Tom Barrs vs Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on March 31, 2025 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	25F-H2222050-REL-RMD
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2025-04-01
Administrative Law Judge	Jenna Clark
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge Decision granted the remanded petition based on the parties' stipulation that the Respondent Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to timely provide the membership roster. The ALJ ordered Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee and assessed a civil penalty of $25.00 against Respondent. All other respects of the previous ALJ Decision issued February 21, 2023, remain unchanged.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$25.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Tom Barrs	Counsel	Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq.
Respondent	Desert Ranch Homeowners Association	Counsel	B. Austin Baillio, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge Decision granted the remanded petition based on the parties' stipulation that the Respondent Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to timely provide the membership roster. The ALJ ordered Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee and assessed a civil penalty of $25.00 against Respondent. All other respects of the previous ALJ Decision issued February 21, 2023, remain unchanged.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to timely provide full membership roster

The remanded issue concerned whether Respondent failed to timely fulfill records requests, specifically a full roster of Association Member names and corresponding property addresses, in violation of ARS § 33-1805. The parties stipulated that a violation of ARS § 33-1805 occurred.

Orders: Petitioner's remanded petition was granted. Respondent was ordered to reimburse Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee and pay a $25.00 civil penalty.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $25.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Records Request, Membership Roster, Records Disclosure, Statutory Violation, Stipulation, Remand

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-243
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09(A)(1)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1280942.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:56:28 (50.9 KB)

25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1285833.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:56:32 (107.0 KB)

25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1286292.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:56:36 (21.7 KB)

25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1288559.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:56:40 (149.2 KB)

Briefing Document: The Matter of Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the key events, legal arguments, and ultimate resolution of the administrative case Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (No. 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD). The dispute, which progressed through the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and the Maricopa County Superior Court, centered on a homeowner’s right to access association records, specifically the membership roster.

The case concluded on March 31, 2025, when the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA) stipulated to a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805. The HOA admitted it failed to timely fulfill a records request for the membership roster, which was submitted on October 21, 2021, and not fulfilled until May 2023—a delay of approximately 19 months.

The resolution required the HOA to pay petitioner Tom Barrs a total of $975.00, which included the reimbursement of a $500.00 filing fee. Citing the respondent’s “unconscionable conduct,” the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) also levied a nominal civil penalty of $25.00 against the association.

A critical turning point in the case was a landmark ruling by the Maricopa County Superior Court on April 4, 2024. The Court reversed an earlier OAH decision, establishing that HOA membership lists containing names and property addresses do not qualify as exempt personal records. The Court reasoned that access to such information is “essential to having a homeowners association” and necessary for members “to actively participate in HOA affairs.” This ruling, however, specified that more private data, such as email addresses and phone numbers, are not subject to mandatory disclosure. The matter was subsequently remanded to the OAH on this single issue, leading to the final stipulated resolution.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview and Parties Involved

This administrative action details a prolonged dispute between a homeowner and his planned community association regarding access to records.

• Case Name: In the Matter of: Tom Barrs, Petitioner, vs. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, Respondent.

• Docket Number: 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD

• Adjudicating Body: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark

• Petitioner: Tom Barrs (Appeared pro per initially, later represented by Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq.)

• Respondent: Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Represented by HOA President Michel Olley)

II. Procedural History: From Initial Petitions to Superior Court

The case originated from four separate petitions filed by Mr. Barrs with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, each incurring a $500 filing fee.

Petition Filing Date

Alleged Violation

Subject Matter

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Document requests from Apr 2021, Nov 2021, and Feb 2022.

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Alleged preclusion of audio recording at a meeting.

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Membership roster request from October 2021.

May 12, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Multiple document requests from Oct 2021 to Mar 2022.

• May 25, 2022: The Department of Real Estate consolidated the matters and referred them to the OAH for an evidentiary hearing.

• January 9-10, 2023: The consolidated hearing takes place before the OAH.

• February 21, 2023: The OAH issues an Administrative Law Judge Decision. It granted portions of the general document request petitions but denied the petitions regarding the audio recording and the membership roster in their entirety. The petitioner’s request for civil penalties was also denied.

• March 26, 2023: As the aggrieved party, Mr. Barrs files a timely Dispute Rehearing Petition with the Department of Real Estate.

• April 18, 2023: The Department of Real Estate issues an order denying the rehearing request.

• June 6, 2023: The Department is notified that Mr. Barrs has appealed its decision to the Maricopa County Superior Court.

III. The Superior Court Ruling: A Key Decision on HOA Record Transparency

On April 4, 2024, the Superior Court issued a pivotal order that reversed the Department of Real Estate’s decision in part, focusing squarely on the issue of membership lists.

The Court concluded that the ALJ had erred in treating the membership roster as exempt personal records. It ruled that such lists, containing names and property addresses, must be made available to all members unless they qualify for a specific statutory exception.

“In this case, Desert Ridge has kept membership lists as a part of their records undoubtedly for a variety of reasons. Unless those records qualify for an exception, they must be made available to all members… Those membership lists containing names and addresses, however, do not appear to fall within the exemption for personal records.”

The Court’s rationale was grounded in the principle of homeowner participation in association governance:

“In addition, in order to actively participate in HOA affairs, all members must have the ability to know who is in the Association and which home or land they own.”

The ruling drew a clear line between public-facing information and private contact details. It affirmed that while names and addresses are necessary for HOA functions, more personal data is not.

“The desire for additional personal information, including email addresses and phone numbers and the like, while understandable, is not necessary for active participation in the affairs of the Association… Email addresses and phone numbers, however, are more personal and less public in nature… While disclosure of names and property addresses… may be essential to having a homeowners association, the disclosure of email addresses and phone numbers is not.”

On August 2, 2024, the Court reaffirmed its ruling and remanded “only the reversed portion of the Department’s Decision” back to the OAH for “proceedings consistent” with its order. The petitioner’s request for attorneys’ fees for his pro per work was denied.

IV. The Remand Process and Clarification of Scope

Following the remand, the OAH scheduled a new hearing for March 31, 2025. A prehearing conference on March 18, 2025, revealed a significant disagreement between the parties on the scope of this new hearing.

• Petitioner’s Position: Mr. Barrs argued that the remand reopened all four of his original petitions for reconsideration.

• Respondent’s Position: Mr. Olley contended that the remand was narrowly focused on the single issue of the membership roster, as specified by the Superior Court.

