension, intended to show no visual change in design.

Respondent

Photos taken during the project showing all pavers removed, piled up, and the underlying base exposed and re-graded.

H, I, K

Respondent

The series of enforcement letters: Courtesy Notice (June 2), $25 Fine (June 11), and $50 Fine (July 14) for the unapproved alteration.

Petitioner

The HOA’s Design Guidelines, which include the 50% lot width limitation for parking areas.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s final decision dismissed Ms. Magana’s petition. The ruling was grounded in the following conclusions of law:

• Lack of Jurisdiction over Municipal Ordinance: The ALJ determined that “The OAH does not have jurisdiction to determine whether a planned community organization has violated a City of Mesa Code Ordinance.” This effectively dismissed the first issue of the petition without ruling on its merits.

• Petitioner’s Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: For the second issue, the ALJ found that the petitioner bore the burden of proving the HOA violated its CC&Rs and failed to do so. The decision noted:

◦ CC&R Section 7.1 regulates homeowners, requiring them to obtain prior approval for any “exterior addition, change, or alteration.”

◦ The preponderance of evidence, including testimony from the petitioner’s own witness (Ms. Elizalde), showed that changes were made to the surface under the pavers and to the slope of the driveway.

◦ These actions constitute an “alteration” under the CC&Rs.

◦ Because Ms. Magana made these changes without prior approval, she did not establish that the HOA mischaracterized her actions or violated Section 7.1.

• HOA’s Authority to Enforce: The decision affirmed that CC&R Section 10.1 authorizes the respondent to enforce its governing documents.

The final order concluded: “Petitioner has failed to meet her burden to establish that Respondent violated Respondent’s CC&Rs, governing document, or any statutes that regulate planned communities. Petitioner’s petition should be dismissed.”


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Sally Magana (petitioner)
    Also referred to as Complainant
  • Rita Elizalde (witness)
    JLE Heartscape and Design
    Also referred to as Rita Estelle
  • Jesus Ortiz (witness)
  • Adeline Escudero-Mendoza (witness)
    Also referred to as Adeline Escudero

Respondent Side

  • Ashley Turner (HOA attorney)
    CHDB Law
  • Andrew Hancock (board president/witness)
    Wynstone Park Homeowners Association
    President of Respondent's Board
  • Jennifer Irving (board member)
    Wynstone Park Homeowners Association
    Vice President of the HOA Board
  • Dawn Feigert (property manager)
    Trestle Management Group
    Community Manager
  • Lea Austin (property manager)
    Trestle Management Group
    Community Manager

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Marilyn J Fogelsong vs Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, INC.

Posted on by
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H050-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-08-05
Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marilyn J. Fogelsong Counsel —
Respondent Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, INC. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 (A) and (F)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's petition was DENIED because Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged violations, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to enforce the alleged violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof on all four issues. Issues 1, 2, and 3 lacked sufficient evidentiary support or statutory violation proof. Issue 4 was dismissed due to lack of OAH jurisdiction over ARS § 10-830.

Key Issues & Findings

The HOA failed to disclose conflicts-of-interest when hiring an HOA property manager to manage the HOA which is a violation of ARS 33-1811.

Petitioner alleged that the hiring of TRT (Tucson Realty & Trust Company, Management Services, LLC) as the HOA manager constituted an undisclosed conflict of interest because TRT also managed individual townhouses within the community.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811

The HOA has violated paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs by directing an HOA property manager to pursue an unsanctioned project for individual townhouses which is beyond the scope of HOA management for common areas.

The HOA manager solicited bids to paint the exteriors of all townhouses. Petitioner argued the HOA lacked authority to manage improvements for individual units, as Paragraph 19 limits HOA authority to common areas.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs

The board has violated the open meeting laws of ARS 33-1804 (A) and (F) by holding a private board meeting without notice; failing to provide material information, minutes, financial statements, and a budget upon request; and by failing to communicate via the designated representative.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting laws by failing to provide proper notice for meetings and failing to provide requested documentation (minutes, financial statements, etc.).

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

The board has violated ARS 10-830(A) by failing to act in good faith with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would act by failing to perform their duties.

Petitioner alleged the board failed to perform required duties in a timely or prudent manner, including failing to elect officers, manage the bank account, check the post office box, and schedule a backflow test.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Management, Conflict of Interest, Open Meeting Law, Jurisdiction, Planned Community, CC&Rs, Director Duty, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Park Association

Marilyn J Fogelsong vs Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, INC

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H050-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-08-05
Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marilyn J. Fogelsong Counsel —
Respondent Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, INC. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 (A) and (F)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's petition was DENIED because Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged violations, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to enforce the alleged violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof on all four issues. Issues 1, 2, and 3 lacked sufficient evidentiary support or statutory violation proof. Issue 4 was dismissed due to lack of OAH jurisdiction over ARS § 10-830.

Key Issues & Findings

The HOA failed to disclose conflicts-of-interest when hiring an HOA property manager to manage the HOA which is a violation of ARS 33-1811.

Petitioner alleged that the hiring of TRT (Tucson Realty & Trust Company, Management Services, LLC) as the HOA manager constituted an undisclosed conflict of interest because TRT also managed individual townhouses within the community.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811

The HOA has violated paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs by directing an HOA property manager to pursue an unsanctioned project for individual townhouses which is beyond the scope of HOA management for common areas.

The HOA manager solicited bids to paint the exteriors of all townhouses. Petitioner argued the HOA lacked authority to manage improvements for individual units, as Paragraph 19 limits HOA authority to common areas.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs

The board has violated the open meeting laws of ARS 33-1804 (A) and (F) by holding a private board meeting without notice; failing to provide material information, minutes, financial statements, and a budget upon request; and by failing to communicate via the designated representative.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting laws by failing to provide proper notice for meetings and failing to provide requested documentation (minutes, financial statements, etc.).

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

The board has violated ARS 10-830(A) by failing to act in good faith with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would act by failing to perform their duties.

Petitioner alleged the board failed to perform required duties in a timely or prudent manner, including failing to elect officers, manage the bank account, check the post office box, and schedule a backflow test.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Management, Conflict of Interest, Open Meeting Law, Jurisdiction, Planned Community, CC&Rs, Director Duty, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Park Association

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H050-REL Decision – 1336348.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:33 (157.7 KB)

25F-H050-REL Decision – 1348020.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:37 (43.9 KB)

25F-H050-REL Decision – 1380164.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:41 (51.8 KB)

25F-H050-REL Decision – 1384549.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:45 (49.0 KB)

25F-H050-REL Decision – 1384804.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:50 (7.5 KB)

25F-H050-REL Decision – 1393862.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-12T19:19:32 (59.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H050-REL


Briefing Document: Fogelsong vs. Park Townhouses Homeowners Association (Docket No. 25F-H050-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the legal dispute between Marilyn J. Fogelsong (“Petitioner”) and the Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, Inc. (“Respondent”). The case was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

The Petitioner, a co-owner of a unit in the eight-unit Park Townhouses community, filed a petition on or about March 31, 2025, alleging four distinct violations by the HOA board. These allegations included failure to disclose a conflict of interest in hiring an HOA manager, violating the community’s CC&Rs by pursuing projects for individual units, violating state open meeting laws, and failing to act in good faith as fiduciaries.

An evidentiary hearing was conducted on July 16, 2025, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Nicole Robinson. The Respondent did not appear at the hearing, and the Petitioner provided sole testimony.

On August 5, 2025, the ALJ issued a decision denying the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety. The judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence for three of the four issues. The fourth issue was dismissed on the grounds that the OAH lacked the jurisdiction to enforce the specific statute cited (A.R.S. § 10-830). A subsequent request for a rehearing filed by the Petitioner was rejected by the OAH as it was submitted to the incorrect office after the OAH’s jurisdiction had ended.

Case Overview

Case Number

25F-H050-REL

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Administrative Law Judge

Nicole Robinson

Petitioner

Marilyn J. Fogelsong

Respondent

Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, Inc.

Subject Property

Park Townhouses, an 8-unit planned community in Tucson, AZ

Petition Filed

On or about March 31, 2025

Hearing Date

July 16, 2025

Decision Issued

August 5, 2025

Final Outcome

Petition DENIED

The Parties and Property

• Petitioner Marilyn J. Fogelsong: A partial owner of unit 2467 East 1st Street since April 2021, co-owning with her 39-year-old son who resides in the unit. Fogelsong previously served as the HOA board president for three years, with her last term ending in September 2024.

• Respondent Park Townhouses HOA: A planned community association for an eight-unit townhouse development in Tucson, Arizona. Each unit owner is responsible for their own structure and lot.

• The Property: The community consists of two buildings, each with four townhouses facing each other across a 20-foot wide common driveway.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Testimony

During the July 16, 2025 hearing, Ms. Fogelsong, representing herself, presented testimony on the four issues outlined in her petition. The HOA did not appear.

Issue #1: Conflict of Interest (A.R.S. § 33-1811)

The Petitioner alleged that the HOA failed to disclose conflicts of interest when hiring Tucson Realty & Trust Company (TRT) as the HOA property manager, rendering the contract void.

• Core Allegation: On February 17, 2025, the HOA board presented only one proposal—from TRT—and asked homeowners to approve the hire without disclosing pertinent conflicts.

• Identified Conflicts:

◦ TRT’s property management division manages two units within the community (2463 and 2467) owned by then-current board members Mark Schlang (Treasurer) and Gerald Schwarzenb[erger] (Secretary).

◦ Both the property management and HOA management divisions of TRT operate under the same broker, Deborah Garcia.

• History of Misconduct by TRT: The Petitioner testified to a history of issues with TRT that she believed constituted conflicts of interest:

◦ TRT collected parking violation fines from a tenant but failed to remit them to the HOA.

◦ TRT failed to provide tenant contact information to the HOA upon request, which is a violation of Arizona law.

◦ TRT’s attorney, BL Edmonson, sent a “cease and desist” letter to Fogelsong and then invoiced the HOA for the legal fees, which Fogelsong, as president at the time, rejected. The invoice was resubmitted to the HOA 18 months later.

Issue #2: CC&R Violation (Paragraph 19)

The Petitioner alleged the HOA violated Paragraph 19 of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by directing the HOA manager to pursue an “unsanctioned project for individual townhouses.”

• Core Allegation: The HOA manager (TRT) met with a painting company on March 31, 2025, to solicit bids for painting the exteriors of all townhouses. The Petitioner argued this action is beyond the scope of the HOA’s authority, which is limited to maintaining common areas.

• Supporting Evidence:

◦ The Petitioner cited a legal opinion she obtained from an HOA attorney, Jason Smith, which concluded that the HOA does not have the right to conduct repairs on individual units.

◦ She referenced a past incident where another homeowner, David Zinfeld, paid an assessment for awning wood repair “under protest” because the funds were being used for an individual unit, not a common area.

