The Administrative Law Judge granted the petition filed by the Cross Creek Ranch Community Association, finding that Turquoise Textures, LLC violated CC&Rs Article 3, Section 3.1.3 and Article 7, Section 7.5 by clear cutting old growth trees and vegetation in violation of approved plans. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500 filing fee and comply with governing documents.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by clear cutting old growth trees and vegetation contrary to approved plans.
Petitioner alleged Respondent clear cut approximately 30 old growth trees and native vegetation, violating approved plans and governing documents, and presenting a nuisance. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner sustained its burden of proof that Respondent violated the Association’s governing documents, regardless of whether Respondent directed the general contractor, and granted the petition.
Orders: Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds and henceforth comply with the provisions of the governing documents.
Briefing Document: Cross Creek Ranch Community Association vs. Turquoise Textures, LLC
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the case Cross Creek Ranch Community Association vs. Turquoise Textures, LLC (No. 25F-H005-REL), heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The central dispute involved the unauthorized clear-cutting of approximately 30 old-growth trees and native vegetation from a lot owned by William D. Durham, principal of Turquoise Textures, LLC.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Nicole Robinson, ultimately ruled in favor of the Petitioner, the Cross Creek Ranch Community Association (HOA). The decision found that Mr. Durham violated the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Design Guidelines. While Mr. Durham’s primary defense was to blame his general contractor, the ALJ’s decision was based on credible testimony from the contractor implicating Mr. Durham, a documented pattern of non-compliance by Mr. Durham, and his own admission that the lot was cleared in violation of his approved plans.
The HOA sought a court order compelling Mr. Durham to plant 30 trees, 10-12 feet in height, by March 15, 2025. The final OAH order granted the HOA’s petition, requiring Mr. Durham to comply with the governing documents and reimburse the association’s $500 filing fee.
Case Overview
Parties Involved
Name / Entity
Key Role/Witness For
Petitioner
Cross Creek Ranch Community Association
Homeowners’ Association alleging violation of governing documents.
Respondent
Turquoise Textures, LLC (William D. Durham)
Property owner accused of violating governing documents.
Adjudicator
Nicole Robinson
Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings.
Witness
Greg Chambers
Petitioner; HOA Board Member.
Witness
Steve Germaine
Petitioner; Member of Architectural Review Committee (ARC), former ARC Chair.
Witness
Daniel Donahghue
Petitioner; Current ARC Chair and Board Member.
Witness
Jeffrey Penchina
Petitioner; Member of the ARC.
Witness
Timothy Smith
Petitioner; General Contractor hired by William Durham.
Core Allegation and Relief Sought
The HOA filed a petition on July 16, 2024, alleging that in September 2023, the Respondent clear-cut his lot of 20-30 old-growth trees (Junipers and Pinions) and native vegetation. This action was in direct violation of his ARC-approved plans, which were contingent on those plantings remaining in place. The HOA contended this violated:
• CC&Rs Article 3, Section 3.1.3: Pertaining to architectural approval and control.
• CC&Rs Article 7, Section 7.5: Pertaining to improper maintenance and use of lots.
The HOA argued that the clear-cutting was done to improve Mr. Durham’s view and detrimentally affected the community’s appearance and value. The specific relief requested was an order compelling Mr. Durham to plant 30 trees (10 to 12 feet in size) and replace additional vegetation by March 15, 2025.
Chronology of Key Events
• April 18, 2021: Prior to purchasing the lot, William Durham meets with ARC member Steve Germaine and is informed via a follow-up email that “The ARC does not approve the removal of trees… solely for the purpose of preserving or improving a view.”
• May 3, 2021: William Durham purchases Lot 62 in Cross Creek Ranch.
• July 7, 2022: Mr. Durham receives permission from the ARC to remove four specific dead trees.
• July 9, 2022: Mr. Germaine observes Mr. Durham removing more than the four approved dead trees and instructs him to stop.
• June 7, 2023: The ARC approves Mr. Durham’s residential and landscape plans, which show the preservation of existing trees and vegetation in the “transitional area.”
• August 29, 2023: A pre-construction meeting is held with Mr. Durham, his General Contractor (GC) Timothy Smith, and ARC members. ARC member Jeffrey Penchina testified that Mr. Durham personally assured him no trees outside the construction envelope would be removed.
• September 2023: Over approximately three days, Mr. Smith’s company clear-cuts the lot of 30+ old-growth trees and shrubs.
• October 2023: Following the discovery of the clearing, the ARC sends a letter to Mr. Durham to cease construction.
• October 6, 2023: Mr. Durham files a complaint with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (ROC) against Tim Smith, blaming him for the tree removal.
• February 9, 2024: Mr. Durham transfers the property title to Turquoise Textures, LLC.
• July 16, 2024: The HOA files its petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• October 15, 2024: Mr. Durham submits a revised landscape plan to the HOA.
• November 4, 2024: The HOA responds to the plan, requiring 10-12 foot trees for remediation.
• November 11, 2024: Mr. Durham sends a detailed email responding to the HOA’s requirements.
• November 26, 2024: The OAH hearing is conducted virtually.
• December 16, 2024: The ALJ issues a final decision granting the HOA’s petition. A separate minute entry notes that documents filed by Mr. Durham after the hearing record closed would not be considered.
Key Testimony and Arguments
Petitioner’s Case (Cross Creek Ranch HOA)
The HOA presented a case built on documented warnings, contractual obligations, and direct eyewitness testimony.
• Established Pattern of Non-Compliance: Witness Steve Germaine testified that he warned Mr. Durham about the rules regarding tree removal for views even before the lot was purchased in April 2021. He further testified to the incident on July 9, 2022, where he witnessed Mr. Durham cutting down live trees without authorization, beyond the four dead trees he had permission for.
• Violation of Approved Plans: Daniel Donahghue and Jeffrey Penchina testified that during the pre-construction meeting on August 29, 2023, the rules were clearly explained. Mr. Penchina stated, “he assured me that nothing outside of the construction envelope would be removed.” The approved plans, entered as evidence, explicitly showed the preservation of the natural landscape in the transitional area.
• Direct Culpability via GC Testimony: The general contractor, Timothy Smith, provided critical testimony directly contradicting Mr. Durham’s defense.
◦ Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Durham directed the clear-cutting: “he started to point out at trees that were in disturbing the… surrounding views… I let him know, well, now we’re going outside of the construction envelope. And he said he doesn’t really care.”
◦ He testified that Mr. Durham was on-site during the three-day clearing process and that the business relationship fractured later over non-payment for subsequent work, not over the tree removal.
Respondent’s Defense (William D. Durham)
Mr. Durham admitted the plans were violated but placed all blame on his general contractor and portrayed the HOA as a hostile and unresponsive entity.
• Blame Assigned to General Contractor: Mr. Durham’s central argument was that his GC acted against instructions. He stated, “I was forced to have a GC that I didn’t need, and the GC insisted on doing all the initial work… He ignored all the directives from Mark and from me.” He testified that he “absolutely not” directed Mr. Smith to clear the land and claimed to be out of town for most of the clearing.
• Allegations of HOA Harassment and Inefficiency: Mr. Durham repeatedly described the HOA as slow, uncooperative, and corrupt.
◦ He claimed he was trying to remediate the issue but the HOA was “very very very slow to ever get back to me.”
◦ He accused the HOA of “moving the goalposts” by demanding 10-12 foot trees, a requirement he said was never mentioned until the hearing.
◦ He testified he was facing over “$40,000 in fines” and was being harassed by specific members. He stated, “There’s a degree of corruption and cronyism in this HOA that is deeply disturbing.”
• Proactive Remediation Efforts: Mr. Durham asserted he had been proactive, submitting a new landscape plan with 32 plants. He testified, “all I need is their input back that’s helpful to resolve everything.” He repeatedly requested a single liaison from the ARC to facilitate faster solutions.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision
The ALJ’s decision, issued December 16, 2024, was a conclusive victory for the Petitioner.
Findings of Fact
The ALJ established a clear factual record that supported the HOA’s position, highlighting:
• The pre-purchase warning to Mr. Durham in April 2021 regarding tree removal.
• The unauthorized removal of viable trees in July 2022.
• The September 2023 clear-cutting incident, which the judge factually concluded occurred at Mr. Durham’s direction. Finding #15 states: “Mr. Smith, the general contractor, cleared Lot 64 of approximately 30 plus trees and shrubs that were not included in the approved plans per Respondent’s instruction.”
Conclusions of Law
Based on the evidence, the ALJ made the following legal conclusions:
• The Petitioner (HOA) successfully met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the governing documents.
• The ALJ identified a clear “pattern” of behavior, noting Mr. Durham began “failing to heed the ARC’s directions in July 2022.”
• Critically, the judge determined that even without the GC’s testimony, Mr. Durham’s own admission was sufficient for a finding of violation: “Respondent admitted what happened to his Lot was not a part of the approved plan and, hence, was a violation of Petitioner’s CC&Rs and Design Guidelines.”
Final Order
The OAH issued the following orders:
1. IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition be granted.
2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00.
3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall henceforth comply with the provisions of the governing documents.
Study Guide – 25F-H005-REL
Select all sources
1246254.pdf
1246768.aac
1246769.aac
1252576.pdf
1252586.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
25F-H005-REL
5 sources
These sources document a legal dispute and administrative hearing between the Cross Creek Ranch Community Association and homeowner William Durham, operating as Turquoise Textures LLC. The association alleged that Durham violated community governing documents by clear-cutting approximately 30 protected old-growth trees to improve his property’s view, contradicting his approved landscape plans. While Durham blamed his general contractor for the unauthorized removal, testimony from the contractor and association members suggested Durham directed the clearing personally. The Office of Administrative Hearings ultimately ruled in favor of the association, finding Durham in violation of the CC&Rs and Design Guidelines. Consequently, the court ordered Durham to reimburse filing fees and mandated future compliance with community standards, which included a demand for the replanting of mature trees by March 2025.
What are the specific landscaping violations alleged by the Association?
How did the dispute over clear-cutting trees affect the build?
What final ruling did the Administrative Law Judge issue?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 5:13 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 25F-H005-REL
Select all sources
1246254.pdf
1246768.aac
1246769.aac
1252576.pdf
1252586.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
25F-H005-REL
5 sources
These sources document a legal dispute and administrative hearing between the Cross Creek Ranch Community Association and homeowner William Durham, operating as Turquoise Textures LLC. The association alleged that Durham violated community governing documents by clear-cutting approximately 30 protected old-growth trees to improve his property’s view, contradicting his approved landscape plans. While Durham blamed his general contractor for the unauthorized removal, testimony from the contractor and association members suggested Durham directed the clearing personally. The Office of Administrative Hearings ultimately ruled in favor of the association, finding Durham in violation of the CC&Rs and Design Guidelines. Consequently, the court ordered Durham to reimburse filing fees and mandated future compliance with community standards, which included a demand for the replanting of mature trees by March 2025.
What are the specific landscaping violations alleged by the Association?
How did the dispute over clear-cutting trees affect the build?
What final ruling did the Administrative Law Judge issue?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 5:13 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
John Kalinich(representative) Cross Creek Ranch Community Association
Greg Chambers(board member / witness) Cross Creek Ranch Community Association
Daniel K. Donahghue(board member / witness) Cross Creek Ranch Community Association ARC Chair
Steven M. Germaine(ARC member / witness) Cross Creek Ranch Community Association
Jeffrey Panchina(ARC member / witness) Cross Creek Ranch Community Association
Timothy C. Smith(witness (GC)) Former General Contractor for Respondent
Respondent Side
William D. Durham(respondent (principal)) Turquoise Textures, LLC
The ALJ affirmed the Petitioner's position that the HOA's denial of artificial turf violated CC&Rs Section 8.8. The ALJ found that because maintenance was shared and the HOA's CC&Rs cannot contradict the superior McCormick Ranch rules (which allow artificial turf), the denial was improper and the HOA failed to meet the exemption requirements under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B).
Key Issues & Findings
Architectural disapproval of landscaping plans to install artificial turf
Petitioner alleged Respondent's disapproval of his landscaping plans to install artificial turf violated the CC&Rs and was unreasonable under Arizona law. The ALJ concluded the disapproval violated CC&Rs Section 8.8 because the maintenance responsibility was shared, not exclusive to the HOA, and the HOA's CC&Rs must not contradict McCormick Ranch's Rules, which permit artificial turf.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition is affirmed. Respondent must reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee. Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of CC&Rs Section 8.8 going forward.
Can my HOA prohibit artificial turf if the CC&Rs don't specifically ban it?
Short Answer
Likely not. If the CC&Rs are silent regarding artificial turf and do not explicitly prohibit it, the HOA may not be able to enforce a ban, especially if a master association permits it.
Detailed Answer
The Administrative Law Judge ruled that because the HOA's CC&Rs were silent regarding artificial turf and did not explicitly prohibit it, they could not ban it. This was further reinforced because the master association's rules, which the sub-association could not contradict, explicitly permitted artificial turf.
Alj Quote
Although Respondent’s CC&Rs are silent as to artificial turf, they do not prohibit artificial turf and they shall not contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Construction; A.R.S. § 33-1819
Topic Tags
artificial turf
CC&Rs interpretation
architectural requests
Question
Can a sub-association ban artificial turf if the master association allows it?
Short Answer
No, generally a sub-association cannot contradict the master association's rules if its own governing documents prohibit such contradictions.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the sub-association's CC&Rs incorporated the master association's rules and stated they could not contradict them. Since the master association allowed artificial turf, the sub-association could not prohibit it.
Alj Quote
McCormick Ranch allows artificial turf, and Respondent cannot contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations according to Respondent’s CC&Rs Section 9.4.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Section 9.4; Governing Documents Hierarchy
Topic Tags
master association
sub-association
conflicting rules
Question
Does the HOA mowing my front lawn give them the exclusive right to ban artificial turf under state law?
Short Answer
Not necessarily, if the maintenance is shared. If the homeowner is responsible for irrigation and replacing plants, the HOA does not have exclusive maintenance rights to prohibit turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B).
Detailed Answer
The HOA argued that because they mowed the lawn, they could prohibit artificial turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B). However, the judge found that because the homeowner paid for water and was responsible for keeping plants healthy (shared maintenance), the HOA could not use the maintenance statute to completely ban turf.
Alj Quote
In this case, it is undisputed that Petitioner pays for and can control the irrigation of his property. It is also undisputed that the maintenance of the front yards of the homes within Respondent is shared between the individual homeowners and Respondent.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1819(B); CC&Rs Section 8.8
Topic Tags
maintenance responsibility
artificial turf
state statute
Question
Can an HOA deny an architectural request claiming it disrupts the 'harmony' of the neighborhood?
Short Answer
They can claim it, but a judge may overrule them if the evidence shows the improvement (like artificial turf) wouldn't actually violate the goal of harmony.
Detailed Answer
The HOA denied the request based on the 'overall goal of harmony,' arguing that artificial turf would look different from the natural grass in the neighborhood. The judge reviewed the evidence and concluded that installing artificial turf would not actually be contrary to the goal of harmony.
Alj Quote
The Administrative Law Judge further concludes based on the evidence presented at hearing, that the installation of artificial turf would not be contrary to the “overall goal of harmony of external design” as asserted by Respondent.
Legal Basis
Subjective Standards; Harmony Provisions
Topic Tags
architectural control
harmony
aesthetics
Question
Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner challenges an HOA decision?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The decision explicitly states that in these administrative hearings, the Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proving that the HOA violated its governing documents.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal procedure
Question
If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
Upon ruling in favor of the homeowner, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee the homeowner paid to bring the case.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.
Legal Basis
Administrative Remedy
Topic Tags
fees
reimbursement
penalties
Question
Can the HOA deny my plans for being 'conceptual' if I provided specific details?
Short Answer
No. If the plans include specific information like plant types, numbers, and dimensions, the HOA cannot validly deny them as merely 'conceptual'.
Detailed Answer
The HOA denied the application claiming plans were 'conceptual.' The judge noted the plans contained specific types and numbers of plants, dimensions, and detailed renderings, and ultimately ruled the disapproval was a violation.
Alj Quote
Those plans contain the types and number of plants proposed, and the dimensions and shape of the area of artificial turf, and detailed renderings.
Legal Basis
Reasonableness of Approval Process
Topic Tags
architectural plans
application denial
reasonableness
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222063-REL
Case Title
Smoot Carl-Mitchell v. Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-04-13
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can my HOA prohibit artificial turf if the CC&Rs don't specifically ban it?
Short Answer
Likely not. If the CC&Rs are silent regarding artificial turf and do not explicitly prohibit it, the HOA may not be able to enforce a ban, especially if a master association permits it.
Detailed Answer
The Administrative Law Judge ruled that because the HOA's CC&Rs were silent regarding artificial turf and did not explicitly prohibit it, they could not ban it. This was further reinforced because the master association's rules, which the sub-association could not contradict, explicitly permitted artificial turf.
Alj Quote
Although Respondent’s CC&Rs are silent as to artificial turf, they do not prohibit artificial turf and they shall not contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Construction; A.R.S. § 33-1819
Topic Tags
artificial turf
CC&Rs interpretation
architectural requests
Question
Can a sub-association ban artificial turf if the master association allows it?
Short Answer
No, generally a sub-association cannot contradict the master association's rules if its own governing documents prohibit such contradictions.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the sub-association's CC&Rs incorporated the master association's rules and stated they could not contradict them. Since the master association allowed artificial turf, the sub-association could not prohibit it.
Alj Quote
McCormick Ranch allows artificial turf, and Respondent cannot contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations according to Respondent’s CC&Rs Section 9.4.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Section 9.4; Governing Documents Hierarchy
Topic Tags
master association
sub-association
conflicting rules
Question
Does the HOA mowing my front lawn give them the exclusive right to ban artificial turf under state law?
Short Answer
Not necessarily, if the maintenance is shared. If the homeowner is responsible for irrigation and replacing plants, the HOA does not have exclusive maintenance rights to prohibit turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B).
Detailed Answer
The HOA argued that because they mowed the lawn, they could prohibit artificial turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B). However, the judge found that because the homeowner paid for water and was responsible for keeping plants healthy (shared maintenance), the HOA could not use the maintenance statute to completely ban turf.
Alj Quote
In this case, it is undisputed that Petitioner pays for and can control the irrigation of his property. It is also undisputed that the maintenance of the front yards of the homes within Respondent is shared between the individual homeowners and Respondent.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1819(B); CC&Rs Section 8.8
Topic Tags
maintenance responsibility
artificial turf
state statute
Question
Can an HOA deny an architectural request claiming it disrupts the 'harmony' of the neighborhood?
Short Answer
They can claim it, but a judge may overrule them if the evidence shows the improvement (like artificial turf) wouldn't actually violate the goal of harmony.
Detailed Answer
The HOA denied the request based on the 'overall goal of harmony,' arguing that artificial turf would look different from the natural grass in the neighborhood. The judge reviewed the evidence and concluded that installing artificial turf would not actually be contrary to the goal of harmony.
Alj Quote
The Administrative Law Judge further concludes based on the evidence presented at hearing, that the installation of artificial turf would not be contrary to the “overall goal of harmony of external design” as asserted by Respondent.
Legal Basis
Subjective Standards; Harmony Provisions
Topic Tags
architectural control
harmony
aesthetics
Question
Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner challenges an HOA decision?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The decision explicitly states that in these administrative hearings, the Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proving that the HOA violated its governing documents.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal procedure
Question
If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
Upon ruling in favor of the homeowner, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee the homeowner paid to bring the case.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.
Legal Basis
Administrative Remedy
Topic Tags
fees
reimbursement
penalties
Question
Can the HOA deny my plans for being 'conceptual' if I provided specific details?
Short Answer
No. If the plans include specific information like plant types, numbers, and dimensions, the HOA cannot validly deny them as merely 'conceptual'.
Detailed Answer
The HOA denied the application claiming plans were 'conceptual.' The judge noted the plans contained specific types and numbers of plants, dimensions, and detailed renderings, and ultimately ruled the disapproval was a violation.