ALJ Clark noted that the Department of Real Estate’s hearing notice was “deficient” because it failed to specify the issue for adjudication. To resolve the conflict, she issued a clarifying Minute Entry on March 24, 2025.

The Order explicitly narrowed the scope of the hearing:

“IT IS ORDERED that the issue to be addressed at the hearing… is whether Respondent failed to timely fulfill records requests submitted by Petitioner… by providing Petitioner with a full roster of Association Member names and corresponding property addresses per his request(s) in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”

The order further stated that in all other respects, the original ALJ Decision from February 21, 2023, “remains unchanged and in full force and effect,” thereby validating the respondent’s interpretation.

V. Final Hearing and Resolution

The remanded hearing convened on March 31, 2025. Before testimony could begin, the case moved swiftly to a resolution.

At the outset of the hearing, Mr. Olley, on behalf of the HOA, made a “motion for summary judgment,” conceding a violation of the statute regarding the withholding of the membership roster and offering to reimburse the petitioner’s $500 filing fee. The ALJ treated this as a settlement offer and allowed the parties to confer off the record.

The parties returned having reached a full agreement, which was entered into the record. The key stipulated facts were:

Stipulation

Details

Violation Admitted

The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide the membership roster.

Specific Request

The violation pertains to the request made by Mr. Barrs on October 21, 2021.

Untimeliness

The roster was not provided until May 2023, approximately 19 months after the request.

Monetary Settlement

The Association agreed to pay Mr. Barrs a total of $975.00.

Based on the parties’ stipulations, ALJ Clark issued a final decision on April 1, 2025, formalizing the outcome:

1. Petition Granted: The petitioner’s remanded petition was granted.

2. Civil Penalty: A civil penalty of $25.00 was assessed against the Respondent. In his closing argument, petitioner’s counsel argued this was warranted due to the HOA’s “unconscionable conduct” in delaying compliance for 19 months.

3. Filing Fee Reimbursement: Respondent was ordered to reimburse the petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee, as per the stipulation and statute.

4. Finality: The decision reaffirmed that all other elements of the original February 21, 2023, OAH decision remain in effect.

Legal Standards
Procedure

Case

Docket No: 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD
Case Title: Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Decision Date: 2025-04-01
Alj Name: Jenna Clark
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA refuse to give me a list of other homeowners' names and addresses?

Short Answer

No. Unless an exception applies, membership lists with names and addresses must be made available so members can participate in HOA affairs.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

Records Request
Membership List
Homeowner Rights

Question

Am I entitled to receive the email addresses and phone numbers of other homeowners?

Short Answer

No. Email addresses and phone numbers are considered personal and private, unlike physical addresses.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)

Topic Tags

Privacy
Records Request
Personal Records

Question

How quickly must the HOA respond to my request to inspect records?

Short Answer

The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request.

Detailed Answer

Arizona law grants the association ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

Timelines
Procedural Requirements

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

Penalties
Enforcement
Timelines

Question

If I win my hearing, will the HOA have to reimburse my filing fee?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The decision orders the Respondent (HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner's $500 filing fee as required by statute when the Petitioner prevails.

Alj Quote

Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01

Topic Tags

Costs
Remedies

Question

Who has to prove that the HOA broke the law?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the statute. This means showing that the contention is more probably true than not.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

Legal Standards
Procedure

Case

Docket No: 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD
Case Title: Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Decision Date: 2025-04-01
Alj Name: Jenna Clark
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Tom Barrs (petitioner)
Jonathan A. Dessaules (petitioner attorney)
Dessaules Law Group

Respondent Side

Michael Olley (HOA President)
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Appeared on behalf of Respondent. Also referred to as Michael Ali and Michel Olley.
B. Austin Baillio (respondent attorney)
Maxwell & Morgan P.C.
Counsel for Respondent in official correspondence.

Neutral Parties

Jenna Clark (ALJ)
OAH
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Judge Mikitish (Superior Court Judge)
Superior Court of Arizona – Maricopa County
Issued minute entries in related Superior Court proceedings.
vnunez (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official correspondence.
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official correspondence.
labril (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official correspondence.
mneat (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official correspondence.
lrecchia (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official correspondence.
gosborn (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official correspondence.
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official correspondence.

Other Participants

Brian Schoeffler (observer)
Observed the hearing.
Stephen Barrs (observer)
Observed the hearing. Also referred to as Steven Bar and Steven Bars.

Tom Barrs V. Desert Ranch Homeowners Assocation (ROOT)

Posted on February 22, 2023 by [email protected]

📋 Consolidated cases — This decision resolved 2 consolidated dockets: 22F-H2222050-REL, 22F-H2222054-REL.

Case Summary

Case ID	22F-H2222050-REL
Agency	Arizona Department of Real Estate
Tribunal	OAH and Maricopa County Superior Court judicial review
Decision Date	2024-08-02
Administrative Law Judge	Jenna Clark; Superior Court Judge Joseph P. Mikitish
Outcome	Superior Court reversed the ADRE decision in part and remanded; Barrs prevailed on disclosure of member names and physical property addresses, but not emails/phone numbers, and fees/costs were denied.
Filing Fees Refunded	—
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Tom Barrs	Counsel	—
Respondent	Desert Ranch Homeowners Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805; A.R.S. § 10-11601(C)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A); A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 10-11604(C)

Outcome Summary

The original OAH/ADRE result denied the membership-roster claim, but Maricopa County Superior Court case LC2023-000179-001 changed the result. Judge Joseph P. Mikitish held that HOA member names and physical property addresses are not exempt personal records under A.R.S. § 33-1805 and must be disclosed as standard association/corporate records. The court reaffirmed the reversal on August 2, 2024, denied attorneys fees and court costs, and remanded the matter to ADRE.

Why this result: The HOA position failed in Superior Court because the court distinguished public-facing names and property addresses from more private email addresses and phone numbers, and found the ALJ had treated the entire roster as personal information too broadly.

Key Issues & Findings

Membership roster and association records

Tom Barrs requested the HOA membership list and other association records. The HOA and its management company refused to provide the owner directory, and the ALJ initially treated the membership list as protected personal information.

Orders: The Maricopa County Superior Court reversed the ADRE final decision in part and remanded. It held that names and physical property addresses in a membership roster are standard corporate records and are not exempt personal records under A.R.S. § 33-1805, while email addresses and phone numbers may be withheld.

Disposition: Petitioner prevailed on the core membership-roster issue in Superior Court; emails and phone numbers remained protected.

