Case Summary
| Case ID | 19F-H1919051-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2019-05-28 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Diane Mihalsky |
| Outcome | loss |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $0.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | David and Brenda Norman | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Rancho Del Lago Community Association | Counsel | Ashley N. Moscarello |
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs § 3.11(D)(1) / Common Project Guidelines § 3.11(D)(1)
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition filed by David and Brenda Norman against Rancho Del Lago Community Association, finding that the Department of Real Estate did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute, as it was essentially a conflict between neighboring owners (Petitioners and Hendersons) regarding a wall.
Why this result: The Department lacked jurisdiction over the dispute among or between owners, per A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1).
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation by HOA approving a block wall built by neighbors (Hendersons)
Petitioners alleged that Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs § 3.11(D)(1) by approving a block wall built by their next-door neighbors, the Hendersons, and requested the Department require the Hendersons to permit Petitioners to connect to the wall or require the Hendersons to tear the wall down.
Orders: The petition was dismissed because the Department lacked jurisdiction to hear a dispute primarily among or between owners to which the association is not a party, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1).
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
- A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
- A.R.S. § 33-1803
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Analytics Highlights
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
- A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
- A.R.S. § 33-1803
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
19F-H1919051-REL Decision – 737050.pdf
19F-H1919051-REL Decision – 710478.pdf
19F-H1919051-REL Decision – 711115.pdf
19F-H1919051-REL Decision – 710478.pdf
19F-H1919051-REL Decision – 711115.pdf
Case Briefing: Norman v. Rancho Del Lago Community Association
Executive Summary
This briefing document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1919051-REL, involving homeowners David and Brenda Norman (Petitioners) and the Rancho Del Lago Community Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute centers on the Petitioners’ allegation that the Respondent’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) violated community guidelines by approving a wall built by the Petitioners’ neighbors, the Hendersons.
The Petitioners claimed the Henderson’s wall, constructed 6 inches inside the property line, created a situation where any wall they might build on their property would be a “closely parallel wall,” which is prohibited by the community’s Common Project Guidelines § 3.11(D)(1). They requested that the Respondent either force the Hendersons to allow the Petitioners to connect to their wall, effectively making it a shared “party wall,” or compel the Hendersons to demolish it.
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition entirely. The primary legal basis for the dismissal was a lack of jurisdiction; under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1), the Arizona Department of Real Estate cannot hear disputes solely between homeowners in which the association is not a party. The judge concluded this was fundamentally a neighbor-versus-neighbor conflict. Furthermore, the judge characterized the wall the Petitioners sought to build as an “archetypical spite fence” and noted that the Petitioners had failed to prove the Respondent had violated any community documents.
Case Overview
Parties and Key Entities
Name/Entity
Description
Petitioners
David and Brenda Norman
Homeowners in the Rancho Del Lago Community.
Respondent
Rancho Del Lago Community Association
The homeowners’ association (HOA) for the community.
Neighbors
The Hendersons
The Petitioners’ next-door neighbors who built the disputed wall.
Management Co.
Management Solutions
The company managing the Respondent HOA.
Witness (Respondent)
Spencer Brod
Employee of Management Solutions overseeing the Respondent’s affairs.
Administrative Law Judge
Diane Mihalsky
Presiding judge from the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Regulating Body
Arizona Department of Real Estate
State agency authorized to hear certain HOA disputes.
Adjudicating Body
Office of Administrative Hearings
Independent state agency that conducted the evidentiary hearing.
Procedural Details
Detail
Information
Case Number
19F-H1919051-REL
Petition Filed
On or about February 28, 2019
Hearing Date
May 8, 2019
Amended Decision Date
May 28, 2019
Timeline of Key Events
• December 2003: The Respondent’s ARC adopts the Common Project Guidelines, which govern all exterior improvements.
• March 8, 2017: The Hendersons submit an Architectural Variance Request (AVR) to extend the common wall between their property and the Petitioners’. Mrs. Norman signs the request, giving consent. The ARC approves this request.
