John R. Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust
Counsel
—
Respondent
Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
Counsel
—
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition because the unredacted March 2025 check register was made available to all members via the online portal before the Petitioner filed the complaint, rendering the issue of the initially mailed redacted copy moot. The ALJ also found insufficient evidence that the error was purposeful, personal, or part of a negligent pattern.
Why this result: Mootness, insufficient evidence of willful violation.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether the association violated ARS 33-1805 by willfully withholding of association records.
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by mistakenly mailing a redacted March 2025 check register in response to a records request. Respondent contended the error was clerical and that the unredacted check register was uploaded to the community portal and available to all members within the statutory time frame or shortly thereafter. The ALJ found insufficient evidence of willful or purposeful withholding.
Orders: The petition was dismissed. Petitioner's request for subpoena with in camera review was denied. Petitioner's Motion to Order Exchange of Position Statements was denied.
Briefing Document: Krahn Living Trust vs. Tonto Forest Estates HOA (Case No. 25F-H057-REL)
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the proceedings and final decision in case number 25F-H057-REL, a dispute between the John R. Krahn Living Trust (Petitioner) and the Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute was an allegation that the Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 by providing an improperly redacted version of the March 2025 check register in response to a formal records request.
The Petitioner argued that the redaction was unjustified, targeted, and part of a larger pattern of non-compliance and bad faith by the HOA’s board. The Respondent countered that mailing the redacted document was a clerical error and that it fulfilled its statutory duty by making the complete, unredacted check register available to all members on its online portal within the 10-day legal timeframe.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately dismissed the petition. The decision found that while the Respondent had mistakenly mailed a redacted document, the subsequent posting of the unredacted version on the community portal rendered the issue moot. The ALJ concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove the Respondent’s actions were purposeful, “personal,” or part of a negligent pattern of behavior.
Case Overview
Detail
Description
Case Number
25F-H057-REL
Petitioner
John R. Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust (represented by John Khran)
Respondent
Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (represented by President Dwight A. Jolivette)
Adjudicating Body
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Core Statute
A.R.S. § 33-1805: Association financial and other records
Chronology of Key Events
• March 31, 2025: John Khran submits a written request to the HOA for the March 2025 check register and specific legal invoices from Maxwell & Morgan.
• c. April 10, 2025: The HOA responds via U.S. Mail, sending a packet that includes a partially redacted version of the March 2025 check register.
• April 14, 2025: The statutory 10-business-day deadline for the records request. The HOA asserts it uploaded the unredacted check register to its online portal on this date.
• April 14 – April 21, 2025: The ALJ’s final decision establishes that the unredacted check register was made available on the portal during this period.
• May 19, 2025: Mr. Khran files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.
• September 17, 2025: The ALJ denies the Petitioner’s request for a subpoena requiring an in camera review, deeming it unnecessary.
• September 26, 2025: The ALJ denies the Petitioner’s motion to order an exchange of position statements but allows parties to file prehearing memorandums.
• October 22, 2025: The evidentiary hearing is held. Both John Khran and Dwight Jolivette provide sworn testimony.
• November 3, 2025: The official record for the hearing closes after a period allowing for the submission of post-hearing exhibits and responses.
• November 24, 2025: ALJ Velva Moses-Thompson issues the final decision, dismissing the petition.
Petitioner’s Position and Arguments
The Petitioner, represented by John Khran, contended that the HOA willfully withheld records and acted in bad faith, violating both the letter and spirit of state law.
Core Allegation: Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805
The central claim was that the HOA failed to make records “reasonably available” by providing a version of the March 2025 check register with a blacked-out line item. Khran argued this act constituted a direct violation of the statute.
Argument 1: Improper and Targeted Redaction
• The redacted information consisted of routine financial metadata: general ledger code (5703), budget category (“Legal General”), and an invoice number (53189).
• Khran demonstrated that this information was not privileged by showing it was unredacted on other parts of the same document, in the prior month’s (February 2025) check register, and on the legal invoice itself.
• He argued the redaction served no lawful purpose and was applied specifically to his request, as evidenced by the HOA later publishing the full, unredacted version to the community portal.
• Key Quote:“This kind of inconsistent, personal and excessive reaction is not only justified, his violate the RS 331805A and respond statutory duty to treat all members fairly.”
Argument 2: Pattern of Non-Compliance and Bad Faith
• Khran asserted this was the HOA’s third violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805, citing cases 24F13 and 25FH11.
• He accused the board of adopting a “litigate every ing strategy,” escalating every complaint to the OAH rather than seeking resolution through mediation or negotiation, which he claimed caused “serious and lasting harm” to the 52-member community.
• He noted that the HOA ignored a subpoena’s explicit warning that “excessive or unjustified redactions” could be deemed bad faith.
Requested Relief
The Petitioner requested four specific orders from the court:
1. A finding that the Petitioner was the prevailing party.
2. Reimbursement of the $500 filing fee.
3. An order mandating the HOA’s future compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1805.
4. Imposition of a symbolic $1 civil penalty to deter future non-compliance and prevent the board from claiming vindication.
Respondent’s Position and Arguments
The Respondent, represented by its President Dwight Jolivette, maintained that it had complied with its statutory obligations and that the incident was an unintentional error.
Core Defense: Compliance via Portal Publication
• The HOA’s primary defense was that the unredacted March 2025 check register was made available for review by all members on the community portal on April 14, 2025, within the 10-day statutory deadline.
• Jolivette argued this action satisfied the requirement to make records “reasonably available for examination.”
• Key Quote:“Our sole question today is whether or not the board provided the March 2025 check register as requested by the petitioner under ARS 331805 for review within the 10day time frame specified by the law. Our position is we did.”
Argument 1: Clerical Error and Miscommunication
• Jolivette testified that sending the redacted check register was not intentional but was “simply a mistake caused by miscommunication.”
• He explained that both redacted and unredacted versions were prepared, and a clerk mistakenly included the redacted version in the mail packet sent to Khran. The board was unaware of the error until the complaint was filed.
Argument 2: Lack of Malicious Intent
• Jolivette argued that since the HOA publishes the check register unredacted for the entire community every month, there was no logical reason to single out Khran’s request for redaction.
• Key Quote:“Why? Why would we suddenly want to redact this stuff? We’re hoping for a little common sense here today to go along with the law.”
Argument 3: Petitioner’s Failure to Mitigate
• The Respondent pointed out that Khran, a former board member familiar with the process, did not contact the board to report the error. Had he done so, Jolivette stated, the issue would have been corrected immediately without the need for a formal hearing.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ’s final decision focused on the material facts and the legal concept of mootness, ultimately dismissing the Petitioner’s case.
Summary of Findings
1. Request and Response: The Petitioner submitted a records request on March 31, 2025. On or about April 10, 2025, the Respondent mailed copies of the requested items but “mistakenly gave Petitioner a redacted 2025 check register.”
2. Portal Publication: The Respondent uploaded an unredacted March 2025 check register to its online portal, making it available to all members, sometime between April 14, 2025, and April 21, 2025.
3. Lack of Evidence for Intent: The ALJ found “insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent purposefully neglected to mail Khran an unredacted March 2025 check register or that the failure to include the correct check register…was ‘personal.'”
4. No Pattern of Negligence: The decision also stated there was “insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent had a negligent pattern of responding to records requests in error or untimely.”
Central Legal Conclusion: Mootness
The core of the legal decision rested on the issue being moot. The ALJ determined that because the unredacted document was made available on the online portal before the Petitioner filed the complaint, the underlying issue was resolved.
• Key Quote from Decision:“It is undisputed that the unredacted March 2025 check register was uploaded to Respondent’s online portal which is available to all members before the petition was filed… Even if the unredacted check register was made available on its website after the 10-day statutory period, the issue is now moot.”
Final Order
“IT IS ORDERED that John R Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust’s petition against Respondent Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association is dismissed.”
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
John R. Krahn(petitioner) John R. Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust Appeared and testified on behalf of Petitioner
Janet Krahn(petitioner) John R. Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust
Respondent Side
Dwight A. Jolivette(HOA president) Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association Appeared and testified on behalf of Respondent
Lori P.(HOA representative) Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association Email contact for Respondent HOA
Barbara B.(HOA representative) Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association Email contact for Respondent HOA
John R. Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust
Counsel
—
Respondent
Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
Counsel
—
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition because the unredacted March 2025 check register was made available to all members via the online portal before the Petitioner filed the complaint, rendering the issue of the initially mailed redacted copy moot. The ALJ also found insufficient evidence that the error was purposeful, personal, or part of a negligent pattern.
Why this result: Mootness, insufficient evidence of willful violation.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether the association violated ARS 33-1805 by willfully withholding of association records.
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by mistakenly mailing a redacted March 2025 check register in response to a records request. Respondent contended the error was clerical and that the unredacted check register was uploaded to the community portal and available to all members within the statutory time frame or shortly thereafter. The ALJ found insufficient evidence of willful or purposeful withholding.
Orders: The petition was dismissed. Petitioner's request for subpoena with in camera review was denied. Petitioner's Motion to Order Exchange of Position Statements was denied.
Briefing Document: Krahn Living Trust vs. Tonto Forest Estates HOA (Case No. 25F-H057-REL)
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the proceedings and final decision in case number 25F-H057-REL, a dispute between the John R. Krahn Living Trust (Petitioner) and the Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute was an allegation that the Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 by providing an improperly redacted version of the March 2025 check register in response to a formal records request.
The Petitioner argued that the redaction was unjustified, targeted, and part of a larger pattern of non-compliance and bad faith by the HOA’s board. The Respondent countered that mailing the redacted document was a clerical error and that it fulfilled its statutory duty by making the complete, unredacted check register available to all members on its online portal within the 10-day legal timeframe.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately dismissed the petition. The decision found that while the Respondent had mistakenly mailed a redacted document, the subsequent posting of the unredacted version on the community portal rendered the issue moot. The ALJ concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove the Respondent’s actions were purposeful, “personal,” or part of a negligent pattern of behavior.
Case Overview
Detail
Description
Case Number
25F-H057-REL
Petitioner
John R. Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust (represented by John Khran)
Respondent
Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (represented by President Dwight A. Jolivette)
Adjudicating Body
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Core Statute
A.R.S. § 33-1805: Association financial and other records
Chronology of Key Events
• March 31, 2025: John Khran submits a written request to the HOA for the March 2025 check register and specific legal invoices from Maxwell & Morgan.
• c. April 10, 2025: The HOA responds via U.S. Mail, sending a packet that includes a partially redacted version of the March 2025 check register.
• April 14, 2025: The statutory 10-business-day deadline for the records request. The HOA asserts it uploaded the unredacted check register to its online portal on this date.
• April 14 – April 21, 2025: The ALJ’s final decision establishes that the unredacted check register was made available on the portal during this period.
• May 19, 2025: Mr. Khran files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.
• September 17, 2025: The ALJ denies the Petitioner’s request for a subpoena requiring an in camera review, deeming it unnecessary.
• September 26, 2025: The ALJ denies the Petitioner’s motion to order an exchange of position statements but allows parties to file prehearing memorandums.
• October 22, 2025: The evidentiary hearing is held. Both John Khran and Dwight Jolivette provide sworn testimony.
• November 3, 2025: The official record for the hearing closes after a period allowing for the submission of post-hearing exhibits and responses.
• November 24, 2025: ALJ Velva Moses-Thompson issues the final decision, dismissing the petition.
Petitioner’s Position and Arguments
The Petitioner, represented by John Khran, contended that the HOA willfully withheld records and acted in bad faith, violating both the letter and spirit of state law.
Core Allegation: Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805
The central claim was that the HOA failed to make records “reasonably available” by providing a version of the March 2025 check register with a blacked-out line item. Khran argued this act constituted a direct violation of the statute.
Argument 1: Improper and Targeted Redaction
• The redacted information consisted of routine financial metadata: general ledger code (5703), budget category (“Legal General”), and an invoice number (53189).
• Khran demonstrated that this information was not privileged by showing it was unredacted on other parts of the same document, in the prior month’s (February 2025) check register, and on the legal invoice itself.
• He argued the redaction served no lawful purpose and was applied specifically to his request, as evidenced by the HOA later publishing the full, unredacted version to the community portal.
• Key Quote:“This kind of inconsistent, personal and excessive reaction is not only justified, his violate the RS 331805A and respond statutory duty to treat all members fairly.”
Argument 2: Pattern of Non-Compliance and Bad Faith
• Khran asserted this was the HOA’s third violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805, citing cases 24F13 and 25FH11.
• He accused the board of adopting a “litigate every ing strategy,” escalating every complaint to the OAH rather than seeking resolution through mediation or negotiation, which he claimed caused “serious and lasting harm” to the 52-member community.
• He noted that the HOA ignored a subpoena’s explicit warning that “excessive or unjustified redactions” could be deemed bad faith.
Requested Relief
The Petitioner requested four specific orders from the court:
1. A finding that the Petitioner was the prevailing party.
2. Reimbursement of the $500 filing fee.
3. An order mandating the HOA’s future compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1805.
4. Imposition of a symbolic $1 civil penalty to deter future non-compliance and prevent the board from claiming vindication.
Respondent’s Position and Arguments
The Respondent, represented by its President Dwight Jolivette, maintained that it had complied with its statutory obligations and that the incident was an unintentional error.
Core Defense: Compliance via Portal Publication
• The HOA’s primary defense was that the unredacted March 2025 check register was made available for review by all members on the community portal on April 14, 2025, within the 10-day statutory deadline.
• Jolivette argued this action satisfied the requirement to make records “reasonably available for examination.”
• Key Quote:“Our sole question today is whether or not the board provided the March 2025 check register as requested by the petitioner under ARS 331805 for review within the 10day time frame specified by the law. Our position is we did.”
Argument 1: Clerical Error and Miscommunication
• Jolivette testified that sending the redacted check register was not intentional but was “simply a mistake caused by miscommunication.”
• He explained that both redacted and unredacted versions were prepared, and a clerk mistakenly included the redacted version in the mail packet sent to Khran. The board was unaware of the error until the complaint was filed.
Argument 2: Lack of Malicious Intent
• Jolivette argued that since the HOA publishes the check register unredacted for the entire community every month, there was no logical reason to single out Khran’s request for redaction.
• Key Quote:“Why? Why would we suddenly want to redact this stuff? We’re hoping for a little common sense here today to go along with the law.”
Argument 3: Petitioner’s Failure to Mitigate
• The Respondent pointed out that Khran, a former board member familiar with the process, did not contact the board to report the error. Had he done so, Jolivette stated, the issue would have been corrected immediately without the need for a formal hearing.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ’s final decision focused on the material facts and the legal concept of mootness, ultimately dismissing the Petitioner’s case.