Alj Quote
Those plans contain the types and number of plants proposed, and the dimensions and shape of the area of artificial turf, and detailed renderings.
Legal Basis
Reasonableness of Approval Process
Topic Tags
architectural plans
application denial
reasonableness
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222063-REL
Case Title
Smoot Carl-Mitchell v. Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-04-13
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Carl-Mitchell Smoot(petitioner) Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc. (Member) Former HOA President/Treasurer
Stewart F. Gross(petitioner attorney) Law Offices of Stewart F. Gross, PLLC
Respondent Side
Michael S. McLeran(HOA attorney) Childers Hanlon & Hudson, PLC
Denise Mueller(board member/witness) Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc. HOA Vice President; ALC Member
Dawn Feigert(property manager/witness) Trestle Management Group Senior Manager at HOA management company
Timothy Fischer(board member/witness) Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc. HOA Treasurer; ALC Member
Kirk Nelson(board member/witness) Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc. HOA President; ALC Member
Jan Greenfield(board member) Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc. Former ARC Chair
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) OAH Presided over hearings and issued final decision
Louis Dettorre(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed in transmission records prior to final decision
Susan Nicolson(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed in final decision transmission
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) OAH Presided over initial continuances
Petitioner's petition was granted in part based on the violation of CC&Rs Article 10.9 (failure to provide specific steps to cure violations), resulting in a $500.00 payment to Petitioner. The petition was denied in part regarding alleged violations of CC&Rs Article 4.5, 10.1, and 10.10, as Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof on those issues.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof for the allegations concerning CC&Rs Article 4.5 (as it applies solely to construction activities), Article 10.1 (as subsequent letters stemmed from the same issues), and Article 10.10 (as Petitioner failed to allege or establish a violation of a specific law, ordinance or regulation).
Key Issues & Findings
The Association violated Article 10 Section 9 of the CC&Rs by failing to provide specific steps necessary to cure the violation with each violation notice that was sent as required under the CC&Rs
The Association violated Article 10.9 by issuing vague, overbroad, and nondescript violation warning letters that failed to provide the requisite specific steps Petitioner needed to take to satisfactorily remedy the alleged violation(s), such as covering exposed irrigation lines, removing a specific plant, or filling in holes.
Orders: Respondent is ORDERED to pay $500.00 to Petitioner, a pro rata portion of his filing fee, directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this ORDER.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
CC&Rs Article 10.9
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA enforcement, notice specificity, arbitrary and capricious, CC&R violation, landscaping, weeds
Additional Citations:
CC&Rs Article 4 Section 5
CC&Rs Article 10 Section 1
CC&Rs Article 10 Section 9
CC&Rs Article 10 Section 10
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 946305.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:41 (47.7 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 950368.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:45 (46.3 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 957992.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:50 (54.5 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 958039.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:55 (7.8 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 960467.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:00 (49.7 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 977411.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:03 (229.1 KB)
Briefing Doc – 22F-H2221022-REL
Briefing Document: Chadwick v. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case Wesley T Chadwick v. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association (No. 22F-H2221022-REL). The dispute centered on a series of six violation notices and associated fines issued by the Association to the Petitioner regarding the landscaping of his front yard between January and June 2021.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in partial favor of the Petitioner, finding that the Association violated its own governing documents. The core of the decision rested on the finding that the Association’s violation notices were “vague, overbroad, and nondescript,” failing to provide the specific steps necessary for the homeowner to cure the alleged violations as required by the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Critically, the ALJ also determined that the Association cited an inapplicable article of the CC&Rs (pertaining to construction activities) in all of its notices, when a different article (concerning landscaping maintenance) should have been used.
As a result, the Petitioner’s petition was granted in part, and the Association was ordered to pay the Petitioner $500.00, representing a pro rata portion of his filing fee. While the petition’s claims of improper fine progression and violations of state law were denied, the central finding regarding the insufficiency of the notices effectively invalidated the basis for the Association’s enforcement action.
Case Overview
Case Name
Wesley T Chadwick, Petitioner, vs. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association, Respondent
The conflict unfolded over approximately six months, followed by a period of appeals and the formal administrative hearing.
Jan 25, 2021
Petitioner receives 1st Notice citing Article 4.5 for weeds. Directive is “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS.”
Feb 09, 2021
Petitioner receives 2nd Notice, identical to the first, with an added $50.00 fine.
Feb 10, 2021
Petitioner hires contractors to remove dead cacti (350)andweeds(100).
Feb 25, 2021
Petitioner receives 3rd Notice, identical to the first two, with an added $100.00 fine.
Mar 18, 2021
Petitioner and the Association’s property management company (OPM) reach an agreement via email: the $100 fine is waived in exchange for payment of the $50 fine, provided no new weed violations occur within 90 days.
Mar 23, 2021
Petitioner receives 4th Notice (dated March 15), which now includes the directive “fix rock area” and a $100.00 fine.
Mar 30, 2021
Petitioner receives 5th Notice, identical to the fourth, with another $100.00 fine.
Apr 05, 2021
In an email exchange, OPM manager Danielle Miglio provides a photo with circled areas of concern, identifying exposed irrigation lines, holes, weeds, and an overgrown plant for the first time with specificity.
May 2021
Petitioner submits a formal request to the Board of Directors to review the case and waive fines.
June 2021
Petitioner is informed his request was denied by the Board.
June 16, 2021
Petitioner receives 6th Notice, which reverts to “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS” and adds a $100.00 fine.
June 22, 2021
OPM informs Petitioner the Board would not waive fees until the violation is closed, but could remove $75 after three months of compliance.
Sep 23, 2021
Petitioner appears at a Board meeting to appeal; his request is again denied.
Oct 14, 2021
Petitioner files his formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
May 25, 2022
An all-day evidentiary hearing is held at the Office of Administrative Hearings.
June 14, 2022
The Administrative Law Judge issues a final decision.
Core Allegations and Arguments
The hearing addressed four specific issues raised in the Petitioner’s petition, which formed the basis of the legal arguments.
Petitioner’s Position (Wesley T Chadwick)
1. Violation of CC&R Article 10.9 (Lack of Specificity): The violation notices were fundamentally deficient because they failed to provide “specific steps which must be taken… to cure the violation.” Directives like “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS” and “fix rock area” were overly broad. The entire front yard consists of rock, making “fix rock area” ambiguous. The Association only provided clarity with a circled photograph after issuing multiple notices and fines.
2. Violation of CC&R Article 4.5 (Exceeding Authority): The Association exceeded its authority by issuing violations for issues not explicitly covered by the language it quoted in the notices, such as exposed irrigation lines or a specific plant which was not a weed. The notices selectively quoted the portion of Article 4.5 related to weeds and debris, omitting the broader “unsightly” language, which misled the Petitioner as to the nature of the violation.
3. Violation of CC&R Article 10.1 (Improper Fine Progression): The introduction of a new issue, “fix rock area,” in the fourth notice constituted a new violation. As such, it should have been preceded by a warning notice, not an immediate $100 fine as part of a continuing violation.
4. Violation of CC&R Article 10.10 (Arbitrary and Capricious Enforcement): The Association enforced its rules selectively and arbitrarily. This was evidenced during the hearing when the Board’s Vice President, Cynthia Ecker, admitted under oath that her own property had exposed irrigation lines visible from the yard, yet she had never received a violation notice.
Respondent’s Position (Entrada Mountainside HOA)
1. Broad Discretionary Authority: CC&R Article 4.5 grants the Association’s Architectural Committee the “exclusive right to determine the existence of any nuisance” and provides wide discretion to enforce against any condition deemed “unsanitary, unsightly, offensive, or detrimental.”
2. Continuing Nature of the Violation: The entire series of violations stemmed from a single, ongoing issue of poor landscape maintenance. The Petitioner created the “debris”—the hole and exposed irrigation lines—by failing to complete the remediation after removing the cacti. This was a continuation of the original violation, not a new one, and thus did not require a new warning notice.
3. Petitioner’s Responsibility: The Petitioner failed to use his right to appeal the initial notices and only engaged with the Association after three notices had been issued. He admitted to not having reviewed the Association’s official landscape guidelines. The onus was on him to seek clarification if he found the notices unclear.
4. Good Faith Efforts to Comply: The Association manager went “above and beyond” by sending a detailed photo with circled areas, a measure not typically taken. The Association also demonstrated a willingness to work with the Petitioner on fines by waiving the initial $100 fine and later offering a potential $75 reduction.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ’s decision focused on the procedural adequacy and legal foundation of the Association’s violation notices.
Final Ruling
The petition was GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
• Granted: The claim that the Association violated CC&R Article 10.9 by failing to provide specific notice was upheld.
• Denied: The claims that the Association violated CC&R Articles 4.5, 10.1, and 10.10 were not sustained.
Key Findings and Rationale
1. Violation of CC&R Article 10.9 (Notice of Violation): This was the central finding in the Petitioner’s favor. The ALJ concluded the Association failed its contractual obligation to provide adequate notice.
◦ Direct Quote from Decision: “Here, what the Association did was essentially tell Petitioner to ‘fix this’ without telling him exactly what needed fixing and affording him a reasonable opportunity to comply.”
◦ The directives “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS” and “fix rock area” were deemed insufficient to inform a person of ordinary prudence of the specific actions required, such as covering irrigation lines or removing a particular plant.
◦ The fact that the Association later had to provide a photograph with “circled with specific areas of concern after issuing multiple warning letters” was cited as evidence that the initial notices were inadequate.
2. Misapplication of CC&R Article 4.5 (Nuisances): In a critical finding, the ALJ determined that the Association had cited the wrong governing article in all six of its notices.
◦ The decision states: “It is clear from the record that CC&Rs Article 4.5 is inapplicable as the regulation pertains solely to construction activities… CC&Rs Article 4.4 [Maintenance of Landscaping] should have been used by Respondent.”
◦ This finding invalidated the legal basis for every notice issued to the Petitioner.
3. Ruling on Other Allegations:
◦ Article 10.1 (Enforcement): The ALJ found no violation, concluding that notices 2-6 all “stemmed from the same issue(s)” raised in the first letter and were not new violations requiring a separate warning.
◦ Article 10.10 (Laws, Ordinances and Regulations): The ALJ found no violation because the “Petitioner failed to allege that Respondent violated a specific law, ordinance or regulation.” This indicates the claim of arbitrary enforcement was not sustained on a technical basis, despite the testimony from the Board’s Vice President.
Final Order
Based on the finding that the Association violated CC&R Article 10.9:
• IT IS ORDERED that Respondent pay $500.00 to Petitioner; a pro rata portion of his filing fee, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of the ORDER.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Wesley T Chadwick(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Nick Eicher(HOA attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Counsel for Respondent
Petitioner's petition was granted in part based on the violation of CC&Rs Article 10.9 (failure to provide specific steps to cure violations), resulting in a $500.00 payment to Petitioner. The petition was denied in part regarding alleged violations of CC&Rs Article 4.5, 10.1, and 10.10, as Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof on those issues.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof for the allegations concerning CC&Rs Article 4.5 (as it applies solely to construction activities), Article 10.1 (as subsequent letters stemmed from the same issues), and Article 10.10 (as Petitioner failed to allege or establish a violation of a specific law, ordinance or regulation).
Key Issues & Findings
The Association violated Article 10 Section 9 of the CC&Rs by failing to provide specific steps necessary to cure the violation with each violation notice that was sent as required under the CC&Rs
The Association violated Article 10.9 by issuing vague, overbroad, and nondescript violation warning letters that failed to provide the requisite specific steps Petitioner needed to take to satisfactorily remedy the alleged violation(s), such as covering exposed irrigation lines, removing a specific plant, or filling in holes.
Orders: Respondent is ORDERED to pay $500.00 to Petitioner, a pro rata portion of his filing fee, directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this ORDER.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
CC&Rs Article 10.9
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA enforcement, notice specificity, arbitrary and capricious, CC&R violation, landscaping, weeds
Additional Citations:
CC&Rs Article 4 Section 5
CC&Rs Article 10 Section 1
CC&Rs Article 10 Section 9
CC&Rs Article 10 Section 10
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 946305.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:34:57 (47.7 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 950368.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:34:57 (46.3 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 957992.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:34:57 (54.5 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 958039.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:34:57 (7.8 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 960467.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:34:58 (49.7 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 977411.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:34:58 (229.1 KB)
Briefing Doc – 22F-H2221022-REL
Briefing Document: Chadwick v. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case Wesley T Chadwick v. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association (No. 22F-H2221022-REL). The dispute centered on a series of six violation notices and associated fines issued by the Association to the Petitioner regarding the landscaping of his front yard between January and June 2021.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in partial favor of the Petitioner, finding that the Association violated its own governing documents. The core of the decision rested on the finding that the Association’s violation notices were “vague, overbroad, and nondescript,” failing to provide the specific steps necessary for the homeowner to cure the alleged violations as required by the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Critically, the ALJ also determined that the Association cited an inapplicable article of the CC&Rs (pertaining to construction activities) in all of its notices, when a different article (concerning landscaping maintenance) should have been used.
As a result, the Petitioner’s petition was granted in part, and the Association was ordered to pay the Petitioner $500.00, representing a pro rata portion of his filing fee. While the petition’s claims of improper fine progression and violations of state law were denied, the central finding regarding the insufficiency of the notices effectively invalidated the basis for the Association’s enforcement action.
Case Overview
Case Name
Wesley T Chadwick, Petitioner, vs. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association, Respondent
The conflict unfolded over approximately six months, followed by a period of appeals and the formal administrative hearing.
Jan 25, 2021
Petitioner receives 1st Notice citing Article 4.5 for weeds. Directive is “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS.”
Feb 09, 2021
Petitioner receives 2nd Notice, identical to the first, with an added $50.00 fine.
Feb 10, 2021
Petitioner hires contractors to remove dead cacti (350)andweeds(100).
Feb 25, 2021
Petitioner receives 3rd Notice, identical to the first two, with an added $100.00 fine.
Mar 18, 2021
Petitioner and the Association’s property management company (OPM) reach an agreement via email: the $100 fine is waived in exchange for payment of the $50 fine, provided no new weed violations occur within 90 days.
Mar 23, 2021
Petitioner receives 4th Notice (dated March 15), which now includes the directive “fix rock area” and a $100.00 fine.
Mar 30, 2021
Petitioner receives 5th Notice, identical to the fourth, with another $100.00 fine.
Apr 05, 2021
In an email exchange, OPM manager Danielle Miglio provides a photo with circled areas of concern, identifying exposed irrigation lines, holes, weeds, and an overgrown plant for the first time with specificity.
May 2021
Petitioner submits a formal request to the Board of Directors to review the case and waive fines.
June 2021
Petitioner is informed his request was denied by the Board.
June 16, 2021
Petitioner receives 6th Notice, which reverts to “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS” and adds a $100.00 fine.
June 22, 2021
OPM informs Petitioner the Board would not waive fees until the violation is closed, but could remove $75 after three months of compliance.
Sep 23, 2021
Petitioner appears at a Board meeting to appeal; his request is again denied.
Oct 14, 2021
Petitioner files his formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
May 25, 2022
An all-day evidentiary hearing is held at the Office of Administrative Hearings.
June 14, 2022
The Administrative Law Judge issues a final decision.
Core Allegations and Arguments
The hearing addressed four specific issues raised in the Petitioner’s petition, which formed the basis of the legal arguments.
Petitioner’s Position (Wesley T Chadwick)
1. Violation of CC&R Article 10.9 (Lack of Specificity): The violation notices were fundamentally deficient because they failed to provide “specific steps which must be taken… to cure the violation.” Directives like “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS” and “fix rock area” were overly broad. The entire front yard consists of rock, making “fix rock area” ambiguous. The Association only provided clarity with a circled photograph after issuing multiple notices and fines.
2. Violation of CC&R Article 4.5 (Exceeding Authority): The Association exceeded its authority by issuing violations for issues not explicitly covered by the language it quoted in the notices, such as exposed irrigation lines or a specific plant which was not a weed. The notices selectively quoted the portion of Article 4.5 related to weeds and debris, omitting the broader “unsightly” language, which misled the Petitioner as to the nature of the violation.
3. Violation of CC&R Article 10.1 (Improper Fine Progression): The introduction of a new issue, “fix rock area,” in the fourth notice constituted a new violation. As such, it should have been preceded by a warning notice, not an immediate $100 fine as part of a continuing violation.
4. Violation of CC&R Article 10.10 (Arbitrary and Capricious Enforcement): The Association enforced its rules selectively and arbitrarily. This was evidenced during the hearing when the Board’s Vice President, Cynthia Ecker, admitted under oath that her own property had exposed irrigation lines visible from the yard, yet she had never received a violation notice.
Respondent’s Position (Entrada Mountainside HOA)
1. Broad Discretionary Authority: CC&R Article 4.5 grants the Association’s Architectural Committee the “exclusive right to determine the existence of any nuisance” and provides wide discretion to enforce against any condition deemed “unsanitary, unsightly, offensive, or detrimental.”
2. Continuing Nature of the Violation: The entire series of violations stemmed from a single, ongoing issue of poor landscape maintenance. The Petitioner created the “debris”—the hole and exposed irrigation lines—by failing to complete the remediation after removing the cacti. This was a continuation of the original violation, not a new one, and thus did not require a new warning notice.
3. Petitioner’s Responsibility: The Petitioner failed to use his right to appeal the initial notices and only engaged with the Association after three notices had been issued. He admitted to not having reviewed the Association’s official landscape guidelines. The onus was on him to seek clarification if he found the notices unclear.
4. Good Faith Efforts to Comply: The Association manager went “above and beyond” by sending a detailed photo with circled areas, a measure not typically taken. The Association also demonstrated a willingness to work with the Petitioner on fines by waiving the initial $100 fine and later offering a potential $75 reduction.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ’s decision focused on the procedural adequacy and legal foundation of the Association’s violation notices.
Final Ruling
The petition was GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
• Granted: The claim that the Association violated CC&R Article 10.9 by failing to provide specific notice was upheld.
• Denied: The claims that the Association violated CC&R Articles 4.5, 10.1, and 10.10 were not sustained.
Key Findings and Rationale
1. Violation of CC&R Article 10.9 (Notice of Violation): This was the central finding in the Petitioner’s favor. The ALJ concluded the Association failed its contractual obligation to provide adequate notice.
◦ Direct Quote from Decision: “Here, what the Association did was essentially tell Petitioner to ‘fix this’ without telling him exactly what needed fixing and affording him a reasonable opportunity to comply.”
◦ The directives “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS” and “fix rock area” were deemed insufficient to inform a person of ordinary prudence of the specific actions required, such as covering irrigation lines or removing a particular plant.
◦ The fact that the Association later had to provide a photograph with “circled with specific areas of concern after issuing multiple warning letters” was cited as evidence that the initial notices were inadequate.
2. Misapplication of CC&R Article 4.5 (Nuisances): In a critical finding, the ALJ determined that the Association had cited the wrong governing article in all six of its notices.
◦ The decision states: “It is clear from the record that CC&Rs Article 4.5 is inapplicable as the regulation pertains solely to construction activities… CC&Rs Article 4.4 [Maintenance of Landscaping] should have been used by Respondent.”
◦ This finding invalidated the legal basis for every notice issued to the Petitioner.
3. Ruling on Other Allegations:
◦ Article 10.1 (Enforcement): The ALJ found no violation, concluding that notices 2-6 all “stemmed from the same issue(s)” raised in the first letter and were not new violations requiring a separate warning.
◦ Article 10.10 (Laws, Ordinances and Regulations): The ALJ found no violation because the “Petitioner failed to allege that Respondent violated a specific law, ordinance or regulation.” This indicates the claim of arbitrary enforcement was not sustained on a technical basis, despite the testimony from the Board’s Vice President.
Final Order
Based on the finding that the Association violated CC&R Article 10.9:
• IT IS ORDERED that Respondent pay $500.00 to Petitioner; a pro rata portion of his filing fee, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of the ORDER.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Wesley T Chadwick(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Nick Eicher(HOA attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Counsel for Respondent
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove that the Forest Trails Homeowners Association violated its governing documents when it approved landscaping that obstructed parking in a common area.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary burden that the HOA violated the Declaration or related statutes. The ALJ found that the Declaration permits landscaping in the common area (Section 2.2) and the petitioner presented no legal authority mandating the disputed area remain solely available for parking.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation concerning landscaping in common area preventing parking.