• April 27, 2017: The Hendersons submit a new AVR to build a wall extension 6 inches inside their property line, making it a private wall rather than a shared party wall. The record suggests Mrs. Norman may have rescinded her earlier approval for the common wall.
• May 10, 2017: The ARC approves the Hendersons’ request to build the wall 6 inches inside their property line.
• September 5, 2017: The Petitioners submit an AVR to build an 11-foot wide concrete driveway. The ARC denies the request.
• Post-September 5, 2017: Despite the denial, the Petitioners construct the 11-foot wide driveway and are subsequently issued a Notice of Violation by the Respondent.
• September 7, 2017: The Petitioners submit an AVR to build a wall extension on their property, positioned at least 3 feet away from the Hendersons’ wall.
• October 13, 2017: The ARC approves the Petitioners’ wall extension request.
• Post-October 13, 2017: The Petitioners decide not to build the approved wall, stating their contractor advised them against “giving up” the 3 feet of property that would lie between the two walls.
• By November 2017: The Hendersons’ wall appears to have been constructed.
• February 28, 2019: The Petitioners file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the Respondent violated community rules.
• March 27, 2019: The Petitioners file a new AVR to build a wall directly on the property line. This request did not include the Hendersons’ required consent and was still pending at the time of the hearing.
Governing Documents and Key Provisions
The dispute and subsequent legal decision referenced several specific articles from the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and the Common Project Guidelines.
Document
Provision
Description
Article I § (p)
Defines “Party Walls” built on a property line, establishing equal right of use, joint responsibility for maintenance and repair, and a process for the Board to resolve disputes over construction or cost-sharing.
Article II § 2(a)
Requires prior written approval from the ARC for any improvements that alter the exterior appearance of a property.
Article XII § 1
Establishes the ARC, noting that its decisions are “sole, absolute and final on all matters submitted to it.”
Common Project Guidelines
Section 3.11(D)(1)
States that “Closely parallel walls shall be disapproved.” The term “closely parallel” is not defined in the guidelines. This provision was the central focus of the Petitioners’ complaint.
Common Project Guidelines
Section 4.21
Grants the ARC the right “to waive, vary, or otherwise modify any of the standards or procedures set forth herein at its discretion, for good cause shown.”
Summary of Testimony and Evidence
Testimony of Brenda Norman (Petitioner)
• Motivation for Wall: Stated that she and her husband are in law enforcement and want to enclose their side yard to protect utility meters from potential vandalism.
• Reason for Not Building Approved Wall: Explained that their contractor advised them it was “crazy to give up the 3’ of property” that would be inaccessible between their proposed wall and the Hendersons’ wall.
• Relationship with Neighbors: Acknowledged that the Petitioners “do not get along very well with the Hendersons” and therefore never asked for their consent for a wall on the property line.
• Belief Regarding Parallel Walls: Believes that if she submitted a plan for a wall just inside her property line, it would be denied under the “close parallel wall” rule.
• Requested Action: Opined that the Respondent should force the Hendersons to tear down their wall because it is not uniformly 6 inches from the property line.
Testimony of Spencer Brod (for Respondent)
• HOA Policy: Testified that the HOA “never gets involved in disputes between neighbors” and that it is the homeowner’s responsibility to obtain neighbor consent for common wall projects.
• Party vs. Private Walls: Explained that neighbor consent is required only for “party walls” on the property line due to shared maintenance liability. The Hendersons’ wall was approved because it was on their own property and therefore not a party wall.
• Enforcement and Inspection: Admitted that the Hendersons’ wall may not be uniformly 6 inches from the line but stated the Respondent has no one to perform a “thorough inspection” and had not sent a violation letter.
• “Closely Parallel Walls” Interpretation: Testified that while the term is undefined, the ARC’s approval of the Petitioners’ plan for a wall 3 feet away indicates that “closely parallel” means a distance of less than 3 feet.