Summary of Findings
1. Request and Response: The Petitioner submitted a records request on March 31, 2025. On or about April 10, 2025, the Respondent mailed copies of the requested items but “mistakenly gave Petitioner a redacted 2025 check register.”
2. Portal Publication: The Respondent uploaded an unredacted March 2025 check register to its online portal, making it available to all members, sometime between April 14, 2025, and April 21, 2025.
3. Lack of Evidence for Intent: The ALJ found “insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent purposefully neglected to mail Khran an unredacted March 2025 check register or that the failure to include the correct check register…was ‘personal.'”
4. No Pattern of Negligence: The decision also stated there was “insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent had a negligent pattern of responding to records requests in error or untimely.”
Central Legal Conclusion: Mootness
The core of the legal decision rested on the issue being moot. The ALJ determined that because the unredacted document was made available on the online portal before the Petitioner filed the complaint, the underlying issue was resolved.
• Key Quote from Decision:“It is undisputed that the unredacted March 2025 check register was uploaded to Respondent’s online portal which is available to all members before the petition was filed… Even if the unredacted check register was made available on its website after the 10-day statutory period, the issue is now moot.”
Final Order
“IT IS ORDERED that John R Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust’s petition against Respondent Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association is dismissed.”
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed Petitioner John R. Ashley's petition against Rancho Reyes II Community Association, Inc. The ALJ found that the HOA did not violate the Bylaws regarding the minimum number of directors because compliance was impossible due to lack of member interest, and the issue was subsequently moot as the board currently met the minimum requirement.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut Respondent’s claim that it actively sought a third board member. The Respondent was exonerated under the legal doctrine of impossibility of performance, and the current compliance with the three-member minimum rendered the dispute moot.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation regarding the minimum number of Board Directors
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated Article IV, Section 1 of the Bylaws by having only two Board Directors dismiss and order a redo of the 1/9/2023 Annual Membership Meeting for 3/7/2023, arguing that three directors were required to properly handle the Association’s affairs.
Orders: The petition is dismissed. Respondent was unable to comply with the Bylaws requiring three directors due to impossibility (lack of member interest) while actively seeking compliance, and the dispute is currently moot as the board now has three or more members.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. §§ 33-1801 to 33-1818
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
Garner v. Ellingson, 18 Ariz. 181, 182 (App. 1972)
Can my HOA be penalized for having fewer than the required number of board members if no one volunteers to serve?
Short Answer
Likely not. If the HOA actively seeks candidates but no one steps up, they may be exonerated due to 'impossibility of performance.'
Detailed Answer
The decision establishes that if an HOA board is understaffed (e.g., 2 members when bylaws require 3) because homeowners refuse to volunteer despite recruitment efforts, the HOA is not held liable. The legal principle of 'impossibility' applies when circumstances beyond the parties' control prevent compliance with the bylaws.
Alj Quote
It is well settled that when, due to circumstances beyond the control of the parties the performance of a contract is rendered impossible, the party failing to perform is exonerated.
Legal Basis
Contract Law Principles (Garner v. Ellingson); Bylaws Article IV, Section 1
Topic Tags
Board Composition
Impossibility Defense
Bylaws
Question
If my HOA has already fixed a violation by the time of the hearing, can I still get a ruling against them?
Short Answer
No. If the HOA comes into compliance before the decision is made, the dispute may be considered resolved and the petition dismissed.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the homeowner sued because the board had too few members. However, by the time of the hearing, a full board had been elected. The judge dismissed the petition because the violation was no longer active and compliance was not in dispute.
Alj Quote
Accordingly, because the preponderance of the evidence has shown that Respondent was unable to comply with Article IV, Section 1 of the Bylaws and compliance with Article IV, Section 1 of the Bylaws is no longer in dispute, the Petition must be dismissed.
Legal Basis
Mootness
Topic Tags
Procedural
Mootness
Dismissal
Question
Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the violation occurred.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' This means they must convince the judge that their claim is more likely true than not.
Alj Quote
Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated Article IV, Section 1 of its Bylaws, by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
Burden of Proof
Legal Standards
Hearing Procedures
Question
What counts as 'preponderance of the evidence' in an HOA dispute?
Short Answer
Evidence that makes a claim 'more probably true than not.'
Detailed Answer
It is not about the quantity of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence. It must be sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side over the other.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Arizona Law of Evidence
Topic Tags
Evidence
Legal Definitions
Question
How are HOA bylaws and restrictive covenants interpreted by the judge?
Short Answer
They are interpreted to support the intent of the parties and the underlying purpose of the document.
Detailed Answer
The judge will look at the documents as a whole rather than isolating a single sentence, ensuring that the interpretation gives effect to the intended purpose of the rules.
Alj Quote
Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.
Legal Basis
Contract Interpretation Principles (Powell v. Washburn)
Topic Tags
CC&R Interpretation
Bylaws
Question
Can an HOA board order a new election if they suspect fraud in the previous one?
Short Answer
Yes, this action was accepted in the context of this decision.
Detailed Answer
The decision notes that the community manager and board members decided to hold a new election after consulting with an attorney regarding suspected fraudulent tactics and unfair processes in the initial election.
Alj Quote
Respondent’s community manager suspected that the election was not a fair process and that certain individuals used fraudulent tactics to influence the election. After consulting with Respondent’s attorney, the community manager along with Ms. Ortega decided to hold a new election in March of 2023.
Legal Basis
Board Authority
Topic Tags
Elections
Fraud
Board Powers
Case
Docket No
23F-H058-REL
Case Title
John R. Ashley v. Rancho Reyes II Community Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-10-04
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
Office of Administrative Hearings
Agency
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Questions
Question
Can my HOA be penalized for having fewer than the required number of board members if no one volunteers to serve?
Short Answer
Likely not. If the HOA actively seeks candidates but no one steps up, they may be exonerated due to 'impossibility of performance.'
Detailed Answer
The decision establishes that if an HOA board is understaffed (e.g., 2 members when bylaws require 3) because homeowners refuse to volunteer despite recruitment efforts, the HOA is not held liable. The legal principle of 'impossibility' applies when circumstances beyond the parties' control prevent compliance with the bylaws.
Alj Quote
It is well settled that when, due to circumstances beyond the control of the parties the performance of a contract is rendered impossible, the party failing to perform is exonerated.
Legal Basis
Contract Law Principles (Garner v. Ellingson); Bylaws Article IV, Section 1
Topic Tags
Board Composition
Impossibility Defense
Bylaws
Question
If my HOA has already fixed a violation by the time of the hearing, can I still get a ruling against them?
Short Answer
No. If the HOA comes into compliance before the decision is made, the dispute may be considered resolved and the petition dismissed.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the homeowner sued because the board had too few members. However, by the time of the hearing, a full board had been elected. The judge dismissed the petition because the violation was no longer active and compliance was not in dispute.
Alj Quote
Accordingly, because the preponderance of the evidence has shown that Respondent was unable to comply with Article IV, Section 1 of the Bylaws and compliance with Article IV, Section 1 of the Bylaws is no longer in dispute, the Petition must be dismissed.
Legal Basis
Mootness
Topic Tags
Procedural
Mootness
Dismissal
Question
Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the violation occurred.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' This means they must convince the judge that their claim is more likely true than not.
Alj Quote
Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated Article IV, Section 1 of its Bylaws, by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
Burden of Proof
Legal Standards
Hearing Procedures
Question
What counts as 'preponderance of the evidence' in an HOA dispute?
Short Answer
Evidence that makes a claim 'more probably true than not.'
Detailed Answer
It is not about the quantity of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence. It must be sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side over the other.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Arizona Law of Evidence
Topic Tags
Evidence
Legal Definitions
Question
How are HOA bylaws and restrictive covenants interpreted by the judge?
Short Answer
They are interpreted to support the intent of the parties and the underlying purpose of the document.
Detailed Answer
The judge will look at the documents as a whole rather than isolating a single sentence, ensuring that the interpretation gives effect to the intended purpose of the rules.
Alj Quote
Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.
Legal Basis
Contract Interpretation Principles (Powell v. Washburn)
Topic Tags
CC&R Interpretation
Bylaws
Question
Can an HOA board order a new election if they suspect fraud in the previous one?
Short Answer
Yes, this action was accepted in the context of this decision.
Detailed Answer
The decision notes that the community manager and board members decided to hold a new election after consulting with an attorney regarding suspected fraudulent tactics and unfair processes in the initial election.
Alj Quote
Respondent’s community manager suspected that the election was not a fair process and that certain individuals used fraudulent tactics to influence the election. After consulting with Respondent’s attorney, the community manager along with Ms. Ortega decided to hold a new election in March of 2023.
Legal Basis
Board Authority
Topic Tags
Elections
Fraud
Board Powers
Case
Docket No
23F-H058-REL
Case Title
John R. Ashley v. Rancho Reyes II Community Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-10-04
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
Office of Administrative Hearings
Agency
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
John R. Ashley(petitioner) Represented himself
Rmulo Gonzalez(board member elect) Elected in March 2023 election; contested re-election procedures
James Canella(board member elect) Elected in January 2023 election; member of the community who desired to serve
Daniel Walker(board member elect) Elected in January 2023 election
Richard Springer(witness reference) Homeowner mentioned by Petitioner as willing to serve on the board
Charles Seers(witness reference) Homeowner mentioned by Petitioner as willing to serve on the board; name variations include Charles Zippers
Respondent Side
James Brewer(attorney) Tyson & Mendes, LLP Represented Respondent Rancho Reyes II Community Association
Leah M. McKeever(attorney) Tyson & Mendes, LLP
Lynn M. Allen(attorney) Tyson & Mendes, LLP
Sherry Ortega(board member) Rancho Reyes II Community Association Vice President since March 2023; President previously; testified for Respondent
Maria Ruelas(board member) Rancho Reyes II Community Association Director in 2022 until March 2023
Ronda Raal(CEO/property manager) Mission Management (Community Manager) CEO of the management company
Sammy(assistant) Mission Management (Community Manager) Assistant who helped count ballots for January 2023 election; name variations include Tammy, Cammy, Samantha
Joy(manager) Mission Management (Community Manager) Manager during January 2023 election period
Jennifer(manager) Mission Management (Community Manager) Current manager of the account
Vince(management staff) Mission Management (Community Manager) Saw ballot video footage
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Also referred to as Fala Moses Thompson
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) Recipient of official documents
VNunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) Recipient of official documents
DJones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) Recipient of official documents
Labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) Recipient of official documents
Other Participants
Cordova Sapola(board member elect) Elected in March 2023 election; unresponsive and did not attend meetings
Eugenia Francisco(elected candidate) Elected in January 2023 election but refuted candidacy; name variations include Eugene Silva
Yolanda Molina(former board member) Former Treasurer; resigned December 2021
Mario Martinez(witness reference) Adam LMC
Diane(former property manager) First manager for the HOA around 2017-2018
The Petitioner's petition alleging violations of statute and community documents was denied in its entirety. Two issues were found moot because the prohibited action had already concluded, and the other two issues failed because the Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof to establish a violation.
Why this result: Issues 2 and 3 were moot. Issues 1 and 4 failed on the merits because the evidence did not prove the HOA violated the cited statute or rule.
Key Issues & Findings
Board conducted interviews of candidates in closed executive session.
Petitioner alleged the Board improperly conducted interviews for Board vacancies in closed sessions. The Board admitted to the practice but asserted they did so to elicit personal, health, or financial information, which is a statutory exception to the open meeting law.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Discriminately penalized homeowners/members (Italian American Club).
Petitioner alleged the HOA wrongfully penalized and denied use of facilities to the Italian American Club (IAC). This issue was based on a specific one-year prohibition on facility use imposed after the IAC violated rules regarding moving furniture.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
Article V, Section C of the CC&Rs
Article IV.E.8 of the Bylaws
Ventana Lakes Rules 8.4.A
Refusal of homeowners' use of facilities without authorization by rule.
Petitioner alleged the HOA wrongfully denied the Italian American Club use of facilities following an incident where club members moved tables against HOA rules, resulting in a one-year ban on facility use.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
Article III, Section A of the CC&Rs
Article IV, Section C.23 of the CC&Rs
Article IV.E.8 of the Bylaws
Ventana Lakes Rules 8.4.A
Refusal to place written requests for Board action on the agenda.
Petitioner argued that Ventana Lakes Rule 8.3.B.1.b required the Board president to include every single written request from members on the next upcoming Board meeting agenda, which the Board had failed to do.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
Ventana Lakes Rule 8.3.B.1.b
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Open Meetings, Executive Session, Mootness, Facility Use Suspension, Agenda Setting
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Article IV, Section E of the Bylaws
Article 5, Section C of the CC&Rs
Article IV, Section C(23) of the CC&Rs
Article XII, Section B of the CC&Rs
Article III, Section A of the CC&Rs
Ventana Lake Rules 8.3.B
Ventana Lake Rules 8.4.A
A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
20F-H2020046-REL Decision – 809207.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:31:55 (157.4 KB)
Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020046-REL
Administrative Law Judge Decision: Alandar vs. Ventana Lakes POA
Executive Summary
This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision in case number 20F-H2020046-REL, involving a dispute between Petitioner Susan L. Alandar and the Ventana Lakes Property Owners’ Association (the “Respondent” or “Board”). The petition, filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleged multiple violations of state statutes and the Association’s governing documents. The ALJ ultimately denied the petition in its entirety, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence for any of her claims.
The key takeaways from the decision are as follows:
• Board Candidate Interviews: The Board’s practice of interviewing candidates for board vacancies in closed executive sessions was deemed permissible. The ALJ found that these sessions were appropriately used to elicit personal, health, or financial information relevant to a candidate’s ability to serve, which is an exception to Arizona’s open meeting law (A.R.S. § 33-1804).
• Sanctions Against a Club: The Petitioner’s challenge to a one-year ban on facility use imposed upon the Italian American Club (IAC) was dismissed as moot. Because the one-year penalty had expired before the hearing date, the ALJ concluded there was no active issue to rule on or remedy to order.
• Agenda Setting Authority: The ALJ determined that the Board president possesses broad, inherent authority in setting the agenda for Board meetings. The governing rules do not require the president to place every written request from an Association member onto the agenda for the next meeting.
• Burden of Proof: Across all issues, the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to convince the judge that her contentions were “more probably true than not.” The decision repeatedly highlights the lack of evidence to support the claims of improper conduct.