Petitioner Judy Clapp alleged the HOA improperly approved the adjacent homeowner's (Normans) landscaping project in the common area next to Lot 1473 Trailhead. She claimed this blocked a historical parking area used by multiple homeowners, violating Declaration Section 2.2 (common area use for benefit of all members, including parking as a permitted use) and Architectural Guidelines (prohibiting exclusive use of common area).
Orders: The petition was dismissed. The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated the Declaration or any statute.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
Declaration § 2.2
Declaration § 2.21
Architectural Guidelines
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
Declaration § 3.4
Declaration § 4.1
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Common Area, Landscaping, Parking, Architectural Control Committee, Exclusive Use, HOA Governance
Case Briefing: Judy Clapp v. Forest Trails Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the proceedings of the administrative hearing held on March 9, 2022, regarding Docket Number 22F-H2221026-l. The dispute involves a challenge by petitioner Judy Clapp against the Forest Trails Homeowners Association (HOA) concerning the landscaping of an eight-foot unpaved common area adjacent to 1473 Trail Head (the “Norman lot”).
The central conflict involves the Board’s decision to allow a homeowner to install a rock berm on association-owned land that had historically functioned as a parking lane for residents accessing a nearby trail head. The petitioner alleges this action violates the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by granting exclusive use of common area to one homeowner and eliminating a long-standing community benefit. The association contends that the Board acted within its authority to approve architectural requests, maintained consistency with community-wide landscaping standards, and addressed legitimate nuisance and erosion concerns.
——————————————————————————–
Case Overview and Hearing Details
• Date of Hearing: March 9, 2022
• Administrative Law Judge: Alvin Moses Thompson
• Petitioner: Judy Clapp (Represented by Kevin Harper)
• Respondent: Forest Trails Homeowners Association (Represented by Ed O’Brien)
• Key Witnesses: Judy Clapp (Petitioner); Dean Meyers (Board Member/Witness for Respondent)
• Subject Property: Common area adjacent to 1473 Trail Head, Prescott, Arizona.
——————————————————————————–
Primary Legal and Regulatory Framework
The dispute centers on the interpretation of specific governing documents produced as evidence:
Amended Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
• Section 2.2 (Common Areas and Open Space): States that common areas “shall be for the use and benefit of all members” and should be left in their natural state unless used for specific purposes, including “trails, walkways, driveways, parking areas, appropriate signs, recreational amenities, [and] landscaping.”
• Section 3.4: Grants the association the authority to “own, repair, manage, operate, and maintain” common areas according to the plat.
• Section 3.4.9: Designates the Architectural Control Committee (ACC) as the “judge of all aesthetic matters” on the common area.
• Section 4.1: Provides the Board with flexibility in its decision-making regarding association property.
Architectural Guidelines
• Landscaping Provisions: Permitted on the unpaved association-owned area (approx. 8 feet) between the lot line and the street only with ACC approval.
• Exclusive Use Restriction: Mandates that any such approval “will not give the property owner exclusive use of this association property.”
——————————————————————————–
Main Themes and Arguments
1. Historical Use vs. New Architectural Approval
The petitioner argues that the area in question served as a de facto parking lane for approximately 15–20 years, accommodating up to three vehicles.
• Petitioner Position: The removal of this parking area harms residents who now must walk an additional mile or more to access trail heads. Clapp asserts the association consistently denied similar requests in the past to protect common area access.
• Respondent Position: The HOA argues that parking was never a “guaranteed right” or a “written amenity” in the declaration. They contend the Board could not “say no” to the Normans’ request because hundreds of other homeowners have similar roadside landscaping.
2. Allegations of “Exclusive Use”
A major point of contention is whether the rock berm constitutes a violation of the rule against “exclusive use.”
• Petitioner’s Argument: The installation of large boulders and a rock berm makes it impossible for vehicles to park and “unsafe” or “risky” for pedestrians to walk over, effectively gifting the land to the adjacent homeowner.
• Respondent’s Argument: The area is not fenced or walled. Members of the public or homeowners can still theoretically walk on it, meaning use is not exclusive. Dean Meyers testified that the area is “less accessible” but still accessible at the ends.
3. Nuisance Mitigation and Safety
The HOA justifies the landscaping as a solution to long-standing issues.
• Respondent’s Evidence: Dean Meyers testified that the parking area created nuisances including noise (dogs, yelling), trash, and public intrusion 40 feet from the Normans’ kitchen. Furthermore, Meyers cited an erosion issue where water was undermining the cement curb, a problem he claims the landscaping resolved.
• Petitioner’s Rebuttal: Clapp, a former board member of 10 years, testified she never heard of safety, noise, or trash complaints regarding this site until February 2021, four months after the rocks were installed. She suggested the “safety” argument was an after-the-fact justification.
4. Conflict of Interest and Procedure
The petitioner raised concerns regarding the motivations behind the approval.
• Self-Serving Motivation: Witness Dean Meyers is a permanent board member and also the owner of the landscaping company hired by the Normans to perform the work.
• Lack of Formal Vote: Clapp testified that the work appeared to be allowed without a formal board vote, though respondent minutes from October 27, 2020, show the board requested gravel samples for the project.
——————————————————————————–
Critical Evidence and Testimony
Photographic Evidence (Exhibit 6)
The hearing reviewed nine photographs showing the evolution of the site:
• Before: A dirt “parking lane” capable of holding cars.
• After: A “rock berm” consisting of large boulders and smaller rocks that completely prohibit vehicle access.
Comparison to Other Amenities
Clapp pointed to the community tennis courts as evidence of unfair treatment.
• Tennis Court Parking: The HOA recently expanded and paved parking for tennis players (Exhibits 17, 18).
• Trail Head Parking: Conversely, the HOA eliminated parking for hikers at the trail head, which Clapp described as the community’s only other amenity.
Legal Opinion of Jim Atkinson
An email exchange (Exhibit 7) involving former Board President and attorney Jim Atkinson was introduced. Atkinson’s noted opinion stated:
• The 8-foot area is common area property, “no different than its ownership of the paved areas.”
• Parking is a permitted use under Section 2.2.
• The Board “never agreed to allow a lot owner to block access to the shoulder area.”
——————————————————————————–
Conclusions and Sought Relief
The Petitioner seeks an order confirming that the CC&Rs prohibit these specific landscaping changes and requiring the association to restore the common area to its original condition.
The Respondent maintains that the Board acted within its discretionary authority to manage common areas and treat all members fairly by approving a standard landscaping request. They argue the Petitioner is seeking a “prescriptive easement” to park in a specific spot, a right they claim does not exist under the governing documents or Arizona law.
Summary Table of Arguments
Petitioner’s View
Respondent’s View
Land Use
Reserved for the benefit of all members (parking/trails).
Subject to Board management and aesthetic discretion.
Accessibility
Rock berm creates “exclusive use” by blocking access.
No fence exists; property remains technically accessible.
Safety/Nuisance
No evidence of prior complaints; “punitive” decision.
Resolved erosion, trash, and noise nuisances.
Consistency
Association has historically denied such requests.
Hundreds of other lots have identical landscaping.
Board Ethics
Decision was self-serving (witness was the contractor).
Business was private between the contractor and homeowner.
Study Guide – 22F-H2221026-REL
Study Guide: Judy Clapp v. Forest Trails Homeowners Association (Docket No. 22F-H2221026-I)
This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing held on March 9, 2022, regarding a dispute over common area usage, landscaping rights, and parking access within the Forest Trails community.
——————————————————————————–
Part I: Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2–3 sentences based on the provided hearing transcript and documents.
1. What is the central issue of the dispute between Judy Clapp and the Forest Trails Homeowners Association?
2. How does Section 2.2 of the Forest Trails Declaration define the purpose and permitted uses of “common areas”?
3. What physical modification to the area near 1473 Trail Head triggered this legal action, and who performed the work?
4. What is the Petitioner’s primary argument regarding the “exclusive use” of the landscaped common area?
5. How does the Association justify its decision to approve the Normans’ landscaping request despite member objections?
6. What did the 2002–2003 review of the plat and CC&Rs reveal to the Association board regarding the 8-foot strips alongside the roadways?
7. What “nuisances” did the Respondent cite as reasons for prohibiting parking at the trail head location?
8. How does the Petitioner use the example of the community tennis courts to argue that the Association’s parking policy is inconsistent?
9. According to the testimony of Dean Myers, what is the Association’s policy regarding damage to homeowner-installed landscaping caused by snowplows?
10. What specific legal relief is the Petitioner seeking from the Administrative Law Judge?
——————————————————————————–
Part II: Answer Key
1. The dispute centers on the Association’s decision to allow a specific homeowner (the Normans) to landscape a common area in a way that prohibits long-standing member parking. The Petitioner argues this violates the Declaration’s provision that common areas benefit all members, while the Association claims the right to manage aesthetics and address nuisances.
2. Section 2.2 states that common areas are for the “use and benefit of all members” and should generally be left in their natural state. However, it explicitly allows these areas to be used for specific purposes, including trails, walkways, driveways, parking areas, landscaping, and utility easements.
3. The Normans installed large boulders and a rock berm on the association-owned unpaved roadway shoulder to prevent vehicles from parking there. This work was executed by Dean Myers, who is a permanent member of the Association’s Board of Directors and the owner of a landscaping company.
4. The Petitioner argues that the installation of the rock berm effectively grants the Normans “exclusive use” of the common area by making it physically inaccessible to others. She contends this violates the Architectural Guidelines, which state that landscaping approval shall not give a property owner exclusive use of association property.
5. The Association argues it must treat all members fairly, noting that hundreds of other residents have been allowed to landscape the common area up to the roadside. They assert that denying the Normans’ request would have unfairly “singled them out” when similar requests are universally approved.
6. The board realized that the 8-foot unpaved areas on each side of the paved roads were not private property but were actually “common areas” owned and managed by the Association. Following this discovery, the Association took over maintenance responsibilities, such as weed control and erosion management, for these strips.
7. The Respondent claimed that parking at the trail head created nuisances including trash, noise, and “public intrusion” from non-residents. Additionally, Dean Myers testified that parking was exacerbating erosion issues that were beginning to undermine the concrete street curb.
8. The Petitioner points out that the Association recently expanded and paved parking at the community tennis courts to benefit members who play tennis. She argues it is discriminatory to improve amenities for one group of members while removing a traditional parking benefit for those who use the hiking trails.
9. The Association generally holds the homeowner responsible for the costs of repairing any landscaping that extends into the common area if it is damaged by a snowplow. This serves as a condition of allowing private landscaping on association-owned land; the board only pays if the plow operator acted “stupidly.”
10. The Petitioner is seeking an order confirming that the Declaration prohibits these specific landscaping changes. Furthermore, she is requesting that the Association be ordered to restore the common area to its original condition to allow for continued member parking.
——————————————————————————–
Part III: Essay Questions
Instructions: Use the source context to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts. (Answers not provided).
1. Aesthetics vs. Utility: Analyze the tension between the Board’s authority to judge “aesthetic matters” (Section 3.4.9) and the “permitted uses” of common areas (Section 2.2). Which authority should take precedence when a visual improvement eliminates a functional use?
2. The Definition of Exclusive Use: Evaluate the Respondent’s argument that the rock berm does not constitute “exclusive use” because there is no fence. Contrast this with the Petitioner’s testimony regarding the physical safety and accessibility of the area for members.
3. Conflicts of Interest in Governance: Discuss the implications of Dean Myers serving as both the board member approving (or allowing) the project and the contractor performing the work. How does this dual role affect the Association’s “fairness” argument?
4. Safety and Nuisance as Justification: Examine the evidence provided for safety concerns and nuisances at the trail head. Was the Association’s response (permitting boulders) a proportionate and evidenced-based solution to the problems described?
5. Historical Practice vs. Written Code: Explore the legal weight of “decades of practice” versus the literal interpretation of the Plat and Declaration. Should sixteen years of uninterrupted use by members create a protected right to park, even if not explicitly marked on a plat map?
——————————————————————————–
Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Architectural Control Committee (ACC)
The body (often the Board of Directors in this case) responsible for reviewing and approving or denying changes to property and common areas.
Common Area
Land owned by the Homeowners Association for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of all members, such as the 8-foot strips adjacent to roadways.
Declaration (CC&Rs)
The “Amended Declaration of Covenant Conditions and Restrictions,” which serves as the primary governing document for the Forest Trails community.
Developer Position
A permanent seat on the Board of Directors reserved for the original developer or their representative (currently held by Dean Myers).
Easement
A legal right to use another’s land for a specific limited purpose; in this case, the trail head access is described as an easement between two lots.
Exclusive Use
The sole right to use a portion of property to the exclusion of others; prohibited for private owners on association common areas.
GIS (Geographic Information System)
Digital mapping technology used in the hearing to show property lines and the relationship between lots and association-owned streets.
Natural State
The original, undeveloped condition of land; Section 2.2 mandates common areas be kept this way unless used for specific permitted purposes like trails or parking.
Petitioner
The party initiating the legal grievance or “petition” (Judy Clapp).
Plat / Plat Map
An official map drawn to scale, showing the divisions of a piece of land, including lots, streets, and common areas.
Respondent
The party responding to the legal grievance (Forest Trails Homeowners Association).
Rock Berm
A man-made barrier or mound constructed of rocks and boulders used in this case to physically block vehicle access to a shoulder.
Blog Post – 22F-H2221026-REL
Study Guide: Judy Clapp v. Forest Trails Homeowners Association (Docket No. 22F-H2221026-I)
This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing held on March 9, 2022, regarding a dispute over common area usage, landscaping rights, and parking access within the Forest Trails community.
——————————————————————————–
Part I: Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2–3 sentences based on the provided hearing transcript and documents.
1. What is the central issue of the dispute between Judy Clapp and the Forest Trails Homeowners Association?
2. How does Section 2.2 of the Forest Trails Declaration define the purpose and permitted uses of “common areas”?
3. What physical modification to the area near 1473 Trail Head triggered this legal action, and who performed the work?
4. What is the Petitioner’s primary argument regarding the “exclusive use” of the landscaped common area?
5. How does the Association justify its decision to approve the Normans’ landscaping request despite member objections?
6. What did the 2002–2003 review of the plat and CC&Rs reveal to the Association board regarding the 8-foot strips alongside the roadways?
7. What “nuisances” did the Respondent cite as reasons for prohibiting parking at the trail head location?
8. How does the Petitioner use the example of the community tennis courts to argue that the Association’s parking policy is inconsistent?
9. According to the testimony of Dean Myers, what is the Association’s policy regarding damage to homeowner-installed landscaping caused by snowplows?
10. What specific legal relief is the Petitioner seeking from the Administrative Law Judge?
——————————————————————————–
Part II: Answer Key
1. The dispute centers on the Association’s decision to allow a specific homeowner (the Normans) to landscape a common area in a way that prohibits long-standing member parking. The Petitioner argues this violates the Declaration’s provision that common areas benefit all members, while the Association claims the right to manage aesthetics and address nuisances.
2. Section 2.2 states that common areas are for the “use and benefit of all members” and should generally be left in their natural state. However, it explicitly allows these areas to be used for specific purposes, including trails, walkways, driveways, parking areas, landscaping, and utility easements.
3. The Normans installed large boulders and a rock berm on the association-owned unpaved roadway shoulder to prevent vehicles from parking there. This work was executed by Dean Myers, who is a permanent member of the Association’s Board of Directors and the owner of a landscaping company.
4. The Petitioner argues that the installation of the rock berm effectively grants the Normans “exclusive use” of the common area by making it physically inaccessible to others. She contends this violates the Architectural Guidelines, which state that landscaping approval shall not give a property owner exclusive use of association property.
5. The Association argues it must treat all members fairly, noting that hundreds of other residents have been allowed to landscape the common area up to the roadside. They assert that denying the Normans’ request would have unfairly “singled them out” when similar requests are universally approved.
6. The board realized that the 8-foot unpaved areas on each side of the paved roads were not private property but were actually “common areas” owned and managed by the Association. Following this discovery, the Association took over maintenance responsibilities, such as weed control and erosion management, for these strips.
7. The Respondent claimed that parking at the trail head created nuisances including trash, noise, and “public intrusion” from non-residents. Additionally, Dean Myers testified that parking was exacerbating erosion issues that were beginning to undermine the concrete street curb.
8. The Petitioner points out that the Association recently expanded and paved parking at the community tennis courts to benefit members who play tennis. She argues it is discriminatory to improve amenities for one group of members while removing a traditional parking benefit for those who use the hiking trails.
9. The Association generally holds the homeowner responsible for the costs of repairing any landscaping that extends into the common area if it is damaged by a snowplow. This serves as a condition of allowing private landscaping on association-owned land; the board only pays if the plow operator acted “stupidly.”
10. The Petitioner is seeking an order confirming that the Declaration prohibits these specific landscaping changes. Furthermore, she is requesting that the Association be ordered to restore the common area to its original condition to allow for continued member parking.
——————————————————————————–
Part III: Essay Questions
Instructions: Use the source context to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts. (Answers not provided).
1. Aesthetics vs. Utility: Analyze the tension between the Board’s authority to judge “aesthetic matters” (Section 3.4.9) and the “permitted uses” of common areas (Section 2.2). Which authority should take precedence when a visual improvement eliminates a functional use?
2. The Definition of Exclusive Use: Evaluate the Respondent’s argument that the rock berm does not constitute “exclusive use” because there is no fence. Contrast this with the Petitioner’s testimony regarding the physical safety and accessibility of the area for members.
3. Conflicts of Interest in Governance: Discuss the implications of Dean Myers serving as both the board member approving (or allowing) the project and the contractor performing the work. How does this dual role affect the Association’s “fairness” argument?
4. Safety and Nuisance as Justification: Examine the evidence provided for safety concerns and nuisances at the trail head. Was the Association’s response (permitting boulders) a proportionate and evidenced-based solution to the problems described?
5. Historical Practice vs. Written Code: Explore the legal weight of “decades of practice” versus the literal interpretation of the Plat and Declaration. Should sixteen years of uninterrupted use by members create a protected right to park, even if not explicitly marked on a plat map?
——————————————————————————–
Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Architectural Control Committee (ACC)
The body (often the Board of Directors in this case) responsible for reviewing and approving or denying changes to property and common areas.
Common Area
Land owned by the Homeowners Association for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of all members, such as the 8-foot strips adjacent to roadways.
Declaration (CC&Rs)
The “Amended Declaration of Covenant Conditions and Restrictions,” which serves as the primary governing document for the Forest Trails community.
Developer Position
A permanent seat on the Board of Directors reserved for the original developer or their representative (currently held by Dean Myers).
Easement
A legal right to use another’s land for a specific limited purpose; in this case, the trail head access is described as an easement between two lots.
Exclusive Use
The sole right to use a portion of property to the exclusion of others; prohibited for private owners on association common areas.
GIS (Geographic Information System)
Digital mapping technology used in the hearing to show property lines and the relationship between lots and association-owned streets.
Natural State
The original, undeveloped condition of land; Section 2.2 mandates common areas be kept this way unless used for specific permitted purposes like trails or parking.
Petitioner
The party initiating the legal grievance or “petition” (Judy Clapp).
Plat / Plat Map
An official map drawn to scale, showing the divisions of a piece of land, including lots, streets, and common areas.
Respondent
The party responding to the legal grievance (Forest Trails Homeowners Association).