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 10-11601(C)
LC2023-000179-001

Meeting recordings and other document requests

Barrs also challenged meeting-recording practices and sought additional EDC, contract, financial, and board-communication records.

Orders: The administrative decision granted some record-request issues in part and denied others. The later Superior Court appeal focused primarily on the membership-list ruling.

Disposition: Mixed administrative result; not the primary basis for the Superior Court reversal.

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1805

Attorney fees and court costs after appeal

After the Superior Court reversal, Barrs requested $9,309.57 in attorneys fees and costs, including limited-scope legal work, transcript costs, filing fees, and other expenses.

Orders: On August 2, 2024, the Superior Court reaffirmed the reversal and remand but denied attorneys fees and court costs, finding that the statutory fee provision did not apply to this ADRE administrative-review path.

Disposition: Fees and costs denied; final appealable order entered and the matter remanded to ADRE.

Cited:

A.R.S. § 10-11604(C)
Rule 31.2, Arizona Supreme Court Rules
Boydston v. Strole Development Co.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: records requests, membership roster, A.R.S. § 33-1805, superior court reversal, remand

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 10-11601(C)
A.R.S. § 10-11604(C)
LC2023-000179-001

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 1000763.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T18:59:46 (52.4 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 1002291.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T18:59:48 (55.0 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 1035796.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T18:59:51 (295.5 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 980693.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T18:59:53 (54.2 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 981784.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T18:59:55 (50.4 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 982383.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T18:59:57 (55.5 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 987368.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T18:59:59 (61.6 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 987371.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:02 (8.5 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 998623.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:04 (45.7 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 03a70f36-3fe1-495d-9698-092eb794703c.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:07 (162.2 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 04b57097-5fc0-448c-86d7-da560c293f56.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:09 (219.9 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 06ae9cf4-2a95-4470-933d-cf153537b34f.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:11 (31.7 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 227ae74d-d75f-4dbe-8efd-f31ccdaaaff4.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:18 (6019.3 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 44e68fd7-82f7-4ba9-a222-19fc3ea95099.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:20 (297.3 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 54f7ba97-0e3d-461a-bd22-223487748254.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:22 (73.3 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 67a7a92a-c6b5-4184-854f-edc111568186.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:24 (110.1 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 6f9d74b4-927a-473c-a08b-aa3db38663c9.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:26 (19.2 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 704c788f-9635-40d1-8e9a-b853f3ad3d32.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:30 (1546.6 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 72298af4-b36d-4dbd-a2da-f2f038e1cc33.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:32 (125.7 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 7d88890f-5ea3-4157-92f9-9274626b6827.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:34 (19.0 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 912071f2-a752-478c-8dd7-9e0ed1f30f80.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:36 (129.8 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 9b6c2ad6-c4f8-4f22-91c3-4ebe8b783341.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:38 (578.0 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 9f123523-7d29-46d2-9826-fd908672d67d.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:41 (78.2 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – Briefing Document_ Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:43 (107.3 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – a563ff2f-ce40-4e22-b960-6422ef07a9e6.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:48 (4194.2 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – a98636b9-cc47-4755-bc35-41f84a3be77a.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:50 (38.7 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – b6eba1f1-989f-4bd9-9766-ef77ad5f5dd4.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:52 (221.4 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – c60149f0-4a01-4d88-bf4a-466ae16701fb.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:55 (1659.8 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – cb68c130-ddc1-4500-a759-f35d321f2553.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:57 (57.7 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – e98b8ade-a214-49c3-92af-f18449da682e.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:01:02 (4258.7 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – eff1f8cd-7fc3-4daa-b31b-4601e012458b.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:01:05 (166.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

The litigation between Tom Barrs (Petitioner/Appellant) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent/Appellee) involves a protracted dispute over Association records, meeting recording integrity, and the production of homeowner information. The matter, overseen by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and subsequently appealed to the Maricopa County Superior Court, centers on actions taken by a previous Board of Directors and their management company, AAM.

Following an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision in February 2023, the Association underwent a significant leadership transition. A new Board was elected in April 2023, and the Association moved to a self-managed model after AAM declined to renew its contract. Despite extensive settlement negotiations between the new Board and Barrs, reaching a final resolution proved unsuccessful due to disagreements over the correction of the official record and the payment of attorney fees. The Association currently faces depleted cash reserves, having spent over $29,000 on this matter, and continues to manage ongoing record requests and legal challenges from the Petitioner.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Integrity of Meeting Recordings and Documentation

A central point of contention is whether Association meeting recordings were intentionally edited or merely incomplete due to human error. Lori Loch-Lee, the community manager from AAM, testified that while recordings might have been stopped and restarted—specifically during an incident in September 2020 involving Mr. Barrs—she never edited any files.

Petitioner's Argument: Barrs contends that the recordings are "clearly cut" and that portions discussing him or potential police involvement were intentionally removed. He argues the missing segments (approximately 30 minutes of a one-hour meeting) violate A.R.S. 33-1804(A).
Respondent's Argument: The management company maintains that "forgetting to restart a recording is [not] the same thing as editing a recording." They attribute gaps to technical issues or the "human" element of management.

2. Information Access and Privacy Policies

The dispute highlights a conflict between a homeowner's right to access records and the Association's duty to protect private information.

Management Files vs. Board Records: Lori Loch-Lee testified that she maintains internal AAM files for "correspondence homeowners" to which the Board has no control or access. She asserted that these are "personal emails" used for day-to-day business and that no policy requires their production to the Board or homeowners.
Confidentiality Training: Management applied professional training to withhold homeowner phone numbers and emails, treating them as "private information" protected from production requests.
The Membership Roster: Barrs alleged AAM refused to provide the roster within the statutory 10-business-day deadline. While the new Board eventually provided access, Barrs continues to seek a formal acknowledgement that the refusal by the prior management was a violation of A.R.S. 33-1805.

3. Transition to Self-Management and Financial Impact

The Association has experienced a complete shift in its operational structure as a direct result of the ongoing litigation.

Management Termination: AAM chose not to renew the management contract due to the "time and hassle" and "continued legal escalations" associated with the Barrs case.
Financial Depletion: The Association is currently without cash reserves. To remain solvent, the Board had to borrow $8,000 from the "711 Road Reserves Fund" to cover the General Fund's obligations.
Volunteer Burden: The Board members (collectively 33 members in the HOA) have spent "hundreds of hours" managing the case without professional counsel, as they lack the resources to retain an attorney.