Case Overview
On February 3, 2020, Petitioner Susan L. Alandar filed a petition alleging that the Ventana Lakes Property Owners’ Association violated Arizona state law and several provisions of its own Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs), Bylaws, and Rules. After paying an additional filing fee, the Petitioner presented four distinct issues for the hearing held on June 11, 2020. The final decision was issued on July 23, 2020.
Case Detail
Information
Case Number
20F-H2020046-REL
Petitioner
Susan L. Alandar
Respondent
Ventana Lakes Property Owners’ Association
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Hearing Date
June 11, 2020
Decision Date
July 23, 2020
Final Disposition
Petitioner’s petition is denied.
Detailed Analysis of Allegations and Rulings
Issue 1: Board Candidate Interviews in Executive Session
• Allegation: The Petitioner contended that the Board of Directors violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Arizona’s open meeting law for HOAs) by interviewing candidates for Board appointments in closed executive sessions.
• Factual Background: The Respondent acknowledged that prior to June 2019, its practice was to conduct interviews, discussions, and votes to fill Board vacancies entirely within executive session, announcing the result in an open meeting. After this practice was questioned, the Board changed its procedure. Since June 2019, the Board has conducted candidate interviews in executive session specifically to “elicit private information that may impact the candidate’s ability to perform the duties of a Board member.” An example provided was a candidate who revealed his wife’s dementia diagnosis, which would take priority over Board duties. Under this revised process, the final vote on candidates is cast in an open session, and candidates also participate in an open forum where members can ask questions.
• Conclusion of Law: The ALJ found that the uncontroverted evidence showed the executive sessions were used for the purpose of discussing “personal, health, or financial information,” which is a specific exception allowed under A.R.S. § 33-1804. The decision states, “While Petitioner may believe the interviews were being conducted in executive session for nefarious purposes, no evidence was presented to establish such motives existed.” Consequently, the Petitioner failed to establish a violation.
Issues 2 & 3: Penalties and Facility Use Denial for the Italian American Club
• Allegation: The Petitioner argued that the Respondent wrongfully penalized the Italian American Club (IAC) and denied its members use of facilities, asserting that this action was discriminatory and not authorized by rule, in violation of CC&R’s Article V Section C and other community documents.
• Factual Background:
◦ In January 2018, the Board met with the IAC regarding non-compliance with rules and warned that failure to comply could result in the loss of privileges to use the Yacht Club.
◦ On April 4, 2019, an incident occurred where IAC members, after their last-minute request for more tables and chairs was denied, were observed on security cameras moving furniture from a storage area themselves. This was against Association rules, reportedly due to insurance policy limitations on volunteers moving tables.
◦ The situation escalated into a verbal altercation. Even after staff agreed to set up the requested tables, IAC members were again seen moving more furniture.
◦ On April 17, 2019, after reviewing video and audio recordings of the incident, the Board revoked the IAC’s right to use all Association facilities for a one-year period, from May 1, 2019, to April 30, 2020.
• Conclusion of Law: The ALJ found that the one-year prohibition on the IAC’s use of facilities had expired on April 30, 2020, prior to the June 11, 2020 hearing. As no evidence was presented that the revocation was still in effect, the matter was declared moot. The decision notes that even if the judge had found the revocation improper, she could not order any action because the penalty was no longer active. The ALJ did not rule on the merits of whether the Board’s action was initially justified.
Issue 4: Refusal to Place Member Items on Board Meeting Agenda
• Allegation: The Petitioner claimed the Board violated Ventana Lakes Rule 8.3.B.1.b by refusing to place homeowners’ written requests for Board action on the agenda for upcoming Board meetings. The Petitioner’s position was that the rule required the Board president to place any such item on the agenda.
• Factual Background: Both parties agreed that the Board president had received written requests from members that were not subsequently included on a meeting agenda. The Petitioner herself acknowledged during the hearing that it would be impractical for the president to include every single request if, for example, hundreds were received for a single meeting.
• Conclusion of Law: The ALJ determined that the “plain language” of the rule does not mandate that all requests must be placed on the agenda. The judge used the Petitioner’s own hypothetical concession to demonstrate that the Board president must have “inherent authority to limit the number of items to be included.” The ruling concluded that the president’s authority in setting the agenda is “broad” and that the Petitioner failed to prove a violation of the rule.
Key Referenced Authority
The decision was based on an interpretation of the following Arizona statutes and Ventana Lakes governing documents:
Document
Provision
Relevance to the Case
Arizona Revised Statutes
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Open Meetings: Allows meetings to be closed for specific reasons, including discussion of “Personal, health or financial information about an individual member.”
Article III, Section A
Easements of Enjoyment: Gives the Board the right to suspend any Resident from using Common Areas and to regulate their use through rules.
Article IV, Section C
Health, Safety and Welfare: Allows the Board to make rules restricting activities deemed a nuisance or to adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of residents.
Article V, Section C
Ventana Lakes Rules: Grants the Association power to adopt and repeal rules governing the use of Common Areas, provided they are not discriminatory or inconsistent.
Bylaws
Article IV.E.8
Board Powers: Grants the Board the power to adopt, amend, and enforce rules covering the operation and use of all property.
Ventana Lakes Rules
Rule 8.3.B
Board President Duties: States the president shall prepare agendas and “ensure that written requests for Board action…are placed on the agenda.” (Interpreted by ALJ).
Final Order
The Administrative Law Judge concluded the hearing with a definitive ruling:
“IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is denied.”
This order is binding unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.
Study Guide – 20F-H2020046-REL
Study Guide: Alandar v. Ventana Lakes Property Owners’ Association
This study guide provides a review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 20F-H2020046-REL, concerning a dispute between Petitioner Susan L. Alandar and Respondent Ventana Lakes Property Owners’ Association. The guide includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a comprehensive understanding of the case’s facts, arguments, and legal conclusions.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the information provided in the case document.
1. What were the initial steps Susan L. Alandar took to begin the HOA dispute process, and when did she file her petition?
2. What was the Ventana Lakes Board’s practice regarding interviewing candidates for Board vacancies both before and after June 2019?
3. What was the core of the dispute regarding the Italian American Club (IAC), and what specific action by the club led to the conflict on April 4, 2019?
4. What penalty did the Board of Directors impose on the Italian American Club, and for what duration?
5. Why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismiss Issues 2 and 3 (concerning the IAC) as moot?
6. What was the Petitioner’s argument regarding the Board President’s responsibility for setting the meeting agenda under Ventana Lakes Rule 8.3.B.1.b?
7. How did the Administrative Law Judge interpret the Board President’s authority and discretion in setting the agenda?
8. Which party bears the “burden of proof” in this type of hearing, and what is the standard of proof required?
9. According to Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1804, when is it permissible for a Board of Directors to hold a closed or executive session?
10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. On or about February 3, 2020, Susan L. Alandar filed a Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. She initially indicated two issues would be presented and paid a $1000.00 filing fee.
2. Prior to June 2019, the Board conducted candidate interviews, discussions, and votes in closed executive sessions. After June 2019, the Board conducted interviews in executive session to elicit private information but held the final vote in an open session.
3. The dispute centered on the IAC’s non-compliance with association rules. The conflict on April 4, 2019, was triggered when IAC members were observed on security cameras moving tables and chairs from a storage area against the instructions of the facilities manager.
4. In an executive session on April 17, 2019, the Board revoked the Italian American Club’s ability to use all of the association’s facilities. The penalty was for a period of one year, from May 1, 2019, to April 30, 2020.
5. The Judge dismissed these issues as moot because the one-year prohibition on the IAC’s use of facilities had already expired at the time of the hearing. Since the penalty was no longer in effect, the Judge could not order the Respondent to take any corrective action.
6. The Petitioner argued that Rule 8.3.B.1.b required the Board president to place any written request for Board action from an association member onto the agenda for the next meeting. She contended this was a mandatory duty, regardless of the nature or number of requests.
7. The Judge concluded that the rule’s plain language does not require every request to be placed on the agenda. Citing the impracticality of including hundreds of hypothetical requests, the Judge found that the Board President has broad, inherent authority to limit the items on the agenda.
8. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent committed the alleged violations. The required standard of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence.”
9. A.R.S. § 33-1804 allows a portion of a meeting to be closed to consider specific matters, including personal, health, or financial information about an individual member or employee of the association. The Board used this exception to justify holding candidate interviews in executive session.
10. The final order issued on July 23, 2020, was that the Petitioner’s petition is denied.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
The following questions are designed for deeper analysis and discussion. Formulate comprehensive answers based on the facts and legal reasoning presented in the decision.
1. Analyze the Board of Directors’ evolving practice for interviewing candidates for board vacancies (Issue 1). Discuss how their pre- and post-June 2019 methods relate to the specific language and exceptions outlined in A.R.S. § 33-1804.
2. Explain the legal concept of “mootness” as it was applied to the sanctions against the Italian American Club (Issues 2 and 3). Why was the Administrative Law Judge unable to rule on the propriety of the Board’s actions, and what does this imply about the timing of legal challenges in HOA disputes?
3. Compare and contrast the Petitioner’s interpretation of Ventana Lakes Rule 8.3.B.1.b with the Administrative Law Judge’s final interpretation (Issue 4). Discuss the Judge’s reasoning for concluding that the Board President has “inherent authority” to limit agenda items.
4. Define the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Using examples from at least two of the four issues raised in the petition, explain how the Petitioner failed to meet this burden of proof.
5. Based on the referenced community documents (CC&Rs and Bylaws), describe the scope of the Ventana Lakes Board of Directors’ power to regulate Common Areas, suspend resident privileges, and enforce rules. How do these documents grant authority that was relevant to the Board’s actions against the Italian American Club?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact, and issues decisions based on the evidence and applicable law. In this case, the ALJ was Tammy L. Eigenheer.
A.R.S.
Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
Bylaws
A set of rules adopted by an organization, such as an HOA, to govern its internal management and operations. Article IV, Section E of the Bylaws addresses the Board’s powers and duties.
Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions. These are legally binding rules recorded with the property deeds in a planned community, governing property use and the rights and obligations of the homeowners and the HOA.
Common Areas
Property within a planned community owned by the HOA for the common use and enjoyment of all residents, such as the Yacht Club and recreational facilities mentioned in the case.
Executive Session
A closed portion of a meeting of a deliberative body, such as an HOA board, which is not open to the general membership. A.R.S. § 33-1804 specifies the limited circumstances under which such a session can be held.
HOA (Homeowners Association)
An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. In this case, the Ventana Lakes Property Owners’ Association.
A legal term for a matter that is no longer in controversy or has become irrelevant. The ALJ declared the issues regarding the Italian American Club moot because the one-year penalty had already expired.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action or administrative proceeding. In this case, Susan L. Alandar.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in most civil cases, which requires the trier of fact (the judge) to be convinced that a contention is more probably true than not. The Petitioner had the burden to meet this standard.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed or an appeal is brought. In this case, the Ventana Lakes Property Owners’ Association.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020046-REL
Select all sources
809207.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
20F-H2020046-REL
1 source
The provided text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision concerning a dispute between Susan L. Alandar, the Petitioner, and the Ventana Lakes Property Owners’ Association, the Respondent. The Petitioner filed a Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition alleging four violations of statute and community documents by the HOA, requiring her to pay additional filing fees to pursue all four issues. The judge systematically addressed each of the four allegations, which included improper closed-door interviews for board candidates, discriminatory penalizing and facility denial against an Italian American Club, and the refusal to place all member-requested items on the board agenda. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition, finding that she failed to establish the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence, and further determined that the facilities denial issue was moot as the one-year prohibition had expired.
What were the specific allegations and outcomes across the four distinct issues presented?
How did the Administrative Law Judge interpret governing documents regarding Board authority and rules?
What legal standards and statutes primarily governed the resolution of this HOA dispute petition?
Based on 1 source
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Susan L. Alandar(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf.
The Petitioner's petition alleging violations of statute and community documents was denied in its entirety. Two issues were found moot because the prohibited action had already concluded, and the other two issues failed because the Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof to establish a violation.
Why this result: Issues 2 and 3 were moot. Issues 1 and 4 failed on the merits because the evidence did not prove the HOA violated the cited statute or rule.
Key Issues & Findings
Board conducted interviews of candidates in closed executive session.
Petitioner alleged the Board improperly conducted interviews for Board vacancies in closed sessions. The Board admitted to the practice but asserted they did so to elicit personal, health, or financial information, which is a statutory exception to the open meeting law.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Discriminately penalized homeowners/members (Italian American Club).
Petitioner alleged the HOA wrongfully penalized and denied use of facilities to the Italian American Club (IAC). This issue was based on a specific one-year prohibition on facility use imposed after the IAC violated rules regarding moving furniture.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
Article V, Section C of the CC&Rs
Article IV.E.8 of the Bylaws
Ventana Lakes Rules 8.4.A
Refusal of homeowners' use of facilities without authorization by rule.
Petitioner alleged the HOA wrongfully denied the Italian American Club use of facilities following an incident where club members moved tables against HOA rules, resulting in a one-year ban on facility use.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
Article III, Section A of the CC&Rs
Article IV, Section C.23 of the CC&Rs
Article IV.E.8 of the Bylaws
Ventana Lakes Rules 8.4.A
Refusal to place written requests for Board action on the agenda.
Petitioner argued that Ventana Lakes Rule 8.3.B.1.b required the Board president to include every single written request from members on the next upcoming Board meeting agenda, which the Board had failed to do.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
Ventana Lakes Rule 8.3.B.1.b
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Open Meetings, Executive Session, Mootness, Facility Use Suspension, Agenda Setting
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Article IV, Section E of the Bylaws
Article 5, Section C of the CC&Rs
Article IV, Section C(23) of the CC&Rs
Article XII, Section B of the CC&Rs
Article III, Section A of the CC&Rs
Ventana Lake Rules 8.3.B
Ventana Lake Rules 8.4.A
A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
20F-H2020046-REL Decision – 809207.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:59 (157.4 KB)
Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020046-REL
Administrative Law Judge Decision: Alandar vs. Ventana Lakes POA
Executive Summary
This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision in case number 20F-H2020046-REL, involving a dispute between Petitioner Susan L. Alandar and the Ventana Lakes Property Owners’ Association (the “Respondent” or “Board”). The petition, filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleged multiple violations of state statutes and the Association’s governing documents. The ALJ ultimately denied the petition in its entirety, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence for any of her claims.
The key takeaways from the decision are as follows:
• Board Candidate Interviews: The Board’s practice of interviewing candidates for board vacancies in closed executive sessions was deemed permissible. The ALJ found that these sessions were appropriately used to elicit personal, health, or financial information relevant to a candidate’s ability to serve, which is an exception to Arizona’s open meeting law (A.R.S. § 33-1804).