Rock Berm
A man-made barrier or mound constructed of rocks and boulders used in this case to physically block vehicle access to a shoulder.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Judy Clapp(Petitioner) Homeowner Also referred to as Judith Ellen Black
Kevin Harper(Petitioner Attorney) Harper Law PLC
Rick Ohanesian(Petitioner) Homeowner Listed in Respondent's Amended Notice of Appearance
Lucy McMillan(Former Board Member) Forest Trails HOA Listed as witness but not present
Respondent Side
Edward D. O'Brien(Respondent Attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
Edith I. Rudder(Respondent Attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
Dean Meyers(Board Member) Forest Trails HOA Board Developer position on board; Professional landscaper hired by the Normans; Witness
James Norman(Homeowner) Forest Trails HOA Owner of lot 30; requested landscaping
Cynthia Norman(Homeowner) Forest Trails HOA Owner of lot 30
Jim Atkinson(HOA Attorney) Former Board President; identified as Association attorney in testimony
Nancy Char(Board President) Forest Trails HOA Current president mentioned in testimony
Marissa(Property Manager) Community Asset Management LLC Mentioned in meeting minutes regarding sample handling
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Transcribed as 'Alvin Moses Thompson' in audio transcript
Dan Gardner(HOA Coordinator) ADRE
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) ADRE
Other Participants
Lenor Hemphill(Former Board Member) Forest Trails HOA Sent email regarding landscaping issue
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
20F-H2020059-REL
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2021-02-12
Administrative Law Judge
Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$0.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Michael J. Stoltenberg
Counsel
—
Respondent
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Counsel
Nicole Payne
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs § 5.1; A.R.S. § 10-3842
Outcome Summary
The Petition was dismissed after rehearing because Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs. The ALJ found that Petitioner continually refused Respondent access to his locked back yard for landscaping maintenance, and the CC&Rs requiring landscaping do not mandate pool maintenance.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation due to refusal of access to the back yard and misinterpretation of CC&R obligations regarding pool maintenance.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to maintain landscaping and acting in bad faith
Petitioner alleged Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs by failing to maintain landscaping in 2020 and acting in bad faith, asserting that pool/hardscape maintenance was included in landscaping duties, and requesting the maximum fine. Respondent countered that they consistently maintained the front yard but were denied access to the locked backyard due to Petitioner's pool liability concerns.
Orders: Petitioner's Petition was dismissed/denied as Petitioner failed to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. However, Respondent was ordered, going forward, to communicate the days and times they will be performing back yard landscaping so Petitioner can provide access.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
CC&Rs § 5.1
CC&Rs § 5.1(a)
A.R.S. § 10-3842
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. § 32-1122(A)(1)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Duties, Landscaping, Pool Maintenance, CC&Rs, Access Refusal, Rehearing
Briefing on Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and rulings from two administrative hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg (Petitioner) and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged the HOA violated its governing documents by failing to maintain landscaping at his property. The case was ultimately dismissed after an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing.
The core of the dispute centered on two key issues: the scope of “landscaping” services required by the HOA’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), and the Petitioner’s denial of access to his backyard. The Petitioner argued that the undefined term “landscaping” in the CC&Rs should be interpreted broadly to include maintenance of his private swimming pool, which he referred to as a “water feature.” Concurrently, he acknowledged keeping his backyard gate locked for liability reasons related to the pool, preventing the HOA’s contractor from performing any work.
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof. The judge concluded that the HOA had made repeated, documented attempts to perform its duties, but was actively prevented from doing so by the Petitioner. Critically, the judge ruled that a reasonable interpretation of “landscaping,” supported by dictionary definitions and the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ distinct licensing classifications for landscaping and swimming pool services, does not include the maintenance of a private pool and its associated mechanical equipment.
I. Case Overview
Case Detail
Information
Case Number
20F-H2020059-REL and 20F-H2020059-REL-RHG (Rehearing)
Petitioner
Michael J. Stoltenberg (Homeowner at 11777 E. Calle Gaudi, Yuma, AZ)
Respondent
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA)
Office of Administrative Hearings, Arizona
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Hearing Dates
August 3, 2020 (Initial Hearing) and February 2, 2021 (Rehearing)
Final Disposition
Petition Dismissed (February 12, 2021)
II. Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments
The Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on or about April 21, 2020, alleging the HOA acted in “bad faith” and failed to perform its duties in 2020. The core of his case was built on the following claims:
• Violation of CC&Rs: The Petitioner alleged a violation of § 5.1 of the HOA’s CC&Rs, which mandates that the “Association shall maintain… landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” He also alleged a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 10-3842, although this was not addressed at the hearing.
• Broad Interpretation of “Landscaping”: The Petitioner contended that since the CC&Rs do not define “landscaping,” the term should encompass all features on his lot. He specifically asserted that the HOA was responsible for maintaining:
◦ His swimming pool (referred to as a “water feature”), including the pump, filter, and chemicals.
◦ His unique xeriscape with geometric patterns.
◦ Walking paths that required staining.
◦ Replenishing decorative rock when it wears thin.
◦ The patio and all hardscape.
• Denial of Access: The Petitioner acknowledged that the gate to his backyard was “always locked for liability reasons” due to the pool. At the rehearing, he argued that the HOA failed to communicate the landscaping schedule, which would have afforded him an opportunity to unlock the gate.
• Rehearing Claims: In his request for a rehearing, the Petitioner cited several grounds, including an abuse of discretion by the judge, errors in evidence, and issues related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), claiming hearing loss put him at a “severe disadvantage.” At the rehearing itself, he also asserted that the Respondent was “falsely representing themselves as an HOA” and did not have an elected Board.
III. Respondent’s Defense and Evidence
The HOA, represented by Nicole Payne, Esq., argued that it had fulfilled its obligations and that any failure to maintain the Petitioner’s backyard was due to his own actions.
• Consistent Maintenance of Front Yard: The HOA established that its contractor, Mowtown Landscape, had continuously maintained the Petitioner’s front yard since their contract began in January 2020.
• Denied Access to Backyard: The central defense was that the HOA’s contractor was repeatedly and deliberately denied access to the backyard. This was supported by substantial evidence:
◦ Testimony of Rian Baas (Mowtown Landscape): Mr. Baas testified that his crews were at the community every Wednesday and Thursday. He stated they knocked on the Petitioner’s door and left notes or business cards four or five times between January and March 2020.
◦ Testimony of Diana Crites (Property Manager): Ms. Crites presented a text message from Mr. Baas dated March 24, 2020, which read:
◦ Documentary Evidence: A photograph of the locked gate was submitted, along with a letter from Mr. Baas stating, “There is a lock on the gate going to the back yard and we were trying to see if they [sic] people inside the house wanted us to maintenance the back yard. No one ever answered or came to the door.”
• Scope of HOA Services: Ms. Crites testified that the HOA provides uniform services (front yard maintenance, mowing and blowing of back yards, sprinkler system maintenance) and does not offer “concierge” services like maintaining potted plants or private pools. The community pool, she noted, is maintained by a different company entirely (Crystal Clear Pool Maintenance).
IV. Judicial Findings and Legal Rulings
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella found in favor of the Respondent in both the initial decision and the rehearing, ultimately dismissing the petition.
Initial Decision (August 17, 2020)
The initial petition was denied because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The judge’s reasoning was:
1. Denial of Access: The Petitioner’s own admission, coupled with “credible, probative, and substantial evidence,” established that he had refused to allow the HOA access to his backyard since January 2020.
2. HOA Attempts: The evidence demonstrated that the HOA had attempted to access the yard on multiple occasions and was “specifically instructed in March 2020, that Respondent was not permitted to access Petitioner’s back yard.”
3. Scope of CC&Rs: The judge concluded that while § 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs requires the HOA to maintain yards, “nothing therein requires Respondent to maintain an individual member’s pool.”
Rehearing Decision (February 12, 2021)
After the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted a rehearing, Judge Vanella again dismissed the petition, providing a more detailed legal analysis of the term “landscaping.”
1. Burden of Proof: The judge reiterated that the Petitioner bore the burden to establish that the HOA was legally obligated to maintain his pool, but “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent must do so.”
2. Definition of “Landscaping”: The judge found that the definitions of “landscaping” from various sources, including dictionaries, “cannot reasonably be read to include a swimming pool and the associated mechanical equipment.”
3. State Licensing as Key Differentiator: The most definitive part of the ruling relied on the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ licensing classifications, which treat landscaping and pool maintenance as two separate and distinct services.
License Classification
Description & Relevance
R-21 Hardscaping and Irrigation Systems (Formerly Landscaping and Irrigation Systems)
Allows for installation and repair of non-loadbearing concrete, patios, decorative walls, irrigation systems, and water features not attached to swimming pools. The classification specifically precludes the licensee from contracting for work on “swimming pools, pool deck coatings.”
R-6 Swimming Pool Service and Repair
A separate license required “to service and perform minor repair of residential pools and accessories.”
The judge concluded: “The Registrar’s licensing scheme supports a conclusion that landscaping maintenance and pool maintenance are two separate and distinct services… the CC&Rs cannot reasonably be interpreted to include pool maintenance when it required Respondent to maintain landscaping.”
Judicial Recommendation
While ruling against the Petitioner, the judge offered a forward-looking, non-binding recommendation:
“…given that Petitioner is required to keep his gate secured due to having a pool, it is reasonable, going forward, for Respondent to communicate the days and times that it will be performing the landscaping of Petitioner’s back yard so that Petitioner can provide access for that service while maintaining safety precautions.”
Study Guide – 20F-H2020059-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Case No. 20F-H2020059-REL
Quiz: Short-Answer Questions
Instructions: Please answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, using only information provided in the case documents.
1. Identify the Petitioner and Respondent in this case and describe the core issue of their dispute.
2. What specific provision of the governing documents did the Petitioner, Michael J. Stoltenberg, claim the Respondent violated?
3. According to the Petitioner’s testimony, what unique features did his property’s landscaping include, and what services did he believe the HOA was responsible for?
4. What was the primary reason the Respondent’s landscaping contractor, Mowtown Landscape, was unable to perform maintenance in the Petitioner’s backyard?
5. What was the testimony of Diana Crites, the property manager, regarding the scope of standard landscaping services provided by the HOA?
6. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge deny the Petitioner’s initial petition in the decision dated August 17, 2020?
7. For what primary reasons did the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate grant the Petitioner a rehearing?
8. In the rehearing, what external sources did the Administrative Law Judge consult to determine the definition of “landscaping”?
9. What is the legal standard of proof required in this case, and who bears the responsibility for meeting it?
10. What was the final order issued after the rehearing on February 12, 2021, and what reasonable suggestion did the judge offer for future interactions?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner was homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg. The Respondent was the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA). The core dispute concerned the HOA’s alleged failure to maintain the landscaping on the Petitioner’s property as required by the community’s CC&Rs, specifically whether this obligation included maintaining the Petitioner’s private pool.
2. The Petitioner claimed the Respondent violated Section 5.1 of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). This section outlines the Association’s duties, including the maintenance of landscaping on individual lots outside of structures. The Petitioner also initially alleged a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 10-3842.
3. The Petitioner testified that his landscaping was unique, including xeriscape with geometric patterns, “water features” (a pool), and walking paths that needed staining. He contended that the HOA should be responsible for maintaining these features, including replenishing the rock in his front yard when it wore thin.
4. The landscaping contractor was unable to perform maintenance because the gate to the backyard was always locked. The Petitioner acknowledged he kept it locked for liability reasons due to the pool, and evidence showed that in March 2020, a woman at the residence explicitly told the landscapers she did not want anyone in the backyard.
5. Diana Crites testified that the HOA provides uniform services, not “concierge” services. This includes front yard maintenance and mowing and blowing of backyards, but not maintaining potted plants, driveways, property-dividing walls, or individual homeowners’ pools.
6. The judge denied the petition because the evidence, including the Petitioner’s own admission, established that he had refused to allow the Respondent access to his backyard since January 2020. The decision noted the Respondent had made multiple attempts to access the yard and had consistently maintained the front yard.
7. The rehearing was granted for reasons outlined in the Petitioner’s rehearing request. These included claims of irregularity in the proceedings, newly discovered evidence, errors in the admission of evidence, and that the original decision was not supported by evidence or was contrary to law. The Petitioner also cited ADA and privacy issues.
8. The Administrative Law Judge consulted various online dictionary definitions (Oxford English Dictionary, Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, Law Insider). She also analyzed the license classifications from the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, specifically the R-21 Hardscaping and Irrigation Systems license and the R-6 Swimming Pool Service and Repair license.
9. The legal standard is “preponderance of the evidence,” which means the proof must convince the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated the governing documents.
10. The final order dismissed the Petitioner’s petition again, finding he failed to prove the HOA was obligated to maintain his pool. However, the judge suggested that it would be reasonable for the Respondent to communicate the days and times of its landscaping services going forward so the Petitioner could provide access while maintaining safety precautions.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more comprehensive understanding of the case. Formulate a detailed essay response for each prompt.
1. Analyze the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. Explain who held the burden, what they were required to prove, and why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found that they failed to meet this burden in both the initial hearing and the rehearing.
2. Discuss the role of access in the dispute between Michael J. Stoltenberg and the Rancho Del Oro HOA. How did the issue of the locked gate impact the initial ruling, and how did the Petitioner attempt to reframe this issue in the rehearing?
3. The interpretation of the word “landscaping” was central to the rehearing. Detail the Petitioner’s interpretation versus the conclusion reached by the Administrative Law Judge. What evidence and legal reasoning did the Judge use to support her conclusion that pool maintenance is not included in landscaping?
4. Trace the procedural history of this case, from the initial petition filing on April 21, 2020, to the final order after the rehearing. Identify the key events, the specific reasons cited for the rehearing, and the legal basis for the final dismissal.
5. Based on the testimony of Diana Crites and Rian Baas, describe the standard landscaping services provided by the Rancho Del Oro HOA and its contractor. How does this standard practice contrast with the specific and unique services the Petitioner demanded for his property?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions and orders. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella served as the ALJ.
A.R.S.
Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
Burden of Proof
The obligation on a party in a legal dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community or homeowners’ association.
Department
Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE), the state agency with jurisdiction over HOA dispute resolution petitions.
Homeowners’ Association. An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. The Respondent was the Rancho Del Oro HOA.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg.
Petition
A formal written request filed with a court or administrative body to initiate a legal proceeding. Mr. Stoltenberg filed a petition alleging the HOA violated its CC&Rs.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in most civil and administrative cases. It requires the party with the burden of proof to convince the fact-finder that their claim is more likely to be true than not true.
Registrar of Contractors
The Arizona state agency responsible for licensing and regulating contractors. The ALJ referenced its license classifications for landscaping (R-21) and swimming pools (R-6) to help define the scope of services.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020059-REL-RHG
Briefing on Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and rulings from two administrative hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg (Petitioner) and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged the HOA violated its governing documents by failing to maintain landscaping at his property. The case was ultimately dismissed after an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing.
The core of the dispute centered on two key issues: the scope of “landscaping” services required by the HOA’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), and the Petitioner’s denial of access to his backyard. The Petitioner argued that the undefined term “landscaping” in the CC&Rs should be interpreted broadly to include maintenance of his private swimming pool, which he referred to as a “water feature.” Concurrently, he acknowledged keeping his backyard gate locked for liability reasons related to the pool, preventing the HOA’s contractor from performing any work.
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof. The judge concluded that the HOA had made repeated, documented attempts to perform its duties, but was actively prevented from doing so by the Petitioner. Critically, the judge ruled that a reasonable interpretation of “landscaping,” supported by dictionary definitions and the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ distinct licensing classifications for landscaping and swimming pool services, does not include the maintenance of a private pool and its associated mechanical equipment.
I. Case Overview
Case Detail
Information
Case Number
20F-H2020059-REL and 20F-H2020059-REL-RHG (Rehearing)
Petitioner
Michael J. Stoltenberg (Homeowner at 11777 E. Calle Gaudi, Yuma, AZ)
Respondent
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA)
Office of Administrative Hearings, Arizona
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Hearing Dates
August 3, 2020 (Initial Hearing) and February 2, 2021 (Rehearing)
Final Disposition
Petition Dismissed (February 12, 2021)
II. Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments
The Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on or about April 21, 2020, alleging the HOA acted in “bad faith” and failed to perform its duties in 2020. The core of his case was built on the following claims:
• Violation of CC&Rs: The Petitioner alleged a violation of § 5.1 of the HOA’s CC&Rs, which mandates that the “Association shall maintain… landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” He also alleged a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 10-3842, although this was not addressed at the hearing.
• Broad Interpretation of “Landscaping”: The Petitioner contended that since the CC&Rs do not define “landscaping,” the term should encompass all features on his lot. He specifically asserted that the HOA was responsible for maintaining:
◦ His swimming pool (referred to as a “water feature”), including the pump, filter, and chemicals.
◦ His unique xeriscape with geometric patterns.
◦ Walking paths that required staining.
◦ Replenishing decorative rock when it wears thin.
◦ The patio and all hardscape.
• Denial of Access: The Petitioner acknowledged that the gate to his backyard was “always locked for liability reasons” due to the pool. At the rehearing, he argued that the HOA failed to communicate the landscaping schedule, which would have afforded him an opportunity to unlock the gate.
• Rehearing Claims: In his request for a rehearing, the Petitioner cited several grounds, including an abuse of discretion by the judge, errors in evidence, and issues related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), claiming hearing loss put him at a “severe disadvantage.” At the rehearing itself, he also asserted that the Respondent was “falsely representing themselves as an HOA” and did not have an elected Board.
III. Respondent’s Defense and Evidence
The HOA, represented by Nicole Payne, Esq., argued that it had fulfilled its obligations and that any failure to maintain the Petitioner’s backyard was due to his own actions.
• Consistent Maintenance of Front Yard: The HOA established that its contractor, Mowtown Landscape, had continuously maintained the Petitioner’s front yard since their contract began in January 2020.
• Denied Access to Backyard: The central defense was that the HOA’s contractor was repeatedly and deliberately denied access to the backyard. This was supported by substantial evidence:
◦ Testimony of Rian Baas (Mowtown Landscape): Mr. Baas testified that his crews were at the community every Wednesday and Thursday. He stated they knocked on the Petitioner’s door and left notes or business cards four or five times between January and March 2020.
◦ Testimony of Diana Crites (Property Manager): Ms. Crites presented a text message from Mr. Baas dated March 24, 2020, which read:
◦ Documentary Evidence: A photograph of the locked gate was submitted, along with a letter from Mr. Baas stating, “There is a lock on the gate going to the back yard and we were trying to see if they [sic] people inside the house wanted us to maintenance the back yard. No one ever answered or came to the door.”
• Scope of HOA Services: Ms. Crites testified that the HOA provides uniform services (front yard maintenance, mowing and blowing of back yards, sprinkler system maintenance) and does not offer “concierge” services like maintaining potted plants or private pools. The community pool, she noted, is maintained by a different company entirely (Crystal Clear Pool Maintenance).
IV. Judicial Findings and Legal Rulings
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella found in favor of the Respondent in both the initial decision and the rehearing, ultimately dismissing the petition.
Initial Decision (August 17, 2020)
The initial petition was denied because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The judge’s reasoning was:
1. Denial of Access: The Petitioner’s own admission, coupled with “credible, probative, and substantial evidence,” established that he had refused to allow the HOA access to his backyard since January 2020.
2. HOA Attempts: The evidence demonstrated that the HOA had attempted to access the yard on multiple occasions and was “specifically instructed in March 2020, that Respondent was not permitted to access Petitioner’s back yard.”
3. Scope of CC&Rs: The judge concluded that while § 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs requires the HOA to maintain yards, “nothing therein requires Respondent to maintain an individual member’s pool.”
Rehearing Decision (February 12, 2021)
After the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted a rehearing, Judge Vanella again dismissed the petition, providing a more detailed legal analysis of the term “landscaping.”
1. Burden of Proof: The judge reiterated that the Petitioner bore the burden to establish that the HOA was legally obligated to maintain his pool, but “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent must do so.”
2. Definition of “Landscaping”: The judge found that the definitions of “landscaping” from various sources, including dictionaries, “cannot reasonably be read to include a swimming pool and the associated mechanical equipment.”
3. State Licensing as Key Differentiator: The most definitive part of the ruling relied on the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ licensing classifications, which treat landscaping and pool maintenance as two separate and distinct services.