4. Settlement Impasse and Attorney Fee Disputes

Extensive negotiations occurred between June and December 2023, but ultimately failed over two primary issues: the correction of the ALJ's findings of fact and the reimbursement of legal costs.

Correction of Findings: Barrs insisted on a "line-by-line" correction of the ALJ's February 21, 2023, decision, claiming it was based on "false assertions" by previous counsel. The Board felt uncomfortable changing the ALJ's decision, particularly findings related to a prior Board they did not represent.
Attorney Fees: Barrs sought $9,309.57 in costs and fees. The Association argues that because they offered a $2,000 settlement on September 8, 2023, which Barrs rejected, he is barred from seeking fees under A.R.S. 12-341.01(a) as the final judgment (which awarded no damages) was less favorable to him than their offer.

Important Quotes with Context

Quote	Context
"Do you believe that forgetting to restart a recording is the same thing as editing a recording? Absolutely not."	Lori Loch-Lee (AAM) testifying about the gaps in the September 2020 meeting audio.
"Homer information of emails and phone numbers are considered private information and I've learned that from different seminars and conferences… my training said not to produce that information."	Lori Loch-Lee explaining why homeowner contact details were withheld from Barrs' record requests.
"I am their community manager. I'm not an agent."	Loch-Lee's response when questioned about her official capacity and duty to the Association regarding the retention of unedited recordings.
"The Board has been forced to do this, as this litigation has left us without cash reserves."	From the Association’s response to the Superior Court, explaining why they are appearing pro se.
"I've said repeatedly that I want to be a part of that positive, forward motion… I'm wondering if it may be helpful… for you to join us during a portion of an Exec Session."	Board President Nan Wickman in an email to Tom Barrs (July 6, 2023) attempting to find a settlement path.
"The Board would prefer that this legal action ends here, so that we can spend our volunteered time to get the HOA back to functioning and dealing with all its business properly."	Final statement in the Association's legal response regarding the emotional and operational toll of the case.

Timeline of Key Events (2023-2024)

Date	Event
January 9-10, 2023	OAH Hearing conducted by ALJ Jenna Clark.
February 21, 2023	ALJ Decision issued regarding the dockets.
April 29, 2023	Annual Member Meeting; new Board of Directors elected (Nan Wickman, Michael Olley, Cynthia Dryden, etc.).
May 23, 2023	Tom Barrs files Appeal for Judicial Review.
June 15, 2023	Court orders case stayed for 90 days pending settlement.
July 13, 2023	Board proposes settlement: $1,000 payment to Barrs, no fault admitted, release of claims.
August 22, 2023	Barrs counters with an agreement requiring a $2,000 payment and agreement to all his corrections of the ALJ decision.
September 8, 2023	Board offers $2,000 settlement; Barrs rejects the amended agreement.
September 15, 2023	Court lifts the stay; litigation resumes.
April 4, 2024	Court finds in favor of Appellant (Barrs) and allows for an affidavit to obtain fees.
May 24, 2024	Association files response questioning the validity and substantiation of Barrs' $9,309.57 fee request.

Actionable Insights

Documentation Standards: The Association should implement formal policies for recording meetings, including a requirement that any pauses or technical restarts be explicitly noted in the official meeting minutes to prevent allegations of "editing."
Management Transition Audit: For self-managed HOAs, a comprehensive audit of all records formerly held by third-party management (like AAM) is necessary to ensure the Board has full custody of "statutory agent" files vs. "personal/internal" management files.
Financial Contingency Planning: The depletion of cash reserves for legal fees suggests a need for the Association to evaluate its D&O (Directors and Officers) insurance coverage and legal defense funds for future disputes.
Record Request Protocols: Given the Petitioner’s ongoing "frivolous requests" (as characterized by the Board), the Association must maintain a strict, standardized response log that tracks response times and costs incurred per A.R.S. 33-1805 to provide a defense against claims of non-compliance.

Study Guide: Tom Barrs vs. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and administrative matters between Tom Barrs (Petitioner/Appellant) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent/Appellee). It synthesizes information from hearing transcripts, board meeting minutes, and court filings to outline the core conflicts regarding association management, record-keeping, and litigation.

I. Key Concepts and Themes

1. Management and Agency

A central point of contention in the proceedings is the role of the management company, Associated Asset Management (AAM), and its relationship with the Board.

Capacity of the Community Manager: Lori Loch-Lee, the community manager from AAM, testified that she acted in a limited capacity as defined by a management agreement. While she acknowledged AAM is a "statutory agent," she distinguished her role as a community manager from that of a general agent of the board.
Transition to Self-Management: Following the non-renewal of AAM’s contract (attributed by the Board to the ongoing litigation), the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (DRHOA) transitioned to a self-managed model in early 2023.

2. Record-Keeping and Transparency

The dispute involves allegations of missing or edited evidence, specifically regarding meeting recordings and homeowner correspondence.

Editing vs. Omission: A primary legal argument involves whether "forgetting to restart" a recording constitutes "editing." Loch-Lee maintained that pausing a meeting (e.g., due to an interruption) is not the same as editing the record.
Access to Records: Tom Barrs sought access to membership rosters and homeowner information. The association initially resisted, citing training that homeowner emails and phone numbers are "private information."
Personal vs. Association Files: Loch-Lee testified that her day-to-day "correspondence homeowners" file was an internal AAM file, not accessible or controllable by the Board.

3. Litigation and Settlement Dynamics

The case moved from the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to the Superior Court of Maricopa County.

The ALJ Decision: An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision on February 21, 2023, which Barrs subsequently sought to appeal or amend.
Settlement Negotiations: Numerous attempts were made to reach a "Joint Stipulation" to correct alleged errors in the ALJ’s findings of fact. Key issues in settlement included the payment of filing fees, the release of liability for current/former board members, and the accuracy of the membership roster.
Recovery of Fees (ARS 12-341.01): The Association argued that Barrs was ineligible for attorney fees because he rejected a settlement offer ($2,000) that was more favorable than the eventual court determination.

II. Short-Answer Practice Questions

Who represented Tom Barrs at the January 2023 hearing?

Answer: Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq.

What was the specific AAM policy regarding recording at their business office?

Answer: No tape or visual recording was permitted at the AAM business office during record inspections or meetings.

According to Lori Loch-Lee, what two categories of information are considered "private" and excluded from general homeowner requests?