Issue #3: Open Meeting Law Violations (A.R.S. § 33-1804)

The Petitioner claimed the board violated Arizona’s open meeting laws through multiple actions.

• Secret Meeting: The board held a private meeting to approve TRT as the manager before the February 17, 2025, homeowners meeting where the vote occurred. No notice of this prior board meeting was given to homeowners.

• Failure to Provide Information: The Petitioner made multiple requests for documents that were ignored. She requested management proposals on February 4, 2025, and later requested minutes, financial statements, and property management agreements, none of which were provided.

• Disregarded Standing: In its written response to the petition, the HOA claimed the Petitioner lacked “sufficient standing” due to her “limited ownership stake,” a position the Petitioner refutes based on her recorded deed.

Issue #4: Failure to Act in Good Faith (A.R.S. § 10-830A)

The Petitioner alleged the board failed to perform its duties with the care an “ordinarily prudent person” would exercise.

• Dereliction of Duties:

◦ The board, elected in September 2024, waited 10 weeks to meet and elect officers.

◦ The board failed to take control of the HOA bank account until March 2025, approximately six months into its one-year term.

◦ It failed to schedule a required annual backflow test for the irrigation system, resulting in the water being shut off.

◦ It failed to replace a dead tree that was on the agenda for replacement in fall 2024.

◦ It failed to check the HOA’s post office box, leading to the return of dues checks from homeowners.

◦ It did not abate new graffiti for six weeks, at which point the Petitioner did so herself after receiving permission.

Respondent’s Position

Although the HOA was not present at the hearing, its positions were articulated in a five-page written response submitted to the Department of Real Estate on May 8, 2025, and were referenced during the hearing.

• Denial of Claims: The Respondent denied all of the Petitioner’s claims.

• Challenge to Standing: The HOA’s formal position was that Ms. Fogelsong lacked sufficient standing due to her “limited ownership stake.”

• Allegation of Ulterior Motive: The Respondent accused the Petitioner of a “calculated and systematic attempt to devalue the property and agitate the owners to possibly sell their respective units to Miss Fogong [sic] and her son at a below market value.” They claimed several owners could testify to her “repeated suggestions and solicitations to sell.”

• Claim of Non-cooperation: The HOA stated that the Petitioner had “not been fully cooperative in the transition process” regarding missing documentation after her term as president ended.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision

On August 5, 2025, ALJ Nicole Robinson issued a decision denying the petition. The core finding was that the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving the violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Findings on Each Issue

• Issue #1 (Conflict of Interest): No Violation Found. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove the hiring of TRT constituted a conflict of interest as defined by A.R.S. § 33-1811. The evidence showed that a prior management company (McElwain) also managed individual units while serving as the HOA manager, suggesting this was an established practice. The statute specifically addresses benefits to board members or their families, which was not sufficiently established by the evidence presented.

• Issue #2 (CC&R Violation): No Violation Found. The decision stated that the Petitioner failed to submit the entirety of the CC&Rs and Bylaws, providing only “snippets.” Without the complete governing documents, the tribunal could not definitively determine the scope of the HOA’s authority regarding projects on individual units. Furthermore, the evidence only showed that a bid was solicited for painting; there was no evidence that work was actually performed.

• Issue #3 (Open Meeting Law): No Violation Found. The ALJ found that the February 17, 2025, meeting was properly noticed via email. Regarding a March 5, 2025, email the Petitioner did not receive, the evidence showed her co-owner son did receive it, meaning the unit was properly notified. A December 2024 meeting was deemed emergent, for which the statute does not require prior notice.

• Issue #4 (Failure to Act in Good Faith): No Jurisdiction. The ALJ concluded that the Office of Administrative Hearings lacks jurisdiction to enforce A.R.S. § 10-830. The OAH’s authority is limited by statute to adjudicating violations of Title 33 (Planned Communities and Condominiums) and community documents, not Title 10 (Corporations and Associations).

Post-Decision Events

• On August 26, 2025, the Petitioner filed a request for a rehearing.

• On September 8, 2025, the OAH issued a Minute Entry stating that the request would not be considered because it was “inappropriately sent to the Office of Administrative Hearings.”

• The OAH’s jurisdiction over the matter had concluded with the August 5 decision. The Petitioner was advised to address any further requests to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Marilyn J. Fogelsong (petitioner)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Represented herself; former HOA President/Treasurer
  • Levi Benjamin Lazarus (co-owner/son of petitioner)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Co-owner of petitioner's unit
  • Jason Smith (HOA attorney)
    Consulted by petitioner regarding CC&R interpretation for unit repairs

Respondent Side

  • Gerald Schwarzenb (board member/Secretary)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Current HOA board member; his unit managed by TRT
  • Mark Schlang (board member/Treasurer/architect)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Current HOA board member; his unit managed by TRT
  • Deborah Garcia (broker/HOA manager)
    TRT Property Management
    Broker of TRT; homeowners voted to accept her as HOA manager
  • Andrew Viscara (HOA property manager)
    TRT Property Management
    TRT representative designated for Park Townhouses HOA management
  • Mary Lord Lr (property manager)
    TRT Property Management
    Property manager for unit 2465
  • B.L. Edmonson (attorney)
    TRT Property Management
    Wrote cease and desist letter to petitioner; billed HOA

Neutral Parties

  • Nicole Robinson (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE

Other Participants

  • David Zinfeld (homeowner/former Treasurer)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Property owner; prior treasurer during self-managed period; paid assessment under protest
  • Ray Floyd (former board member)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Served on board with petitioner during self-managed period
  • Sasha Flores (bank account signer)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Wife of Rick Flores; co-signer on HOA bank account
  • Rick Flores (homeowner/delegate)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Delegated authority to wife Sasha Flores for bank account deeds

Marilyn J Fogelsong

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H050-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-08-05
Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marilyn J. Fogelsong Counsel —
Respondent Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, INC. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 (A) and (F)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's petition was DENIED because Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged violations, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to enforce the alleged violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof on all four issues. Issues 1, 2, and 3 lacked sufficient evidentiary support or statutory violation proof. Issue 4 was dismissed due to lack of OAH jurisdiction over ARS § 10-830.

Key Issues & Findings

The HOA failed to disclose conflicts-of-interest when hiring an HOA property manager to manage the HOA which is a violation of ARS 33-1811.

Petitioner alleged that the hiring of TRT (Tucson Realty & Trust Company, Management Services, LLC) as the HOA manager constituted an undisclosed conflict of interest because TRT also managed individual townhouses within the community.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811

The HOA has violated paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs by directing an HOA property manager to pursue an unsanctioned project for individual townhouses which is beyond the scope of HOA management for common areas.

The HOA manager solicited bids to paint the exteriors of all townhouses. Petitioner argued the HOA lacked authority to manage improvements for individual units, as Paragraph 19 limits HOA authority to common areas.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs

The board has violated the open meeting laws of ARS 33-1804 (A) and (F) by holding a private board meeting without notice; failing to provide material information, minutes, financial statements, and a budget upon request; and by failing to communicate via the designated representative.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting laws by failing to provide proper notice for meetings and failing to provide requested documentation (minutes, financial statements, etc.).

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

The board has violated ARS 10-830(A) by failing to act in good faith with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would act by failing to perform their duties.

Petitioner alleged the board failed to perform required duties in a timely or prudent manner, including failing to elect officers, manage the bank account, check the post office box, and schedule a backflow test.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Management, Conflict of Interest, Open Meeting Law, Jurisdiction, Planned Community, CC&Rs, Director Duty, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Park Association

David Y. Samuels v. The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H025-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-04-18
Administrative Law Judge Amy M. Haley
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner David Y. Samuels Counsel —
Respondent The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association Counsel Ashley N. Turner

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1803

Outcome Summary

The petition filed by David Y. Samuels against The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association was dismissed. The Tribunal found that Samuels lacked standing to bring the action as an individual, and the cited statute, A.R.S. § 33-1803 (Planned Community Act), was improper for this condominium dispute.

Why this result: Petitioner lacked standing because the property was owned by Daso Properties, LLC, not by David Y. Samuels individually. Additionally, the Petitioner brought the action under the incorrect statute, A.R.S. § 33-1803, which governs planned communities, not condominiums.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation concerning late fees, collection fees, and attorney fees for delinquent assessment payments

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803 by charging unwarranted late fees, collection fees, and attorney fees for delinquent assessments.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed because Petitioner lacked standing as an individual owner, and the cause of action was brought under the improper statute (Planned Community Act) for a condominium property.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1801(A)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: standing, condominium, planned community act, statutory violation, late fees, collection fees, attorney fees, jurisdiction, dismissal
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1801(A)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.A.C. R2-19-106(D)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1124651.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:59 (48.4 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1133120.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:01 (39.9 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1134423.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:05 (48.2 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1139633.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:08 (55.7 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1139646.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:12 (7.6 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1157271.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:17 (47.1 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1168680.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:22 (86.1 KB)

Questions

Question

If my property is owned by an LLC, can I file a petition against the HOA in my own name as the managing member?

Short Answer

No. The petition must be filed by the legal owner (the LLC), not an individual member, or it will be dismissed for lack of standing.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that an individual managing member of an LLC does not have standing to bring an action on behalf of the property owned by the LLC. The dispute statute specifically applies to 'owners' and 'associations'.

Alj Quote

The Tribunal finds that, after taking testimony, Petitioner, as an individual, did not have standing to bring this action… The proper party to bring the action would have been Daso Properties, LLC.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)

Topic Tags

  • standing
  • LLC ownership
  • procedural requirements

Question

Can I use laws meant for Planned Communities (A.R.S. § 33-1803) to dispute charges if I live in a Condominium?

Short Answer

No. Condominiums are governed by a different set of statutes (Chapter 9) than Planned Communities (Chapter 16).

Detailed Answer

The ALJ dismissed the claim because the homeowner cited the Planned Community Act (A.R.S. § 33-1803) while the property was legally a condominium. Condominiums are not subject to the Planned Community Act.

Alj Quote

However, the Property is a condominium; therefore, Respondent is not subject to the Planned Community Act. … Chapter 9 governs condominiums.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1801(A)

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • condominium vs planned community
  • statutory application

Question

Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction to hear a dispute if I am not the legal owner of the property?

Short Answer

No. The Department's jurisdiction is limited to disputes specifically between an owner and an association.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that the administrative hearing process is strictly for disputes involving an 'owner' or 'association'. If the petitioner is not the legal owner (even if they manage the LLC that owns it), the Department lacks jurisdiction.

Alj Quote

The department does not have jurisdiction to hear a dispute that does not involve an owner or an association.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • standing
  • homeowner rights

Question

Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner claims an HOA violated state laws?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

In these administrative hearings, it is the responsibility of the person bringing the complaint to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803 as alleged in his petition.