License Classification
Description & Relevance
R-21 Hardscaping and Irrigation Systems (Formerly Landscaping and Irrigation Systems)
Allows for installation and repair of non-loadbearing concrete, patios, decorative walls, irrigation systems, and water features not attached to swimming pools. The classification specifically precludes the licensee from contracting for work on “swimming pools, pool deck coatings.”
R-6 Swimming Pool Service and Repair
A separate license required “to service and perform minor repair of residential pools and accessories.”
The judge concluded: “The Registrar’s licensing scheme supports a conclusion that landscaping maintenance and pool maintenance are two separate and distinct services… the CC&Rs cannot reasonably be interpreted to include pool maintenance when it required Respondent to maintain landscaping.”
Judicial Recommendation
While ruling against the Petitioner, the judge offered a forward-looking, non-binding recommendation:
“…given that Petitioner is required to keep his gate secured due to having a pool, it is reasonable, going forward, for Respondent to communicate the days and times that it will be performing the landscaping of Petitioner’s back yard so that Petitioner can provide access for that service while maintaining safety precautions.”
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michael J. Stoltenberg(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Nicole Payne(HOA attorney)
Diana Crites(property manager/witness) Crites and Associates Owner of Respondent's property management company; licensed broker
Rian Baas(witness/contractor owner) Mowtown Landscape Owner of landscaping company contracted by Respondent
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
20F-H2020059-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2021-02-12
Administrative Law Judge
Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$0.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Michael J. Stoltenberg
Counsel
—
Respondent
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Counsel
Nicole Payne
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs § 5.1; A.R.S. § 10-3842
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to show that the HOA violated the governing documents, primarily because the Petitioner refused access to his back yard, and the CC&Rs were not interpreted to include maintenance of an individual homeowner’s swimming pool.
Why this result: Petitioner refused to allow the HOA access to his back yard to perform landscape services, and failed to establish that pool maintenance was included in the HOA’s landscaping responsibility under the CC&Rs.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to maintain landscaping and acting in bad faith
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs § 5.1 and A.R.S. § 10-3842 by failing to maintain landscaping in 2020. The dispute centered on whether landscaping duties included Petitioner's private pool/hardscape and Petitioner's refusal to grant access to his locked backyard for maintenance services.
Orders: Petition dismissed. Respondent was required to communicate the days and times for performing back yard landscaping so Petitioner could provide access while maintaining safety precautions.
Briefing on Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and rulings from two administrative hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg (Petitioner) and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged the HOA violated its governing documents by failing to maintain landscaping at his property. The case was ultimately dismissed after an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing.
The core of the dispute centered on two key issues: the scope of “landscaping” services required by the HOA’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), and the Petitioner’s denial of access to his backyard. The Petitioner argued that the undefined term “landscaping” in the CC&Rs should be interpreted broadly to include maintenance of his private swimming pool, which he referred to as a “water feature.” Concurrently, he acknowledged keeping his backyard gate locked for liability reasons related to the pool, preventing the HOA’s contractor from performing any work.
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof. The judge concluded that the HOA had made repeated, documented attempts to perform its duties, but was actively prevented from doing so by the Petitioner. Critically, the judge ruled that a reasonable interpretation of “landscaping,” supported by dictionary definitions and the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ distinct licensing classifications for landscaping and swimming pool services, does not include the maintenance of a private pool and its associated mechanical equipment.
I. Case Overview
Case Detail
Information
Case Number
20F-H2020059-REL and 20F-H2020059-REL-RHG (Rehearing)
Petitioner
Michael J. Stoltenberg (Homeowner at 11777 E. Calle Gaudi, Yuma, AZ)
Respondent
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA)
Office of Administrative Hearings, Arizona
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Hearing Dates
August 3, 2020 (Initial Hearing) and February 2, 2021 (Rehearing)
Final Disposition
Petition Dismissed (February 12, 2021)
II. Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments
The Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on or about April 21, 2020, alleging the HOA acted in “bad faith” and failed to perform its duties in 2020. The core of his case was built on the following claims:
• Violation of CC&Rs: The Petitioner alleged a violation of § 5.1 of the HOA’s CC&Rs, which mandates that the “Association shall maintain… landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” He also alleged a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 10-3842, although this was not addressed at the hearing.
• Broad Interpretation of “Landscaping”: The Petitioner contended that since the CC&Rs do not define “landscaping,” the term should encompass all features on his lot. He specifically asserted that the HOA was responsible for maintaining:
◦ His swimming pool (referred to as a “water feature”), including the pump, filter, and chemicals.
◦ His unique xeriscape with geometric patterns.
◦ Walking paths that required staining.
◦ Replenishing decorative rock when it wears thin.
◦ The patio and all hardscape.
• Denial of Access: The Petitioner acknowledged that the gate to his backyard was “always locked for liability reasons” due to the pool. At the rehearing, he argued that the HOA failed to communicate the landscaping schedule, which would have afforded him an opportunity to unlock the gate.
• Rehearing Claims: In his request for a rehearing, the Petitioner cited several grounds, including an abuse of discretion by the judge, errors in evidence, and issues related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), claiming hearing loss put him at a “severe disadvantage.” At the rehearing itself, he also asserted that the Respondent was “falsely representing themselves as an HOA” and did not have an elected Board.
III. Respondent’s Defense and Evidence
The HOA, represented by Nicole Payne, Esq., argued that it had fulfilled its obligations and that any failure to maintain the Petitioner’s backyard was due to his own actions.
• Consistent Maintenance of Front Yard: The HOA established that its contractor, Mowtown Landscape, had continuously maintained the Petitioner’s front yard since their contract began in January 2020.
• Denied Access to Backyard: The central defense was that the HOA’s contractor was repeatedly and deliberately denied access to the backyard. This was supported by substantial evidence:
◦ Testimony of Rian Baas (Mowtown Landscape): Mr. Baas testified that his crews were at the community every Wednesday and Thursday. He stated they knocked on the Petitioner’s door and left notes or business cards four or five times between January and March 2020.
◦ Testimony of Diana Crites (Property Manager): Ms. Crites presented a text message from Mr. Baas dated March 24, 2020, which read:
◦ Documentary Evidence: A photograph of the locked gate was submitted, along with a letter from Mr. Baas stating, “There is a lock on the gate going to the back yard and we were trying to see if they [sic] people inside the house wanted us to maintenance the back yard. No one ever answered or came to the door.”
• Scope of HOA Services: Ms. Crites testified that the HOA provides uniform services (front yard maintenance, mowing and blowing of back yards, sprinkler system maintenance) and does not offer “concierge” services like maintaining potted plants or private pools. The community pool, she noted, is maintained by a different company entirely (Crystal Clear Pool Maintenance).
IV. Judicial Findings and Legal Rulings
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella found in favor of the Respondent in both the initial decision and the rehearing, ultimately dismissing the petition.
Initial Decision (August 17, 2020)
The initial petition was denied because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The judge’s reasoning was:
1. Denial of Access: The Petitioner’s own admission, coupled with “credible, probative, and substantial evidence,” established that he had refused to allow the HOA access to his backyard since January 2020.
2. HOA Attempts: The evidence demonstrated that the HOA had attempted to access the yard on multiple occasions and was “specifically instructed in March 2020, that Respondent was not permitted to access Petitioner’s back yard.”
3. Scope of CC&Rs: The judge concluded that while § 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs requires the HOA to maintain yards, “nothing therein requires Respondent to maintain an individual member’s pool.”
Rehearing Decision (February 12, 2021)
After the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted a rehearing, Judge Vanella again dismissed the petition, providing a more detailed legal analysis of the term “landscaping.”
1. Burden of Proof: The judge reiterated that the Petitioner bore the burden to establish that the HOA was legally obligated to maintain his pool, but “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent must do so.”
2. Definition of “Landscaping”: The judge found that the definitions of “landscaping” from various sources, including dictionaries, “cannot reasonably be read to include a swimming pool and the associated mechanical equipment.”
3. State Licensing as Key Differentiator: The most definitive part of the ruling relied on the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ licensing classifications, which treat landscaping and pool maintenance as two separate and distinct services.
License Classification
Description & Relevance
R-21 Hardscaping and Irrigation Systems (Formerly Landscaping and Irrigation Systems)
Allows for installation and repair of non-loadbearing concrete, patios, decorative walls, irrigation systems, and water features not attached to swimming pools. The classification specifically precludes the licensee from contracting for work on “swimming pools, pool deck coatings.”
R-6 Swimming Pool Service and Repair
A separate license required “to service and perform minor repair of residential pools and accessories.”
The judge concluded: “The Registrar’s licensing scheme supports a conclusion that landscaping maintenance and pool maintenance are two separate and distinct services… the CC&Rs cannot reasonably be interpreted to include pool maintenance when it required Respondent to maintain landscaping.”
Judicial Recommendation
While ruling against the Petitioner, the judge offered a forward-looking, non-binding recommendation:
“…given that Petitioner is required to keep his gate secured due to having a pool, it is reasonable, going forward, for Respondent to communicate the days and times that it will be performing the landscaping of Petitioner’s back yard so that Petitioner can provide access for that service while maintaining safety precautions.”
Study Guide – 20F-H2020059-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Case No. 20F-H2020059-REL
Quiz: Short-Answer Questions
Instructions: Please answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, using only information provided in the case documents.
1. Identify the Petitioner and Respondent in this case and describe the core issue of their dispute.
2. What specific provision of the governing documents did the Petitioner, Michael J. Stoltenberg, claim the Respondent violated?
3. According to the Petitioner’s testimony, what unique features did his property’s landscaping include, and what services did he believe the HOA was responsible for?
4. What was the primary reason the Respondent’s landscaping contractor, Mowtown Landscape, was unable to perform maintenance in the Petitioner’s backyard?
5. What was the testimony of Diana Crites, the property manager, regarding the scope of standard landscaping services provided by the HOA?
6. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge deny the Petitioner’s initial petition in the decision dated August 17, 2020?
7. For what primary reasons did the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate grant the Petitioner a rehearing?
8. In the rehearing, what external sources did the Administrative Law Judge consult to determine the definition of “landscaping”?
9. What is the legal standard of proof required in this case, and who bears the responsibility for meeting it?
10. What was the final order issued after the rehearing on February 12, 2021, and what reasonable suggestion did the judge offer for future interactions?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner was homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg. The Respondent was the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA). The core dispute concerned the HOA’s alleged failure to maintain the landscaping on the Petitioner’s property as required by the community’s CC&Rs, specifically whether this obligation included maintaining the Petitioner’s private pool.
2. The Petitioner claimed the Respondent violated Section 5.1 of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). This section outlines the Association’s duties, including the maintenance of landscaping on individual lots outside of structures. The Petitioner also initially alleged a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 10-3842.
3. The Petitioner testified that his landscaping was unique, including xeriscape with geometric patterns, “water features” (a pool), and walking paths that needed staining. He contended that the HOA should be responsible for maintaining these features, including replenishing the rock in his front yard when it wore thin.
4. The landscaping contractor was unable to perform maintenance because the gate to the backyard was always locked. The Petitioner acknowledged he kept it locked for liability reasons due to the pool, and evidence showed that in March 2020, a woman at the residence explicitly told the landscapers she did not want anyone in the backyard.
5. Diana Crites testified that the HOA provides uniform services, not “concierge” services. This includes front yard maintenance and mowing and blowing of backyards, but not maintaining potted plants, driveways, property-dividing walls, or individual homeowners’ pools.
6. The judge denied the petition because the evidence, including the Petitioner’s own admission, established that he had refused to allow the Respondent access to his backyard since January 2020. The decision noted the Respondent had made multiple attempts to access the yard and had consistently maintained the front yard.
7. The rehearing was granted for reasons outlined in the Petitioner’s rehearing request. These included claims of irregularity in the proceedings, newly discovered evidence, errors in the admission of evidence, and that the original decision was not supported by evidence or was contrary to law. The Petitioner also cited ADA and privacy issues.
8. The Administrative Law Judge consulted various online dictionary definitions (Oxford English Dictionary, Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, Law Insider). She also analyzed the license classifications from the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, specifically the R-21 Hardscaping and Irrigation Systems license and the R-6 Swimming Pool Service and Repair license.
9. The legal standard is “preponderance of the evidence,” which means the proof must convince the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated the governing documents.
10. The final order dismissed the Petitioner’s petition again, finding he failed to prove the HOA was obligated to maintain his pool. However, the judge suggested that it would be reasonable for the Respondent to communicate the days and times of its landscaping services going forward so the Petitioner could provide access while maintaining safety precautions.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more comprehensive understanding of the case. Formulate a detailed essay response for each prompt.
1. Analyze the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. Explain who held the burden, what they were required to prove, and why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found that they failed to meet this burden in both the initial hearing and the rehearing.
2. Discuss the role of access in the dispute between Michael J. Stoltenberg and the Rancho Del Oro HOA. How did the issue of the locked gate impact the initial ruling, and how did the Petitioner attempt to reframe this issue in the rehearing?
3. The interpretation of the word “landscaping” was central to the rehearing. Detail the Petitioner’s interpretation versus the conclusion reached by the Administrative Law Judge. What evidence and legal reasoning did the Judge use to support her conclusion that pool maintenance is not included in landscaping?
4. Trace the procedural history of this case, from the initial petition filing on April 21, 2020, to the final order after the rehearing. Identify the key events, the specific reasons cited for the rehearing, and the legal basis for the final dismissal.
5. Based on the testimony of Diana Crites and Rian Baas, describe the standard landscaping services provided by the Rancho Del Oro HOA and its contractor. How does this standard practice contrast with the specific and unique services the Petitioner demanded for his property?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions and orders. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella served as the ALJ.
A.R.S.
Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
Burden of Proof
The obligation on a party in a legal dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community or homeowners’ association.
Department
Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE), the state agency with jurisdiction over HOA dispute resolution petitions.
Homeowners’ Association. An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. The Respondent was the Rancho Del Oro HOA.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg.
Petition
A formal written request filed with a court or administrative body to initiate a legal proceeding. Mr. Stoltenberg filed a petition alleging the HOA violated its CC&Rs.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in most civil and administrative cases. It requires the party with the burden of proof to convince the fact-finder that their claim is more likely to be true than not true.
Registrar of Contractors
The Arizona state agency responsible for licensing and regulating contractors. The ALJ referenced its license classifications for landscaping (R-21) and swimming pools (R-6) to help define the scope of services.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020059-REL-RHG
Briefing on Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and rulings from two administrative hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg (Petitioner) and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged the HOA violated its governing documents by failing to maintain landscaping at his property. The case was ultimately dismissed after an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing.
The core of the dispute centered on two key issues: the scope of “landscaping” services required by the HOA’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), and the Petitioner’s denial of access to his backyard. The Petitioner argued that the undefined term “landscaping” in the CC&Rs should be interpreted broadly to include maintenance of his private swimming pool, which he referred to as a “water feature.” Concurrently, he acknowledged keeping his backyard gate locked for liability reasons related to the pool, preventing the HOA’s contractor from performing any work.
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof. The judge concluded that the HOA had made repeated, documented attempts to perform its duties, but was actively prevented from doing so by the Petitioner. Critically, the judge ruled that a reasonable interpretation of “landscaping,” supported by dictionary definitions and the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ distinct licensing classifications for landscaping and swimming pool services, does not include the maintenance of a private pool and its associated mechanical equipment.
I. Case Overview
Case Detail
Information
Case Number
20F-H2020059-REL and 20F-H2020059-REL-RHG (Rehearing)
Petitioner
Michael J. Stoltenberg (Homeowner at 11777 E. Calle Gaudi, Yuma, AZ)
Respondent
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA)
Office of Administrative Hearings, Arizona
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Hearing Dates
August 3, 2020 (Initial Hearing) and February 2, 2021 (Rehearing)
Final Disposition
Petition Dismissed (February 12, 2021)
II. Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments
The Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on or about April 21, 2020, alleging the HOA acted in “bad faith” and failed to perform its duties in 2020. The core of his case was built on the following claims:
• Violation of CC&Rs: The Petitioner alleged a violation of § 5.1 of the HOA’s CC&Rs, which mandates that the “Association shall maintain… landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” He also alleged a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 10-3842, although this was not addressed at the hearing.
• Broad Interpretation of “Landscaping”: The Petitioner contended that since the CC&Rs do not define “landscaping,” the term should encompass all features on his lot. He specifically asserted that the HOA was responsible for maintaining:
◦ His swimming pool (referred to as a “water feature”), including the pump, filter, and chemicals.
◦ His unique xeriscape with geometric patterns.
◦ Walking paths that required staining.
◦ Replenishing decorative rock when it wears thin.
◦ The patio and all hardscape.
• Denial of Access: The Petitioner acknowledged that the gate to his backyard was “always locked for liability reasons” due to the pool. At the rehearing, he argued that the HOA failed to communicate the landscaping schedule, which would have afforded him an opportunity to unlock the gate.
• Rehearing Claims: In his request for a rehearing, the Petitioner cited several grounds, including an abuse of discretion by the judge, errors in evidence, and issues related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), claiming hearing loss put him at a “severe disadvantage.” At the rehearing itself, he also asserted that the Respondent was “falsely representing themselves as an HOA” and did not have an elected Board.
III. Respondent’s Defense and Evidence
The HOA, represented by Nicole Payne, Esq., argued that it had fulfilled its obligations and that any failure to maintain the Petitioner’s backyard was due to his own actions.
• Consistent Maintenance of Front Yard: The HOA established that its contractor, Mowtown Landscape, had continuously maintained the Petitioner’s front yard since their contract began in January 2020.
• Denied Access to Backyard: The central defense was that the HOA’s contractor was repeatedly and deliberately denied access to the backyard. This was supported by substantial evidence:
◦ Testimony of Rian Baas (Mowtown Landscape): Mr. Baas testified that his crews were at the community every Wednesday and Thursday. He stated they knocked on the Petitioner’s door and left notes or business cards four or five times between January and March 2020.
◦ Testimony of Diana Crites (Property Manager): Ms. Crites presented a text message from Mr. Baas dated March 24, 2020, which read:
◦ Documentary Evidence: A photograph of the locked gate was submitted, along with a letter from Mr. Baas stating, “There is a lock on the gate going to the back yard and we were trying to see if they [sic] people inside the house wanted us to maintenance the back yard. No one ever answered or came to the door.”
• Scope of HOA Services: Ms. Crites testified that the HOA provides uniform services (front yard maintenance, mowing and blowing of back yards, sprinkler system maintenance) and does not offer “concierge” services like maintaining potted plants or private pools. The community pool, she noted, is maintained by a different company entirely (Crystal Clear Pool Maintenance).
IV. Judicial Findings and Legal Rulings
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella found in favor of the Respondent in both the initial decision and the rehearing, ultimately dismissing the petition.
Initial Decision (August 17, 2020)
The initial petition was denied because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The judge’s reasoning was:
1. Denial of Access: The Petitioner’s own admission, coupled with “credible, probative, and substantial evidence,” established that he had refused to allow the HOA access to his backyard since January 2020.
2. HOA Attempts: The evidence demonstrated that the HOA had attempted to access the yard on multiple occasions and was “specifically instructed in March 2020, that Respondent was not permitted to access Petitioner’s back yard.”
3. Scope of CC&Rs: The judge concluded that while § 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs requires the HOA to maintain yards, “nothing therein requires Respondent to maintain an individual member’s pool.”
Rehearing Decision (February 12, 2021)
After the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted a rehearing, Judge Vanella again dismissed the petition, providing a more detailed legal analysis of the term “landscaping.”
1. Burden of Proof: The judge reiterated that the Petitioner bore the burden to establish that the HOA was legally obligated to maintain his pool, but “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent must do so.”
2. Definition of “Landscaping”: The judge found that the definitions of “landscaping” from various sources, including dictionaries, “cannot reasonably be read to include a swimming pool and the associated mechanical equipment.”
3. State Licensing as Key Differentiator: The most definitive part of the ruling relied on the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ licensing classifications, which treat landscaping and pool maintenance as two separate and distinct services.