• Petitioners’ Unauthorized Construction: Confirmed that the Respondent sent the Petitioners a Notice of Violation for building a driveway that the ARC had explicitly denied.
Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions of Law
The judge’s decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence, governing documents, and relevant state law.
1. Jurisdictional Failure: The primary reason for dismissal was a lack of jurisdiction. The judge cited A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1), which explicitly states, “The department does not have jurisdiction to hear [a]ny dispute among or between owners to which the association is not a party.” The judge determined this was a quintessential neighbor dispute, not a dispute with the HOA.
2. Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: The Petitioners bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent violated its own rules. The judge found they failed to do so.
3. Characterization as a “Spite Fence”: The decision describes the wall the Petitioners wish to build as an “archetypical spite fence between neighbors who cannot agree to mutually work for the improvement of their adjacent properties.”
4. HOA’s Limited Role: The judge affirmed that neither the CC&Rs nor the Common Project Guidelines compel the HOA to mediate or resolve disputes between neighbors by taking a side.
5. Distinction of Wall Types: The analysis distinguished between a party wall on a property line, which requires neighbor consent, and a private wall built entirely on one owner’s property, which does not. The Hendersons’ wall was approved as the latter.
6. Hypothetical Outcome: A concluding footnote in the decision states that even if the Department had jurisdiction, the Petitioners had not established that Guideline 3.11(D)(1) would authorize or require the Respondent to grant the relief they requested.
Final Order
IT IS ORDERED that the petition filed by David and Brenda Norman against the Respondent, Rancho Del Lago Community Association, is dismissed. The dismissal is based on the finding that the Arizona Department of Real Estate does not have jurisdiction to hear their dispute with the Hendersons.
Study Guide: Norman v. Rancho Del Lago Community Association
This guide is designed to review the administrative legal case between homeowners David and Brenda Norman and their homeowners’ association, the Rancho Del Lago Community Association, concerning a dispute over a neighbor’s wall.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing only from the information provided in the case documents.
1. What was the central violation of the homeowners’ association rules alleged by the Petitioners in their February 28, 2019, petition?
2. Identify the three main groups of individuals or entities involved in the dispute: the Petitioners, the Respondent, and the neighbors.
3. According to the Respondent’s CC&Rs, what is a “Party Wall” and what primary responsibility does it create for adjacent homeowners?
4. Describe the two separate wall-related Architectural Variance Requests (AVRs) submitted by the Hendersons in March and April of 2017.
5. Why did the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) initially deny the Petitioners’ request to build a new driveway, and what was the outcome of this denial?
6. What is the role of the “Declarant” within the Rancho Del Lago Community Association, and what influence do they hold over the board and the ARC?
7. The ARC approved a wall proposal for the Petitioners on October 13, 2017. Why did the Petitioners choose not to build this approved wall?
8. According to the CC&Rs, what is the ultimate authority of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) in rendering its decisions?
9. On what legal grounds did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismiss the Petitioners’ case?
10. Who bore the “burden of proof” in this hearing, and what does this legal standard require?
——————————————————————————–
Quiz Answer Key
1. The Petitioners alleged that the Respondent (the homeowners’ association) violated Section 3.11(D)(1) of the Common Project Guidelines. This section states that “closely parallel walls shall be disapproved,” and the Petitioners argued that the association violated this rule by approving the wall built by their neighbors, the Hendersons.
2. The Petitioners were homeowners David and Brenda Norman. The Respondent was the Rancho Del Lago Community Association. The neighbors, who were central to the dispute but not a party to the case, were the Hendersons.
3. A “Party Wall” is a wall situated on the property line between two or more contiguous lots. It creates a shared right of use and a joint obligation for all adjoining owners to rebuild and repair the wall at their shared expense.