Legal Basis

Preponderance of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • evidence
  • legal standards

Question

What happens if I base my entire petition on a statute that doesn't apply to my type of property?

Short Answer

The petition will be dismissed because you have stated no claim upon which relief can be granted.

Detailed Answer

Because the petitioner cited the wrong statute (Planned Community Act for a Condominium), the judge ruled that there was no valid legal claim to rule on, resulting in dismissal.

Alj Quote

As such, Petitioner has stated no claim upon which relief can be granted under A.R.S. § 33-1801.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1801

Topic Tags

  • dismissal
  • legal procedure
  • condominium act

Case

Docket No
24F-H025-REL
Case Title
David Y. Samuels vs The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association
Decision Date
2024-04-18
Alj Name
Amy M. Haley
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

If my property is owned by an LLC, can I file a petition against the HOA in my own name as the managing member?

Short Answer

No. The petition must be filed by the legal owner (the LLC), not an individual member, or it will be dismissed for lack of standing.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that an individual managing member of an LLC does not have standing to bring an action on behalf of the property owned by the LLC. The dispute statute specifically applies to 'owners' and 'associations'.

Alj Quote

The Tribunal finds that, after taking testimony, Petitioner, as an individual, did not have standing to bring this action… The proper party to bring the action would have been Daso Properties, LLC.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)

Topic Tags

  • standing
  • LLC ownership
  • procedural requirements

Question

Can I use laws meant for Planned Communities (A.R.S. § 33-1803) to dispute charges if I live in a Condominium?

Short Answer

No. Condominiums are governed by a different set of statutes (Chapter 9) than Planned Communities (Chapter 16).

Detailed Answer

The ALJ dismissed the claim because the homeowner cited the Planned Community Act (A.R.S. § 33-1803) while the property was legally a condominium. Condominiums are not subject to the Planned Community Act.

Alj Quote

However, the Property is a condominium; therefore, Respondent is not subject to the Planned Community Act. … Chapter 9 governs condominiums.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1801(A)

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • condominium vs planned community
  • statutory application

Question

Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction to hear a dispute if I am not the legal owner of the property?

Short Answer

No. The Department's jurisdiction is limited to disputes specifically between an owner and an association.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that the administrative hearing process is strictly for disputes involving an 'owner' or 'association'. If the petitioner is not the legal owner (even if they manage the LLC that owns it), the Department lacks jurisdiction.

Alj Quote

The department does not have jurisdiction to hear a dispute that does not involve an owner or an association.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • standing
  • homeowner rights

Question

Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner claims an HOA violated state laws?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

In these administrative hearings, it is the responsibility of the person bringing the complaint to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803 as alleged in his petition.

Legal Basis

Preponderance of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • evidence
  • legal standards

Question

What happens if I base my entire petition on a statute that doesn't apply to my type of property?

Short Answer

The petition will be dismissed because you have stated no claim upon which relief can be granted.

Detailed Answer

Because the petitioner cited the wrong statute (Planned Community Act for a Condominium), the judge ruled that there was no valid legal claim to rule on, resulting in dismissal.

Alj Quote

As such, Petitioner has stated no claim upon which relief can be granted under A.R.S. § 33-1801.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1801

Topic Tags

  • dismissal
  • legal procedure
  • condominium act

Case

Docket No
24F-H025-REL
Case Title
David Y. Samuels vs The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association
Decision Date
2024-04-18
Alj Name
Amy M. Haley
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • David Y. Samuels (petitioner)
    Daso Properties, LLC
    Managing member of the property owner (Daso Properties, LLC); Appeared on his own behalf.

Respondent Side

  • Ashley N. Turner (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Law Group
    Council for respondent; Also appeared as Ashley N. Moscarello in earlier filings.
  • Alyssa Butler (community manager)
    The Management Trust (TMT)
    Witness for the association.
  • Stephanie Beck (HOA staff)
    Involved in prior HOA correspondence regarding fines.
  • Catherine Green (HOA staff)
    Involved in prior HOA correspondence regarding fines.

Neutral Parties

  • Amy M. Haley (ALJ)
    OAH
    Conducted the hearing and issued the final decision.
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    OAH
    Issued an order on March 19, 2024.
  • A. Hansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission via email [email protected].
  • V. Nunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission via email [email protected].
  • D. Jones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission via email [email protected].
  • L. Abril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission via email [email protected].
  • M. Neat (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission via email [email protected].
  • A. Kowaleski (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission via email [email protected].
  • G. Osborn (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission via email [email protected].

Thomas P. Hommrich v. The Lakewood Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H048-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-05-19
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome total_loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Thomas P. Hommrich Counsel —
Respondent The Lakewood Community Association Counsel Quinten Cupps, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article lV, Section 4.2(t) of the CC&R's

Outcome Summary

Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition on jurisdictional grounds.

Why this result: The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because the petition challenged the Association’s power to act (A.R.S. § 10-3304), which requires injunctive relief in a court of law, and did not concern a violation of community documents or statute (A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)).

Key Issues & Findings

Authority to enforce parking rule on residential public streets

Petitioner sought an order prohibiting the Respondent from restricting parking access on public residential streets, alleging the Association breached the CC&Rs by misapplying Article IV, Section 4.2(t).

Orders: The petition was dismissed because OAH lacked jurisdiction as the case challenged the Association's power to act under A.R.S. § 10-3304, rather than alleging a violation of community documents or statute under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A).

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • A.R.S. § 10-3304
  • A.R.S. § 10-3304(B)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Parking Restrictions, Jurisdiction, Motion to Dismiss, CC&Rs
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • A.R.S. § 10-3304
  • A.R.S. § 10-3304(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

23F-H048-REL Decision – 1057905.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:20 (71.7 KB)

23F-H048-REL Decision – 1059621.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:22 (44.2 KB)

Questions

Question

Can I use the administrative hearing process to challenge my HOA's legal authority or power to enforce a specific rule?

Short Answer

No. Challenges to an Association's corporate power to act must be brought in a court of law, not the administrative tribunal.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear challenges regarding the Association's 'power to act' (such as whether they have the authority to restrict parking). Under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 10-3304, these specific legal challenges regarding corporate authority must be addressed in a court of law.

Alj Quote

Petitioner may not challenge the Association’s power to act in this tribunal under A.R.S. § 10-3304. Petitioner may seek injunctive relief regarding the Association’s power to act in a court of law.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 10-3304

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • corporate power
  • HOA authority

Question

If I disagree with a decision, can I file a motion to amend my petition after the order has been issued?

Short Answer

No. Once a decision is rendered, the Office of Administrative Hearings cannot consider motions to amend.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ clarified that once a decision is finalized, the OAH loses the ability to take further action on the matter, meaning a Motion to Amend filed after the decision cannot be considered.

Alj Quote

The Motion to Amend the Petition cannot not be considered by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) as this tribunal’s decision has already been rendered and, because of that, OAH can take no further action on the matter.

Legal Basis

Procedural Rule

Topic Tags

  • procedure
  • appeals
  • amendments

Question

Where must I file a request for a rehearing if I lose my case?

Short Answer

You must file the request with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate (ADRE), not the hearing office.

Detailed Answer

While the hearing takes place at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), a request for a rehearing must be directed to the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the order.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Topic Tags

  • rehearing
  • procedure
  • ADRE

Question

Can the administrative tribunal issue an injunction preventing the HOA from enforcing parking restrictions on public streets?

Short Answer

Likely no, if the claim is based on the HOA lacking the 'power to act'.

Detailed Answer

The petitioner sought an order prohibiting the HOA from restricting parking on public streets. The ALJ dismissed this because the claim was fundamentally about the Association's authority (power to act), which falls outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.

Alj Quote

Petitioner asks this Court to issue an order that prohibits the Respondent from restricting parking access on public residential streets… Petitioner may seek injunctive relief regarding the Association’s power to act in a court of law.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 10-3304

Topic Tags

  • parking
  • injunctions
  • jurisdiction

Question

Does a petition challenging an HOA rule have to allege a specific violation of the community documents or statutes?

Short Answer

Yes. If the petition does not concern a violation of documents or statutes, it may be dismissed.

Detailed Answer

The HOA successfully argued that the petition should be dismissed because it did not allege that the HOA violated community documents or statutes, but rather challenged the HOA's authority to make rules.

Alj Quote

Therefore, the petition does not concern a violation of community documents or of any statute… IT IS ORDERED that the petition is dismissed.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)

Topic Tags

  • petition requirements
  • dismissal
  • violations

Case

Docket No
23F-H048-REL
Case Title
Thomas P. Hommrich vs. The Lakewood Community Association
Decision Date
2023-05-19
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can I use the administrative hearing process to challenge my HOA's legal authority or power to enforce a specific rule?

Short Answer

No. Challenges to an Association's corporate power to act must be brought in a court of law, not the administrative tribunal.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear challenges regarding the Association's 'power to act' (such as whether they have the authority to restrict parking). Under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 10-3304, these specific legal challenges regarding corporate authority must be addressed in a court of law.

Alj Quote

Petitioner may not challenge the Association’s power to act in this tribunal under A.R.S. § 10-3304. Petitioner may seek injunctive relief regarding the Association’s power to act in a court of law.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 10-3304

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • corporate power
  • HOA authority

Question

If I disagree with a decision, can I file a motion to amend my petition after the order has been issued?

Short Answer

No. Once a decision is rendered, the Office of Administrative Hearings cannot consider motions to amend.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ clarified that once a decision is finalized, the OAH loses the ability to take further action on the matter, meaning a Motion to Amend filed after the decision cannot be considered.

Alj Quote

The Motion to Amend the Petition cannot not be considered by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) as this tribunal’s decision has already been rendered and, because of that, OAH can take no further action on the matter.

Legal Basis

Procedural Rule

Topic Tags

  • procedure
  • appeals
  • amendments

Question

Where must I file a request for a rehearing if I lose my case?

Short Answer

You must file the request with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate (ADRE), not the hearing office.

Detailed Answer

While the hearing takes place at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), a request for a rehearing must be directed to the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the order.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Topic Tags

  • rehearing
  • procedure
  • ADRE

Question

Can the administrative tribunal issue an injunction preventing the HOA from enforcing parking restrictions on public streets?

Short Answer

Likely no, if the claim is based on the HOA lacking the 'power to act'.

Detailed Answer

The petitioner sought an order prohibiting the HOA from restricting parking on public streets. The ALJ dismissed this because the claim was fundamentally about the Association's authority (power to act), which falls outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.

Alj Quote

Petitioner asks this Court to issue an order that prohibits the Respondent from restricting parking access on public residential streets… Petitioner may seek injunctive relief regarding the Association’s power to act in a court of law.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 10-3304

Topic Tags

  • parking
  • injunctions
  • jurisdiction

Question

Does a petition challenging an HOA rule have to allege a specific violation of the community documents or statutes?

Short Answer

Yes. If the petition does not concern a violation of documents or statutes, it may be dismissed.

Detailed Answer

The HOA successfully argued that the petition should be dismissed because it did not allege that the HOA violated community documents or statutes, but rather challenged the HOA's authority to make rules.

Alj Quote

Therefore, the petition does not concern a violation of community documents or of any statute… IT IS ORDERED that the petition is dismissed.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)

Topic Tags

  • petition requirements
  • dismissal
  • violations

Case

Docket No
23F-H048-REL
Case Title
Thomas P. Hommrich vs. The Lakewood Community Association
Decision Date
2023-05-19
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Thomas P. Hommrich (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Quinten Cupps (respondent attorney)
    vf-law.com
    Esq.

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmittal
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmittal
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmittal
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmittal

Anthony Payson v. The Foothills Homeowners Association #1

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H041-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-05-01
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Anthony Payson Counsel —
Respondent The Foothills Homeowners Association #1 Counsel Sean K. Mohnihan

Alleged Violations

CC&R Section 5.4

Outcome Summary

The petition was dismissed after the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent HOA did not violate CC&R Section 5.4, finding that this section applies to use restrictions on individual Lots and Members, not the Association itself.

Why this result: The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Section 5.4 because the HOA does not own or operate the nuisance-causing television, and the CC&R section governs restrictions on lot Owners/Members, not the Association. OAH jurisdiction is limited to finding the governing document or statute violated by the respondent.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA's alleged failure to enforce nuisance provision (CC&R Section 5.4) regarding neighbor's outdoor television.

Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA failed to perform its duty to enforce CC&R Section 5.4 by refusing to seek removal of a neighbor's large, outdoor television that created noise disturbances and was deemed a nuisance.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §32- 2199.02(A)
  • CC&R Section 5.4

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Homeowners Association, CC&R, Nuisance, Enforcement, Jurisdiction, Outdoor TV
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §32- 2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 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)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/74bT2mijNKJ5SUal3ovDor

Decision Documents

23F-H041-REL Decision – 1047496.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:55:58 (57.5 KB)

23F-H041-REL Decision – 1053240.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:01 (98.4 KB)





Study Guide – 23F-H041-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H041-REL”, “case_title”: “In the Matter of Anthony Payson vs The Foothills Homeowners Association #1”, “decision_date”: “2023-05-01”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can I use the ADRE administrative hearing process to force my HOA to enforce CC&R rules against a neighbor?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no, if the specific rule applies to member conduct rather than Association conduct.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) clarified that the dispute process is for determining if the Respondent (the HOA) violated a statute or governing document. If a CC&R provision restricts how a ‘lot’ may be used, a violation of that rule is a breach by the member (the neighbor), not the Association. Therefore, the HOA cannot be found guilty of violating a rule that governs homeowner behavior.”, “alj_quote”: “These provisions refer to what members may and may not do within the Association. Therefore, any breach of this Article would be a breach by a Member, not the Association. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent violated CC&R Section 5.4.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 5.4; OAH Jurisdiction”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement”, “jurisdiction”, “neighbor disputes” ] }, { “question”: “Does the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) have jurisdiction to decide if my HOA was negligent or violated common law duties?”, “short_answer”: “No, the OAH jurisdiction is strictly limited to violations of statutes and governing documents.”, “detailed_answer”: “The tribunal does not have the authority to hear claims based on common law, such as negligence or general failure to perform a duty, unless it is a specific violation of the statutes or the community documents tailored to the Association’s conduct.”, “alj_quote”: “To the extent that Petitioner alleged that Respondent may have violated common law, or any other laws, the OAH lacks jurisdiction to make such a determination.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “common law”, “negligence” ] }, { “question”: “What remedies or penalties can I request from the administrative judge if I win my case against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Relief is limited to a finding of violation, an order to comply, return of filing fees, and civil penalties.”, “detailed_answer”: “The administrative process cannot award damages for things like pain, suffering, or lost property value. The remedies are strictly defined by statute: finding a violation occurred, ordering the HOA to abide by the provision, returning the petitioner’s filing fee, and levying a civil penalty.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s relief in this venue is limited to e is limited to a finding that the governing document or statute at issue has been violated by the respondent, an order that Respondent abide by the provision in the future, and to have the filing fee returned to the petitioner and a civil penalty levied against Respondent.”, “legal_basis”: “Ariz. Rev. Stat. §32- 2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “remedies”, “penalties”, “civil penalty” ] }, { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner bringing the case must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It is not the HOA’s job to disprove the claims initially; the burden lies with the person filing the petition.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated on its CC&Rs 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”: [ “burden of proof”, “evidence”, “legal standard” ] }, { “question”: “What is the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard used in these hearings?”, “short_answer”: “It means the claim is more probable than not to be true.”, “detailed_answer”: “This legal standard requires that the evidence presented must convince the judge that the petitioner’s argument is more likely true than the opposing side’s argument. It is described as the ‘greater weight of the evidence.'”, “alj_quote”: ““A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.””, “legal_basis”: “Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standard”, “definitions”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “How are vague or ambiguous rules in the CC&Rs interpreted by the judge?”, “short_answer”: “They are construed to give effect to the intent of the parties and the underlying purpose of the document.”, “detailed_answer”: “When interpreting restrictive covenants, the judge looks at the document as a whole. If the covenant is unambiguous, it is enforced exactly as written to match the intent.”, “alj_quote”: ““Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.””, “legal_basis”: “Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553”, “topic_tags”: [ “interpretation”, “CC&Rs”, “legal principles” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 23F-H041-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H041-REL”, “case_title”: “In the Matter of Anthony Payson vs The Foothills Homeowners Association #1”, “decision_date”: “2023-05-01”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can I use the ADRE administrative hearing process to force my HOA to enforce CC&R rules against a neighbor?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no, if the specific rule applies to member conduct rather than Association conduct.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) clarified that the dispute process is for determining if the Respondent (the HOA) violated a statute or governing document. If a CC&R provision restricts how a ‘lot’ may be used, a violation of that rule is a breach by the member (the neighbor), not the Association. Therefore, the HOA cannot be found guilty of violating a rule that governs homeowner behavior.”, “alj_quote”: “These provisions refer to what members may and may not do within the Association. Therefore, any breach of this Article would be a breach by a Member, not the Association. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent violated CC&R Section 5.4.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 5.4; OAH Jurisdiction”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement”, “jurisdiction”, “neighbor disputes” ] }, { “question”: “Does the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) have jurisdiction to decide if my HOA was negligent or violated common law duties?”, “short_answer”: “No, the OAH jurisdiction is strictly limited to violations of statutes and governing documents.”, “detailed_answer”: “The tribunal does not have the authority to hear claims based on common law, such as negligence or general failure to perform a duty, unless it is a specific violation of the statutes or the community documents tailored to the Association’s conduct.”, “alj_quote”: “To the extent that Petitioner alleged that Respondent may have violated common law, or any other laws, the OAH lacks jurisdiction to make such a determination.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “common law”, “negligence” ] }, { “question”: “What remedies or penalties can I request from the administrative judge if I win my case against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Relief is limited to a finding of violation, an order to comply, return of filing fees, and civil penalties.”, “detailed_answer”: “The administrative process cannot award damages for things like pain, suffering, or lost property value. The remedies are strictly defined by statute: finding a violation occurred, ordering the HOA to abide by the provision, returning the petitioner’s filing fee, and levying a civil penalty.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s relief in this venue is limited to e is limited to a finding that the governing document or statute at issue has been violated by the respondent, an order that Respondent abide by the provision in the future, and to have the filing fee returned to the petitioner and a civil penalty levied against Respondent.”, “legal_basis”: “Ariz. Rev. Stat. §32- 2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “remedies”, “penalties”, “civil penalty” ] }, { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner bringing the case must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It is not the HOA’s job to disprove the claims initially; the burden lies with the person filing the petition.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated on its CC&Rs 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”: [ “burden of proof”, “evidence”, “legal standard” ] }, { “question”: “What is the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard used in these hearings?”, “short_answer”: “It means the claim is more probable than not to be true.”, “detailed_answer”: “This legal standard requires that the evidence presented must convince the judge that the petitioner’s argument is more likely true than the opposing side’s argument. It is described as the ‘greater weight of the evidence.'”, “alj_quote”: ““A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.””, “legal_basis”: “Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standard”, “definitions”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “How are vague or ambiguous rules in the CC&Rs interpreted by the judge?”, “short_answer”: “They are construed to give effect to the intent of the parties and the underlying purpose of the document.”, “detailed_answer”: “When interpreting restrictive covenants, the judge looks at the document as a whole. If the covenant is unambiguous, it is enforced exactly as written to match the intent.”, “alj_quote”: ““Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.””, “legal_basis”: “Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553”, “topic_tags”: [ “interpretation”, “CC&Rs”, “legal principles” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Anthony Payson (petitioner)
    Homeowner

Respondent Side

  • Sean K. Mohnihan (HOA attorney)
    Smith & Wamsley, PLLC
    Appeared for Respondent The Foothills Homeowners Association #1
  • Jason E Smith (attorney)
    Smith & Wamsley, PLLC
    Listed with counsel
  • Gabron (board member)
    The Foothills Homeowners Association #1
    Board representative/potential witness
  • Linda Armo (board member)
    The Foothills Homeowners Association #1
    Board representative/potential witness
  • Philip Brown (former HOA attorney)
    Previously represented the HOA; wrote a letter to Petitioner

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Barry Callahan (neighbor)
    Alleged violator of CC&Rs, neighbor to Petitioner

Donald F. Molley v. Verde Meadows Crest Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H007-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-01-20
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Donald F. Molley Counsel —
Respondent Verde Meadows Crest Homeowners Association Counsel Sean K. Moynihan, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Declaration Section 12.B
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's entire petition was denied because the Department of Real Estate/OAH lacked statutory jurisdiction over the Association. The Association was found not to meet the statutory definitions of a condominium association or a planned community association because it does not own common areas or real property.

Why this result: OAH determined it lacked jurisdiction pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq., because the Respondent Association is neither a condominium association nor a planned community association (ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1202(10) and 33-1802(4)).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged use of Association funds for maintenance on private property.

Petitioner alleged that the Association used HOA funds for maintenance on private property in violation of Section 12.B of the CC&Rs.

Orders: Petition denied due to lack of OAH jurisdiction.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1202(10)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
  • Declaration Section 12.B

Alleged failure to provide requested financial documents and meeting minutes.

Petitioner requested monthly bank statements and financial reports for 2022, and financial books for 2021, which Respondent allegedly failed to provide in violation of ARS § 33-1805.