License Classification
Description & Relevance
R-21 Hardscaping and Irrigation Systems (Formerly Landscaping and Irrigation Systems)
Allows for installation and repair of non-loadbearing concrete, patios, decorative walls, irrigation systems, and water features not attached to swimming pools. The classification specifically precludes the licensee from contracting for work on “swimming pools, pool deck coatings.”
R-6 Swimming Pool Service and Repair
A separate license required “to service and perform minor repair of residential pools and accessories.”
The judge concluded: “The Registrar’s licensing scheme supports a conclusion that landscaping maintenance and pool maintenance are two separate and distinct services… the CC&Rs cannot reasonably be interpreted to include pool maintenance when it required Respondent to maintain landscaping.”
Judicial Recommendation
While ruling against the Petitioner, the judge offered a forward-looking, non-binding recommendation:
“…given that Petitioner is required to keep his gate secured due to having a pool, it is reasonable, going forward, for Respondent to communicate the days and times that it will be performing the landscaping of Petitioner’s back yard so that Petitioner can provide access for that service while maintaining safety precautions.”
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michael J. Stoltenberg(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Nicole Payne(HOA attorney)
Diana Crites(property manager/witness) Crites and Associates Owner of Respondent's property management company; licensed broker
Rian Baas(witness/contractor owner) Mowtown Landscape Owner of landscaping company contracted by Respondent
The Petition was dismissed after rehearing because Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs. The ALJ found that Petitioner continually refused Respondent access to his locked back yard for landscaping maintenance, and the CC&Rs requiring landscaping do not mandate pool maintenance.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation due to refusal of access to the back yard and misinterpretation of CC&R obligations regarding pool maintenance.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to maintain landscaping and acting in bad faith
Petitioner alleged Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs by failing to maintain landscaping in 2020 and acting in bad faith, asserting that pool/hardscape maintenance was included in landscaping duties, and requesting the maximum fine. Respondent countered that they consistently maintained the front yard but were denied access to the locked backyard due to Petitioner's pool liability concerns.
Orders: Petitioner's Petition was dismissed/denied as Petitioner failed to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. However, Respondent was ordered, going forward, to communicate the days and times they will be performing back yard landscaping so Petitioner can provide access.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
CC&Rs § 5.1
CC&Rs § 5.1(a)
A.R.S. § 10-3842
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. § 32-1122(A)(1)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Duties, Landscaping, Pool Maintenance, CC&Rs, Access Refusal, Rehearing
Additional Citations:
CC&Rs § 5.1
CC&Rs § 5.1(a)
A.R.S. § 10-3842
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. § 32-1122(A)(1)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
20F-H2020059-REL Decision – 815480.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:33:21 (124.1 KB)
Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020059-REL
Briefing Document: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings from two administrative hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg (Petitioner) and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute centers on the scope of landscaping maintenance obligations as defined by the association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
The Petitioner alleged the HOA failed its duties under CC&Rs § 5.1 by not maintaining his property’s unique landscaping, which he argued included replenishing rock, staining paths, and servicing his swimming pool and associated hardscape. He further claimed the HOA was acting in bad faith and failing to comply with a previous court ruling.
The Respondent countered that it had consistently performed standard landscaping on the Petitioner’s front yard since January 2020. However, it was repeatedly denied access to the backyard, a fact the Petitioner admitted, citing liability concerns due to his pool. The HOA provided evidence of multiple attempts to access the yard and testimony that its maintenance duties are uniform across the community and do not include “concierge” services or pool maintenance.
The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed the petition in both the initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing. The final decision rested on two key points: 1) The Petitioner failed to provide access to the area in question, preventing the HOA from performing its duties. 2) The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the term “landscaping” under the CC&Rs could be reasonably interpreted to include swimming pool maintenance. This conclusion was strongly supported by the separate licensing classifications for landscaping (R-21) and swimming pool service (R-6) issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, which establishes them as distinct services under state regulation.
Case Overview
Parties and Key Personnel
Name/Entity
Affiliation / Title
Petitioner
Michael J. Stoltenberg
Homeowner, 11777 E. Calle Gaudi, Yuma, AZ
Respondent
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Homeowners’ Association (HOA)
Respondent Counsel
Nicole Payne, Esq.
Legal Representative
Respondent Witness
Diana Crites
Owner, Crites and Associates (Property Management Co.)
The central conflict involved the interpretation of the HOA’s maintenance obligations under its governing documents. The Petitioner argued for an expansive definition of “landscaping” that encompassed his entire property exterior, including a swimming pool. The HOA maintained that its duties were limited to standard, uniform landscaping services and that pool maintenance was explicitly excluded. The dispute was compounded by the Petitioner’s refusal to grant the HOA’s landscaper access to his backyard.
Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments
Mr. Stoltenberg’s petition, filed on or about April 21, 2020, and subsequent arguments in two hearings, were based on the following claims:
• Violation of CC&Rs: The HOA violated § 5.1 of its CC&Rs by failing “to do their job in 2020 with maintaining landscaping, and are acting in bad faith.”
• Broad Interpretation of “Landscaping”: As the CC&Rs do not define “landscaping,” the Petitioner contended it should include all types of features outside of structures. His specific demands included:
◦ Maintenance of unique xeriscape with geometric patterns.
◦ Replenishment of thin or worn-out rock ground cover.
◦ Staining of walking paths.
◦ Full maintenance of his “water feature,” identified as a swimming pool. This included the pump, filter, chemicals, patio, and all related hardscape.
• Refusal to Grant Access: The Petitioner acknowledged that the gate to his backyard was “always locked.” He stated this was for liability reasons due to the pool and refused access to the HOA’s landscapers. At the rehearing, he argued the HOA failed to communicate its schedule to allow him to provide temporary access.
• Budgetary Failure: He asserted that the HOA did not properly budget for the costs associated with maintaining his unique landscaping.
• Grounds for Rehearing: After the initial denial, the Petitioner requested a rehearing on multiple grounds, including irregularity in proceedings, errors in evidence admission, and claims of “Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues” related to hearing loss.
Respondent’s Position and Evidence
The Rancho Del Oro HOA presented a defense centered on its consistent attempts to fulfill its obligations and the Petitioner’s own actions preventing them from doing so.
• Consistent Front Yard Maintenance: Both the HOA property manager and its landscaping contractor testified that the Petitioner’s front yard had been continuously maintained since landscaping services began in January 2020.
• Denial of Backyard Access: The HOA’s primary defense was that it was physically prevented from servicing the backyard. Evidence presented to support this included:
◦ Testimony from Rian Baas (Mowtown Landscape): His crews were at the property weekly. Between January and March 2020, he or his crew knocked and left notes or business cards four to five times with no response.
◦ Witness Testimony: In March 2020, a woman at the residence (presumably the Petitioner’s wife) explicitly instructed a landscaper that “she does not want anyone in the back yard because she had a pool and that is the reason for the lock on gate.”
◦ Documentary Evidence: A text message dated March 24, 2020, from Mr. Baas to property manager Diana Crites memorialized this interaction. A photograph of the locked gate was also submitted.
• Scope of Services: Ms. Crites testified that HOA landscape services are uniform throughout the community and include front yard maintenance, mowing and blowing in backyards (if access is granted), and sprinkler system upkeep. They do not provide “concierge” services such as maintaining potted plants, driveways, or pools (except for the community pool, which is serviced by a separate contractor).
• Access as a Prerequisite: Ms. Crites explained that backyard maintenance is contingent on homeowners leaving their gates unlocked, and some owners choose not to grant access due to pets or other reasons.
Judicial Findings and Rulings
Initial Decision (August 17, 2020)
The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s initial petition based on a clear set of facts.
• Findings of Fact: The judge found the evidence presented by the Respondent to be credible. The Petitioner’s own admission that he refused to allow access to his backyard since January 2020 was a critical factor. The evidence established that the HOA had consistently maintained the front yard and made multiple, documented attempts to access the backyard.
• Conclusions of Law: The judge concluded that while § 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs requires the HOA to maintain yards, “nothing therein requires Respondent to maintain an individual member’s pool.” Because the Petitioner denied access, he could not establish that the Respondent had violated any CC&R.
Rehearing and Final Decision (February 12, 2021)
After the Commissioner for the Department of Real Estate granted a rehearing, the judge again reviewed the case and ultimately dismissed the petition, providing a more detailed legal analysis of the term “landscaping.”
• Burden of Proof: The judge reiterated that the Petitioner bore the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA was legally obligated to maintain his pool and hardscape. The Petitioner failed to offer any definition or legal authority to support his expansive interpretation.
• Analysis of “Landscaping”: The judge found that the common definitions of “landscaping” from various dictionary and legal sources “cannot reasonably be read to include a swimming pool and the associated mechanical equipment.”
• Arizona Registrar of Contractors (ROC) Licensing: The judge’s conclusion was decisively reinforced by the State of Arizona’s contractor licensing classifications:
◦ The R-21 Hardscaping and Irrigation Systems license (formerly Landscaping) is for installing garden walls, irrigation, and other landscape features. It specifically precludes the licensee from contracting for “swimming pools, pool deck coatings.”
◦ The R-6 Swimming Pool Service and Repair license is a separate classification required to service residential pools.
◦ The judge concluded: “The Registrar’s licensing scheme supports a conclusion that landscaping maintenance and pool maintenance are two separate and distinct services.”
• Final Order: The petition was dismissed. The judge noted that because the Petitioner denied access, the Respondent was not in violation. However, the judge provided a forward-looking recommendation: “it is reasonable, going forward, for Respondent to communicate the days and times that it will be performing the landscaping of Petitioner’s back yard so that Petitioner can provide access for that service while maintaining safety precautions.”
Study Guide – 20F-H2020059-REL
Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association. It covers the key arguments, evidence presented, and legal conclusions from two separate hearings. Use the following sections to test and deepen your understanding of the case.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing all information from the provided case documents.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in this legal dispute, and what were their respective roles?
2. What was the core allegation made by the Petitioner against the Respondent in the initial petition filed on April 21, 2020?
3. According to Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs, what is the Association’s primary maintenance obligation regarding individual lots?
4. What specific and unique types of landscaping did the Petitioner claim required maintenance by the HOA?
5. What was the primary reason the Respondent’s landscaping contractor, Mowtown Landscape, was unable to perform maintenance in the Petitioner’s backyard?
6. What evidence did Diana Crites, the property manager, present to demonstrate the landscaper’s attempts to gain access to the backyard?
7. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge initially deny the Petitioner’s petition in the decision dated August 17, 2020?
8. What reasons did the Petitioner give for his request for a rehearing after the initial decision?
9. In the rehearing, how did the Administrative Law Judge legally define “landscaping” to determine the scope of the HOA’s duties?
10. What was the final order in the decision dated February 12, 2021, and what recommendation did the judge make for future interactions?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Michael J. Stoltenberg, the homeowner, who served as the Petitioner, and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, which was the Respondent. The Petitioner brought the complaint alleging the HOA was not fulfilling its duties, while the Respondent defended its actions. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella.
2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) § 5.1 and Arizona Revised Statutes § 10-3842. Specifically, he claimed the HOA failed “to do their job in 2020 with maintaining landscaping, and are acting in bad faith.” He also referenced a refusal to follow a previous court ruling.
3. Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs states that the Association’s maintenance duties “shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” This clause formed the basis of the Petitioner’s argument that the HOA was responsible for all landscaping on his property.
4. The Petitioner testified that his landscaping was unique, including xeriscape with geometric patterns, “water features” (which was a pool), and walking paths that needed staining. He also contended that when the rock in his front yard wore thin, the Respondent should be responsible for replenishing it.
5. The landscaping contractor could not access the Petitioner’s backyard because the gate was always locked. The Petitioner acknowledged he kept it locked for liability reasons due to the presence of his pool, which he referred to as a “water feature.”
6. Diana Crites presented a text message from the landscaper, Rian Baas, dated March 24, 2020, detailing how a woman at the residence stated she did not want anyone in the backyard because of the pool. Ms. Crites also presented a photograph of the locked gate and read a letter from Mr. Baas explaining his crew had knocked and left business cards weekly for two months without response.
7. The judge denied the petition because the Petitioner’s own admission established that he had refused to allow the Respondent access to his backyard since January 2020. The decision noted that the HOA had made multiple attempts to access the yard and had consistently maintained the front yard landscaping.
8. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on multiple grounds, including alleged irregularity in the proceedings by the judge, newly discovered evidence, errors in the admission of evidence, and that the decision was not supported by evidence. He also asserted that there were Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues related to his hearing loss and privacy issues.
9. The judge referenced multiple online dictionaries (Oxford English Dictionary, Dictionary.com, etc.) and, most significantly, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ license classifications. She noted that landscaping (R-21 license) and swimming pool service (R-6 license) are two separate and distinct services, supporting the conclusion that pool maintenance is not included under the term “landscaping.”
10. The final order was that the Petitioner’s Petition was dismissed. However, the judge recommended that, going forward, it would be reasonable for the Respondent to communicate the days and times for landscaping so the Petitioner could provide access to his backyard while maintaining his safety precautions.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, structuring your answer as a short essay.
1. Analyze the role of “burden of proof” in this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means according to the source text and discuss how the Petitioner’s failure to meet this burden led to the dismissal of his petition in both hearings.
2. Discuss the conflict between the Petitioner’s right to secure his property (the locked gate) and the Respondent’s obligation to perform maintenance. How did the judge’s final recommendation attempt to resolve this practical conflict, even while legally siding with the Respondent?
3. Evaluate the Administrative Law Judge’s legal reasoning in the rehearing for defining “landscaping.” Why was the reference to the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ licensing scheme a particularly persuasive piece of evidence compared to dictionary definitions alone?
4. Trace the evolution of the Petitioner’s arguments from the initial hearing to the rehearing. How did his claims regarding the scope of “landscaping” and his introduction of issues like ADA accommodation and the HOA’s legitimacy reflect a shift in legal strategy?
5. Based on the evidence presented by the Respondent’s witnesses (Diana Crites and Rian Baas), assess the HOA’s efforts to fulfill its maintenance obligations. Were the HOA’s actions reasonable under the circumstances described in the proceedings?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella served as the ALJ for the Office of Administrative Hearings.
A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)
The codified laws of the state of Arizona. The Petitioner cited A.R.S. § 10-3842 (Code of Conduct for Board Members) and the proceedings operated under the authority of A.R.S. § 32-2199(B) and other related statutes.
Burden of Proof
The obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community. The central issue of this case was the interpretation of Section 5.1(a) of the Rancho Del Oro HOA’s CC&Rs regarding maintenance duties.
Concierge Landscape Services
A term used by witness Diana Crites to describe specialized, non-uniform services the HOA does not provide. Examples given included maintaining potted plants, driveways, or walls dividing properties, in contrast to the uniform mowing and blowing provided to all homeowners.
Office of Administrative Hearings
An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies. This office heard the dispute after it was referred by the Department of Real Estate.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal case. In this matter, the Petitioner was homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioner to win his case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and is considered the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the Respondent was the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Xeriscape
A style of landscaping utilizing drought-tolerant plants and rock to minimize water use. The Petitioner mentioned his unique xeriscape with geometric patterns as part of the landscaping he expected the HOA to maintain.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020059-REL
Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association. It covers the key arguments, evidence presented, and legal conclusions from two separate hearings. Use the following sections to test and deepen your understanding of the case.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing all information from the provided case documents.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in this legal dispute, and what were their respective roles?
2. What was the core allegation made by the Petitioner against the Respondent in the initial petition filed on April 21, 2020?
3. According to Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs, what is the Association’s primary maintenance obligation regarding individual lots?
4. What specific and unique types of landscaping did the Petitioner claim required maintenance by the HOA?
5. What was the primary reason the Respondent’s landscaping contractor, Mowtown Landscape, was unable to perform maintenance in the Petitioner’s backyard?
6. What evidence did Diana Crites, the property manager, present to demonstrate the landscaper’s attempts to gain access to the backyard?
7. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge initially deny the Petitioner’s petition in the decision dated August 17, 2020?
8. What reasons did the Petitioner give for his request for a rehearing after the initial decision?
9. In the rehearing, how did the Administrative Law Judge legally define “landscaping” to determine the scope of the HOA’s duties?
10. What was the final order in the decision dated February 12, 2021, and what recommendation did the judge make for future interactions?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Michael J. Stoltenberg, the homeowner, who served as the Petitioner, and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, which was the Respondent. The Petitioner brought the complaint alleging the HOA was not fulfilling its duties, while the Respondent defended its actions. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella.
2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) § 5.1 and Arizona Revised Statutes § 10-3842. Specifically, he claimed the HOA failed “to do their job in 2020 with maintaining landscaping, and are acting in bad faith.” He also referenced a refusal to follow a previous court ruling.
3. Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs states that the Association’s maintenance duties “shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” This clause formed the basis of the Petitioner’s argument that the HOA was responsible for all landscaping on his property.
4. The Petitioner testified that his landscaping was unique, including xeriscape with geometric patterns, “water features” (which was a pool), and walking paths that needed staining. He also contended that when the rock in his front yard wore thin, the Respondent should be responsible for replenishing it.
5. The landscaping contractor could not access the Petitioner’s backyard because the gate was always locked. The Petitioner acknowledged he kept it locked for liability reasons due to the presence of his pool, which he referred to as a “water feature.”
6. Diana Crites presented a text message from the landscaper, Rian Baas, dated March 24, 2020, detailing how a woman at the residence stated she did not want anyone in the backyard because of the pool. Ms. Crites also presented a photograph of the locked gate and read a letter from Mr. Baas explaining his crew had knocked and left business cards weekly for two months without response.
7. The judge denied the petition because the Petitioner’s own admission established that he had refused to allow the Respondent access to his backyard since January 2020. The decision noted that the HOA had made multiple attempts to access the yard and had consistently maintained the front yard landscaping.
8. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on multiple grounds, including alleged irregularity in the proceedings by the judge, newly discovered evidence, errors in the admission of evidence, and that the decision was not supported by evidence. He also asserted that there were Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues related to his hearing loss and privacy issues.
9. The judge referenced multiple online dictionaries (Oxford English Dictionary, Dictionary.com, etc.) and, most significantly, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ license classifications. She noted that landscaping (R-21 license) and swimming pool service (R-6 license) are two separate and distinct services, supporting the conclusion that pool maintenance is not included under the term “landscaping.”
10. The final order was that the Petitioner’s Petition was dismissed. However, the judge recommended that, going forward, it would be reasonable for the Respondent to communicate the days and times for landscaping so the Petitioner could provide access to his backyard while maintaining his safety precautions.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, structuring your answer as a short essay.
1. Analyze the role of “burden of proof” in this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means according to the source text and discuss how the Petitioner’s failure to meet this burden led to the dismissal of his petition in both hearings.
2. Discuss the conflict between the Petitioner’s right to secure his property (the locked gate) and the Respondent’s obligation to perform maintenance. How did the judge’s final recommendation attempt to resolve this practical conflict, even while legally siding with the Respondent?
3. Evaluate the Administrative Law Judge’s legal reasoning in the rehearing for defining “landscaping.” Why was the reference to the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ licensing scheme a particularly persuasive piece of evidence compared to dictionary definitions alone?
4. Trace the evolution of the Petitioner’s arguments from the initial hearing to the rehearing. How did his claims regarding the scope of “landscaping” and his introduction of issues like ADA accommodation and the HOA’s legitimacy reflect a shift in legal strategy?
5. Based on the evidence presented by the Respondent’s witnesses (Diana Crites and Rian Baas), assess the HOA’s efforts to fulfill its maintenance obligations. Were the HOA’s actions reasonable under the circumstances described in the proceedings?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella served as the ALJ for the Office of Administrative Hearings.
A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)
The codified laws of the state of Arizona. The Petitioner cited A.R.S. § 10-3842 (Code of Conduct for Board Members) and the proceedings operated under the authority of A.R.S. § 32-2199(B) and other related statutes.
Burden of Proof
The obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community. The central issue of this case was the interpretation of Section 5.1(a) of the Rancho Del Oro HOA’s CC&Rs regarding maintenance duties.