• Sanctions Against a Club: The Petitioner’s challenge to a one-year ban on facility use imposed upon the Italian American Club (IAC) was dismissed as moot. Because the one-year penalty had expired before the hearing date, the ALJ concluded there was no active issue to rule on or remedy to order.
• Agenda Setting Authority: The ALJ determined that the Board president possesses broad, inherent authority in setting the agenda for Board meetings. The governing rules do not require the president to place every written request from an Association member onto the agenda for the next meeting.
• Burden of Proof: Across all issues, the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to convince the judge that her contentions were “more probably true than not.” The decision repeatedly highlights the lack of evidence to support the claims of improper conduct.
Case Overview
On February 3, 2020, Petitioner Susan L. Alandar filed a petition alleging that the Ventana Lakes Property Owners’ Association violated Arizona state law and several provisions of its own Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs), Bylaws, and Rules. After paying an additional filing fee, the Petitioner presented four distinct issues for the hearing held on June 11, 2020. The final decision was issued on July 23, 2020.
Case Detail
Information
Case Number
20F-H2020046-REL
Petitioner
Susan L. Alandar
Respondent
Ventana Lakes Property Owners’ Association
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Hearing Date
June 11, 2020
Decision Date
July 23, 2020
Final Disposition
Petitioner’s petition is denied.
Detailed Analysis of Allegations and Rulings
Issue 1: Board Candidate Interviews in Executive Session
• Allegation: The Petitioner contended that the Board of Directors violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Arizona’s open meeting law for HOAs) by interviewing candidates for Board appointments in closed executive sessions.
• Factual Background: The Respondent acknowledged that prior to June 2019, its practice was to conduct interviews, discussions, and votes to fill Board vacancies entirely within executive session, announcing the result in an open meeting. After this practice was questioned, the Board changed its procedure. Since June 2019, the Board has conducted candidate interviews in executive session specifically to “elicit private information that may impact the candidate’s ability to perform the duties of a Board member.” An example provided was a candidate who revealed his wife’s dementia diagnosis, which would take priority over Board duties. Under this revised process, the final vote on candidates is cast in an open session, and candidates also participate in an open forum where members can ask questions.
• Conclusion of Law: The ALJ found that the uncontroverted evidence showed the executive sessions were used for the purpose of discussing “personal, health, or financial information,” which is a specific exception allowed under A.R.S. § 33-1804. The decision states, “While Petitioner may believe the interviews were being conducted in executive session for nefarious purposes, no evidence was presented to establish such motives existed.” Consequently, the Petitioner failed to establish a violation.
Issues 2 & 3: Penalties and Facility Use Denial for the Italian American Club
• Allegation: The Petitioner argued that the Respondent wrongfully penalized the Italian American Club (IAC) and denied its members use of facilities, asserting that this action was discriminatory and not authorized by rule, in violation of CC&R’s Article V Section C and other community documents.
• Factual Background:
◦ In January 2018, the Board met with the IAC regarding non-compliance with rules and warned that failure to comply could result in the loss of privileges to use the Yacht Club.
◦ On April 4, 2019, an incident occurred where IAC members, after their last-minute request for more tables and chairs was denied, were observed on security cameras moving furniture from a storage area themselves. This was against Association rules, reportedly due to insurance policy limitations on volunteers moving tables.
◦ The situation escalated into a verbal altercation. Even after staff agreed to set up the requested tables, IAC members were again seen moving more furniture.
◦ On April 17, 2019, after reviewing video and audio recordings of the incident, the Board revoked the IAC’s right to use all Association facilities for a one-year period, from May 1, 2019, to April 30, 2020.
• Conclusion of Law: The ALJ found that the one-year prohibition on the IAC’s use of facilities had expired on April 30, 2020, prior to the June 11, 2020 hearing. As no evidence was presented that the revocation was still in effect, the matter was declared moot. The decision notes that even if the judge had found the revocation improper, she could not order any action because the penalty was no longer active. The ALJ did not rule on the merits of whether the Board’s action was initially justified.
Issue 4: Refusal to Place Member Items on Board Meeting Agenda
• Allegation: The Petitioner claimed the Board violated Ventana Lakes Rule 8.3.B.1.b by refusing to place homeowners’ written requests for Board action on the agenda for upcoming Board meetings. The Petitioner’s position was that the rule required the Board president to place any such item on the agenda.
• Factual Background: Both parties agreed that the Board president had received written requests from members that were not subsequently included on a meeting agenda. The Petitioner herself acknowledged during the hearing that it would be impractical for the president to include every single request if, for example, hundreds were received for a single meeting.
• Conclusion of Law: The ALJ determined that the “plain language” of the rule does not mandate that all requests must be placed on the agenda. The judge used the Petitioner’s own hypothetical concession to demonstrate that the Board president must have “inherent authority to limit the number of items to be included.” The ruling concluded that the president’s authority in setting the agenda is “broad” and that the Petitioner failed to prove a violation of the rule.
Key Referenced Authority
The decision was based on an interpretation of the following Arizona statutes and Ventana Lakes governing documents:
Document
Provision
Relevance to the Case
Arizona Revised Statutes
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Open Meetings: Allows meetings to be closed for specific reasons, including discussion of “Personal, health or financial information about an individual member.”
Article III, Section A
Easements of Enjoyment: Gives the Board the right to suspend any Resident from using Common Areas and to regulate their use through rules.
Article IV, Section C
Health, Safety and Welfare: Allows the Board to make rules restricting activities deemed a nuisance or to adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of residents.
Article V, Section C
Ventana Lakes Rules: Grants the Association power to adopt and repeal rules governing the use of Common Areas, provided they are not discriminatory or inconsistent.
Bylaws
Article IV.E.8
Board Powers: Grants the Board the power to adopt, amend, and enforce rules covering the operation and use of all property.
Ventana Lakes Rules
Rule 8.3.B
Board President Duties: States the president shall prepare agendas and “ensure that written requests for Board action…are placed on the agenda.” (Interpreted by ALJ).
Final Order
The Administrative Law Judge concluded the hearing with a definitive ruling:
“IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is denied.”
This order is binding unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.
Study Guide – 20F-H2020046-REL
Study Guide: Alandar v. Ventana Lakes Property Owners’ Association
This study guide provides a review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 20F-H2020046-REL, concerning a dispute between Petitioner Susan L. Alandar and Respondent Ventana Lakes Property Owners’ Association. The guide includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a comprehensive understanding of the case’s facts, arguments, and legal conclusions.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the information provided in the case document.
1. What were the initial steps Susan L. Alandar took to begin the HOA dispute process, and when did she file her petition?
2. What was the Ventana Lakes Board’s practice regarding interviewing candidates for Board vacancies both before and after June 2019?
3. What was the core of the dispute regarding the Italian American Club (IAC), and what specific action by the club led to the conflict on April 4, 2019?
4. What penalty did the Board of Directors impose on the Italian American Club, and for what duration?
5. Why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismiss Issues 2 and 3 (concerning the IAC) as moot?
6. What was the Petitioner’s argument regarding the Board President’s responsibility for setting the meeting agenda under Ventana Lakes Rule 8.3.B.1.b?
7. How did the Administrative Law Judge interpret the Board President’s authority and discretion in setting the agenda?
8. Which party bears the “burden of proof” in this type of hearing, and what is the standard of proof required?
9. According to Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1804, when is it permissible for a Board of Directors to hold a closed or executive session?
10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. On or about February 3, 2020, Susan L. Alandar filed a Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. She initially indicated two issues would be presented and paid a $1000.00 filing fee.
2. Prior to June 2019, the Board conducted candidate interviews, discussions, and votes in closed executive sessions. After June 2019, the Board conducted interviews in executive session to elicit private information but held the final vote in an open session.
3. The dispute centered on the IAC’s non-compliance with association rules. The conflict on April 4, 2019, was triggered when IAC members were observed on security cameras moving tables and chairs from a storage area against the instructions of the facilities manager.
4. In an executive session on April 17, 2019, the Board revoked the Italian American Club’s ability to use all of the association’s facilities. The penalty was for a period of one year, from May 1, 2019, to April 30, 2020.
5. The Judge dismissed these issues as moot because the one-year prohibition on the IAC’s use of facilities had already expired at the time of the hearing. Since the penalty was no longer in effect, the Judge could not order the Respondent to take any corrective action.
6. The Petitioner argued that Rule 8.3.B.1.b required the Board president to place any written request for Board action from an association member onto the agenda for the next meeting. She contended this was a mandatory duty, regardless of the nature or number of requests.
7. The Judge concluded that the rule’s plain language does not require every request to be placed on the agenda. Citing the impracticality of including hundreds of hypothetical requests, the Judge found that the Board President has broad, inherent authority to limit the items on the agenda.
8. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent committed the alleged violations. The required standard of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence.”
9. A.R.S. § 33-1804 allows a portion of a meeting to be closed to consider specific matters, including personal, health, or financial information about an individual member or employee of the association. The Board used this exception to justify holding candidate interviews in executive session.
10. The final order issued on July 23, 2020, was that the Petitioner’s petition is denied.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
The following questions are designed for deeper analysis and discussion. Formulate comprehensive answers based on the facts and legal reasoning presented in the decision.
1. Analyze the Board of Directors’ evolving practice for interviewing candidates for board vacancies (Issue 1). Discuss how their pre- and post-June 2019 methods relate to the specific language and exceptions outlined in A.R.S. § 33-1804.
2. Explain the legal concept of “mootness” as it was applied to the sanctions against the Italian American Club (Issues 2 and 3). Why was the Administrative Law Judge unable to rule on the propriety of the Board’s actions, and what does this imply about the timing of legal challenges in HOA disputes?
3. Compare and contrast the Petitioner’s interpretation of Ventana Lakes Rule 8.3.B.1.b with the Administrative Law Judge’s final interpretation (Issue 4). Discuss the Judge’s reasoning for concluding that the Board President has “inherent authority” to limit agenda items.
4. Define the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Using examples from at least two of the four issues raised in the petition, explain how the Petitioner failed to meet this burden of proof.
5. Based on the referenced community documents (CC&Rs and Bylaws), describe the scope of the Ventana Lakes Board of Directors’ power to regulate Common Areas, suspend resident privileges, and enforce rules. How do these documents grant authority that was relevant to the Board’s actions against the Italian American Club?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact, and issues decisions based on the evidence and applicable law. In this case, the ALJ was Tammy L. Eigenheer.
A.R.S.
Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
Bylaws
A set of rules adopted by an organization, such as an HOA, to govern its internal management and operations. Article IV, Section E of the Bylaws addresses the Board’s powers and duties.
Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions. These are legally binding rules recorded with the property deeds in a planned community, governing property use and the rights and obligations of the homeowners and the HOA.
Common Areas
Property within a planned community owned by the HOA for the common use and enjoyment of all residents, such as the Yacht Club and recreational facilities mentioned in the case.
Executive Session
A closed portion of a meeting of a deliberative body, such as an HOA board, which is not open to the general membership. A.R.S. § 33-1804 specifies the limited circumstances under which such a session can be held.
HOA (Homeowners Association)
An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. In this case, the Ventana Lakes Property Owners’ Association.
A legal term for a matter that is no longer in controversy or has become irrelevant. The ALJ declared the issues regarding the Italian American Club moot because the one-year penalty had already expired.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action or administrative proceeding. In this case, Susan L. Alandar.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in most civil cases, which requires the trier of fact (the judge) to be convinced that a contention is more probably true than not. The Petitioner had the burden to meet this standard.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed or an appeal is brought. In this case, the Ventana Lakes Property Owners’ Association.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020046-REL
Select all sources
809207.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
20F-H2020046-REL
1 source
The provided text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision concerning a dispute between Susan L. Alandar, the Petitioner, and the Ventana Lakes Property Owners’ Association, the Respondent. The Petitioner filed a Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition alleging four violations of statute and community documents by the HOA, requiring her to pay additional filing fees to pursue all four issues. The judge systematically addressed each of the four allegations, which included improper closed-door interviews for board candidates, discriminatory penalizing and facility denial against an Italian American Club, and the refusal to place all member-requested items on the board agenda. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition, finding that she failed to establish the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence, and further determined that the facilities denial issue was moot as the one-year prohibition had expired.
What were the specific allegations and outcomes across the four distinct issues presented?
How did the Administrative Law Judge interpret governing documents regarding Board authority and rules?
What legal standards and statutes primarily governed the resolution of this HOA dispute petition?
Based on 1 source
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Susan L. Alandar(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf.
The Petitioner's petition alleging violations of the HOA's CC&Rs and A.R.S. § 33-1803 was denied because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The HOA had acknowledged its error regarding the palm trees, issued an apology, and expunged the record, thereby resolving the substantive dispute and making the remaining allegations moot.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent violated governing documents or statute when the Respondent had already resolved the underlying issue by apology and expungement, and no financial penalties were assessed.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Governing Documents and Planned Community Statute
Petitioner filed a two-issue petition alleging Respondent violated CC&Rs and A.R.S. § 33-1803 by fraudulently sending a courtesy notice regarding unapproved palm trees and subsequently deceiving Petitioner, despite the underlying tree issue being resolved and expunged.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
Title 33, Chapter 16.1
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)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA dispute, Planned Community Statute, CC&Rs violation, Expungement of record, Mootness
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
Title 33, Chapter 16.1
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)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
19F-H1919069-REL Decision – 740332.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:29:41 (85.6 KB)
Briefing Doc – 19F-H1919069-REL
Briefing Document: Gregory v. Four Seasons at the Manor HOA (Case No. 19F-H1919069-REL)
Executive Summary
This document provides an analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in Case No. 19F-H1919069-REL, concerning a petition filed by homeowner Dennis Gregory against the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association (HOA). The petition was ultimately denied.
The dispute originated from an incorrect violation notice sent by the HOA on July 13, 2018, regarding palm trees on the Petitioner’s property. The HOA subsequently discovered its error, recognizing the trees were on its “Recommended Plant List.” Consequently, the HOA issued a formal apology to the Petitioner on August 16, 2018, and expunged the violation notice from all records. No fines or penalties were ever imposed.
Despite the resolution, the Petitioner filed a formal dispute petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on May 24, 2019. He alleged the initial notice was fraudulent and that an employee of the HOA’s management company had lied and threatened him. The Administrative Law Judge, Antara Nath Rivera, concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The Judge determined that the HOA’s prompt corrective actions—issuing an apology, retracting the notice, and imposing no fines—rendered the issue moot.
Case Overview
The hearing addressed a petition filed by Dennis Gregory alleging that the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Arizona state law.