Orders: Petition denied due to lack of OAH jurisdiction.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1202(10)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: jurisdiction, planned_community_act, condominium_act, denial, document_request, maintenance
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1202(10)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
  • Declaration Section 12.B

Video Overview

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/34nyQuUBJcHHi8GYbfWjqN

Decision Documents

23F-H007-REL Decision – 1006960.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:47 (46.0 KB)

23F-H007-REL Decision – 1008524.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:49 (61.8 KB)

23F-H007-REL Decision – 1008675.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:52 (8.7 KB)

23F-H007-REL Decision – 1010876.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:55 (51.8 KB)

23F-H007-REL Decision – 1020898.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:58 (44.8 KB)

23F-H007-REL Decision – 1027131.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:51:02 (146.3 KB)

Questions

Question

If my HOA doesn't own any common areas or real property, can I still file a dispute with the Department of Real Estate?

Short Answer

No. If the association does not own real property, it may not meet the statutory definition of a 'planned community,' meaning the Department lacks jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that because the Association did not own any real property or common areas, it did not qualify as a 'planned community' under Arizona statutes. Consequently, the Department of Real Estate had no authority to enforce the Planned Communities Act against it.

Alj Quote

The record also reflects that the Association is also not a planned community association because it does not own any real property. As a result, neither the Condominium Act nor the Planned Communities Act governs the Association and neither Act can be enforced against it.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1802(4); A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • common areas
  • planned community definition

Question

What evidence do I need to provide if I claim the HOA is spending money on maintenance in violation of the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

You must provide specific details such as the exact amounts spent, who performed the work, the specific locations (lots), and the dates/duration of the work.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that the homeowner failed to support his claim because he could not provide specific facts regarding the alleged improper expenditures. General testimony without specific data (amounts, dates, locations) is insufficient.

Alj Quote

Petitioner, however, could not identify the amount Respondent allegedly spent on said landscaping, by whom the maintenance was performed, on which lots the maintenance was performed, or when and for what duration the alleged maintenance took place.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • maintenance
  • misuse of funds

Question

Is a verbal request enough to prove the HOA failed to provide financial documents?

Short Answer

Likely not. To succeed in a hearing, you must be able to prove the specific date of the request and the identity of the person to whom the request was made.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found the homeowner's testimony insufficient because he claimed to have made verbal requests but could not recall when they happened or who he asked.

Alj Quote

Petitioner testified that he verbally requested 'financials' and 'meeting minutes' from Respondent, but could not provide the date(s) of the request(s) and/or name the person(s) to whom the request(s) were made.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • evidence
  • financials

Question

Are the CC&Rs considered a binding contract?

Short Answer

Yes. When a homeowner buys a property within the development, they agree to be bound by the terms of the Declaration, forming an enforceable contract.

Detailed Answer

The decision affirms that the Declaration acts as a contract between the Association and the property owner upon purchase.

Alj Quote

Thus, the Declaration forms an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner.

Legal Basis

Contract Law

Topic Tags

  • CC&Rs
  • contract
  • enforceability

Question

What is the legal definition of a 'condominium' in Arizona regarding HOA disputes?

Short Answer

Real estate is only a condominium if the unit owners are vested with undivided interests in the common elements.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ clarified that if owners do not have undivided interests in common elements, the development is not a condominium under the law.

Alj Quote

Real estate is not a condominium unless the undivided interests in the common elements are vested in the unit owners.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1202(10)

Topic Tags

  • condominium definition
  • common elements

Question

Can the HOA be excused from providing financial records if a former board member failed to hand them over?

Short Answer

Potentially yes. The ALJ noted testimony that the HOA could not provide certain records because the Petitioner (a former Treasurer) had failed to return them after leaving the board.

Detailed Answer

While the case was decided on jurisdiction, the decision recorded the HOA's defense that the 2022 financial statement was incomplete because the former Treasurer (the Petitioner) did not remit the necessary documentation.

Alj Quote

Ms. Wickenheiser testified that Respondent was unable to comply with Petitioner’s request for the Association’s 2022 financial statement… in large part, because Petitioner had served as the Association’s Treasurer for that fiscal year and had failed to remit the Association’s financial documentation

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • records
  • board member duties
  • treasurer

Case

Docket No
23F-H007-REL
Case Title
Donald F. Molley v. Verde Meadows Crest Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2023-01-20
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

If my HOA doesn't own any common areas or real property, can I still file a dispute with the Department of Real Estate?

Short Answer

No. If the association does not own real property, it may not meet the statutory definition of a 'planned community,' meaning the Department lacks jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that because the Association did not own any real property or common areas, it did not qualify as a 'planned community' under Arizona statutes. Consequently, the Department of Real Estate had no authority to enforce the Planned Communities Act against it.

Alj Quote

The record also reflects that the Association is also not a planned community association because it does not own any real property. As a result, neither the Condominium Act nor the Planned Communities Act governs the Association and neither Act can be enforced against it.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1802(4); A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • common areas
  • planned community definition

Question

What evidence do I need to provide if I claim the HOA is spending money on maintenance in violation of the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

You must provide specific details such as the exact amounts spent, who performed the work, the specific locations (lots), and the dates/duration of the work.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that the homeowner failed to support his claim because he could not provide specific facts regarding the alleged improper expenditures. General testimony without specific data (amounts, dates, locations) is insufficient.

Alj Quote

Petitioner, however, could not identify the amount Respondent allegedly spent on said landscaping, by whom the maintenance was performed, on which lots the maintenance was performed, or when and for what duration the alleged maintenance took place.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • maintenance
  • misuse of funds

Question

Is a verbal request enough to prove the HOA failed to provide financial documents?

Short Answer

Likely not. To succeed in a hearing, you must be able to prove the specific date of the request and the identity of the person to whom the request was made.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found the homeowner's testimony insufficient because he claimed to have made verbal requests but could not recall when they happened or who he asked.

Alj Quote

Petitioner testified that he verbally requested 'financials' and 'meeting minutes' from Respondent, but could not provide the date(s) of the request(s) and/or name the person(s) to whom the request(s) were made.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • evidence
  • financials

Question

Are the CC&Rs considered a binding contract?

Short Answer

Yes. When a homeowner buys a property within the development, they agree to be bound by the terms of the Declaration, forming an enforceable contract.

Detailed Answer

The decision affirms that the Declaration acts as a contract between the Association and the property owner upon purchase.

Alj Quote

Thus, the Declaration forms an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner.

Legal Basis

Contract Law

Topic Tags

  • CC&Rs
  • contract
  • enforceability

Question

What is the legal definition of a 'condominium' in Arizona regarding HOA disputes?

Short Answer

Real estate is only a condominium if the unit owners are vested with undivided interests in the common elements.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ clarified that if owners do not have undivided interests in common elements, the development is not a condominium under the law.

Alj Quote

Real estate is not a condominium unless the undivided interests in the common elements are vested in the unit owners.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1202(10)

Topic Tags

  • condominium definition
  • common elements

Question

Can the HOA be excused from providing financial records if a former board member failed to hand them over?

Short Answer

Potentially yes. The ALJ noted testimony that the HOA could not provide certain records because the Petitioner (a former Treasurer) had failed to return them after leaving the board.

Detailed Answer

While the case was decided on jurisdiction, the decision recorded the HOA's defense that the 2022 financial statement was incomplete because the former Treasurer (the Petitioner) did not remit the necessary documentation.

Alj Quote

Ms. Wickenheiser testified that Respondent was unable to comply with Petitioner’s request for the Association’s 2022 financial statement… in large part, because Petitioner had served as the Association’s Treasurer for that fiscal year and had failed to remit the Association’s financial documentation

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • records
  • board member duties
  • treasurer

Case

Docket No
23F-H007-REL
Case Title
Donald F. Molley v. Verde Meadows Crest Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2023-01-20
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Donald F. Molley (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf; also referred to as Donald Molley or Mr. Molly; previously served as Association board member and treasurer

Respondent Side

  • Kari Wickenheiser (board president)
    Verde Meadows Crest Homeowners Association
    Testified on behalf of Respondent; also referred to as Miss Wizer/Wenheiser
  • Sean K. Moynihan (HOA attorney)
    Smith & Wamsley, PLLC
    Counsel for Respondent
  • Sue Antonio (board member)
    Verde Meadows Crest Homeowners Association
    Former President, Treasurer, and Secretary of the HOA, mentioned in testimony

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • c. serrano (OAH staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Transmitted documents
  • Miranda Alvarez (legal secretary)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Transmitted documents
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmittal
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmittal
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmittal
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmittal

Randall White v. Quail Creek Villas Association Inc

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H004-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-12-29
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Randall White Counsel —
Respondent Quail Creek Villas Association Inc. Counsel Carolyn Goldschmidt

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842; Quail Creek Villas Association Inc. Bylaws Art. III Sec. 2

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the petition because the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated community documents or statutes. The ALJ noted that Petitioner lacked the authority to request the inspection on behalf of the HOA, and one primary statute cited (ARS § 10-3842) was inapplicable/outside jurisdiction.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof regarding the alleged statutory and community document violations. The ALJ found Petitioner lacked the authority to act for the Association, and the inspection had not yet commenced when directed to stop.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged interference with wildfire risk assessment

Petitioner alleged Respondent stopped the Green Valley Fire Department's in-progress wildfire risk assessment, interfering with the assessment and failing to act in good faith or in the best interests of the Corporation.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied. All pending post-hearing motions were denied as moot.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • Quail Creek Villas Association Inc. Bylaws Art. III Sec. 2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA dispute, wildfire risk, homeowner authority, jurisdiction, planned community
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • Quail Creek Villas Association Inc. Bylaws Art. III Sec. 2
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/5mGhwonFTvuMYwkSno8Fwh

Decision Documents

23F-H004-REL Decision – 1002376.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:26 (40.8 KB)

23F-H004-REL Decision – 1002517.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:29 (5.8 KB)

23F-H004-REL Decision – 1014952.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:33 (45.6 KB)

23F-H004-REL Decision – 1020817.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:36 (55.1 KB)

23F-H004-REL Decision – 1022445.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:39 (170.8 KB)

Questions

Question

Can an individual homeowner authorize vendors or government agencies to perform inspections on HOA common property?

Short Answer

No. Unless explicitly granted permission by the governing documents, an individual homeowner does not have the authority to act on behalf of the Association.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that a homeowner cannot unilaterally request services, such as a fire inspection, for the entire subdivision. The authority to manage association affairs and property generally resides with the Board of Directors.

Alj Quote

Here, the record reflects that Petitioner did not have the authority or permission to act on behalf of the Association to request that GVFD perform a wild fire inspection in and for the Quail Creek Villas subdivision.

Legal Basis

Association Bylaws Art. III, Section 2; ARS 33-1802

Topic Tags

  • Homeowner Authority
  • Common Area Inspections
  • Board Powers

Question

Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The person bringing the complaint must prove their case. The HOA does not inherently have to disprove the allegations; the homeowner must first provide sufficient evidence that a violation occurred.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Hearing Procedures

Question

Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over the standards of conduct for corporate officers (ARS Title 10)?

Short Answer

No. The Department's jurisdiction is limited to specific real estate and planned community statutes.

Detailed Answer

Allegations regarding the general corporate conduct of officers under Title 10 (Corporations and Associations) generally fall outside the scope of the administrative hearing process provided by the Department of Real Estate.

Alj Quote

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842, Corporations and Association – Standards of Conduct for Officers, is outside the jurisdiction of the Department and inapplicable to this matter.

Legal Basis

Jurisdictional Limits

Topic Tags

  • Jurisdiction
  • Corporate Law
  • Officer Conduct

Question

What is the 'preponderance of the evidence' standard used in these hearings?

Short Answer

It means the evidence shows the claim is 'more probably true than not'.

Detailed Answer

This is the standard of proof required in civil and administrative hearings. It is a lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' used in criminal cases. It essentially means the evidence must tip the scale slightly in favor of the petitioner.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Evidence

Question

If I accidentally email my evidence to the wrong email address for the HOA's attorney, will it still be admitted?

Short Answer

Likely not. The responsibility for properly serving evidence lies with the person sending it.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that if a petitioner misspells the opposing counsel's email address, resulting in the evidence not being received, the petitioner is responsible for that error, and the evidence may be excluded.

Alj Quote

Thus, Petitioner bore the onus of any mishandling/compromise of his proposed hearing exhibits.

Legal Basis

Procedural Rules

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Procedure
  • Mistakes

Question

Can I cite general statutes or non-existent statutes in my petition?

Short Answer

No, you must cite specific, valid statutes. Citing non-existent codes weakens the case.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that the petitioner cited statutes that did not exist (e.g., ARS 33-9). While the judge may try to interpret the intent based on evidence, relying on invalid statutes makes it difficult to sustain the burden of proof.

Alj Quote

The conundrum of Petitioner’s confusing reliance on statutes that do not exist and/or are outside the jurisdiction of the Department is solved, in large part, based on the substantive evidence of record.

Legal Basis

Statutory Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • Legal Research
  • Petition Drafting

Question

What is the deadline for requesting a rehearing if I disagree with the decision?

Short Answer

30 days from the date the order is served.

Detailed Answer

If a party wishes to contest the ALJ's decision, they must file a request for a rehearing with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this ORDER upon the parties.

Legal Basis

ARS 41-1092.09

Topic Tags

  • Appeals
  • Deadlines

Case

Docket No
23F-H004-REL
Case Title
Randall White vs. Quail Creek Villas Association Inc.
Decision Date
2022-12-29
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can an individual homeowner authorize vendors or government agencies to perform inspections on HOA common property?

Short Answer

No. Unless explicitly granted permission by the governing documents, an individual homeowner does not have the authority to act on behalf of the Association.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that a homeowner cannot unilaterally request services, such as a fire inspection, for the entire subdivision. The authority to manage association affairs and property generally resides with the Board of Directors.

Alj Quote

Here, the record reflects that Petitioner did not have the authority or permission to act on behalf of the Association to request that GVFD perform a wild fire inspection in and for the Quail Creek Villas subdivision.

Legal Basis

Association Bylaws Art. III, Section 2; ARS 33-1802

Topic Tags

  • Homeowner Authority
  • Common Area Inspections
  • Board Powers

Question

Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The person bringing the complaint must prove their case. The HOA does not inherently have to disprove the allegations; the homeowner must first provide sufficient evidence that a violation occurred.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Hearing Procedures

Question

Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over the standards of conduct for corporate officers (ARS Title 10)?

Short Answer

No. The Department's jurisdiction is limited to specific real estate and planned community statutes.

Detailed Answer

Allegations regarding the general corporate conduct of officers under Title 10 (Corporations and Associations) generally fall outside the scope of the administrative hearing process provided by the Department of Real Estate.

Alj Quote

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842, Corporations and Association – Standards of Conduct for Officers, is outside the jurisdiction of the Department and inapplicable to this matter.

Legal Basis

Jurisdictional Limits

Topic Tags

  • Jurisdiction
  • Corporate Law
  • Officer Conduct

Question

What is the 'preponderance of the evidence' standard used in these hearings?

Short Answer

It means the evidence shows the claim is 'more probably true than not'.

Detailed Answer

This is the standard of proof required in civil and administrative hearings. It is a lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' used in criminal cases. It essentially means the evidence must tip the scale slightly in favor of the petitioner.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Evidence

Question

If I accidentally email my evidence to the wrong email address for the HOA's attorney, will it still be admitted?

Short Answer

Likely not. The responsibility for properly serving evidence lies with the person sending it.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that if a petitioner misspells the opposing counsel's email address, resulting in the evidence not being received, the petitioner is responsible for that error, and the evidence may be excluded.

Alj Quote

Thus, Petitioner bore the onus of any mishandling/compromise of his proposed hearing exhibits.

Legal Basis

Procedural Rules

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Procedure
  • Mistakes

Question

Can I cite general statutes or non-existent statutes in my petition?

Short Answer

No, you must cite specific, valid statutes. Citing non-existent codes weakens the case.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that the petitioner cited statutes that did not exist (e.g., ARS 33-9). While the judge may try to interpret the intent based on evidence, relying on invalid statutes makes it difficult to sustain the burden of proof.

Alj Quote

The conundrum of Petitioner’s confusing reliance on statutes that do not exist and/or are outside the jurisdiction of the Department is solved, in large part, based on the substantive evidence of record.

Legal Basis

Statutory Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • Legal Research
  • Petition Drafting

Question

What is the deadline for requesting a rehearing if I disagree with the decision?

Short Answer

30 days from the date the order is served.

Detailed Answer

If a party wishes to contest the ALJ's decision, they must file a request for a rehearing with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this ORDER upon the parties.

Legal Basis

ARS 41-1092.09

Topic Tags

  • Appeals
  • Deadlines

Case

Docket No
23F-H004-REL
Case Title
Randall White vs. Quail Creek Villas Association Inc.
Decision Date
2022-12-29
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Randall White (petitioner)
    Quail Creek Villas homeowner
    Appeared on his own behalf.

Respondent Side

  • Carolyn B. Goldschmidt (HOA attorney)
    Goldschmidt | Shupe LLC
    Counsel for Respondent.
  • Lori Wuollet (community manager)
    CAD Community Management
    Witness for Respondent; also known as Lori Don Wlette or Gloria Wlette.
  • John Messner (board member)
    Quail Creek Villas Association Inc.
    Vice President and witness for Respondent.
  • Robert Jelen (board member)
    Quail Creek Villas Association Inc.
    President and witness for Respondent; sometimes referred to as Bob Kellen.
  • Max Tittle (board member)
    Quail Creek Villas Association Inc.
    Also referred to as Max Tibble or Matt Tittle.
  • Diane (board member)
    Quail Creek Villas Association Inc.
    Mentioned by Petitioner as a board member.

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
    Presided over the hearing and issued the decision.
  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    OAH
    Signed minute entries (Sept 27, 2022) and order regarding virtual appearance (Nov 28, 2022).
  • John O'Campo (fire inspector)
    Green Valley Fire Department
    Contacted by Petitioner regarding wildfire assessment.
  • Roger Thompson (fire inspector)
    Green Valley Fire Department
    Parallel to John O'Campo; communicated with Petitioner and Respondent's board member.
  • Corey Guerin (inspector)
    AZ Dept Forestry & Fire Management
    Performed the Firewise assessment on November 3, 2022.
  • Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
    OAH
    Signed transmission lists.
  • c. serrano (Staff)
    OAH
    Clerical staff involved in document transmission.

Other Participants

  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official transmissions.
  • AHansen (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official transmissions.
  • vnunez (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official transmissions.
  • djones (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official transmissions.
  • labril (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official transmissions.

Asmaa Kadhum v. Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association

Posted on by
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222028-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-10-11
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Asmaa Kadhum Counsel —
Respondent Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1256

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to prove a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1256 because the specific issue raised—a complaint about a recorded lien—was moot, as the lien had been released, and no current enforcement action regarding the disputed legal fees was pending.

Why this result: The ALJ determined that absent a recorded lien or pending enforcement action, the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction to address the reasonableness or accuracy of the disputed legal fees under the specific statute cited (A.R.S. § 33-1256).

Key Issues & Findings

Requesting to Waive/or Adjust Unreasonable Collection Fees.

Petitioner sought to waive or adjust unreasonable collection fees and attorney fees ($2,351.40 or $3,500.00) charged by the HOA related to a lien placed on their unit, which was later released because it was allegedly based on incorrect amounts.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1256
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA lien, Collection fees, Attorney fees, Statutory violation, Jurisdiction, Rehearing
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1256
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – 1005275.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:10 (101.7 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – 1009064.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:12 (37.4 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/1_aamg stmt.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:16 (21.1 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/2_email from silvia regarding late fees.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:19 (457.3 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/3_email regarding plumbing repair from laweyer.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:23 (983.8 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/4_ledger dec 2021.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:27 (96.5 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/5_letter from lawyer.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:30 (138.0 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/7_petition response.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:34 (25.0 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/975165.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:37 (104.8 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_ElectronicNotice_Hearing.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:41 (93.3 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_ElectronicNotice_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:46 (122.6 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_HearingScheduled.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:50 (129.6 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_MC_Pet.ResponseToRespondentsResponseToPetition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:54 (132.2 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_MC_Response&ADRERequest.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:59 (133.2 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_Notice_Hearing.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:03 (1101.1 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_Notice_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:07 (3755.5 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_Payment.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:11 (221.2 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_Pet.ResponseTo.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:17 (5499.9 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:21 (5828.4 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_Response_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:25 (125.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 22F-H2222028-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Dispute Between Asmaa Kadhum and Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key facts and legal proceedings concerning a dispute between homeowner Asmaa Kadhum (Petitioner) and the Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association (Respondent). The central conflict is the Petitioner’s refusal to pay approximately $3,500 in legal fees that the Respondent incurred during collection efforts for past-due assessments.

The dispute escalated when the Respondent, on June 15, 2020, filed a lien for $2,199.00 against the Petitioner’s property. The Petitioner contested the lien’s validity, citing numerous accounting errors. Subsequently, the Respondent’s own legal counsel advised releasing the lien on November 13, 2020, acknowledging it contained “invalid late fee charges” and was released to protect the association from a “potential false lien claim.”

Despite the release of the lien, the Respondent continued to demand payment for the legal fees. The Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) on January 12, 2022, alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1256 and arguing the collection fees were unreasonable.

Following a hearing and a rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of the Respondent. The decision was based on a critical jurisdictional issue: because there was no active lien on the property at the time the petition was filed or heard, there was no existing violation of the cited statute for the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to adjudicate. The ALJ concluded that the OAH lacks the authority to issue a declaratory judgment on the reasonableness of the fees in the absence of a pending enforcement action by the association. The underlying liability for the legal fees remains an unresolved issue between the parties.

Parties Involved

Name/Entity

Key Representative(s)

Petitioner

Asmaa Kadhum

Asmaa Kadhum, Mazin Ahmed Al-Salih

Respondent

Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association

Jerry Latschar (Vice President), Cammy Bowring

Chronology of Key Events

Prior to May 1, 2019

Petitioner accrued unpaid assessments and fees totaling $1,375.00 under previous management (AAMG).

April 21, 2020

Respondent sent a notice to Petitioner demanding payment of $1,435.00 in past-due assessments and fees within 30 days.

April 30, 2020

Petitioner responded via email, stating it was “not a good timing for collections” due to the pandemic and requested late fees be removed.

June 15, 2020

Respondent recorded a Notice of Lien on Petitioner’s unit for an amount of $2,199.00.

August 7, 2020

Respondent’s attorney sent a notice stating the total amount due, including legal fees, was now $2,504.00.

September 10, 2020

Petitioner notified Respondent that the lien amount was incorrect and constituted an “improper lien.”

November 13, 2020

Respondent recorded a Release of Lien against the Petitioner’s unit.

December 10, 2020

Respondent’s attorney explained in a letter that the lien was released because it “included late fee charges that were found to be invalid.”

Post-Release

Respondent maintained that Petitioner still owed approximately $3,500.00 in legal fees from the collection process.

December 2021

An account ledger showed a balance of $2,685.40.

January 12, 2022

Petitioner filed a petition with the ADRE (Case No. HO22-22/028) alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1256.

April 4, 2022

An administrative hearing was held before ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer.

October 11, 2022

Following a rehearing, the ALJ issued a final decision, finding no violation of the cited statute and dismissing the petition.

October 27, 2022

Petitioner filed a miscellaneous motion, which the OAH did not consider, stating it could take no further action on the matter.

Analysis of the Core Dispute

The Disputed Legal Fees

The primary point of contention is the legal fees assessed to the Petitioner’s account for the collection of past-due assessments.

• Respondent’s Claim: The Respondent asserts that legal fees of approximately $3,500.00 are owed. However, during testimony, Respondent’s representative, Mr. Latschar, was “uncertain where the $3,500.00 total originated.”

• Conflicting Evidence: The amount claimed is inconsistent with other documents. Invoices from counsel submitted after the initial hearing showed total charges of only 661.50∗∗attributabletothePetitioner′smatterbetweenAugustandNovember2020.AledgerfromDecember2021showedatotaloutstandingbalanceof∗∗2,685.40, which included legal fees.

The Improper Lien

A foundational element of the Petitioner’s argument is the improper nature of the lien filed by the Respondent.

• Filing and Release: A lien for $2,199.00 was recorded on June 15, 2020, and officially released on November 13, 2020.

• Reason for Release: The Respondent’s attorney stated the release was necessary to “protect [Respondent] and our firm from a potential false lien claim” because the original notice “included late fee charges that were found to be invalid.” The Respondent’s response to the petition also states, “the lawyer was forced to release the lien” because of “errors” related to posting late fees.

• Varying Amounts: The Petitioner highlighted the inconsistent amounts demanded throughout the process:

◦ $1,435.00 in the April 2020 notice.

◦ $2,199.00 in the June 2020 lien filing.

◦ $2,504.00 in the August 2020 attorney notice.

Petitioner’s Position and Arguments

The Petitioner contends they should not be held responsible for legal fees stemming from the Respondent’s flawed collection process.

• Fees are Unreasonable: The core argument is that charging legal fees for an “invalid” lien based on “false statements and invoices” is unreasonable and unacceptable.

• Lack of Cooperation: The Petitioner claims to have made multiple attempts to discuss the matter and arrange payments, sending meeting requests in December 2021 that were allegedly ignored or cancelled.

• Principle of Fairness: The Petitioner argued, “if someone files a claim then realized that his filing process was based on wrong documents, and then dropped the claim himself, should the other party be responsible for the legal fees for that.”

Respondent’s Position and Arguments

The Respondent maintains that the legal fees are a legitimate debt resulting from the Petitioner’s failure to pay assessments.

• Legal Action was Necessary: The Respondent initiated legal action because the Petitioner had not paid assessments for “nearly a year” and had stated they would not make back payments until late fees were waived.

• Lien Release vs. Debt: The Respondent argues that the release of the lien “doesn’t release the balance owing, just the lien at the county.” The legal fees incurred to collect the past assessments remain due.

• Petitioner Contributed to Costs: The Respondent claims the Petitioner “proceeded to force the attorney to review the ledger, which caused further legal fees to be charged.”

Administrative Hearing and Legal Rulings

Case Details and Petition

• OAH Docket: 22F-H2222028-REL

• ADRE Case: HO22-22/028

• Alleged Violation: A.R.S. § 33-1256, which governs the placement of liens for assessments and requires that they be for “reasonable collection fees and for reasonable attorney fee.”

• Relief Sought: An order to “Waive / or Adjust Unreasonable Collection Fees.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

Across both the initial hearing and the rehearing, the ALJ’s decision was consistent and based on a narrow interpretation of the OAH’s jurisdiction under the cited statute.

• Primary Finding: The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1256.

• Jurisdictional Limitation: The ALJ repeatedly emphasized that her authority was limited to evaluating existing liens. Since the lien was released in November 2020, well before the petition was filed in January 2022, there was no active lien to assess for reasonableness.

• Corrective Action: The ALJ stated that by releasing the improper lien, the Respondent had “fixed” the past error, removing it from the OAH’s purview.

• No Declaratory Judgment: The decision clarified that the OAH has “no jurisdiction to issue declaratory judgments.” It could not rule on whether the legal fees themselves were reasonable as a standalone issue, only whether an active lien containing those fees was compliant with statute.

• No Enforcement Action: The decision noted that at the time of the hearing, the Respondent was not pursuing any enforcement action (such as filing a new lien or foreclosure) to collect the disputed fees. The fees existed only as “a number on a ledger.”

Salient Quotes

• Petitioner: “Why why we have to pay for for them mistakes? That’s totally issue.”

• Petitioner: “$3,377 legal fee for placing lean is not reasonable or acceptable.”

• Respondent: “they caused us to obtain legal counsel by not paying their bills for almost a year… It doesn’t release the balance owing, just the lien at the county.”

• Respondent’s Attorney (via letter): “…because the original Notice of Lien ‘included late fee charges that were found to be invalid . . . a Release of Lien was recorded in order to protect [Respondent] and our firm from a potential false lien claim.'”

• Administrative Law Judge: “There is no lean on your property. I can’t say the lean is wrong because there is no lean at this point.”

• Administrative Law Judge: “I can’t I can’t say that what they did in the past was wrong because they have fixed it by releasing the lean.”

• Administrative Law Judge (Decision): “the exact amount of legal fees attributable to Petitioner is not relevant in this matter as there were no pending enforcement actions. This is not to say Petitioner may not be entitled to raise this question in a separate venue.”






Study Guide – 22F-H2222028-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Case No. 22F-H2222028-REL

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Based on the provided source materials, answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences.

1. Identify the Petitioner and the Respondent in this case and describe the nature of their dispute.

2. What specific Arizona Revised Statute did the Petitioner allege the Respondent violated, and what was the core of this allegation?

3. On what date did the Respondent file a Notice of Lien against the Petitioner’s property, what was the amount, and why was this lien later released?

4. According to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), why did the Office of Administrative Hearings lack the jurisdiction to rule on the reasonableness of the legal fees sought by the Respondent?

5. How did the Petitioner respond to the Respondent’s April 21, 2020 notice of past-due assessments?

6. What action did the Respondent’s law firm state it was prohibited from taking until May 21, 2020, and what was the legal basis for this restriction?

7. After the initial hearing, what was the total amount of legal fees supported by the four invoices submitted by Mr. Latschar for the period between August 1 and November 30, 2020?

8. The Petitioner sought to sell their property and requested a statement from the Respondent showing a zero balance. What was the central point of contention preventing this?

9. In December 2021, the Petitioner attempted to schedule a meeting with the board to dispute a fee. What was the outcome of these requests?

10. What was the final outcome of the case as stated in the Administrative Law Judge’s decision on October 11, 2022?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner is Asmaa Kadhum, a condominium owner. The Respondent is the Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association. Their dispute centers on the reasonableness of approximately $3,500 in legal fees the Association charged to Kadhum for collection efforts related to past-due assessments, particularly after the Association filed and then released an invalid lien on the property.

2. The Petitioner alleged a violation of A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16, Section 33-1256. The core of the allegation was that the Association was charging unreasonable collection and attorney fees, which is a standard addressed by this statute when an HOA places a lien against a unit.

3. The Respondent filed a Notice of Lien for $2,199.00 on June 15, 2020. The lien was later released on November 13, 2020, because, as the Respondent’s attorney noted, the original Notice of Lien “included late fee charges that were found to be invalid,” and the release was recorded to protect the Association and the law firm from a potential false lien claim.

4. The ALJ stated that the court could not rule on the reasonableness of the fees because there was no longer a recorded lien against the property. The petition was filed under A.R.S. § 33-1256, which governs liens, and since the lien had been released, there was no active violation or enforcement action for the court to evaluate or remedy. The OAH has no jurisdiction to issue declaratory judgments on such matters in the absence of an active enforcement action.

5. In an email dated April 30, 2020, the Petitioner responded to the notice by stating it was “not a good timing for collections” due to the pandemic. The Petitioner disputed the total amount, claiming late fees should be removed, and stated they were planning to pay the whole amount “after this pandemic goes away.”

6. In a May 5, 2020 email, the law firm, Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C., stated that pursuant to state law, it could not proceed with collection efforts until 30 days had passed from the April 21 notice. This meant the file could not be turned over to their office for collection until after May 21, 2020, giving the owner time to pay or arrange a payment agreement.

7. According to the ALJ’s decision from the initial hearing, the four invoices submitted by Mr. Latschar after the hearing showed total charges of $661.50 attributable to the Petitioner’s matter between August 1, 2020, and November 30, 2020.

8. The Petitioner wanted a zero-balance statement to sell the property, arguing all assessments had been paid. The Respondent refused to provide this, contending that while the assessments were paid, there was still an outstanding balance for legal fees incurred during the collection process, which the Petitioner disputed as unreasonable and resulting from the Respondent’s own mistakes.

9. The Petitioner sent multiple meeting requests in December 2021 to dispute a fee of $3,377. The Respondent ultimately canceled the meeting with the homeowner and held one with only the board members, citing COVID-19 and the use of Zoom, even though previous meetings had been held via Zoom.

10. In the final decision dated October 11, 2022, the ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1256. This was because there was no recorded lien against the property at the time of the petition or hearings, and thus no active enforcement action for the OAH to adjudicate.

——————————————————————————–

Suggested Essay Questions

1. Trace the complete timeline of the dispute, starting from the initial delinquency prior to May 2019 through the final OAH decision in October 2022. Detail the key financial figures, legal actions, and communications from both parties at each significant stage.

2. Analyze the central legal arguments presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent. Discuss the merits of the Petitioner’s claim regarding A.R.S. § 33-1256 and explain in detail the jurisdictional reasoning used by the Administrative Law Judge to dismiss the petition.

3. Examine the various financial discrepancies present throughout the source documents, including the differing amounts cited in notices, the lien filing, attorney letters, and account ledgers. How did these inconsistencies contribute to the escalation of the conflict and the accumulation of legal fees?

4. Discuss the role of the Respondent’s law firm, Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C., in this dispute. Based on the provided emails and legal documents, evaluate their advice to the Association and their actions regarding the lien and collection process.

5. Critically evaluate the communication and resolution attempts between the Petitioner and the Respondent’s board outside of the formal legal proceedings. What do the emails and hearing testimony reveal about their efforts to resolve the dispute directly?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings for government agencies, such as the Office of Administrative Hearings. In this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer served as the ALJ.

A.R.S. § 33-1256

The specific Arizona Revised Statute cited by the Petitioner. This statute pertains to liens for assessments in condominiums, including provisions for reasonable collection and attorney fees associated with such liens.

Assessment

A mandatory fee paid by condominium owners to the homeowners’ association (HOA) for the maintenance of common elements and other association expenses.

Declaratory Judgment

A binding judgment from a court defining the legal relationship between parties and their rights in a matter before any harm has occurred. The OAH stated it had no jurisdiction to issue such a judgment on the legal fees.

Department of Real Estate (ADRE)

The Arizona state agency responsible for licensing and regulating the real estate industry. Its functions include the Homeowners Association Dispute Resolution process.

A legal claim or hold on a property as security for a debt. In this case, the Condominium Association placed a lien on the Petitioner’s unit for unpaid assessments and fees.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent Arizona state agency authorized to conduct hearings in contested matters for other state agencies, ensuring a fair and impartial process.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal case or administrative hearing. In this matter, the petitioner is the homeowner, Asmaa Kadhum.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof in most civil and administrative cases. It requires the party with the burden of proof (the Petitioner in this case) to show that their claim is more likely true than not.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case to re-examine the issues and evidence. In this matter, a rehearing was granted after the initial April 4, 2022 hearing.

Release of Lien

A legal document that removes a previously recorded lien on a property. The Respondent recorded a Release of Lien on November 13, 2020, after acknowledging the original lien amount was incorrect.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the respondent is the Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association.






Blog Post – 22F-H2222028-REL-RHG


5 Shocking Lessons from a Homeowner’s Two-Year War with Her HOA

Introduction: The Notice on the Door

It’s a moment many homeowners dread: finding an official notice from the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) taped to the front door. For most, it’s a minor issue—a reminder about lawn care or trash cans. But for homeowner Asmaa Kadhum, a notice in April 2020 regarding approximately $1,400 in past-due assessments was the first step in a spiraling, multi-year legal war with her Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association.

What began as a manageable debt quickly escalated into a complex battle involving property liens, lawyers, and a dispute over thousands of dollars in legal fees. The case of Kadhum versus her HOA serves as a powerful cautionary tale, revealing several surprising and counter-intuitive truths about the high-stakes world of HOA disputes.

——————————————————————————–

1. You Can Win the Battle Over a Lien, But Still Owe the Fees

One of the central ironies of this case is how a clear victory on one front failed to end the war. After the homeowner fell behind on assessments, the HOA’s collection efforts caused the initial $1,435 dispute to snowball. On June 15, 2020, the HOA placed a lien on her property for $2,199. The homeowner disputed the lien’s accuracy, arguing that it contained errors.

Ultimately, she was proven correct. The HOA was forced to record a Release of Lien on November 13, 2020. This should have been the end of it, but here’s the twist: even with the lien gone, the HOA maintained that the homeowner was still responsible for approximately $3,500 in legal fees that had been incurred during the process of trying to collect the original debt. This reveals a crucial distinction in HOA law: getting an improper lien removed from your property title doesn’t automatically erase the associated collection costs from the HOA’s ledger. The manageable debt had now become a much larger problem.

——————————————————————————–

2. A Legal Technicality Can Get a Valid Complaint Dismissed

The homeowner, now facing a bill for thousands in legal fees related to a lien the HOA admitted was flawed, took her case to the Arizona Department of Real Estate. This move, however, highlights a critical strategic error. She filed her petition on January 12, 2022, alleging a violation of statute A.R.S. § 33-1256, which governs HOA liens and the reasonableness of the fees associated with them.

This led to a procedural “Catch-22” that doomed her case. The problem was timing. The HOA had released the improper lien on November 13, 2020—a full 14 months before the homeowner filed her petition. The case hinged on a procedural nuance that many homeowners might overlook: the statute she cited applies exclusively to active liens. Since the target of her complaint no longer existed by the time of the April 2022 hearing, the judge had no jurisdiction.

The Administrative Law Judge explained this jurisdictional trap in plain English:

and if there was a lien on your property right now, I could look at it and say whether or not the collection fees were appropriate, were reasonable. There isn’t one, so there’s nothing for me to evaluate.

The homeowner’s complaint about the fees might have had merit, but because she legally tied it to a violation that was no longer active, the court’s hands were tied. A different legal approach, perhaps focused on disputing the fees in another venue, may have been necessary.

——————————————————————————–

3. Correcting an Error Doesn’t Erase the Cost of Making It

The homeowner’s core argument was simple and relatable: why should she be forced to pay for the HOA’s mistakes? This question became even more pointed when documents revealed the HOA’s own attorney admitting the error. The attorney explained that the lien was released because it “included late fee charges that were found to be invalid” and the release was done to protect the association from a “potential false lien claim.”

During the hearing, the homeowner put the fundamental question to the judge: “Why… do we have to pay for their mistakes?”

Despite the HOA’s admission of error, the legal fees incurred during the entire collections process—including the work related to filing and defending the faulty lien—remained on her account. The situation reached a shocking climax during the hearing. When the judge reviewed the case, he noted that the HOA’s own representative, Mr. Latschar, “was uncertain where the $3,500.00 total originated.” The homeowner was being held liable for a debt that even her creditor couldn’t fully explain.

——————————————————————————–

4. A Disputed Debt Can Haunt a Property Sale

Even after the lien was officially released, the homeowner found herself in a financial vise. As she explained in the hearing, she wanted to sell her property and needed a formal statement from the HOA showing a zero balance to provide to potential buyers and title companies.

However, because the HOA’s books still showed she owed thousands in disputed legal fees, they would not provide this statement. This situation highlights the immense leverage an HOA maintains during a property conveyance. The dispute created a “phantom debt”—not an active lien recorded with the county, but a disputed balance on a ledger that can effectively halt a sale. The judge acknowledged this limbo, describing the amount as “just a number on a ledger.”

Yet, that number is a powerful barrier. Title insurance companies, which are essential for nearly all property sales, will not issue a clear policy if there is a known, unresolved financial dispute with an HOA. This gives the association the power to delay or prevent a sale, even without an active lien on the property.

——————————————————————————–

5. Small Communication Failures Lead to Big Legal Bills

This entire conflict escalated because of a pattern of communication failures that eroded trust long before lawyers were involved. Records show the friction began as early as November 2019, with the homeowner claiming disputes over incorrect receipts and the HOA’s alleged failure to waive late fees as promised.

The situation came to a head in April 2020. When the homeowner received the collection notice, she responded via email, stating it was “not a good timing for collections” due to the pandemic and that she planned to pay the full amount “after this pandemic goes away.” Instead of working toward a formal payment agreement, the HOA proceeded with legal action. The homeowner later claimed she tried to schedule meetings with the board to resolve the matter directly but “was never responded to.”

These failures in communication and negotiation were the direct catalyst for involving lawyers. That decision is what caused the debt to balloon from the original $1,435 to a prolonged, stressful, and expensive dispute over thousands in legal fees.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: A Pyrrhic Victory?

The ordeal of Asmaa Kadhum offers critical lessons for any homeowner in an HOA. It demonstrates that in these disputes, legal technicalities matter immensely, clear communication is non-negotiable, and winning a single battle doesn’t mean you’ve won the war. Even when a homeowner is “right” on a key point—like forcing the removal of an improper lien—they can still face significant and lasting financial consequences.

This case leaves every homeowner with a final, thought-provoking question to ponder: When facing a dispute with an HOA, how do you know when to fight for what’s right versus when to avoid a battle that might cost you more than you stand to gain?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Asmaa Kadhum (petitioner)
    Homeowner of Unit 101 who filed the initial petition.
  • Mazin Ahmed (petitioner)
    Co-owner/husband of Petitioner; primary contact for correspondence and identified as part of 'Petitioner' in the decision.

Respondent Side

  • Jerry Latschar (board member)
    Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association
    Vice President of the Board of Directors and Statutory Agent; appeared on behalf of the Association.
  • Robert Kellerman (board member)
    Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association
    President of the Board of Directors.
  • Silvia Petzold (board member)
    Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association
    Former Treasurer who initiated debt collection contact with Petitioner.
  • Solomon Padilla (board member)
    Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association
    Board member included in internal association correspondence.
  • Cammy Bowring (property manager)
    The Bowring Team
    Bookkeeper and point of contact for the Association's financial matters.
  • Lauren Vie (HOA attorney)
    Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C.
    Legal counsel for the Association.
  • Beth Mulcahy (HOA attorney)
    Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C.
    Lead attorney for the Association's legal representation.
  • Morgan Ronimus (HOA attorney)
    Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C.
    Paralegal acting as a legal representative in correspondence with Petitioner.
  • Pam Latschar (respondent)
    Recipient of correspondence regarding Unit 101.

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presiding Administrative Law Judge; also referenced phonetically as Tammy Agon and Tammy Aganeer in transcripts.
  • Louis Dettorre (hearing officer)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Commissioner who granted the request for rehearing.
  • Dan Gardner (staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    HOA Coordinator.
  • Miranda Alvarez (staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Legal Secretary who transmitted the ALJ decision.
  • c. serrano (staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Clerk who transmitted the minute entry.

Other Participants

  • David Villasenor (unknown)
    Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association
    Owner of Unit 107; CC'd on association communications.