Concierge Landscape Services
A term used by witness Diana Crites to describe specialized, non-uniform services the HOA does not provide. Examples given included maintaining potted plants, driveways, or walls dividing properties, in contrast to the uniform mowing and blowing provided to all homeowners.
Office of Administrative Hearings
An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies. This office heard the dispute after it was referred by the Department of Real Estate.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal case. In this matter, the Petitioner was homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioner to win his case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and is considered the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the Respondent was the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Xeriscape
A style of landscaping utilizing drought-tolerant plants and rock to minimize water use. The Petitioner mentioned his unique xeriscape with geometric patterns as part of the landscaping he expected the HOA to maintain.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michael J. Stoltenberg(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Nicole Payne(HOA attorney) Represented Respondent Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Diana Crites(property manager) Crites and Associates Owner of Respondent’s property management company; appeared as witness
Rian Baas(witness) Mowtown Landscape Owner of landscaping company contracted by Respondent
Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier(HOA attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP Listed as recipient of the decision
Luis(employee) Mowtown Landscape (Implied) Crew member mentioned in text message regarding attempted access to petitioner's yard
Jill(employee) Mowtown Landscape (Implied) Printed papers for Luis regarding access to petitioner's yard
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) Administrative Law Judge
Judy Lowe(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
The Petition was dismissed after rehearing because Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs. The ALJ found that Petitioner continually refused Respondent access to his locked back yard for landscaping maintenance, and the CC&Rs requiring landscaping do not mandate pool maintenance.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation due to refusal of access to the back yard and misinterpretation of CC&R obligations regarding pool maintenance.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to maintain landscaping and acting in bad faith
Petitioner alleged Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs by failing to maintain landscaping in 2020 and acting in bad faith, asserting that pool/hardscape maintenance was included in landscaping duties, and requesting the maximum fine. Respondent countered that they consistently maintained the front yard but were denied access to the locked backyard due to Petitioner's pool liability concerns.
Orders: Petitioner's Petition was dismissed/denied as Petitioner failed to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. However, Respondent was ordered, going forward, to communicate the days and times they will be performing back yard landscaping so Petitioner can provide access.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
CC&Rs § 5.1
CC&Rs § 5.1(a)
A.R.S. § 10-3842
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. § 32-1122(A)(1)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Duties, Landscaping, Pool Maintenance, CC&Rs, Access Refusal, Rehearing
Additional Citations:
CC&Rs § 5.1
CC&Rs § 5.1(a)
A.R.S. § 10-3842
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. § 32-1122(A)(1)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
20F-H2020059-REL Decision – 815480.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:23 (124.1 KB)
Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020059-REL
Briefing Document: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings from two administrative hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg (Petitioner) and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute centers on the scope of landscaping maintenance obligations as defined by the association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
The Petitioner alleged the HOA failed its duties under CC&Rs § 5.1 by not maintaining his property’s unique landscaping, which he argued included replenishing rock, staining paths, and servicing his swimming pool and associated hardscape. He further claimed the HOA was acting in bad faith and failing to comply with a previous court ruling.
The Respondent countered that it had consistently performed standard landscaping on the Petitioner’s front yard since January 2020. However, it was repeatedly denied access to the backyard, a fact the Petitioner admitted, citing liability concerns due to his pool. The HOA provided evidence of multiple attempts to access the yard and testimony that its maintenance duties are uniform across the community and do not include “concierge” services or pool maintenance.
The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed the petition in both the initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing. The final decision rested on two key points: 1) The Petitioner failed to provide access to the area in question, preventing the HOA from performing its duties. 2) The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the term “landscaping” under the CC&Rs could be reasonably interpreted to include swimming pool maintenance. This conclusion was strongly supported by the separate licensing classifications for landscaping (R-21) and swimming pool service (R-6) issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, which establishes them as distinct services under state regulation.
Case Overview
Parties and Key Personnel
Name/Entity
Affiliation / Title
Petitioner
Michael J. Stoltenberg
Homeowner, 11777 E. Calle Gaudi, Yuma, AZ
Respondent
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Homeowners’ Association (HOA)
Respondent Counsel
Nicole Payne, Esq.
Legal Representative
Respondent Witness
Diana Crites
Owner, Crites and Associates (Property Management Co.)
The central conflict involved the interpretation of the HOA’s maintenance obligations under its governing documents. The Petitioner argued for an expansive definition of “landscaping” that encompassed his entire property exterior, including a swimming pool. The HOA maintained that its duties were limited to standard, uniform landscaping services and that pool maintenance was explicitly excluded. The dispute was compounded by the Petitioner’s refusal to grant the HOA’s landscaper access to his backyard.
Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments
Mr. Stoltenberg’s petition, filed on or about April 21, 2020, and subsequent arguments in two hearings, were based on the following claims:
• Violation of CC&Rs: The HOA violated § 5.1 of its CC&Rs by failing “to do their job in 2020 with maintaining landscaping, and are acting in bad faith.”
• Broad Interpretation of “Landscaping”: As the CC&Rs do not define “landscaping,” the Petitioner contended it should include all types of features outside of structures. His specific demands included:
◦ Maintenance of unique xeriscape with geometric patterns.
◦ Replenishment of thin or worn-out rock ground cover.
◦ Staining of walking paths.
◦ Full maintenance of his “water feature,” identified as a swimming pool. This included the pump, filter, chemicals, patio, and all related hardscape.
• Refusal to Grant Access: The Petitioner acknowledged that the gate to his backyard was “always locked.” He stated this was for liability reasons due to the pool and refused access to the HOA’s landscapers. At the rehearing, he argued the HOA failed to communicate its schedule to allow him to provide temporary access.
• Budgetary Failure: He asserted that the HOA did not properly budget for the costs associated with maintaining his unique landscaping.
• Grounds for Rehearing: After the initial denial, the Petitioner requested a rehearing on multiple grounds, including irregularity in proceedings, errors in evidence admission, and claims of “Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues” related to hearing loss.
Respondent’s Position and Evidence
The Rancho Del Oro HOA presented a defense centered on its consistent attempts to fulfill its obligations and the Petitioner’s own actions preventing them from doing so.
• Consistent Front Yard Maintenance: Both the HOA property manager and its landscaping contractor testified that the Petitioner’s front yard had been continuously maintained since landscaping services began in January 2020.
• Denial of Backyard Access: The HOA’s primary defense was that it was physically prevented from servicing the backyard. Evidence presented to support this included:
◦ Testimony from Rian Baas (Mowtown Landscape): His crews were at the property weekly. Between January and March 2020, he or his crew knocked and left notes or business cards four to five times with no response.
◦ Witness Testimony: In March 2020, a woman at the residence (presumably the Petitioner’s wife) explicitly instructed a landscaper that “she does not want anyone in the back yard because she had a pool and that is the reason for the lock on gate.”
◦ Documentary Evidence: A text message dated March 24, 2020, from Mr. Baas to property manager Diana Crites memorialized this interaction. A photograph of the locked gate was also submitted.
• Scope of Services: Ms. Crites testified that HOA landscape services are uniform throughout the community and include front yard maintenance, mowing and blowing in backyards (if access is granted), and sprinkler system upkeep. They do not provide “concierge” services such as maintaining potted plants, driveways, or pools (except for the community pool, which is serviced by a separate contractor).
• Access as a Prerequisite: Ms. Crites explained that backyard maintenance is contingent on homeowners leaving their gates unlocked, and some owners choose not to grant access due to pets or other reasons.
Judicial Findings and Rulings
Initial Decision (August 17, 2020)
The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s initial petition based on a clear set of facts.
• Findings of Fact: The judge found the evidence presented by the Respondent to be credible. The Petitioner’s own admission that he refused to allow access to his backyard since January 2020 was a critical factor. The evidence established that the HOA had consistently maintained the front yard and made multiple, documented attempts to access the backyard.
• Conclusions of Law: The judge concluded that while § 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs requires the HOA to maintain yards, “nothing therein requires Respondent to maintain an individual member’s pool.” Because the Petitioner denied access, he could not establish that the Respondent had violated any CC&R.
Rehearing and Final Decision (February 12, 2021)
After the Commissioner for the Department of Real Estate granted a rehearing, the judge again reviewed the case and ultimately dismissed the petition, providing a more detailed legal analysis of the term “landscaping.”
• Burden of Proof: The judge reiterated that the Petitioner bore the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA was legally obligated to maintain his pool and hardscape. The Petitioner failed to offer any definition or legal authority to support his expansive interpretation.
• Analysis of “Landscaping”: The judge found that the common definitions of “landscaping” from various dictionary and legal sources “cannot reasonably be read to include a swimming pool and the associated mechanical equipment.”
• Arizona Registrar of Contractors (ROC) Licensing: The judge’s conclusion was decisively reinforced by the State of Arizona’s contractor licensing classifications:
◦ The R-21 Hardscaping and Irrigation Systems license (formerly Landscaping) is for installing garden walls, irrigation, and other landscape features. It specifically precludes the licensee from contracting for “swimming pools, pool deck coatings.”
◦ The R-6 Swimming Pool Service and Repair license is a separate classification required to service residential pools.
◦ The judge concluded: “The Registrar’s licensing scheme supports a conclusion that landscaping maintenance and pool maintenance are two separate and distinct services.”
• Final Order: The petition was dismissed. The judge noted that because the Petitioner denied access, the Respondent was not in violation. However, the judge provided a forward-looking recommendation: “it is reasonable, going forward, for Respondent to communicate the days and times that it will be performing the landscaping of Petitioner’s back yard so that Petitioner can provide access for that service while maintaining safety precautions.”
Study Guide – 20F-H2020059-REL
Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association. It covers the key arguments, evidence presented, and legal conclusions from two separate hearings. Use the following sections to test and deepen your understanding of the case.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing all information from the provided case documents.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in this legal dispute, and what were their respective roles?
2. What was the core allegation made by the Petitioner against the Respondent in the initial petition filed on April 21, 2020?
3. According to Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs, what is the Association’s primary maintenance obligation regarding individual lots?
4. What specific and unique types of landscaping did the Petitioner claim required maintenance by the HOA?
5. What was the primary reason the Respondent’s landscaping contractor, Mowtown Landscape, was unable to perform maintenance in the Petitioner’s backyard?
6. What evidence did Diana Crites, the property manager, present to demonstrate the landscaper’s attempts to gain access to the backyard?
7. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge initially deny the Petitioner’s petition in the decision dated August 17, 2020?
8. What reasons did the Petitioner give for his request for a rehearing after the initial decision?
9. In the rehearing, how did the Administrative Law Judge legally define “landscaping” to determine the scope of the HOA’s duties?
10. What was the final order in the decision dated February 12, 2021, and what recommendation did the judge make for future interactions?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Michael J. Stoltenberg, the homeowner, who served as the Petitioner, and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, which was the Respondent. The Petitioner brought the complaint alleging the HOA was not fulfilling its duties, while the Respondent defended its actions. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella.
2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) § 5.1 and Arizona Revised Statutes § 10-3842. Specifically, he claimed the HOA failed “to do their job in 2020 with maintaining landscaping, and are acting in bad faith.” He also referenced a refusal to follow a previous court ruling.
3. Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs states that the Association’s maintenance duties “shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” This clause formed the basis of the Petitioner’s argument that the HOA was responsible for all landscaping on his property.
4. The Petitioner testified that his landscaping was unique, including xeriscape with geometric patterns, “water features” (which was a pool), and walking paths that needed staining. He also contended that when the rock in his front yard wore thin, the Respondent should be responsible for replenishing it.
5. The landscaping contractor could not access the Petitioner’s backyard because the gate was always locked. The Petitioner acknowledged he kept it locked for liability reasons due to the presence of his pool, which he referred to as a “water feature.”
6. Diana Crites presented a text message from the landscaper, Rian Baas, dated March 24, 2020, detailing how a woman at the residence stated she did not want anyone in the backyard because of the pool. Ms. Crites also presented a photograph of the locked gate and read a letter from Mr. Baas explaining his crew had knocked and left business cards weekly for two months without response.
7. The judge denied the petition because the Petitioner’s own admission established that he had refused to allow the Respondent access to his backyard since January 2020. The decision noted that the HOA had made multiple attempts to access the yard and had consistently maintained the front yard landscaping.
8. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on multiple grounds, including alleged irregularity in the proceedings by the judge, newly discovered evidence, errors in the admission of evidence, and that the decision was not supported by evidence. He also asserted that there were Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues related to his hearing loss and privacy issues.
9. The judge referenced multiple online dictionaries (Oxford English Dictionary, Dictionary.com, etc.) and, most significantly, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ license classifications. She noted that landscaping (R-21 license) and swimming pool service (R-6 license) are two separate and distinct services, supporting the conclusion that pool maintenance is not included under the term “landscaping.”
10. The final order was that the Petitioner’s Petition was dismissed. However, the judge recommended that, going forward, it would be reasonable for the Respondent to communicate the days and times for landscaping so the Petitioner could provide access to his backyard while maintaining his safety precautions.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, structuring your answer as a short essay.
1. Analyze the role of “burden of proof” in this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means according to the source text and discuss how the Petitioner’s failure to meet this burden led to the dismissal of his petition in both hearings.
2. Discuss the conflict between the Petitioner’s right to secure his property (the locked gate) and the Respondent’s obligation to perform maintenance. How did the judge’s final recommendation attempt to resolve this practical conflict, even while legally siding with the Respondent?
3. Evaluate the Administrative Law Judge’s legal reasoning in the rehearing for defining “landscaping.” Why was the reference to the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ licensing scheme a particularly persuasive piece of evidence compared to dictionary definitions alone?
4. Trace the evolution of the Petitioner’s arguments from the initial hearing to the rehearing. How did his claims regarding the scope of “landscaping” and his introduction of issues like ADA accommodation and the HOA’s legitimacy reflect a shift in legal strategy?
5. Based on the evidence presented by the Respondent’s witnesses (Diana Crites and Rian Baas), assess the HOA’s efforts to fulfill its maintenance obligations. Were the HOA’s actions reasonable under the circumstances described in the proceedings?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella served as the ALJ for the Office of Administrative Hearings.
A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)
The codified laws of the state of Arizona. The Petitioner cited A.R.S. § 10-3842 (Code of Conduct for Board Members) and the proceedings operated under the authority of A.R.S. § 32-2199(B) and other related statutes.
Burden of Proof
The obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community. The central issue of this case was the interpretation of Section 5.1(a) of the Rancho Del Oro HOA’s CC&Rs regarding maintenance duties.
Concierge Landscape Services
A term used by witness Diana Crites to describe specialized, non-uniform services the HOA does not provide. Examples given included maintaining potted plants, driveways, or walls dividing properties, in contrast to the uniform mowing and blowing provided to all homeowners.
Office of Administrative Hearings
An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies. This office heard the dispute after it was referred by the Department of Real Estate.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal case. In this matter, the Petitioner was homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioner to win his case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and is considered the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the Respondent was the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Xeriscape
A style of landscaping utilizing drought-tolerant plants and rock to minimize water use. The Petitioner mentioned his unique xeriscape with geometric patterns as part of the landscaping he expected the HOA to maintain.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020059-REL
Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association. It covers the key arguments, evidence presented, and legal conclusions from two separate hearings. Use the following sections to test and deepen your understanding of the case.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing all information from the provided case documents.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in this legal dispute, and what were their respective roles?
2. What was the core allegation made by the Petitioner against the Respondent in the initial petition filed on April 21, 2020?
3. According to Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs, what is the Association’s primary maintenance obligation regarding individual lots?
4. What specific and unique types of landscaping did the Petitioner claim required maintenance by the HOA?
5. What was the primary reason the Respondent’s landscaping contractor, Mowtown Landscape, was unable to perform maintenance in the Petitioner’s backyard?
6. What evidence did Diana Crites, the property manager, present to demonstrate the landscaper’s attempts to gain access to the backyard?
7. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge initially deny the Petitioner’s petition in the decision dated August 17, 2020?
8. What reasons did the Petitioner give for his request for a rehearing after the initial decision?
9. In the rehearing, how did the Administrative Law Judge legally define “landscaping” to determine the scope of the HOA’s duties?
10. What was the final order in the decision dated February 12, 2021, and what recommendation did the judge make for future interactions?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Michael J. Stoltenberg, the homeowner, who served as the Petitioner, and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, which was the Respondent. The Petitioner brought the complaint alleging the HOA was not fulfilling its duties, while the Respondent defended its actions. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella.
2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) § 5.1 and Arizona Revised Statutes § 10-3842. Specifically, he claimed the HOA failed “to do their job in 2020 with maintaining landscaping, and are acting in bad faith.” He also referenced a refusal to follow a previous court ruling.
3. Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs states that the Association’s maintenance duties “shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” This clause formed the basis of the Petitioner’s argument that the HOA was responsible for all landscaping on his property.
4. The Petitioner testified that his landscaping was unique, including xeriscape with geometric patterns, “water features” (which was a pool), and walking paths that needed staining. He also contended that when the rock in his front yard wore thin, the Respondent should be responsible for replenishing it.
5. The landscaping contractor could not access the Petitioner’s backyard because the gate was always locked. The Petitioner acknowledged he kept it locked for liability reasons due to the presence of his pool, which he referred to as a “water feature.”
6. Diana Crites presented a text message from the landscaper, Rian Baas, dated March 24, 2020, detailing how a woman at the residence stated she did not want anyone in the backyard because of the pool. Ms. Crites also presented a photograph of the locked gate and read a letter from Mr. Baas explaining his crew had knocked and left business cards weekly for two months without response.
7. The judge denied the petition because the Petitioner’s own admission established that he had refused to allow the Respondent access to his backyard since January 2020. The decision noted that the HOA had made multiple attempts to access the yard and had consistently maintained the front yard landscaping.
8. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on multiple grounds, including alleged irregularity in the proceedings by the judge, newly discovered evidence, errors in the admission of evidence, and that the decision was not supported by evidence. He also asserted that there were Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues related to his hearing loss and privacy issues.
9. The judge referenced multiple online dictionaries (Oxford English Dictionary, Dictionary.com, etc.) and, most significantly, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ license classifications. She noted that landscaping (R-21 license) and swimming pool service (R-6 license) are two separate and distinct services, supporting the conclusion that pool maintenance is not included under the term “landscaping.”
10. The final order was that the Petitioner’s Petition was dismissed. However, the judge recommended that, going forward, it would be reasonable for the Respondent to communicate the days and times for landscaping so the Petitioner could provide access to his backyard while maintaining his safety precautions.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, structuring your answer as a short essay.
1. Analyze the role of “burden of proof” in this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means according to the source text and discuss how the Petitioner’s failure to meet this burden led to the dismissal of his petition in both hearings.
2. Discuss the conflict between the Petitioner’s right to secure his property (the locked gate) and the Respondent’s obligation to perform maintenance. How did the judge’s final recommendation attempt to resolve this practical conflict, even while legally siding with the Respondent?
3. Evaluate the Administrative Law Judge’s legal reasoning in the rehearing for defining “landscaping.” Why was the reference to the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ licensing scheme a particularly persuasive piece of evidence compared to dictionary definitions alone?
4. Trace the evolution of the Petitioner’s arguments from the initial hearing to the rehearing. How did his claims regarding the scope of “landscaping” and his introduction of issues like ADA accommodation and the HOA’s legitimacy reflect a shift in legal strategy?
5. Based on the evidence presented by the Respondent’s witnesses (Diana Crites and Rian Baas), assess the HOA’s efforts to fulfill its maintenance obligations. Were the HOA’s actions reasonable under the circumstances described in the proceedings?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella served as the ALJ for the Office of Administrative Hearings.
A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)
The codified laws of the state of Arizona. The Petitioner cited A.R.S. § 10-3842 (Code of Conduct for Board Members) and the proceedings operated under the authority of A.R.S. § 32-2199(B) and other related statutes.
Burden of Proof
The obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community. The central issue of this case was the interpretation of Section 5.1(a) of the Rancho Del Oro HOA’s CC&Rs regarding maintenance duties.