Answer: Homeowner email addresses and phone numbers.

What was the "711 Road Reserves Fund" loan used for?

Answer: An $8,000 loan was taken from the 711 Road Reserves Fund to the General Fund to maintain solvency and meet the 2023 budget.

Why did the Board claim they had to become self-managed?

Answer: Their management company (AAM) chose not to renew the contract due to the continued legal escalations by Tom Barrs.

What happened during the September 15, 2020, meeting recording?

Answer: The recording was stopped and restarted twice (at approximately 17:20 and 31:09) following interruptions or rucksacks involving Mr. Barrs.

What was the total amount Tom Barrs claimed for "Limited Scope Representation" from Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.?

Answer: $5,480.00.

Who were the four new board members elected on April 29, 2023?

Answer: Nan Wickman (President), Michael Olley (Vice President), Cynthia Dryden (Secretary/Treasurer), and David Hughes (At-large). Susan Klinefelter was also elected as an at-large member.

III. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

The Ethics of Administrative Record-Keeping: Discuss the implications of a community manager "forgetting" to record portions of a board meeting. Does the distinction between "omission" and "editing" hold legal weight in the context of HOA transparency requirements under Arizona law?
The Impact of Litigation on Small Communities: Using the Desert Ranch HOA as a case study, analyze how prolonged legal disputes between a single homeowner and an association can affect the financial health (e.g., depletion of cash reserves) and the volunteer spirit of the board (e.g., mass resignations).
Privacy vs. Disclosure: Evaluate the conflict between a homeowner's right to access association records (ARS 33-1805) and the management’s duty to protect homeowner privacy (emails and phone numbers). Where should the line be drawn for an "unredacted" membership roster?
Settlement and Good Faith: Analyze the timeline of settlement offers between Barrs and the Board. Did the insistence on correcting the "Findings of Fact" in the ALJ decision, rather than focusing on monetary or policy outcomes, indicate a lack of "good faith" in negotiations as alleged by the Association?

IV. Glossary of Important Terms

Term	Definition
AAM	Associated Asset Management; the professional management company previously contracted by the Desert Ranch HOA.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)	A judge who presides over hearings and makes findings of fact in disputes involving state agencies (in this case, the Arizona Department of Real Estate).
ARS 12-341.01	An Arizona statute regarding the recovery of attorney fees in contested actions arising out of a contract.
Joint Stipulation	A formal agreement between opposing parties to recognize certain facts as true or to follow a specific course of action in a legal case.
Limited Scope Representation	A legal arrangement where an attorney handles only specific parts of a case rather than providing full representation.
Minute Entry	A brief written record of the court's actions, orders, or findings during a specific proceeding.
Pro Se	Representing oneself in a legal proceeding without the assistance of an attorney.
Statutory Agent	An entity (like AAM) designated to receive legal service of process and official communications on behalf of a corporation or association.
Stay Pending Settlement	A temporary suspension of court deadlines and proceedings to allow parties to finalize a settlement agreement.

Behind the Minutes: Lessons in Transparency and the Cost of HOA Litigation

1. Introduction: When Governance Becomes a Legal Battlefield

Thirty-three homes, four years of litigation, and a $29,000 legal bill—how did the Desert Ranchers Association find itself in a war over a Zoom recording?

In community governance, the distance between a minor administrative oversight and a catastrophic financial burden is often shorter than most boards realize. The matter of Tom Barrs vs. Desert Ranchers Association serves as a stark case study in the high price of protracted conflict. For an association of only 33 members, the $29,000 spent on this single legal matter (excluding the Petitioner’s personal costs) represents a staggering per-household burden of nearly $880. This dispute, which centered on records requests, membership rosters, and the integrity of meeting recordings from 2020 through early 2024, offers critical lessons for any board seeking to practice "preventative governance."

2. The "Recording" Debate: Human Error vs. Intentional Editing

A cornerstone of this litigation was a technical dispute regarding the September 2020 board meeting recording. The Petitioner, Tom Barrs, alleged that the recording was intentionally edited to omit sensitive discussions. Community Manager Lori Loch-Lee testified that while technical gaps existed, they were the result of "stops and starts" caused by human error or technical interruptions.

The technical timestamps are revealing: the recording stopped at the 17-minute and 31-minute marks. Critically, the transcript indicates that at these specific junctions, the board's conversation shifted to whether they should call the police on Mr. Barrs. This context fueled the Petitioner's allegations of intentional editing; it wasn't just any segment that was missed, but a highly sensitive discussion regarding the Petitioner himself. Loch-Lee maintained that as a "human," she simply forgot to restart the recording after interruptions.

Spotlight: Is It Editing or Forgetting? The Distinction: Management distinguished between editing (altering existing footage) and forgetting (failing to capture a segment). The Legal Risk: In the eyes of a governance expert, "selective recording"—even if unintentional—creates a "transparency gap" that is nearly impossible to defend in court once personal animosity is involved.

3. The Transparency Gap: Internal Files and Agent Boundaries

The case highlighted a significant point of confusion in the HOA industry: the legal status of the management company. During testimony, Lori Loch-Lee initially admitted, "AAM is a statutory agent. Yes." However, when pressed by counsel, she later asserted, "I am their community manager. I’m not an agent."

This contradiction illustrates the tension between a management firm acting as an agent of record and an individual manager acting as a representative of that firm. Loch-Lee argued that her "day-to-day" emails were personal business files kept in an internal AAM file, to which the Board had "absolutely no" control or access. This created a wall between the homeowners and the communications used to conduct association business—a wall that often triggers litigation when members feel that information is being shielded behind "limited capacity" management agreements.

4. The High Price of Standing on Principle

The dispute did more than deplete the association's bank account; it broke the community's leadership structure.

The Financial and Human Toll

Category	Impact Details
Legal Spending	Over $29,000 spent by the HOA (nearly $880 per household), excluding Tom Barrs' personal costs.
Administrative Burden	Hundreds of hours of volunteer time lost to hearings, document preparation, and executive sessions.
Human Cost	Resignations of Board members Cynthia Dryden and Nan Wickman due to "mental anguish"; other owners refused to join the "depleted Board" because of the litigation.
Management Impact	AAM terminated the contract due to the "time and hassle" represented by the dispute, forcing the HOA into a high-risk self-managed model.