4. The Hendersons first submitted an AVR on March 8, 2017, to extend the existing common party wall, for which Mrs. Norman gave consent. On April 27, 2017, they submitted a different AVR to build a new wall located entirely on their property, 6 inches inside the property line, which did not require the Normans’ consent.
5. The ARC denied the Petitioners’ September 5, 2017, request for an 11-foot wide driveway because a driveway already existed on the opposite side of the house where the garage was located. Despite the denial, the Petitioners built the driveway anyway, which resulted in the Respondent issuing them a Notice of Violation.
6. The “Declarant” is the original developer that built the subdivision. At the time of the hearing, the Respondent association was still under the control of the Declarant, who appointed all three directors of the board and was also a member of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC).
7. The Petitioners did not build the approved wall because the plan required it to be built at least 3 feet inside their property line to avoid being a party wall. Their contractor advised them they would be “crazy to give up the 3’ of property” that would lie between their new wall and the Hendersons’ wall.
8. According to Article XII, § 1 of the CC&Rs, “the decision of the [ARC] shall be sole, absolute and final on all matters submitted to it pursuant to this Declaration and/or the Design Guidelines.”
9. The judge dismissed the case due to a lack of jurisdiction. According to Arizona statute A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1), the Arizona Department of Real Estate does not have jurisdiction to hear disputes between owners to which the association is not a party. The judge framed the issue as a private dispute between the Normans and the Hendersons.
10. The Petitioners (the Normans) bore the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated the community rules. This standard, known as a “preponderance of the evidence,” requires presenting evidence that is more convincing and more likely true than not.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more analytical understanding of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each prompt, citing specific facts and rules from the case documents to support your arguments.
1. Analyze the concept of a “Party Wall” versus a privately-owned wall within the context of this case. How did the distinction between these two types of walls become the central point of contention and influence the decisions made by the Hendersons, the Normans, and the ARC?
2. Discuss the powers and limitations of the Rancho Del Lago Community Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) as outlined in the CC&Rs and Common Project Guidelines. How did the ARC’s discretionary authority, particularly under Section 4.21 of the guidelines, impact the events of this dispute?
3. Trace the timeline of Architectural Variance Requests (AVRs) submitted by both the Normans and the Hendersons. Evaluate how the sequence of approvals, denials, and unbuilt projects contributed to the escalation of the dispute and ultimately led to the legal hearing.
4. Explain the legal reasoning behind the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision. Why was the concept of “jurisdiction” more critical to the outcome than the merits of the Normans’ claim regarding “closely parallel walls”? Refer to the specific Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) cited in the decision.
5. The judge described the potential wall the Petitioners wish to build as an “archetypical spite fence.” Based on the testimony and evidence presented in the case, argue for or against this characterization.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official, in this case Diane Mihalsky, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and renders decisions on disputes involving state agencies.
Architectural Review Committee (ARC)
A committee established by the Declarant and governed by the CC&Rs, responsible for reviewing and approving or denying any proposed improvements that alter the exterior appearance of properties within the community. Its decisions are described as “sole, absolute and final.”
Architectural Variance Request (AVR)
The formal application submitted by a homeowner to the ARC to request approval for an exterior improvement or modification to their property.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (the Department)
The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations regarding violations of community documents.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The legal documents that establish the rules, regulations, and obligations for homeowners within a planned community like Rancho Del Lago.
Closely Parallel Walls
A term from Section 3.11(D)(1) of the Common Project Guidelines that are to be disapproved. The term is not explicitly defined, but testimony suggests a wall 3 feet from another would be approved, making the threshold for “close” less than that.
Common Project Guidelines
A set of rules adopted by the ARC in December 2003 that govern all exterior improvements and provide standards for the Design Review Process. These guidelines supplement the CC&Rs.
Declarant
The original developer that built the subdivision. In this case, the Declarant still controlled the association’s Board of Directors and the ARC.
Jurisdiction
The legal authority of a court or agency to hear and decide a case. The petition was dismissed because the Department was found to lack jurisdiction over disputes solely between homeowners.
Office of Administrative Hearings
An independent state agency in Arizona where evidentiary hearings, like the one in this case, are conducted by an Administrative Law Judge.
Party Wall
As defined in the CC&Rs, a wall on the property line between contiguous lots. Owners have equal rights to use it and share joint financial responsibility for its repair and maintenance.
Petitioners
The party that initiates a legal action or petition. In this case, homeowners David and Brenda Norman.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this civil administrative hearing. It means the evidence presented must be sufficient to convince the judge that a claim is more probably true than not.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Lago Community Association.
Restrictive Covenant
A provision in a deed or community document (like a CC&R) that limits the use of the property. Arizona law holds that unambiguous restrictive covenants are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties.
The Six-Inch Wall That Ignited a Legal Battle: 4 Shocking Lessons from a Brutal HOA War
1.0 Introduction: The Neighbor Next Door
Living next to someone is a universal experience, and it’s remarkable how quickly a small disagreement over a fence or a property line can spiral into a full-blown conflict. For two families in an Arizona HOA, what started as a plan for a backyard wall ended in a formal administrative law hearing, providing a stark case study in property law, association rules, and human nature.
This dispute, involving homeowners David and Brenda Norman and their neighbors, the Hendersons, dissects four critical lessons that challenge common assumptions about homeowner rights and association duties. Their story is a powerful cautionary tale about property lines, HOA authority, and the high cost of a neighborhood war.
2.0 Takeaway 1: The Six-Inch Difference That Changes Everything
1. A Wall on the Property Line Isn’t the Same as a Wall Near It
In property law, inches are everything. The community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) defined a “Party Wall” as a structure sitting directly on the property line between two lots. By this definition, these walls are a shared responsibility, requiring mutual consent from both homeowners for construction and shared costs for maintenance.
This distinction became the pivot on which the entire case turned. Initially, the Hendersons submitted plans to build a shared Party Wall, and the Normans gave their required consent. But then the plan changed. The Hendersons withdrew that request and submitted a new one: to build a wall located just six inches inside their own property line. The record doesn’t state definitively why the Hendersons changed their plan, though testimony suggested the Normans may have rescinded their initial consent.
This was a masterstroke of procedural navigation; by sacrificing a mere six inches of their yard, the Hendersons effectively bought the legal right to build without their neighbors’ consent, turning a potential year-long dispute into a matter of a simple ARC approval. By moving the structure entirely onto their own lot, it was no longer a “Party Wall” but their private property. While the Hendersons had successfully navigated the HOA’s rules, the Normans’ next step was to try and force the HOA to intervene directly—a move that would expose a common misunderstanding about the limits of an association’s power.
3.0 Takeaway 2: Your HOA Isn’t the Neighborhood Referee
2. The HOA’s Power to Intervene Has Surprising Limits
A common assumption among homeowners is that the HOA must mediate any and all disputes between residents. This case proves that assumption is fundamentally incorrect.
When the conflict escalated, the HOA’s position was unwavering. Spencer Brod, an employee of the association’s management company, testified that the association “never gets involved in disputes between neighbors.” Its role is to enforce community rules as they relate to the association, not to take sides in personal conflicts between homeowners.
The Administrative Law Judge presiding over the case reinforced this legal reality, citing Arizona law to clarify the limits of both the HOA’s and the state’s jurisdiction. The judge’s finding was unequivocal:
Neither the CC&Rs nor the Common Project Guidelines require Respondent [the HOA] to mediate or resolve a dispute between neighbors by taking one side or the other. A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1) provides that ‘[t]he department does not have jurisdiction to hear [a]ny dispute among or between owners to which the association is not a party.’
This finding is a crucial lesson: while an HOA enforces its governing documents, it is not a neighborhood court and cannot be compelled to referee personal disagreements.