Case Detail
Information
Case Number
19F-H1919069-REL
Petitioner
Dennis J Gregory
Respondent
Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association
Presiding Judge
Antara Nath Rivera, Administrative Law Judge
Hearing Date
September 4, 2019
Decision Date
September 24, 2019
Chronology of Events
• July 13, 2018: The HOA sends a courtesy notice to Dennis Gregory requesting the removal of palm trees, citing a violation of the CC&Rs.
• Post-July 13, 2018: Gregory disputes the violation. Upon review, the HOA discovers the palm trees are on its “Recommended Plant List” and therefore permissible.
• August 16, 2018: The HOA sends Gregory a letter of apology via both email and postal mail, deeming the violation notice invalid.
• May 24, 2019: Gregory files a two-issue Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• June 28, 2019: The HOA files its formal answer to the petition.
• September 4, 2019: An administrative hearing is conducted, with testimony from Gregory and Marc Vasquez, Vice President of the HOA’s management company.
• September 24, 2019: The Administrative Law Judge issues a decision denying the petition.
Petitioner’s Allegations and Testimony
Dennis Gregory filed the petition after the palm tree issue was resolved because he was upset with the HOA’s handling of the matter. His testimony and allegations included:
• Primary Motivation: He believed the HOA “fraudulently sent the courtesy letter.”
• Allegations of Deception:
◦ The HOA lied about the Board members discussing the palm tree issue prior to sending the notice.
◦ Annette McCraw of Trestle Management Group lied to him about speaking with the board.
◦ The HOA deceptively changed the CC&Rs regarding the names of permitted trees.
◦ The HOA failed to disclose the identity of the individual who falsely claimed his palm trees were poisonous.
• Allegations of Misconduct: He stated that Annette McCraw had threatened him with a lawyer.
• Legal Claim: He opined that these actions constituted a violation of the community’s CC&Rs (specifically 8.1.7) and Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-1803.
• Acknowledged Facts: During his testimony, Gregory confirmed that the HOA never imposed any fines and that he received the apology letter issued on August 16, 2018.
Respondent’s Position and Actions
The HOA, represented by Marc Vasquez of Trestle Management Group, maintained that it had taken all necessary steps to rectify its initial error.
• Admission of Error: The Respondent acknowledged that the initial violation notice was sent in error.
• Corrective Measures:
◦ It issued a formal apology letter once the mistake was identified.
◦ The courtesy letter was “removed and expunged” from both the Respondent’s and Petitioner’s records to preserve the Petitioner’s good standing.
◦ Marc Vasquez personally apologized to Gregory at a board meeting.
• No Penalties: The Respondent confirmed that no fines or sanctions were ever imposed on the Petitioner.
• Personnel Status: Vasquez testified that Annette McCraw, the employee accused of misconduct by the Petitioner, was no longer employed by Trestle Management Group.
Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions and Order
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Reasoning
1. Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving that the HOA violated its CC&Rs and state statutes. The standard of proof required was a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning evidence sufficient to convince a trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.
2. Failure to Meet Burden: The Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet this standard. This conclusion was based on several key facts established during the hearing:
◦ The Petitioner himself acknowledged that he was never financially penalized.
◦ The Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the HOA’s apology letter.
◦ Evidence showed the palm trees were, in fact, compliant with HOA rules.
◦ The violation notice was officially “removed and expunged” from all records.
3. Mootness of the Issue: The decision states, “the preponderance of the evidence showed Respondent did not violate any rules or regulations that would facilitate any orders or sanctions once it issued the apology letter, thus making the issue moot.” The HOA’s corrective actions effectively nullified the original dispute before it escalated to the point of requiring legal sanctions.
Final Order
“IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied.”
The decision also included a notice that the order is binding unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order, pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09.
Study Guide – 19F-H1919069-REL
Study Guide: Gregory v. Four Seasons at the Manor HOA
This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case No. 19F-H1919069-REL, concerning Dennis J Gregory and the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association. It includes short-answer questions with an answer key, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found within the legal decision.
Quiz: Short-Answer Questions
Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, using only information found in the case decision.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in this administrative hearing, and what were their roles?
2. What was the initial action by the Homeowners Association that triggered the dispute with the Petitioner?
3. What specific violations did the Petitioner, Dennis Gregory, allege in his Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition?
4. How did the Respondent discover its error regarding the Petitioner’s palm trees?
5. What two specific actions did the Respondent take to rectify its error before the hearing took place?
6. Why did the Petitioner proceed with the hearing even after the Respondent retracted the violation notice and apologized?
7. Who was Annette McCraw, and what specific actions did the Petitioner accuse her of taking?
8. What is the “preponderance of the evidence,” and what was its significance in the judge’s decision?
9. According to the judge’s findings, why was the central issue of the dispute considered moot?
10. What was the final Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Dennis J Gregory, the homeowner, who served as the Petitioner, and the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association, which was the Respondent. Marc Vasquez, vice president of Trestle Management Group, appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
2. The dispute was triggered when the Respondent, on July 13, 2018, sent the Petitioner a courtesy notice requesting the removal of palm trees from his front yard. The notice claimed the trees were a violation of the association’s CC&Rs.
3. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated section 8.1.7 of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and the Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1803.
4. After the Petitioner disputed the violation, the Respondent conducted a further review. Through this review, the Respondent discovered that the palm trees on the Petitioner’s property were actually listed on the “Recommended Plant List” and were therefore acceptable.
5. First, the Respondent issued a courtesy letter to the Petitioner on August 16, 2018, apologizing for the misunderstanding. Second, the Respondent deemed the original violation notice invalid and had it “removed and expunged” from both its own and the Petitioner’s records to preserve his good standing.
6. The Petitioner proceeded with the hearing because he was upset and believed the Respondent had acted fraudulently. He alleged the Respondent lied about discussing the issue with board members, deceptively changed the CC&Rs, and failed to disclose who made the initial complaint.
7. Annette McCraw was an employee of Trestle Management Group, the Respondent’s management company. The Petitioner accused her of lying about speaking with board members regarding the palm tree issue and threatening him with a lawyer.
8. “Preponderance of the evidence” is the standard of proof required, defined as evidence convincing the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. Its significance is that the Petitioner bore this burden of proof and ultimately failed to meet it, leading to the denial of his petition.
9. The issue was considered moot because the Respondent had already issued an apology letter and rescinded the violation notice before the hearing occurred. Since the Petitioner was never fined, the palm trees were deemed acceptable, and the notice was expunged, there was no longer an active controversy for the court to resolve.
10. The final Order, issued on September 24, 2019, was that the Petitioner’s petition is denied. The Order was binding unless a rehearing was requested within 30 days.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Construct detailed responses to the following prompts, drawing evidence and arguments exclusively from the provided legal decision.
1. Analyze the concept of a “moot” issue as it applies to this case. How did the Respondent’s actions before the hearing render the Petitioner’s primary complaint moot in the eyes of the law, despite the Petitioner’s ongoing grievances?
2. Discuss the burden of proof in this administrative hearing. Explain the “preponderance of the evidence” standard as defined in the document and detail the specific reasons why the Administrative Law Judge concluded that Dennis Gregory failed to meet this burden.
3. Examine the roles and conduct of the management company, Trestle Management Group, and its employee, Annette McCraw. Based on the testimony presented, what specific actions escalated the conflict even after the initial landscaping error was identified and corrected?
4. Trace the timeline of events from the initial “courtesy notice” of July 13, 2018, to the final Order of September 24, 2019. Identify the key turning points and decisions made by both the Petitioner and the Respondent that influenced the outcome of the case.
5. Although the Petitioner lost the case, he raised several allegations beyond the palm trees, including fraud, deception, and threats. Using only the evidence presented in the decision, construct the argument that Dennis Gregory was attempting to make regarding why these subsequent actions constituted a violation of the planned community statute, even if the original tree issue was resolved.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over the administrative hearing and issues a decision. In this case, the ALJ was Antara Nath Rivera.
Answer
The Respondent’s formal written response to the Petition, filed in this case on June 28, 2019.
A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)
The collection of laws for the state of Arizona. The decision cites A.R.S. § 33-1803, which authorizes HOAs to enforce CC&Rs, and statutes governing the hearing and rehearing process.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party to establish its claims by a required degree of evidence. In this hearing, the Petitioner had the burden of proof.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The governing documents that establish the rules for a planned community. The Petitioner alleged a violation of section 8.1.7 of the Respondent’s CC&Rs.
Department
The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency with which the Petition was filed and which has jurisdiction over such disputes.
Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition (Petition)
The formal document filed by a homeowner to initiate a hearing with the Department concerning alleged violations by their homeowners association.
A legal term for a situation where the underlying issue has been resolved, making any ruling on the matter unnecessary. The judge found the case moot because the Respondent had already issued an apology and rescinded the violation notice.
The final and binding decision issued by the Administrative Law Judge. In this case, the Order was to deny the Petitioner’s petition.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action or hearing. In this case, the Petitioner was homeowner Dennis J Gregory.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed and who is required to respond. In this case, the Respondent was the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association.
Trestle Management Group, LLC
The management company employed by the Respondent HOA to handle its operations.
Blog Post – 19F-H1919069-REL
An HOA Admitted It Was Wrong. The Homeowner Sued Anyway—And Lost. Here Are the Surprising Reasons Why.
Introduction: The Familiar Dread of an HOA Letter
For many homeowners, few things cause a spike of anxiety quite like a formal notice from their Homeowners Association (HOA). That crisp envelope often contains a violation notice, sparking a frustrating process of proving compliance or making unwanted changes. But what happens when you prove the HOA was completely wrong, they admit their mistake, and issue a full apology? For most, that’s the end of the story—a clear victory.
This, however, is the story of a homeowner who achieved that victory and then decided to take the HOA to a formal hearing anyway. He had been proven right, the violation was erased, and no fines were ever issued. Yet, he pursued the case and ultimately lost.
How could someone who was proven right end up losing their case? The answer reveals a critical distinction between winning an argument and winning in a court of law.
1. You Can Win the Argument, But Still Lose the Case
The initial dispute was straightforward. The homeowner, Dennis Gregory, received a courtesy notice from his HOA requesting the removal of palm trees from his front yard, which were alleged to be in violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
Mr. Gregory disputed the violation. In response, the HOA conducted a further review and made a critical discovery: the palm trees on the property were, in fact, listed on the HOA’s own “Recommended Plant List” and were perfectly acceptable. The HOA had made a mistake. Here, however, the story takes a surprising turn. Mr. Gregory filed his formal petition for a hearing after the HOA had already admitted its error, apologized, and confirmed the issue was resolved.
This sequence of events is the crucial detail of the case. The legal dispute wasn’t about the palm trees—that argument was already won. The case was about the actions taken after the HOA’s error was acknowledged and corrected.
2. A Proactive Apology Can Be a Powerful Legal Shield
Once the HOA realized its mistake, it took several decisive steps to remedy the situation. According to the Administrative Law Judge’s findings, the HOA and its management company:
• Sent a formal apology letter to the homeowner.
• Confirmed the original courtesy notice was “deemed invalid.”
• “Removed and expunged” the violation from the homeowner’s records to preserve his good standing.
• Never issued any fines or financial penalties.
• Took action regarding personnel, as the employee who the homeowner accused of making threats was no longer with the management company by the time of the hearing.
These corrective actions had a profound legal impact. The judge found that because the HOA had already reversed its initial notice, apologized, cleared the homeowner’s record, and addressed the personnel issue, there was no longer an active dispute to rule on. The issue was considered “moot.”
This conclusion was emphasized in the judge’s final decision:
Furthermore, the preponderance of the evidence showed Respondent did not violate any rules or regulations that would facilitate any orders or sanctions once it issued the apology letter, thus making the issue moot.
3. The Law Requires Proof, Not Just Principle
The homeowner’s petition wasn’t just about the palm trees. He testified that he proceeded with the case because he felt he had been wronged by an HOA management employee during the dispute. His petition alleged the HOA had “fraudulently sent the courtesy letter,” lied about discussing the issue with board members, and even “threatened him with a lawyer.” He wasn’t just seeking to correct the record on his landscaping; he was fighting on a matter of principle.
To win his case, however, the homeowner had to meet a specific legal standard: proving his claims by “a preponderance of the evidence.” In simple terms, this means showing that his version of events was more likely to be true than not.
Ultimately, the judge concluded that the homeowner “failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent violated the CC&Rs.” This outcome highlights a crucial legal reality: tangible, documented evidence—such as a formal apology letter and an expunged record—often carries more evidentiary weight than a homeowner’s testimony about verbal statements, which can be viewed as a ‘he said, she said’ dispute without additional proof. While the homeowner may have genuinely felt wronged, his feelings could not overcome the HOA’s documented resolution.
Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale for Homeowners and HOAs
The outcome of this dispute offers a powerful lesson for both homeowners and association boards. It demonstrates three core takeaways: a dispute isn’t over until it’s legally resolved, a swift and comprehensive apology can be an effective legal defense, and a deeply felt principle must still be backed by sufficient evidence to prevail in a formal hearing.
This case serves as a fascinating reminder of the complexities of community disputes, leaving us with a final question: At what point does the fight for principle risk overshadowing a practical victory?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Dennis J Gregory(petitioner) Appeared and testified on own behalf
Respondent Side
Marc Vasquez(attorney) Trestle Management Group Appeared for Respondent; testified as vice president of Trestle
Annette McCraw(property manager) Trestle Management Group, LLC Issued letter on behalf of Respondent; no longer with Trestle
James A. Baska(management representative) Trestle Management Group Recipient of decision transmission
Neutral Parties
Antara Nath Rivera(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Addressed in transmission of decision
The Petitioner's petition alleging violations of the HOA's CC&Rs and A.R.S. § 33-1803 was denied because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The HOA had acknowledged its error regarding the palm trees, issued an apology, and expunged the record, thereby resolving the substantive dispute and making the remaining allegations moot.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent violated governing documents or statute when the Respondent had already resolved the underlying issue by apology and expungement, and no financial penalties were assessed.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Governing Documents and Planned Community Statute
Petitioner filed a two-issue petition alleging Respondent violated CC&Rs and A.R.S. § 33-1803 by fraudulently sending a courtesy notice regarding unapproved palm trees and subsequently deceiving Petitioner, despite the underlying tree issue being resolved and expunged.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
Title 33, Chapter 16.1
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)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA dispute, Planned Community Statute, CC&Rs violation, Expungement of record, Mootness
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
Title 33, Chapter 16.1
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)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
19F-H1919069-REL Decision – 740332.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:21 (85.6 KB)
Briefing Doc – 19F-H1919069-REL
Briefing Document: Gregory v. Four Seasons at the Manor HOA (Case No. 19F-H1919069-REL)
Executive Summary
This document provides an analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in Case No. 19F-H1919069-REL, concerning a petition filed by homeowner Dennis Gregory against the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association (HOA). The petition was ultimately denied.