5. The Settlement Slog: A Timeline of Negotiation

Despite the Board’s eventual desire for "closure," the litigation continued long after the original Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision. A key governance failure identified here is that providing the requested records does not always end the conflict if the "integrity of the record" remains at issue.

April 29, 2023: New Secretary Cynthia Dryden provides Tom Barrs access to the membership roster. Despite this, Barrs files an appeal on May 23.
June 2023: Barrs provides a settlement outline requesting line-by-line corrections to the ALJ’s "findings of fact."
July 2023: The HOA offers a $1,000 reimbursement for filing fees with a "no fault" clause.
September 2023: The HOA increases the offer to $2,000. Barrs rejects it, insisting on correcting the ALJ record.
December 6, 2023: The parties reach a tentative "no-cost" agreement regarding the roster, yet they are unable to agree on the specific settlement language.
April 2024: Following a court ruling in Barrs' favor, he submits a final claim for $9,309.57 in costs and fees.

6. Conclusion: Moving Forward and Key Takeaways

Today, the Desert Ranchers Association is self-managed—a state of transition born of necessity rather than choice. When a community becomes a high-liability client, professional management firms often walk away, leaving volunteers to navigate complex legal and financial waters alone. The failure to reach a "no-cost resolution" earlier in the process underscores the danger of allowing a dispute over "findings of fact" to outweigh the pragmatic need for community stability.

Governance Gold Nuggets

Maintain Unedited Recordings: To avoid allegations of tampering, ensure recordings are continuous. If a meeting is paused, the chair must announce the pause and the resumption on the record, with corresponding notes in the minutes.
Adopt a Records Retention and Production Policy: Minimize the "transparency gap" by defining the scope of association records versus management business files before a dispute arises.
Ensure Roster Transparency: Per ARS 33-1805, membership rosters are a fundamental record. Access should be proactive and standardized to prevent "withholding" claims.
Prioritize Early Resolution: The escalation from a $1,000 offer to a $29,000 bill is a cautionary tale. Boards must identify when a dispute has shifted from "governance" to "animosity" and seek mediation before reserves are depleted.

Ultimately, the goal of a board is the preservation of the community. In Desert Ranchers, the cost of the "battle" was the very peace and professional oversight the board was elected to protect.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Tom Barrs (Petitioner)
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Homeowner and member of the association
Jonathan A. Dessaules (Counsel for Petitioner)
Dessaules Law Group
Daryl Manhart (Limited Scope Counsel)
Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.
Retained for the appeal brief
Aaron Duell (Limited Scope Counsel)
Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.
Retained for the appeal brief

Respondent Side

B. Austin Baillio (Counsel for Respondent)
Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
Brian Schoeffler (Witness)
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Board Member, Secretary/Treasurer
Gerard Mangieri (Witness)
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Board Member, President
Lori Loch-Lee (Witness)
Associated Asset Management
Community Manager
Monte E. Matz (Witness)
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Board Member, Vice President
Michelle Aerni (Witness)
Subpoenaed witness
Cynthia Dryden (Board Member)
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Elected as Secretary/Treasurer in 2023
Nan Wickman (Board Member)
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Elected as President in 2023
David Hughes (Board Member)
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Elected in 2023
Michael Olley (Board Member)
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Elected in 2023
Amanda Shaw (Statutory Agent)
Associated Asset Management

Neutral Parties

Jenna Clark (Administrative Law Judge)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Joseph P. Mikitish (Judge)
Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County
Presiding judge for the subsequent appeal
Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Robert Tomisak v. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association

Posted on July 17, 2020 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2020055-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2020-07-17
Administrative Law Judge	Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Condominium Association violated its governing documents or state statute regarding record inspection, specifically because the Association did not possess and was not required to create a Membership Register containing unit owners' email addresses.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Robert Tomisak	Counsel	—
Respondent	Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258; CC&Rs Article 11, Section 4.8; Bylaws, Article 10.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Condominium Association violated its governing documents or state statute regarding record inspection, specifically because the Association did not possess and was not required to create a Membership Register containing unit owners' email addresses.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the provisions of CC&Rs Section 11.4.8, Bylaws Section 10.3, or A.R.S. § 33-1158 (or § 33-1258) because the requested record (a Membership Register containing email addresses) did not exist, and the Association was not obligated to create it.

Key Issues & Findings

Refusal to provide access to the membership register (Owner Roster with emails)

Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated governing documents and statute by refusing access to the membership register containing email addresses. Respondent argued email addresses were protected 'personal records' under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4). The ALJ found the Petitioner failed to prove a violation because the requested document (a Membership Register containing emails) did not exist, and Respondent had no obligation to create it.

Orders: The petition is dismissed and no action is required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1258
CC&Rs 11.4.8
Bylaws 10.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: records inspection, membership roster, email addresses, HOA records, condominium association, A.R.S. 33-1258

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4)
A.R.S. § 33-1158
CC&Rs 11.4.8
Bylaws 10.3
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020055-REL Decision – 807817.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:26:50 (107.3 KB)

20F-H2020055-REL Decision – 807817.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:32:44 (107.3 KB)

Administrative Hearing Briefing: Tomisak v. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document outlines the findings and decision in the case of Robert Tomisak versus the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association (Case No. 20F-H2020055-REL), heard in the Office of Administrative Hearings. The petitioner, Mr. Tomisak, alleged that the Association violated its governing documents and Arizona state law by refusing his request for an owner roster that included member email addresses. The Association countered that email addresses constitute protected personal information and, more critically, that a membership register containing such information no longer exists.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed the petition. The decision did not hinge on whether email addresses are “personal records” under the law. Instead, the ruling was based on the factual determination that the Association cannot be compelled to produce a document that it does not maintain. Since the Association had ceased including email addresses in its Membership Register in 2018, the judge concluded that the petitioner had no right to a non-existent record and had failed to meet the burden of proof required to show a violation.

I. Case Overview

Case Name

Robert Tomisak v. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association

Case Number

20F-H2020055-REL

Office of Administrative Hearings

Administrative Law Judge

Sondra J. Vanella

Petitioner

Robert Tomisak, Owner of Unit 1902 (Appeared on his own behalf)

Respondent

Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association (Represented by Property Manager Terri Troy)

Hearing Date

July 9, 2020

Decision Date

July 17, 2020

II. Petitioner’s Allegations

On April 15, 2020, Robert Tomisak filed a single-issue petition alleging that the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association had violated its own governing documents and Arizona state law. The core of the complaint was the Association’s refusal to fulfill his March 11, 2020, email request “to provide access to the membership register” containing owner email addresses.