4.0 Takeaway 3: You Can’t Demand a Neighbor Play by the Rules If You Don’t
3. Coming to the Table with Clean Hands Matters
The case contained a powerful element of irony that proved fatal to the Normans’ petition. The judge’s official Findings of Fact reveal that while demanding the HOA enforce its rules against the Hendersons, the Normans had a significant compliance issue of their own.
In September 2017, the Normans submitted a request to build an 11-foot wide concrete driveway “to provide a solid walking surface because Mrs. Norman was disabled and had difficulty walking.” While the motivation was sympathetic, the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) denied the request. Despite the denial, the Normans built the driveway anyway and were subsequently issued a Notice of Violation by the HOA.
Critically, the Normans’ own rule-breaking occurred after the Hendersons’ wall was approved. In the very midst of their dispute, while formulating a case against their neighbors, they chose to defy the ARC themselves. This is a classic illustration of the “unclean hands” doctrine. In any legal or administrative forum, one’s credibility is paramount. The Normans were asking the HOA to be a strict enforcer of rules they themselves had flagrantly violated, a position that is almost always untenable.
5.0 Takeaway 4: When a Judge Calls It a “Spite Fence”
4. The Court May Look Past the Rules and See Your Intent
Even in a hearing focused on the technicalities of CC&Rs, the underlying human motivations of the conflict did not go unnoticed. The HOA’s ARC had previously approved a plan for the Normans to build their own wall, provided it was located three feet inside their property line. They refused. Brenda Norman testified that their contractor told them they were “crazy to give up the 3’ of property.” Mrs. Norman also argued that a wall on her property would be denied as a prohibited “closely parallel wall,” but this claim was directly contradicted by the ARC’s own actions—they had already approved her wall at the three-foot distance.
The judge’s “spite fence” comment wasn’t just an observation; it was the legal culmination of the Normans’ entire pattern of behavior. Their refusal to accept an approved wall on their own property (losing 3 feet) while demanding their neighbor tear down a wall built on theirs (losing 0 feet) painted a clear picture of animosity, not a genuine need for property protection. The judge saw through the legal arguments to the core of the issue:
The wall that Petitioners testified that they must build to protect their property appears to be an archetypical spite fence between neighbors who cannot agree to mutually work for the improvement of their adjacent properties.
A “spite fence” is a legal term for a structure erected with malicious intent, where the primary purpose is not to improve one’s own property but to annoy, inconvenience, or harm a neighbor. The judge’s use of this term was a powerful signal that, in the court’s view, the dispute was no longer about property rights, but about personal animus.
6.0 Conclusion: A Wall Is a Wall, But a Neighbor Is Forever
This case is a cautionary tale written in concrete and legal filings. It shows how a dispute over six inches of soil can metastasize, fueled by a misunderstanding of HOA rules and an unwillingness to compromise, ultimately costing both parties time, money, and peace of mind. From the critical importance of a few inches of land to the defined limits of an HOA’s authority, the details matter.
Ultimately, the story of the Normans and the Hendersons serves as a powerful reminder that navigating HOA living requires a clear-eyed understanding of the actual rules, not just a sense of what seems “fair.” It leaves us with a critical question to consider.
When it comes to our homes and neighbors, is it more important to be right, or to find a way to live in peace?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- David Norman (petitioner)
Appeared telephonically on own behalf - Brenda Norman (petitioner)
Testified on Petitioners' behalf
Respondent Side
- Ashley N. Moscarello (HOA attorney)
Goodman Law Group
Represented Rancho Del Lago Community Association - Spencer Brod (property manager/witness)
Management Solutions
Employee of Respondent's management company; testified
Neutral Parties
- Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings - Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate - Felicia Del Sol (administrative staff)
Transmitted decision electronically
Other Participants
- Anthony Henderson (homeowner/neighbor)
Next-door neighbor who built the wall in dispute - Mabel Gummere (property manager predecessor)
Predecessor to Spencer Brod