The dispute originated from an incorrect violation notice sent by the HOA on July 13, 2018, regarding palm trees on the Petitioner’s property. The HOA subsequently discovered its error, recognizing the trees were on its “Recommended Plant List.” Consequently, the HOA issued a formal apology to the Petitioner on August 16, 2018, and expunged the violation notice from all records. No fines or penalties were ever imposed.
Despite the resolution, the Petitioner filed a formal dispute petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on May 24, 2019. He alleged the initial notice was fraudulent and that an employee of the HOA’s management company had lied and threatened him. The Administrative Law Judge, Antara Nath Rivera, concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The Judge determined that the HOA’s prompt corrective actions—issuing an apology, retracting the notice, and imposing no fines—rendered the issue moot.
Case Overview
The hearing addressed a petition filed by Dennis Gregory alleging that the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Arizona state law.
Case Detail
Information
Case Number
19F-H1919069-REL
Petitioner
Dennis J Gregory
Respondent
Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association
Presiding Judge
Antara Nath Rivera, Administrative Law Judge
Hearing Date
September 4, 2019
Decision Date
September 24, 2019
Chronology of Events
• July 13, 2018: The HOA sends a courtesy notice to Dennis Gregory requesting the removal of palm trees, citing a violation of the CC&Rs.
• Post-July 13, 2018: Gregory disputes the violation. Upon review, the HOA discovers the palm trees are on its “Recommended Plant List” and therefore permissible.
• August 16, 2018: The HOA sends Gregory a letter of apology via both email and postal mail, deeming the violation notice invalid.
• May 24, 2019: Gregory files a two-issue Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• June 28, 2019: The HOA files its formal answer to the petition.
• September 4, 2019: An administrative hearing is conducted, with testimony from Gregory and Marc Vasquez, Vice President of the HOA’s management company.
• September 24, 2019: The Administrative Law Judge issues a decision denying the petition.
Petitioner’s Allegations and Testimony
Dennis Gregory filed the petition after the palm tree issue was resolved because he was upset with the HOA’s handling of the matter. His testimony and allegations included:
• Primary Motivation: He believed the HOA “fraudulently sent the courtesy letter.”
• Allegations of Deception:
◦ The HOA lied about the Board members discussing the palm tree issue prior to sending the notice.
◦ Annette McCraw of Trestle Management Group lied to him about speaking with the board.
◦ The HOA deceptively changed the CC&Rs regarding the names of permitted trees.
◦ The HOA failed to disclose the identity of the individual who falsely claimed his palm trees were poisonous.
• Allegations of Misconduct: He stated that Annette McCraw had threatened him with a lawyer.
• Legal Claim: He opined that these actions constituted a violation of the community’s CC&Rs (specifically 8.1.7) and Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-1803.
• Acknowledged Facts: During his testimony, Gregory confirmed that the HOA never imposed any fines and that he received the apology letter issued on August 16, 2018.
Respondent’s Position and Actions
The HOA, represented by Marc Vasquez of Trestle Management Group, maintained that it had taken all necessary steps to rectify its initial error.
• Admission of Error: The Respondent acknowledged that the initial violation notice was sent in error.
• Corrective Measures:
◦ It issued a formal apology letter once the mistake was identified.
◦ The courtesy letter was “removed and expunged” from both the Respondent’s and Petitioner’s records to preserve the Petitioner’s good standing.
◦ Marc Vasquez personally apologized to Gregory at a board meeting.
• No Penalties: The Respondent confirmed that no fines or sanctions were ever imposed on the Petitioner.
• Personnel Status: Vasquez testified that Annette McCraw, the employee accused of misconduct by the Petitioner, was no longer employed by Trestle Management Group.
Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions and Order
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Reasoning
1. Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving that the HOA violated its CC&Rs and state statutes. The standard of proof required was a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning evidence sufficient to convince a trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.
2. Failure to Meet Burden: The Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet this standard. This conclusion was based on several key facts established during the hearing:
◦ The Petitioner himself acknowledged that he was never financially penalized.
◦ The Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the HOA’s apology letter.
◦ Evidence showed the palm trees were, in fact, compliant with HOA rules.
◦ The violation notice was officially “removed and expunged” from all records.
3. Mootness of the Issue: The decision states, “the preponderance of the evidence showed Respondent did not violate any rules or regulations that would facilitate any orders or sanctions once it issued the apology letter, thus making the issue moot.” The HOA’s corrective actions effectively nullified the original dispute before it escalated to the point of requiring legal sanctions.
Final Order
“IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied.”
The decision also included a notice that the order is binding unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order, pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09.
Study Guide – 19F-H1919069-REL
Study Guide: Gregory v. Four Seasons at the Manor HOA
This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case No. 19F-H1919069-REL, concerning Dennis J Gregory and the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association. It includes short-answer questions with an answer key, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found within the legal decision.
Quiz: Short-Answer Questions
Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, using only information found in the case decision.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in this administrative hearing, and what were their roles?
2. What was the initial action by the Homeowners Association that triggered the dispute with the Petitioner?
3. What specific violations did the Petitioner, Dennis Gregory, allege in his Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition?
4. How did the Respondent discover its error regarding the Petitioner’s palm trees?
5. What two specific actions did the Respondent take to rectify its error before the hearing took place?
6. Why did the Petitioner proceed with the hearing even after the Respondent retracted the violation notice and apologized?
7. Who was Annette McCraw, and what specific actions did the Petitioner accuse her of taking?
8. What is the “preponderance of the evidence,” and what was its significance in the judge’s decision?
9. According to the judge’s findings, why was the central issue of the dispute considered moot?
10. What was the final Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Dennis J Gregory, the homeowner, who served as the Petitioner, and the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association, which was the Respondent. Marc Vasquez, vice president of Trestle Management Group, appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
2. The dispute was triggered when the Respondent, on July 13, 2018, sent the Petitioner a courtesy notice requesting the removal of palm trees from his front yard. The notice claimed the trees were a violation of the association’s CC&Rs.
3. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated section 8.1.7 of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and the Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1803.
4. After the Petitioner disputed the violation, the Respondent conducted a further review. Through this review, the Respondent discovered that the palm trees on the Petitioner’s property were actually listed on the “Recommended Plant List” and were therefore acceptable.
5. First, the Respondent issued a courtesy letter to the Petitioner on August 16, 2018, apologizing for the misunderstanding. Second, the Respondent deemed the original violation notice invalid and had it “removed and expunged” from both its own and the Petitioner’s records to preserve his good standing.
6. The Petitioner proceeded with the hearing because he was upset and believed the Respondent had acted fraudulently. He alleged the Respondent lied about discussing the issue with board members, deceptively changed the CC&Rs, and failed to disclose who made the initial complaint.
7. Annette McCraw was an employee of Trestle Management Group, the Respondent’s management company. The Petitioner accused her of lying about speaking with board members regarding the palm tree issue and threatening him with a lawyer.
8. “Preponderance of the evidence” is the standard of proof required, defined as evidence convincing the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. Its significance is that the Petitioner bore this burden of proof and ultimately failed to meet it, leading to the denial of his petition.
9. The issue was considered moot because the Respondent had already issued an apology letter and rescinded the violation notice before the hearing occurred. Since the Petitioner was never fined, the palm trees were deemed acceptable, and the notice was expunged, there was no longer an active controversy for the court to resolve.
10. The final Order, issued on September 24, 2019, was that the Petitioner’s petition is denied. The Order was binding unless a rehearing was requested within 30 days.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Construct detailed responses to the following prompts, drawing evidence and arguments exclusively from the provided legal decision.
1. Analyze the concept of a “moot” issue as it applies to this case. How did the Respondent’s actions before the hearing render the Petitioner’s primary complaint moot in the eyes of the law, despite the Petitioner’s ongoing grievances?
2. Discuss the burden of proof in this administrative hearing. Explain the “preponderance of the evidence” standard as defined in the document and detail the specific reasons why the Administrative Law Judge concluded that Dennis Gregory failed to meet this burden.
3. Examine the roles and conduct of the management company, Trestle Management Group, and its employee, Annette McCraw. Based on the testimony presented, what specific actions escalated the conflict even after the initial landscaping error was identified and corrected?
4. Trace the timeline of events from the initial “courtesy notice” of July 13, 2018, to the final Order of September 24, 2019. Identify the key turning points and decisions made by both the Petitioner and the Respondent that influenced the outcome of the case.
5. Although the Petitioner lost the case, he raised several allegations beyond the palm trees, including fraud, deception, and threats. Using only the evidence presented in the decision, construct the argument that Dennis Gregory was attempting to make regarding why these subsequent actions constituted a violation of the planned community statute, even if the original tree issue was resolved.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over the administrative hearing and issues a decision. In this case, the ALJ was Antara Nath Rivera.
Answer
The Respondent’s formal written response to the Petition, filed in this case on June 28, 2019.
A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)
The collection of laws for the state of Arizona. The decision cites A.R.S. § 33-1803, which authorizes HOAs to enforce CC&Rs, and statutes governing the hearing and rehearing process.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party to establish its claims by a required degree of evidence. In this hearing, the Petitioner had the burden of proof.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The governing documents that establish the rules for a planned community. The Petitioner alleged a violation of section 8.1.7 of the Respondent’s CC&Rs.
Department
The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency with which the Petition was filed and which has jurisdiction over such disputes.
Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition (Petition)
The formal document filed by a homeowner to initiate a hearing with the Department concerning alleged violations by their homeowners association.
A legal term for a situation where the underlying issue has been resolved, making any ruling on the matter unnecessary. The judge found the case moot because the Respondent had already issued an apology and rescinded the violation notice.
The final and binding decision issued by the Administrative Law Judge. In this case, the Order was to deny the Petitioner’s petition.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action or hearing. In this case, the Petitioner was homeowner Dennis J Gregory.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed and who is required to respond. In this case, the Respondent was the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association.
Trestle Management Group, LLC
The management company employed by the Respondent HOA to handle its operations.
Blog Post – 19F-H1919069-REL
An HOA Admitted It Was Wrong. The Homeowner Sued Anyway—And Lost. Here Are the Surprising Reasons Why.
Introduction: The Familiar Dread of an HOA Letter
For many homeowners, few things cause a spike of anxiety quite like a formal notice from their Homeowners Association (HOA). That crisp envelope often contains a violation notice, sparking a frustrating process of proving compliance or making unwanted changes. But what happens when you prove the HOA was completely wrong, they admit their mistake, and issue a full apology? For most, that’s the end of the story—a clear victory.
This, however, is the story of a homeowner who achieved that victory and then decided to take the HOA to a formal hearing anyway. He had been proven right, the violation was erased, and no fines were ever issued. Yet, he pursued the case and ultimately lost.
How could someone who was proven right end up losing their case? The answer reveals a critical distinction between winning an argument and winning in a court of law.
1. You Can Win the Argument, But Still Lose the Case
The initial dispute was straightforward. The homeowner, Dennis Gregory, received a courtesy notice from his HOA requesting the removal of palm trees from his front yard, which were alleged to be in violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
Mr. Gregory disputed the violation. In response, the HOA conducted a further review and made a critical discovery: the palm trees on the property were, in fact, listed on the HOA’s own “Recommended Plant List” and were perfectly acceptable. The HOA had made a mistake. Here, however, the story takes a surprising turn. Mr. Gregory filed his formal petition for a hearing after the HOA had already admitted its error, apologized, and confirmed the issue was resolved.
This sequence of events is the crucial detail of the case. The legal dispute wasn’t about the palm trees—that argument was already won. The case was about the actions taken after the HOA’s error was acknowledged and corrected.
2. A Proactive Apology Can Be a Powerful Legal Shield
Once the HOA realized its mistake, it took several decisive steps to remedy the situation. According to the Administrative Law Judge’s findings, the HOA and its management company:
• Sent a formal apology letter to the homeowner.
• Confirmed the original courtesy notice was “deemed invalid.”
• “Removed and expunged” the violation from the homeowner’s records to preserve his good standing.
• Never issued any fines or financial penalties.
• Took action regarding personnel, as the employee who the homeowner accused of making threats was no longer with the management company by the time of the hearing.
These corrective actions had a profound legal impact. The judge found that because the HOA had already reversed its initial notice, apologized, cleared the homeowner’s record, and addressed the personnel issue, there was no longer an active dispute to rule on. The issue was considered “moot.”
This conclusion was emphasized in the judge’s final decision:
Furthermore, the preponderance of the evidence showed Respondent did not violate any rules or regulations that would facilitate any orders or sanctions once it issued the apology letter, thus making the issue moot.
3. The Law Requires Proof, Not Just Principle
The homeowner’s petition wasn’t just about the palm trees. He testified that he proceeded with the case because he felt he had been wronged by an HOA management employee during the dispute. His petition alleged the HOA had “fraudulently sent the courtesy letter,” lied about discussing the issue with board members, and even “threatened him with a lawyer.” He wasn’t just seeking to correct the record on his landscaping; he was fighting on a matter of principle.
To win his case, however, the homeowner had to meet a specific legal standard: proving his claims by “a preponderance of the evidence.” In simple terms, this means showing that his version of events was more likely to be true than not.
Ultimately, the judge concluded that the homeowner “failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent violated the CC&Rs.” This outcome highlights a crucial legal reality: tangible, documented evidence—such as a formal apology letter and an expunged record—often carries more evidentiary weight than a homeowner’s testimony about verbal statements, which can be viewed as a ‘he said, she said’ dispute without additional proof. While the homeowner may have genuinely felt wronged, his feelings could not overcome the HOA’s documented resolution.
Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale for Homeowners and HOAs
The outcome of this dispute offers a powerful lesson for both homeowners and association boards. It demonstrates three core takeaways: a dispute isn’t over until it’s legally resolved, a swift and comprehensive apology can be an effective legal defense, and a deeply felt principle must still be backed by sufficient evidence to prevail in a formal hearing.
This case serves as a fascinating reminder of the complexities of community disputes, leaving us with a final question: At what point does the fight for principle risk overshadowing a practical victory?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Dennis J Gregory(petitioner) Appeared and testified on own behalf
Respondent Side
Marc Vasquez(attorney) Trestle Management Group Appeared for Respondent; testified as vice president of Trestle
Annette McCraw(property manager) Trestle Management Group, LLC Issued letter on behalf of Respondent; no longer with Trestle
James A. Baska(management representative) Trestle Management Group Recipient of decision transmission
Neutral Parties
Antara Nath Rivera(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Addressed in transmission of decision
The Petitioner's petition was denied. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof showing Respondent restricted electronic access to the bank account, and the issue was moot since the bank closed the account. Respondent complied with the statutory requirement to make records reasonably available.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; lack of evidence that Respondent restricted access; issue was moot due to account closure; Respondent complied with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by offering paper copies of documents.