Mr. Tomisak specifically cited violations of the following provisions:

• Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs): Article 11, Section 4.8

• Bylaws: Article 10.3

• Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.): § 33-1258

III. Respondent’s Position and Defense

The Association, through its property management company AS&A Property Management, Inc., and represented by Property Manager Terri Troy, denied all allegations. The defense rested on two key arguments:

1. Privacy Exemption: The Association contended that members’ email addresses are “personal records” and therefore exempt from disclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4), which protects the “personal, health or financial records of an individual member.”

2. Non-Existence of the Record: Ms. Troy testified that while the Association would readily provide the official Membership Register (containing names and addresses), this document no longer includes email addresses. This practice of excluding emails from the register began in 2018.

IV. Key Evidence and Testimony

The March 11, 2020 Email Exchange

The dispute originated with a direct email exchange between the petitioner and the property manager.

• Petitioner’s Request (7:33 a.m.): Mr. Tomisak sent an email with the subject line “Owner Roster” stating:

• Respondent’s Denial (8:23 a.m.): Ms. Troy responded with a direct refusal, citing the statutory exemption for personal information:

Hearing Testimony

During the July 9, 2020 hearing, both parties presented their arguments:

• Robert Tomisak (Petitioner): Acknowledged that he already had access to member mailing addresses but specifically required their email addresses. He argued that email addresses are not “personal information” and cited “the internet” and “California case law” as authority for this position.

• Terri Troy (Respondent): Reiterated the Association’s willingness to provide the existing Membership Register, which contains names, addresses, and unit numbers. She explained that email addresses had been removed from this register starting in 2018 and that her refusal was based on the belief that emails are protected “personal records” under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4).

The Administrative Law Judge noted that neither party cited “any relevant or persuasive legal authority” to formally define “personal records” as used in the statute.

V. Legal Framework and Governing Documents

The case centered on the interpretation of three key provisions granting members access to Association records.

Document

Section

Key Provision

11.4.8

“The Association shall make available to Owners… current copies of the Declaration, Articles, Bylaws, rules of the Association and the books, records, and financial statements of the Association.”

Bylaws

“The membership register… shall be made available for inspection and copying by Members of the Association… for a purpose reasonably related to their interests as Members…”

A.R.S.

§ 33-1258(A)

“all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member…”

A.R.S.

§ 33-1258(B)(4)

“Books and records… may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to… Personal, health or financial records of an individual member of the association…”

VI. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Order

Burden of Proof

The judge established that the petitioner, Mr. Tomisak, bore the burden of proof to demonstrate by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association had committed the alleged violations. A preponderance of evidence is defined as that which is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Central Conclusion

The judge’s ruling was not based on the privacy argument regarding whether email addresses are “personal records.” Instead, the decision was grounded in a more fundamental point of fact regarding the existence of the requested document. The judge’s decisive conclusion of law stated:

While Petitioner has the right to enforce the requirements of the above provisions, Petitioner does not have the right to a record that does not exist, i.e., a Membership Register containing email addresses. Further, there is no requirement in the above provisions that Respondent has an obligation to create such a document.

Final Ruling

Based on this central finding, the judge held that Mr. Tomisak failed to meet his burden of proof and did not establish that the Association had violated its CC&Rs, its Bylaws, or A.R.S. § 33-1158.

IT IS ORDERED that no action is required of Respondent in this matter and that the petition is dismissed. The order is binding unless a rehearing is requested within 30 days of its service.

Study Guide: Tomisak v. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association

This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing decision in case number 20F-H2020055-REL, involving Petitioner Robert Tomisak and Respondent Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to test and deepen understanding of the case.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following ten questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based entirely on the information provided in the case document.

1. Who were the petitioner and the respondent in this case, and what was their established relationship?

2. What specific document and data did the petitioner request from the respondent in his email dated March 11, 2020?

3. On what legal grounds did the respondent deny the petitioner’s request? Cite the specific statutory provision they referenced.

4. Identify the three governing documents or statutes that the petitioner alleged the respondent had violated.

5. What information was the respondent, through its property manager Terri Troy, willing to provide to the petitioner?

6. What was the central reason cited by the Administrative Law Judge in the “Conclusions of Law” for dismissing the petition?

7. Define the “preponderance of the evidence” standard and identify which party had the burden of meeting this standard.

8. What authority did the petitioner cite during the hearing to support his argument that email addresses do not constitute “personal information”?

9. According to Property Manager Terri Troy’s testimony, when and why did the content of the Membership Register change?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge on July 17, 2020?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The petitioner was Robert Tomisak, who owns condominium unit 1902 in the Arrowhead Lakes development. The respondent was the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association, of which the petitioner is a member.

2. The petitioner requested an electronic copy of the “Owner’s Roster with emails.” He specifically wanted a membership list that included the email addresses of the other condominium owners.

3. The respondent denied the request based on A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4). They argued that this provision allows an association to withhold the “personal records of an individual member,” and they considered email addresses to fall under this category.

4. The petitioner alleged the respondent violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) Article 11, Section 4.8; its Bylaws, Article 10.3; and Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1258.

5. The respondent was willing to provide the Membership Register, which included the names, unit numbers, and mailing addresses of the members. However, this register did not contain email addresses.

6. The judge dismissed the petition because the petitioner did not have the right to a record that does not exist—namely, a Membership Register containing email addresses. The judge concluded there was no requirement in the governing provisions for the respondent to create such a document.

7. A “preponderance of the evidence” is the standard of proof requiring the trier of fact to be convinced that a contention is more probably true than not. The petitioner, Robert Tomisak, bore the burden of establishing his claim by this standard.

8. During the hearing, the petitioner cited “the internet” and “California case law” as his authority for the proposition that email addresses were not considered personal information.

9. Terri Troy testified that the Membership Register previously contained email addresses but that this practice was stopped beginning in 2018. The change was made based on the association’s belief that email addresses were the “personal records” of the owners.

10. The final order stated that no action was required of the respondent and that the petition was dismissed.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a longer, essay-style response. Use the case document to formulate a detailed and well-supported argument.

1. Analyze the central legal conflict in this case. Discuss the petitioner’s interpretation of a member’s right to access records under the CC&Rs, Bylaws, and A.R.S. § 33-1258 versus the respondent’s interpretation, focusing on the exemption for “personal records.”