Concierge Landscape Services
A term used by witness Diana Crites to describe specialized, non-uniform services the HOA does not provide. Examples given included maintaining potted plants, driveways, or walls dividing properties, in contrast to the uniform mowing and blowing provided to all homeowners.
Office of Administrative Hearings
An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies. This office heard the dispute after it was referred by the Department of Real Estate.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal case. In this matter, the Petitioner was homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioner to win his case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and is considered the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the Respondent was the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Xeriscape
A style of landscaping utilizing drought-tolerant plants and rock to minimize water use. The Petitioner mentioned his unique xeriscape with geometric patterns as part of the landscaping he expected the HOA to maintain.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michael J. Stoltenberg(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Nicole Payne(HOA attorney) Represented Respondent Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Diana Crites(property manager) Crites and Associates Owner of Respondent’s property management company; appeared as witness
Rian Baas(witness) Mowtown Landscape Owner of landscaping company contracted by Respondent
Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier(HOA attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP Listed as recipient of the decision
Luis(employee) Mowtown Landscape (Implied) Crew member mentioned in text message regarding attempted access to petitioner's yard
Jill(employee) Mowtown Landscape (Implied) Printed papers for Luis regarding access to petitioner's yard
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) Administrative Law Judge
Judy Lowe(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
18F-H1818053-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2019-01-31
Administrative Law Judge
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$0.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Travis Prall
Counsel
—
Respondent
Villas at Tierra Buena Homeowners Association
Counsel
Lydia Pierce Linsmeier
Alleged Violations
Section 7.1.4 of the CC&Rs
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition following a rehearing, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated Section 7.1.4 of the CC&Rs because there was no credible evidence that the disputed landscaping (tree) had been originally installed by the developer.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the landscaping was originally installed by the Declarant, which was a prerequisite for HOA maintenance responsibility under the relevant CC&R section.
Key Issues & Findings
Neglecting yard maintenance in visible public yards
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&R Section 7.1.4 by failing to maintain a tree in his back yard, arguing the back yard qualified as a 'Public Yard' and the tree was originally installed by the Declarant.
Orders: The Petition was dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA maintenance, CC&R interpretation, burden of proof, landscaping
This briefing synthesizes the findings from two administrative law hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner Travis Prall (Petitioner) and the Villas at Tierra Buena Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the conflict was the Petitioner’s allegation that the HOA violated its governing documents by failing to maintain landscaping—specifically a large tree—in his backyard, which he contended was a “Public Yard” under the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
The dispute culminated in two separate rulings by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), one in September 2018 and another following a rehearing in January 2019. In both instances, the petition was dismissed.
The central issue did not turn on the ambiguous definition of “Public Yard” vs. “Private Yard” in the CC&Rs, a point of significant debate between the parties. Instead, the case was decided on a critical qualifying phrase in the governing documents: the HOA’s maintenance obligation under Section 7.1.4 is limited to landscaping “as originally installed by Declarant” (the original developer).
The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the tree in question was installed by the developer. In the initial hearing, this conclusion was based on inference. In the rehearing, the HOA presented credible witness testimony from a board member involved in the community’s initial sales, who stated that all homes were sold with no landscaping or irrigation in the backyards, which were “just dirt.” The ALJ found this to be the only credible evidence on the matter, leading to the final dismissal of the case.
Case Overview
Case Name
Travis Prall (Petitioner) vs. Villas at Tierra Buena HOA (Respondent)
Case Number
18F-H1818053-REL
Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Core Allegation
The Petitioner alleged the HOA violated Section 7.1.4 of the CC&Rs by “neglecting yard maintenance in visible public yards.”
Factual Background and Timeline
The dispute is centered within the Villas at Tierra Buena, a gated community comprising 43 homes on the outer perimeter with tall block fences and 19 interior homes with four-foot-tall walls (two feet of block with a two-foot aluminum fence on top). The Petitioner owns one of these interior homes.
• 2010: Travis Prall purchases his home. He believes, based on his reading of the CC&Rs, that the HOA is responsible for maintaining both his front and back yards. A large tree is present in the backyard at the time of purchase.
• 2010–2013: Prall testifies that the HOA provided landscaping maintenance to his front and back yards during this period. The HOA denies ever providing maintenance to any backyards in the community.
• July 26, 2014: A storm knocks over the tree in Prall’s backyard. Prall pays for its removal but asserts at the time that it was the HOA’s responsibility.
• Post-2014: The tree regrows from the remaining stump.
• 2018: The HOA observes that the “pony wall” near the regrown tree is buckling. A repair company, Sun King Fencing & Gates, confirms “the reason the pony wall buckled was the tree roots in the area” and recommends the tree’s removal.
• May 3, 2018: The HOA issues a “Courtesy Letter” to Prall, stating, “Please trim or remove the tree in the back yard causing damage to the pony wall.”
• June 4, 2018: Prall files an HOA Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• September 4, 2018: The initial administrative hearing is held.
• September 24, 2018: The ALJ issues a decision dismissing the petition.
• Post-September 2018: Prall’s request for a rehearing is granted.
• January 11, 2019: The rehearing is conducted.
• January 31, 2019: The ALJ issues a final decision, again dismissing the petition.
Central Point of Contention: Interpretation of CC&Rs
The primary disagreement focused on whether the Petitioner’s enclosed but visible backyard constituted a “Public Yard” or a “Private Yard” under the CC&Rs. The HOA’s maintenance obligation under Section 7.1.4 applies only to Public Yards.
Relevant CC&R Sections
Section
Language
Respondent must “Replace and maintain all landscaping and other Improvements as originally installed by Declarant on the Public Yards of Lots…” (Emphasis added)
“‘Private Yard’ means that portion of a Yard which is enclosed or shielded from view by walls, fences, hedges or the like so that it is not generally Visible from Neighboring Property. ‘Public Yard’ means that portion of a Yard which is generally visible from Neighboring Property, whether or not it is located in front of, beside, or behind the Residential Dwelling.”
“‘Visible from Neighboring Property’ means, with respect to any given object, that such object is or would be visible to a person six feet tall standing on any part of such neighboring property…”
Competing Interpretations
• Petitioner’s Interpretation: A yard is “Private” only if it is both enclosed/shielded AND not generally visible. Because his backyard is enclosed but visible through the four-foot wall/fence, he argued it qualifies as a “Public Yard” that the HOA must maintain.
• Respondent’s Interpretation: A yard is “Private” if it is either enclosed or shielded from view. Because the Petitioner’s backyard is enclosed, it is a Private Yard, and the HOA has no maintenance responsibility.
While the ALJ acknowledged that “the language of the CC&Rs may lend itself to a reading that Respondent is responsible for the maintenance of the enclosed back yards,” she explicitly stated that the tribunal was “not required to reach that issue in this matter.” The case was decided on other grounds.
Analysis of Arguments and Evidence
The Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Petitioner’s Position (Travis Prall)
• Argued that the HOA performed backyard maintenance from 2010 to 2013, establishing a precedent.
• Posited that the large size of the tree when he bought the home in 2010 indicated it must have been planted by the original developer.
• Suggested that the presence of just two types of irrigation systems across the community, accessible from the front, implied a uniform developer installation for both front and back yards.
• Noted that his backyard sprinkler system wrapped around the tree, suggesting they were installed together by the developer.
Respondent’s Position (Villas at Tierra Buena HOA)
• Denied ever providing landscaping maintenance to any backyards, stating it only controls front yard irrigation and sprinkler systems.
• Raised liability concerns about maintenance workers entering residents’ enclosed backyards where pets could escape.
• Presented critical testimony from Board President Maureen Karpinski during the rehearing. Ms. Karpinski, a real estate agent who was involved with the community’s development and sales from 2002, stated that to her knowledge, none of the homes were sold with any landscaping or irrigation in the backyards, which were “just dirt.”
Administrative Law Judge’s Decisions and Rationale
The ALJ’s rulings in both hearings hinged on the specific requirement in Section 7.1.4 that the landscaping must have been “originally installed by Declarant.”
Initial Hearing Decision (September 24, 2018)
• Ruling: The Petition was dismissed.
• Rationale: The Petitioner failed to present evidence that the tree was installed by the developer. The ALJ noted that the tree had regrown to a significant height in approximately five years after being cut down in 2014. From this, she concluded that “it cannot be concluded that the tree in the photograph from 2010 was planted as part of the original landscape plan around 2000.”
Rehearing Decision (January 31, 2019)
• Ruling: The Petition was dismissed.
• Rationale: The ALJ found the Petitioner’s arguments to be “suppositions and inferences.” In contrast, she deemed the testimony of Maureen Karpinski to be “the only credible evidence offered regarding the landscaping of the homes.” Ms. Karpinski’s statement that backyards were sold as “just dirt” directly refuted the claim that any landscaping was “originally installed by Declarant.”
• The final conclusion stated: “As there was no evidence there was any landscaping or improvements originally installed by Declarant, there is no reason to conclude Respondent would be required to replace and maintain Petitioner’s back yard under the terms of Section 7.1.4 of the CC&Rs.”
Final Disposition
The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petition be dismissed. The order resulting from the rehearing was final and binding on the parties. Any further appeal would require seeking judicial review in the superior court within 35 days of the order.
Study Guide – 18F-H1818053-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Prall v. Villas at Tierra Buena HOA
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case between Travis Prall and the Villas at Tierra Buena Homeowners Association, based on the legal decisions from September 2018 and January 2019. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a thorough understanding of the dispute, arguments, and legal reasoning involved.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer each question in 2-3 sentences, based on the provided source context.
1. What specific violation of the community’s CC&Rs did the Petitioner, Travis Prall, allege in his petition?
2. What was the key physical difference between the backyards of the “interior homes” and the “exterior homes” in the Villas at Tierra Buena community?
3. What was the central point of disagreement between the Petitioner and the Respondent regarding the definition of a “Private Yard” versus a “Public Yard”?
4. According to Section 7.1.4 of the CC&Rs, what specific condition must be met for the HOA to be responsible for maintaining landscaping in a Public Yard?
5. What was the “Courtesy Letter” issued by the Respondent on May 3, 2018, and what did it request of the Petitioner?
6. What was the Petitioner’s primary argument for why the tree in his backyard must have been installed by the original developer?
7. What is the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and what does it mean?
8. In the first hearing, why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude that the tree was not part of the original landscape plan?
9. During the rehearing, what “credible evidence” was presented by the Respondent that refuted the Petitioner’s claims about original backyard landscaping?
10. Why did the Administrative Law Judge state that it was not necessary to rule on the interpretation of “Public Yard” vs. “Private Yard” in either decision?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. Petitioner Travis Prall alleged that the Villas at Tierra Buena HOA violated Section 7.1.4 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (CC&Rs). The specific allegation was that the HOA neglected its duty for yard maintenance in visible public yards.
2. The exterior homes have six to seven-foot-tall block wall fences enclosing the backyards. The interior homes, like the Petitioner’s, have a shorter back wall, consisting of a two-foot-tall block wall topped with a two-foot-tall aluminum fence, making the backyards more visible.
3. The Petitioner argued that a yard must be both enclosed and not generally visible to be private, meaning his visible, enclosed yard was public. The Respondent argued that a yard was private if it was enclosed or shielded from view, meaning the Petitioner’s enclosed yard was private regardless of visibility.
4. According to Section 7.1.4, the HOA is required to “replace and maintain all landscaping and other Improvements as originally installed by Declarant on the Public Yards of Lots.” This means the landscaping in question must have been part of the original developer’s installation.
5. The “Courtesy Letter” was a notice from the HOA to the Petitioner concerning the tree in his backyard. It requested that he “Please trim or remove the tree in the back yard causing damage to the pony wall,” which had buckled due to the tree’s roots.
6. The Petitioner posited that the tree must have been installed by the developer due to its large size when he bought the home in 2010. He also noted that the backyard sprinkler system wrapped around the tree, suggesting they were installed together during original construction.
7. The Petitioner was required to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. This standard is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not; it is the greater weight of evidence.
8. The judge noted that after the original tree was removed in 2014, the present tree grew to a similar height in approximately five years from the remaining stump. Therefore, the judge concluded that the tree’s size in 2010 did not prove it was planted as part of the original landscape plan around the year 2000.
9. The Respondent presented the testimony of Maureen Karpinski, the Board President and a real estate agent who sold homes in the community during its development. She stated that to the best of her knowledge, none of the homes were sold with any landscaping or irrigation in the backyards and that they were “just dirt.”
10. The judge did not need to rule on the yard definition because the Petitioner first had to prove the tree was “originally installed by the Declarant” per Section 7.1.4. Since the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence for this foundational claim in both hearings, the question of whether the yard was public or private became irrelevant to the outcome.
——————————————————————————–
Suggested Essay Questions
These questions are designed to test a deeper, more analytical understanding of the case. Answers are not provided.
1. Explain the concept of “burden of proof” and analyze how the Petitioner’s failure to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard was the determining factor in the dismissal of his petition in both the initial hearing and the rehearing.
2. Provide a detailed analysis of the competing interpretations of “Private Yard” and “Public Yard” as defined in Section 1.38 of the CC&Rs. Discuss the arguments made by both the Petitioner and the Respondent and explain why, despite this being a central point of contention, the final ruling did not hinge on this issue.
3. Compare the evidence presented by Travis Prall with the evidence presented by the Villas at Tierra Buena HOA. How did the nature and credibility of the evidence, particularly witness testimony versus suppositions, influence the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision?
4. Trace the procedural history of this case, starting from the initial event that triggered the HOA’s notice through the final decision after the rehearing. What were the key decision points and legal options available to the parties at each stage?
5. Discuss the significance of Maureen Karpinski’s testimony in the rehearing. How did her personal and professional experience with the community’s development directly address the central weakness of the Petitioner’s case from the first hearing?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge
The judicial officer who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues legal decisions, in this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer.
An abbreviation for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions,Restrictions and Easements, the legal documents that govern a planned community or HOA.
Common Area
Land within the community for the common use and enjoyment of the owners; the HOA is responsible for maintaining landscaping in these areas.
Courtesy Letter
A formal notice issued by the HOA to a resident. In this case, it was a letter dated May 3, 2018, requesting that the Petitioner trim or remove a tree causing damage to a wall.
Declarant
The original developer who installed the initial landscaping and improvements in the community.
An abbreviation for Homeowners Association. In this case, the Villas at Tierra Buena HOA, which was the Respondent.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, homeowner Travis Prall.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof in this case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and represents the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Private Yard
As defined in Section 1.38 of the CC&Rs, it is the portion of a Yard “which is enclosed or shielded from view by walls, fences, hedges or the like so that it is not generally Visible from Neighboring Property.” The interpretation of this definition was a key dispute in the case.
Public Yard
As defined in Section 1.38 of the CC&Rs, it is the portion of a Yard “which is generally visible from Neighboring Property, whether or not it is located in front of, beside, or behind the Residential Dwelling.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Villas at Tierra Buena HOA.
Visible from Neighboring Property
A term defined in Section 1.37 of the CC&Rs. An object is considered visible if it can be seen by a six-foot-tall person standing on a neighboring property, with a specific exception for objects visible only through a wrought iron fence.
As defined in Section 1.38 of the CC&Rs, it is “the portion of the Lot devoted to Improvements other than the Residential Dwelling.”
Blog Post – 18F-H1818053-REL-RHG
He Fought His HOA Over a Single Tree—And Lost Because of a Clause Everyone Missed
For many homeowners, the relationship with their Homeowners Association is a delicate balance of rules, fees, and occasional frustrations. It’s a familiar story: a dispute arises over a seemingly minor issue, and suddenly you’re deep in the weeds of your community’s governing documents, convinced you’re in the right.
This was exactly the position of homeowner Travis Prall. He believed the rules for his community, the Villas at Tierra Buena HOA, clearly stated they were responsible for maintaining a troublesome tree in his backyard. Confident in his interpretation of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), he took his case to an administrative law judge.
But the outcome of his legal battle hinged not on the clause he was arguing, but on details everyone had overlooked. The way he lost—first in an initial hearing, and then decisively in a rehearing he himself requested—reveals crucial lessons for any homeowner hidden within the dense language of community documents.
The Definition You Debate Isn’t Always the One That Matters
The core of Mr. Prall’s argument was a battle of definitions. According to the CC&Rs, the HOA was responsible for maintaining “Public Yards.” The rules defined a “Public Yard” as any part of a yard “which is generally visible from Neighboring Property.” Even though his backyard was enclosed by a four-foot wall, it was visible to his neighbors, so he argued it qualified.
The HOA countered with its own interpretation. They pointed to the definition of a “Private Yard,” which included any yard that is “enclosed.” Since his yard was enclosed, they claimed, it was his responsibility, regardless of visibility.
The two sides were locked in a debate over these competing definitions. But in the first hearing, the judge delivered a surprising twist: the entire debate was irrelevant. The judge acknowledged that Prall’s reading of the rules might even be plausible but declared that the tribunal was “not required to reach that issue.” Why? Because Prall had failed to clear an even more fundamental hurdle first. The judge found that Prall had “failed to present any evidence that the tree at issue was originally installed by the Declarant,” a fatal flaw that sidestepped his primary argument entirely.
“While the language of the CC&Rs may lend itself to a reading that Respondent is responsible for the maintenance of the enclosed back yards of the interior homes even if that is contrary to the intention of the drafters of the CC&Rs, the tribunal is not required to reach that issue in this matter.”
Prall had lost the first round not because his interpretation was wrong, but because he hadn’t proven his case on a different, more critical point.
It All Comes Down to “As Originally Installed”
Unsatisfied with the outcome, Prall requested and was granted a rehearing—a second chance to make his case. But this second chance also gave the HOA an opportunity to sharpen its defense, and it zeroed in on the exact clause that had decided the first hearing.
The case was ultimately decided by Section 7.1.4. This clause stated the HOA was only responsible for landscaping “as originally installed by Declarant”—a legal term for the original developer of the community.
This single phrase shifted the entire focus of the dispute. The question was no longer about “Public vs. Private” yards, but about the historical fact of what the developer had installed when the homes were first built around the year 2000.
At the rehearing, the HOA introduced the knockout blow: the testimony of Maureen Karpinski, an early resident and real estate agent who had sold homes in the community during its construction. She testified that to her knowledge, none of the homes were sold with any landscaping in the backyards. Her exact description was that the yards were “just dirt.”
The judge found this to be the “only credible evidence offered.” It completely undermined Prall’s case. If the developer never installed any landscaping in the backyards, there was no “original” landscaping for the HOA to maintain. Their responsibility under the governing documents was zero.
“Suppositions and Inferences” Aren’t Enough
In any formal dispute, the person making a claim has the “burden of proof.” Mr. Prall needed to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence,” a legal standard meaning it was more likely true than not.
He tried to meet this burden with logical arguments. He “posited that, given the size of the tree” in a 2010 photograph, it must have been planted when the home was built. He added that the “sprinkler system in his back yard wrapped around the tree as further evidence” that they were installed together by the developer.
But these deductions failed to convince the judge. In the final decision after the rehearing, these arguments were dismissed as the petitioner’s “suppositions and inferences.”
This stands in stark contrast to the HOA’s evidence. While Prall offered logical conclusions, the HOA offered direct testimony from someone who was there at the beginning. This case underscores a fundamental legal truth: personal belief and common-sense deductions are no substitute for verifiable facts and credible, first-hand testimony.
The Final Word is in the Fine Print
This homeowner’s fight over a single tree serves as a powerful cautionary tale. He built a logical case based on his interpretation of a key definition, only to lose because of a clause and a historical fact he hadn’t sufficiently proven.
The lessons are clear. Winning a dispute requires understanding every relevant clause in the governing documents, not just the one that seems most obvious. It requires acknowledging that the history of the community can be more powerful than a present-day interpretation of the rules. And most importantly, it requires presenting concrete proof, not just strong beliefs.
For any homeowner in an HOA, this story poses a crucial question: When was the last time you read your HOA’s documents from start to finish, and what hidden details might be waiting for you?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Travis Prall(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Maureen Karpinski(board member) President of the Board; witness
Frank Peake(property manager) Pride Community Management Witness; Owner of Pride Community Management