Key Issues & Findings
Wrongful denial of electronic access to the bank account's electronic information
Petitioner alleged Respondent unilaterally restricted his access to online, view-only bank account information and refused to restore access by November 25, 2016, in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).
Orders: Petition denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.R.S. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
32-2199.02
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Records Access, HOA Records, Mootness, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.R.S. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
32-2199.02
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
17F-H1716016-REL Decision – 546761.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:18:32 (61.1 KB)
17F-H1716016-REL Decision – 552261.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:18:37 (553.3 KB)
Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716016-REL
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Sellers vs. Grayhawk Community Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and rulings in the administrative case of John Sellers (Petitioner) versus the Grayhawk Community Association (Respondent), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings and finalized by the Department of Real Estate. The core of the dispute was the Petitioner’s claim that the Respondent unlawfully restricted his electronic, view-only access to a bank account in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805(A).
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof. The evidence showed the Respondent initially provided the requested electronic access, which the Petitioner successfully used before changing the password. The Petitioner offered no evidence that the Respondent subsequently interfered with or restricted this access. Furthermore, the issue was rendered moot when the bank in question closed the account. The ALJ affirmed that the Respondent’s offer to provide paper records satisfied the statutory requirement to make records “reasonably available.” This decision was subsequently adopted as a Final Order by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate.
Case Overview
Details
Case Name
John Sellers, Petitioner, vs. Grayhawk Community Association, Respondent.
Case Numbers
Docket No. 17F-H1716016-REL; Case No. HO 17-16/016
Adjudicating Body
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Suzanne Marwil
Hearing Date
February 16, 2017
ALJ Decision Date
February 21, 2017
Final Order Date
March 3, 2017
Final Order Issued By
Judy Lowe, Commissioner, Department of Real Estate
The Core Dispute
Petitioner’s Position
John Sellers alleged that after he requested and received view-only access to the Association’s Alliance Association Bank account, the Respondent unilaterally restricted that access. He claimed the Respondent’s failure to restore access by his deadline of the close of business on November 25, 2016, constituted a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), which governs a member’s right to examine association records. The petition, for which a $500 fee was paid, was specifically focused on this single issue.
Respondent’s Position
The Grayhawk Community Association argued that it had gone beyond its statutory obligations by arranging for the bank to create a new online password specifically for the Petitioner. They maintained that after providing this access, they did not interfere with or restrict it in any way. They contended that the Petitioner’s subsequent inability to access the account was due to unknown reasons. The Respondent noted that the bank closed the account on November 28, 2016, making any form of electronic access permanently unavailable and rendering the issue moot. They also offered to provide paper copies of the relevant bank records.
Chronology of Key Events
• October 18, 2016: Petitioner John Sellers requests, among other items, an electronic, read-only password for the Respondent’s Alliance Association Bank account.
• November 2, 2016: The Respondent notifies the Petitioner that such a password did not exist at the time of the request.
• November 16, 2016: After requesting the bank create a password, the Respondent forwards the new login information to the Petitioner.
• Post-November 16, 2016: The Petitioner successfully logs into the bank account using the provided information and changes the password.
• Thanksgiving Day (November 24, 2016): The Petitioner attempts to log in again but “could not see anything.” Based on the assumption that the Respondent had restricted his access, he emails community manager Michael Fee.
• Thanksgiving Day Demand: In his email, the Petitioner sets a deadline for the Respondent to restore his access by the end of the business day on Friday, November 25, 2016, threatening to file a petition if the deadline is not met. Mr. Fee replies that he will contact the bank.
• November 28, 2016: Having not heard further from the Respondent, the Petitioner files the petition in this matter.
• November 28, 2016: On the same day, the Respondent informs the Petitioner that they do not know the reason for the lack of access and denies that anyone affiliated with the association interfered. It is also on this date that Alliance Association Bank closes the account in question.
Analysis of the Administrative Law Judge’s Decision
The ALJ’s decision was based on a hearing held on February 16, 2017. The ruling systematically dismantled the Petitioner’s case based on the evidence presented.
Burden and Standard of Proof
• Pursuant to Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R2-19-119(B), the Petitioner held the burden of proof.
• The required standard of proof was a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the Petitioner had to show it was more likely than not that his claim was true.
Key Findings of Fact
1. Access Was Provided: It was undisputed that the Respondent provided the Petitioner with login information and that this information initially worked, enabling him to access the account.
2. Petitioner Changed Password: After gaining access, the Petitioner changed the password.
3. No Evidence of Interference: The Petitioner offered “no evidence that Respondent took any action to deny Petitioner online access.” His belief that access was restricted was a “unilateral assumption.” The record did not establish why the new password failed to work on Thanksgiving Day.
4. Issue Rendered Moot: The undisputed closure of the bank account by the bank on November 28, 2016, made the request for electronic access moot, as such access was no longer available to anyone.
Key Conclusions of Law
1. Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: The ALJ concluded that the “Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proof.” The record was “devoid of any evidence” that the Respondent denied the requested information or took any action to restrict access.
2. Compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A): The statute requires that association records “be made reasonably available for examination.” The ALJ found that the Respondent complied with the statute by initially providing electronic access and later offering to “furnish the Petitioner paper copies of documents it possessed related to that bank account.”
3. Electronic vs. Paper Access: The Petitioner’s argument that paper access is inferior to electronic access was dismissed as a “policy argument that should be addressed to the Legislature.” The plain language of the existing statute does not mandate a specific format for record examination.
Final Order and Outcome
On March 3, 2017, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate issued a Final Order, which fully adopted the ALJ’s decision.
• Petition Denied: The Commissioner accepted the ALJ’s decision that the petition be denied.
• Future Compliance Directive: The order stated, “The Commissioner accepts the Recommended Order that Respondent shall comply with the applicable provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes (‘A.R.S.’) § 33-1804 (A) in the future.”
• Binding Decision: The order became a final administrative action, effective immediately and binding on the parties.
• Rehearing and Appeal Process: Parties were notified that a motion for rehearing or review could be filed within 30 days. A request for rehearing should be addressed to Abby Hansen, 2910 N. 44th Street, Suite 100, Phoenix, Arizona, 85018. The order could also be appealed via a complaint for judicial review.
Study Guide – 17F-H1716016-REL
Study Guide: Sellers v. Grayhawk Community Association
This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal case No. 17F-H1716016-REL, John Sellers v. Grayhawk Community Association, based on the Administrative Law Judge Decision and the subsequent Final Order from the Department of Real Estate.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, based on the information provided in the case documents.
1. Identify the primary parties involved in this case and state their respective roles.
2. What was the central accusation made by the Petitioner against the Respondent?
3. According to the Respondent’s argument, what actions did it take in response to the Petitioner’s initial request for electronic bank records?
4. What specific event occurred on Thanksgiving Day that directly prompted the Petitioner to file his petition?
5. What was the required standard of proof in this hearing, and which party was assigned the burden of meeting it?
6. Which specific Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) did the Petitioner allege the Respondent had violated?
7. Summarize the primary reason the Administrative Law Judge found that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof.
8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge determine that the issue of electronic access had become moot?
9. What was the final decision issued by the Administrative Law Judge, and was it accepted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate?
10. How did the Administrative Law Judge address the Petitioner’s argument that paper records are an inferior substitute for electronic access?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were John Sellers, who served as the Petitioner, and the Grayhawk Community Association, which was the Respondent. The Petitioner, Mr. Sellers, brought the complaint, and the Respondent, Grayhawk Community Association, was the party accused of wrongdoing.
2. The Petitioner accused the Respondent of violating A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by unilaterally restricting his online, view-only access to a bank account. He claimed they wrongfully denied him this access and failed to restore it by his deadline of November 25, 2016.
3. The Respondent argued it went beyond its statutory obligation by requesting that Alliance Association Bank create an online, view-only password specifically for the Petitioner, as one did not previously exist. The Respondent then forwarded this new login information to the Petitioner on November 16, 2016.
4. On Thanksgiving Day, the Petitioner attempted to log on to the bank account but could not see anything. Based on the assumption that the Respondent had restricted his access, he emailed the community manager and set a deadline for the next business day, which ultimately led to him filing the petition when access was not restored.
5. The standard of proof required was a “preponderance of the evidence.” Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-19-119(B), the Petitioner, John Sellers, had the burden of proof in this matter.
6. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). This statute requires that all financial and other records of an association be made reasonably available for examination by any member.
7. The Judge found that the Petitioner offered no proof that the Respondent took any action to restrict or interfere with his access to the bank account. The record showed the Respondent provided the initial access, and it was not established why the Petitioner’s new password later failed to work.
8. The issue of electronic access was deemed moot for two reasons. First, the bank closed the account in question on November 28, 2016, making electronic access impossible. Second, the Respondent had offered to furnish the Petitioner with paper copies of the documents it possessed related to that account.
9. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate accepted this recommended decision and issued a Final Order denying the petition.
10. The Judge characterized the Petitioner’s argument as a policy argument that should be addressed to the Legislature, not the court. The Judge stated that the plain language of the statute only requires records to be made “reasonably available,” and concluded the Respondent complied with the law by offering paper copies.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Construct detailed, essay-format responses to the following prompts. Do not provide answers.
1. Analyze the timeline of events from October 18, 2016, to November 28, 2016. How did the Petitioner’s actions, particularly his assumptions and deadlines, impact the outcome of the case as determined by the Administrative Law Judge?
2. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. Explain why the Petitioner, John Sellers, failed to meet the standard of “preponderance of the evidence” according to the Administrative Law Judge’s findings.
3. Examine the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). How does the judge’s distinction between “reasonably available” records and the specific format of access (electronic vs. paper) form the core of the legal conclusion?
4. The Respondent argued it went “beyond its statutory obligation.” Based on the facts presented in the decision, construct an argument either supporting or refuting this claim.
5. Explain the concept of “mootness” in the context of this legal dispute. How did the closure of the Alliance Association Bank account on November 28, 2016, render the central issue of the petition moot?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
A judge who presides over hearings at an administrative agency. In this case, Suzanne Marwil presided for the Office of Administrative Hearings.
A.A.C.
An abbreviation for the Arizona Administrative Code, which is the official compilation of rules and regulations of Arizona state agencies.
A.R.S.
An abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which is the codified collection of laws passed by the Arizona state legislature.
Burden of Proof
The legal obligation of a party in a proceeding to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this matter, the burden of proof was on the Petitioner.
Conclusions of Law
The section of a legal decision where the judge applies legal principles and statutes to the established facts of the case to reach a ruling.
Final Order
An official, binding decision issued by an administrative body that resolves a legal dispute. In this case, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate issued the Final Order adopting the ALJ’s decision.
Findings of Fact
The section of a legal decision that details the facts of the case as determined by the judge based on the evidence presented during the hearing.
A legal term describing an issue that is no longer in dispute or has become irrelevant due to changed circumstances, making a judicial decision unnecessary. The account’s closure made the access issue moot.
A formal, written direction from a judge or administrative body. The ALJ issued an Order denying the petition.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, John Sellers.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It means that the evidence must demonstrate that a claim is more likely to be true than not true.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed and who is required to respond to the claims. In this case, the Grayhawk Community Association.
Blog Post – 17F-H1716016-REL
How a Thanksgiving Day Login Failure Cost a Homeowner $500: Key Lessons from a Bizarre HOA Dispute
Almost everyone knows the modern frustration of a forgotten password or a website that simply won’t cooperate. But in a peculiar 2017 case, a homeowner’s inability to access a bank account online on Thanksgiving Day escalated from a simple tech issue into a formal legal petition against his Homeowners Association (HOA). The official court ruling offers a case study in failed conflict resolution, with surprising and critical lessons for any homeowner navigating the complex world of community association governance.
——————————————————————————–
1. An Unproven Assumption Can Be a Costly Mistake
The entire legal dispute was triggered by a critical strategic miscalculation based on an unverified assumption. The sequence of events began when petitioner John Sellers, after having previously changed the password himself, logged in to his HOA’s bank account on Thanksgiving Day and “could not see anything.”
Instead of exploring technical explanations, like a server issue over the holiday, he “unilaterally assumed” that the HOA (the Respondent, Grayhawk Community Association) had intentionally restricted his access. Acting immediately on this assumption, he emailed the community manager, Michael Fee, setting an aggressive deadline for the end of business the following day to have his access restored. When that deadline passed, he filed a formal petition. Crucially, the record notes the petitioner paid a $500.00 fee to file it.
However, the petitioner’s narrative omits a key fact: the community manager was not unresponsive. The case file shows that “Mr. Fee advised he would contact the bank.” This detail reveals the petitioner’s precipitous rush to litigation, bypassing any opportunity for simple clarification. The judge’s finding was decisive, underscoring this failure in de-escalation: the petitioner “offered no evidence that Respondent took any action to deny Petitioner online access to the account.” Acting on a costly assumption led directly to a lost case and a forfeited $500 fee.
——————————————————————————–
2. The Law Requires “Reasonable Access,” Not Your Preferred Method
The petitioner’s central legal argument was that he was wrongfully denied electronic access to the bank’s information. This complaint, however, was fundamentally misaligned with the plain language of the governing statute.
The relevant law, A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), states that “all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member.” The Administrative Law Judge found that the HOA had fully complied with this duty. When the login issue persisted and the account was later closed by the bank, the Respondent “offered to furnish the Petitioner paper copies of documents it possessed related to that bank account.” This distinction is legally significant; the law does not mandate a specific method of access—especially a preferred or more convenient one—only that the access provided be “reasonable.”
The judge’s decision explicitly rejected the petitioner’s policy argument:
Petitioner’s argument that paper access to the account information is inferior to electronic access constitutes a policy argument that should be addressed to the Legislature. The plain language of the statute requires only that records of Respondent be made reasonable available for Petitioner’s examination. Respondent complied with the statute.
This highlights an important takeaway for all homeowners: understanding the difference between what is legally required versus what is simply convenient can prevent unnecessary and unwinnable disputes.
——————————————————————————–
3. Even “Going the Extra Mile” Can Lead to a Lawsuit
One of the most ironic details of the case is that the HOA was never obligated to provide online access in the first place. According to the case file, when the petitioner first requested electronic access on October 18, 2016, “such a password did not exist.”
In its defense, the HOA argued—and the facts seem to support—that it went “beyond its statutory obligation” by requesting that its bank create a special view-only password specifically for the petitioner. This was a proactive accommodation, not a statutory duty.
This situation reveals a paradox often seen in community management, where proactive efforts to accommodate a resident can inadvertently create new avenues for conflict. The very courtesy the HOA extended—creating an online access portal that wasn’t legally required—became the foundation of the legal petition filed against them, illustrating the complex and often thankless nature of community governance.
——————————————————————————–
4. The Burden of Proof Is on the Accuser
In any formal legal dispute, the question of who must prove their case is critical. According to the case file, the “Petitioner has the burden of proof in this matter.” The legal standard he had to meet was a “preponderance of the evidence,” which is the standard of proof required in most civil, non-criminal matters.
In simple terms, this means John Sellers had the responsibility to prove that it was more likely than not that the Grayhawk Community Association actively and intentionally restricted his access. He failed to provide any such proof.
The judge’s conclusion on this point was unambiguous: “Petitioner offered no proof that the Respondent restricted his access to the account in any way.” His case failed because it was built entirely on an assumption, with no evidence to support the accusation. This serves as a fundamental lesson in legal disputes: an accusation alone is not enough; it must be backed by credible evidence to prevail.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: A Final Thought Before You Escalate
A simple holiday login error became a failed legal petition due to a cascade of unverified assumptions and a fundamental misunderstanding of statutory requirements. This strange case serves as a potent reminder for homeowners and board members alike about the risks of escalating a grievance without first establishing the facts and understanding the law.
Before launching a formal, and potentially costly, complaint, it’s worth asking two simple questions: What does the law actually require, and what can I definitively prove?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
John Sellers(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Curtis Ekmark(HOA attorney) Grayhawk Community Association
Michael Fee(community manager) Grayhawk Community Association
Neutral Parties
Suzanne Marwil(ALJ)
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
The Petitioner's petition was denied. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof showing Respondent restricted electronic access to the bank account, and the issue was moot since the bank closed the account. Respondent complied with the statutory requirement to make records reasonably available.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; lack of evidence that Respondent restricted access; issue was moot due to account closure; Respondent complied with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by offering paper copies of documents.
Key Issues & Findings
Wrongful denial of electronic access to the bank account's electronic information
Petitioner alleged Respondent unilaterally restricted his access to online, view-only bank account information and refused to restore access by November 25, 2016, in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).
Orders: Petition denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.R.S. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
32-2199.02
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Records Access, HOA Records, Mootness, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.R.S. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
32-2199.02
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
17F-H1716016-REL Decision – 546761.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:02 (61.1 KB)
17F-H1716016-REL Decision – 552261.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:03 (553.3 KB)
Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716016-REL
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Sellers vs. Grayhawk Community Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and rulings in the administrative case of John Sellers (Petitioner) versus the Grayhawk Community Association (Respondent), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings and finalized by the Department of Real Estate. The core of the dispute was the Petitioner’s claim that the Respondent unlawfully restricted his electronic, view-only access to a bank account in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805(A).
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof. The evidence showed the Respondent initially provided the requested electronic access, which the Petitioner successfully used before changing the password. The Petitioner offered no evidence that the Respondent subsequently interfered with or restricted this access. Furthermore, the issue was rendered moot when the bank in question closed the account. The ALJ affirmed that the Respondent’s offer to provide paper records satisfied the statutory requirement to make records “reasonably available.” This decision was subsequently adopted as a Final Order by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate.
Case Overview
Details
Case Name
John Sellers, Petitioner, vs. Grayhawk Community Association, Respondent.
Case Numbers
Docket No. 17F-H1716016-REL; Case No. HO 17-16/016
Adjudicating Body
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Suzanne Marwil
Hearing Date
February 16, 2017
ALJ Decision Date
February 21, 2017
Final Order Date
March 3, 2017
Final Order Issued By
Judy Lowe, Commissioner, Department of Real Estate
The Core Dispute
Petitioner’s Position
John Sellers alleged that after he requested and received view-only access to the Association’s Alliance Association Bank account, the Respondent unilaterally restricted that access. He claimed the Respondent’s failure to restore access by his deadline of the close of business on November 25, 2016, constituted a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), which governs a member’s right to examine association records. The petition, for which a $500 fee was paid, was specifically focused on this single issue.
Respondent’s Position
The Grayhawk Community Association argued that it had gone beyond its statutory obligations by arranging for the bank to create a new online password specifically for the Petitioner. They maintained that after providing this access, they did not interfere with or restrict it in any way. They contended that the Petitioner’s subsequent inability to access the account was due to unknown reasons. The Respondent noted that the bank closed the account on November 28, 2016, making any form of electronic access permanently unavailable and rendering the issue moot. They also offered to provide paper copies of the relevant bank records.
Chronology of Key Events
• October 18, 2016: Petitioner John Sellers requests, among other items, an electronic, read-only password for the Respondent’s Alliance Association Bank account.
• November 2, 2016: The Respondent notifies the Petitioner that such a password did not exist at the time of the request.
• November 16, 2016: After requesting the bank create a password, the Respondent forwards the new login information to the Petitioner.
• Post-November 16, 2016: The Petitioner successfully logs into the bank account using the provided information and changes the password.
• Thanksgiving Day (November 24, 2016): The Petitioner attempts to log in again but “could not see anything.” Based on the assumption that the Respondent had restricted his access, he emails community manager Michael Fee.
• Thanksgiving Day Demand: In his email, the Petitioner sets a deadline for the Respondent to restore his access by the end of the business day on Friday, November 25, 2016, threatening to file a petition if the deadline is not met. Mr. Fee replies that he will contact the bank.
• November 28, 2016: Having not heard further from the Respondent, the Petitioner files the petition in this matter.
• November 28, 2016: On the same day, the Respondent informs the Petitioner that they do not know the reason for the lack of access and denies that anyone affiliated with the association interfered. It is also on this date that Alliance Association Bank closes the account in question.
Analysis of the Administrative Law Judge’s Decision
The ALJ’s decision was based on a hearing held on February 16, 2017. The ruling systematically dismantled the Petitioner’s case based on the evidence presented.
Burden and Standard of Proof
• Pursuant to Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R2-19-119(B), the Petitioner held the burden of proof.
• The required standard of proof was a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the Petitioner had to show it was more likely than not that his claim was true.
Key Findings of Fact
1. Access Was Provided: It was undisputed that the Respondent provided the Petitioner with login information and that this information initially worked, enabling him to access the account.
2. Petitioner Changed Password: After gaining access, the Petitioner changed the password.
3. No Evidence of Interference: The Petitioner offered “no evidence that Respondent took any action to deny Petitioner online access.” His belief that access was restricted was a “unilateral assumption.” The record did not establish why the new password failed to work on Thanksgiving Day.
4. Issue Rendered Moot: The undisputed closure of the bank account by the bank on November 28, 2016, made the request for electronic access moot, as such access was no longer available to anyone.
Key Conclusions of Law
1. Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: The ALJ concluded that the “Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proof.” The record was “devoid of any evidence” that the Respondent denied the requested information or took any action to restrict access.
2. Compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A): The statute requires that association records “be made reasonably available for examination.” The ALJ found that the Respondent complied with the statute by initially providing electronic access and later offering to “furnish the Petitioner paper copies of documents it possessed related to that bank account.”
3. Electronic vs. Paper Access: The Petitioner’s argument that paper access is inferior to electronic access was dismissed as a “policy argument that should be addressed to the Legislature.” The plain language of the existing statute does not mandate a specific format for record examination.
Final Order and Outcome
On March 3, 2017, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate issued a Final Order, which fully adopted the ALJ’s decision.
• Petition Denied: The Commissioner accepted the ALJ’s decision that the petition be denied.
• Future Compliance Directive: The order stated, “The Commissioner accepts the Recommended Order that Respondent shall comply with the applicable provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes (‘A.R.S.’) § 33-1804 (A) in the future.”
• Binding Decision: The order became a final administrative action, effective immediately and binding on the parties.
• Rehearing and Appeal Process: Parties were notified that a motion for rehearing or review could be filed within 30 days. A request for rehearing should be addressed to Abby Hansen, 2910 N. 44th Street, Suite 100, Phoenix, Arizona, 85018. The order could also be appealed via a complaint for judicial review.
The Petitioner's petition was denied. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof showing Respondent restricted electronic access to the bank account, and the issue was moot since the bank closed the account. Respondent complied with the statutory requirement to make records reasonably available.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; lack of evidence that Respondent restricted access; issue was moot due to account closure; Respondent complied with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by offering paper copies of documents.
Key Issues & Findings
Wrongful denial of electronic access to the bank account's electronic information
Petitioner alleged Respondent unilaterally restricted his access to online, view-only bank account information and refused to restore access by November 25, 2016, in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).
Orders: Petition denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.R.S. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
32-2199.02
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Records Access, HOA Records, Mootness, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.R.S. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
32-2199.02
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
17F-H1716016-REL Decision – 546761.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:01:12 (61.1 KB)
17F-H1716016-REL Decision – 552261.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:01:13 (553.3 KB)
Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716016-REL
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Sellers vs. Grayhawk Community Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and rulings in the administrative case of John Sellers (Petitioner) versus the Grayhawk Community Association (Respondent), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings and finalized by the Department of Real Estate. The core of the dispute was the Petitioner’s claim that the Respondent unlawfully restricted his electronic, view-only access to a bank account in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805(A).
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof. The evidence showed the Respondent initially provided the requested electronic access, which the Petitioner successfully used before changing the password. The Petitioner offered no evidence that the Respondent subsequently interfered with or restricted this access. Furthermore, the issue was rendered moot when the bank in question closed the account. The ALJ affirmed that the Respondent’s offer to provide paper records satisfied the statutory requirement to make records “reasonably available.” This decision was subsequently adopted as a Final Order by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate.
Case Overview
Details
Case Name
John Sellers, Petitioner, vs. Grayhawk Community Association, Respondent.
Case Numbers
Docket No. 17F-H1716016-REL; Case No. HO 17-16/016
Adjudicating Body
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Suzanne Marwil
Hearing Date
February 16, 2017
ALJ Decision Date
February 21, 2017
Final Order Date
March 3, 2017
Final Order Issued By
Judy Lowe, Commissioner, Department of Real Estate
The Core Dispute
Petitioner’s Position
John Sellers alleged that after he requested and received view-only access to the Association’s Alliance Association Bank account, the Respondent unilaterally restricted that access. He claimed the Respondent’s failure to restore access by his deadline of the close of business on November 25, 2016, constituted a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), which governs a member’s right to examine association records. The petition, for which a $500 fee was paid, was specifically focused on this single issue.
Respondent’s Position
The Grayhawk Community Association argued that it had gone beyond its statutory obligations by arranging for the bank to create a new online password specifically for the Petitioner. They maintained that after providing this access, they did not interfere with or restrict it in any way. They contended that the Petitioner’s subsequent inability to access the account was due to unknown reasons. The Respondent noted that the bank closed the account on November 28, 2016, making any form of electronic access permanently unavailable and rendering the issue moot. They also offered to provide paper copies of the relevant bank records.
Chronology of Key Events
• October 18, 2016: Petitioner John Sellers requests, among other items, an electronic, read-only password for the Respondent’s Alliance Association Bank account.
• November 2, 2016: The Respondent notifies the Petitioner that such a password did not exist at the time of the request.
• November 16, 2016: After requesting the bank create a password, the Respondent forwards the new login information to the Petitioner.
• Post-November 16, 2016: The Petitioner successfully logs into the bank account using the provided information and changes the password.
• Thanksgiving Day (November 24, 2016): The Petitioner attempts to log in again but “could not see anything.” Based on the assumption that the Respondent had restricted his access, he emails community manager Michael Fee.
• Thanksgiving Day Demand: In his email, the Petitioner sets a deadline for the Respondent to restore his access by the end of the business day on Friday, November 25, 2016, threatening to file a petition if the deadline is not met. Mr. Fee replies that he will contact the bank.
• November 28, 2016: Having not heard further from the Respondent, the Petitioner files the petition in this matter.
• November 28, 2016: On the same day, the Respondent informs the Petitioner that they do not know the reason for the lack of access and denies that anyone affiliated with the association interfered. It is also on this date that Alliance Association Bank closes the account in question.
Analysis of the Administrative Law Judge’s Decision
The ALJ’s decision was based on a hearing held on February 16, 2017. The ruling systematically dismantled the Petitioner’s case based on the evidence presented.
Burden and Standard of Proof
• Pursuant to Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R2-19-119(B), the Petitioner held the burden of proof.
• The required standard of proof was a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the Petitioner had to show it was more likely than not that his claim was true.
Key Findings of Fact
1. Access Was Provided: It was undisputed that the Respondent provided the Petitioner with login information and that this information initially worked, enabling him to access the account.
2. Petitioner Changed Password: After gaining access, the Petitioner changed the password.
3. No Evidence of Interference: The Petitioner offered “no evidence that Respondent took any action to deny Petitioner online access.” His belief that access was restricted was a “unilateral assumption.” The record did not establish why the new password failed to work on Thanksgiving Day.
4. Issue Rendered Moot: The undisputed closure of the bank account by the bank on November 28, 2016, made the request for electronic access moot, as such access was no longer available to anyone.
Key Conclusions of Law
1. Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: The ALJ concluded that the “Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proof.” The record was “devoid of any evidence” that the Respondent denied the requested information or took any action to restrict access.
2. Compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A): The statute requires that association records “be made reasonably available for examination.” The ALJ found that the Respondent complied with the statute by initially providing electronic access and later offering to “furnish the Petitioner paper copies of documents it possessed related to that bank account.”
3. Electronic vs. Paper Access: The Petitioner’s argument that paper access is inferior to electronic access was dismissed as a “policy argument that should be addressed to the Legislature.” The plain language of the existing statute does not mandate a specific format for record examination.
Final Order and Outcome
On March 3, 2017, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate issued a Final Order, which fully adopted the ALJ’s decision.
• Petition Denied: The Commissioner accepted the ALJ’s decision that the petition be denied.
• Future Compliance Directive: The order stated, “The Commissioner accepts the Recommended Order that Respondent shall comply with the applicable provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes (‘A.R.S.’) § 33-1804 (A) in the future.”
• Binding Decision: The order became a final administrative action, effective immediately and binding on the parties.
• Rehearing and Appeal Process: Parties were notified that a motion for rehearing or review could be filed within 30 days. A request for rehearing should be addressed to Abby Hansen, 2910 N. 44th Street, Suite 100, Phoenix, Arizona, 85018. The order could also be appealed via a complaint for judicial review.