2. Evaluate the evidence presented by both the petitioner and the respondent during the July 9, 2020 hearing. Explain why the judge ultimately found that the petitioner failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard.

3. The judge’s decision rested heavily on the finding that the respondent was not obligated to create a document that did not exist. Discuss the significance of this finding. How might the case outcome have differed if the Membership Register still actively contained member email addresses at the time of the request?

4. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this administrative hearing. Explain why this burden fell upon the petitioner and how the failure to meet this evidentiary standard was a determinative factor in the dismissal of the petition.

5. Examine the roles and interaction of the governing documents (CC&Rs, Bylaws) and state law (A.R.S. § 33-1258) in this dispute. Which provisions offered the petitioner the right to inspect records, and which specific clause provided the strongest defense for the respondent?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella.

A.R.S. § 33-1258

The Arizona Revised Statute that mandates associations make financial and other records “reasonably available” to members, while also providing exceptions for withholding certain information, such as “personal, health or financial records of an individual member.”

Association

The Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association, a condominium unit owners’ association responsible for managing the Arrowhead Lakes development.

Bylaws

The rules governing the internal operations of the association. Section 10.3 is referenced, which grants members the right to inspect the “membership register” and other books and records.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the primary governing legal documents for the condominium development. Section 11.4.8 is referenced, which requires the association to make its books and records available to owners.

Membership Register

A formal list of the members of the association. The respondent’s register included names and addresses with unit numbers but, as of 2018, no longer included email addresses.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, Robert Tomisak, a condominium owner and member of the association.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is met when the evidence presented is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other,” making a contention more probably true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association.

He Sued His Condo Association for an Email List. The Judge’s Reason for Saying No Will Surprise You.

If you live in a condominium or a community governed by a homeowners’ association, you’ve likely wondered what official records you’re entitled to see. From financial statements to meeting minutes, these documents are the backbone of a transparent community. But what happens when the information you want isn’t in a format the association readily provides?

This was the central conflict for Robert Tomisak, a condominium owner in Glendale, Arizona. At 7:33 a.m. on March 11, 2020, he sent an email to his association requesting an electronic copy of the “Owner’s Roster with emails.” Less than an hour later, at 8:23 a.m., the property manager refused. Believing he was legally entitled to the list, Mr. Tomisak sued. When the case went before an administrative law judge, the final decision hinged on a simple but powerful distinction that most people would never see coming. This case reveals some surprising truths about our rights to information and how they are applied in the real world.

1. Takeaway #1: Your right is to inspectexistingrecords, not to have new ones created for you.

The core of the judge’s decision came down to a simple, factual matter. While Mr. Tomisak had a legal right to inspect association records, the specific document he requested—a Membership Register that included email addresses—did not actually exist.

According to testimony from property manager Terri Troy, the association was perfectly willing to provide the official Membership Register, which contained owner names and mailing addresses. However, she clarified that the association had stopped including email addresses in that specific record back in 2018. The judge found this fact to be decisive. While the petitioner had the right to access existing records, the association had no legal duty to create a new one for him. The judge’s “Conclusions of Law” put it in unambiguous terms:

Petitioner does not have the right to a record that does not exist, i.e., a Membership Register containing email addresses. Further, there is no requirement in the above provisions that Respondent has an obligation to create such a document.

This is a counter-intuitive but crucial distinction. Many people assume that if an organization possesses individual pieces of data (like names in one file and emails in another), they are obligated to compile that data into the format you request. This ruling clarifies that the legal obligation is to provide access to records as they are currently maintained, not to perform data-compilation tasks on demand. For association boards, this is a critical clarification of their duties; for homeowners, it’s a lesson in the power of a precise request.

2. Takeaway #2: The legal definition of “personal records” can be surprisingly ambiguous.

The central argument between the two parties revolved around privacy. Mr. Tomisak requested the email list citing an Arizona statute (A.R.S. § 33-1258) that grants members access to association records. In response, Ms. Troy denied the request by citing a specific exemption in that same law—A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4)—which allows an association to withhold “personal… records of an individual member.” Ms. Troy believed email addresses fell under this category; Mr. Tomisak argued they did not.

Crucially, Mr. Tomisak acknowledged during the hearing that he already had access to the mailing addresses for all units. His demand was not about the fundamental ability to communicate with his neighbors, but about the specific method. This reframes the dispute away from pure access-to-information and toward convenience and the definition of privacy.

However, when it came time to define “personal records,” both sides faltered. The petitioner cited “the internet” and “California case law” as his authority—a common mistake litigants make, as vague or non-binding sources hold little weight with a judge focused on specific state statutes. The judge noted that “Neither party cited to any relevant or persuasive legal authority to establish the definition of ‘personal records’ as referenced in the relevant statute.” This failure by both parties essentially forced the judge’s hand, allowing her to bypass the murky privacy debate and settle the case on the much clearer, indisputable fact that the requested record did not exist.

3. Takeaway #3: Even with clear rules, the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim.

On paper, the rules seemed to be in the petitioner’s favor. Section 11.4.8 of the community’s CC&Rs, Section 10.3 of its Bylaws, and the state statute A.R.S. § 33-1258 all grant members the right to inspect association records. So why did he lose?

The answer lies in the legal concept of the “burden of proof.” According to the hearing decision, the petitioner “bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.”

“Preponderance of the evidence” simply means evidence that is more convincing and more likely true than not. In this case, because the petitioner could not prove that the specific document he wanted—a Membership Register containing emails—actually existed, he failed to meet this burden. He could not convince the judge that the association had violated its duties because the duty he claimed they violated (providing a non-existent record) was not one they actually had. This serves as a practical lesson for any homeowner: having a right on paper is not enough; you must be able to prove that the specific right was violated with convincing evidence.

Conclusion: A Lesson in Specificity

The case of Tomisak vs. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association is a masterclass in how legal rights and obligations are often more specific and literal than we assume. The final decision wasn’t based on broad principles of privacy versus access, but on the simple, verifiable fact that a non-existent document cannot be produced.

The judge’s final order was to dismiss the petition, requiring no action from the condo association. This case forces every resident and board member to ask a crucial question: Are you fighting over a principle, or are you making a specific request for a real, existing document? In the eyes of the law, only one of those will win you the day.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Robert Tomisak (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf; also testified

Respondent Side

Terri Troy (property manager)
Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association / AS&A Property Management, Inc.
Appeared and testified on behalf of Respondent

Neutral Parties

Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate