A.R.S. §§ 10-11601, 10-11620, 33-1805, 33-1810, Bylaws Article 10.1.1, 10.3, 7.6.3, 7.6.4, 5.1, and CC&R Article X Section 3 A.R.S. § 33-1803, CC&Rs Article IX Section 10, Section 18, Article XI Section 1, Section 5, HOA Hearing and Fine Policy
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition entirely, concluding that Petitioners failed to establish any of the alleged violations of statutes, CC&Rs, or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence. The ALJ found that the HOA provided reasonable explanations regarding delays in document production and that the Petitioners' security camera created a nuisance for a neighbor, requiring the submission of a Design Modification Request (DMR).
Why this result: Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof for the numerous alleged violations. The records requests claims failed because Petitioners did not satisfy prerequisites (e.g., payment, inspection request) or because the HOA provided reasonable explanations for delays. The security camera issue failed because the device created a nuisance and Petitioners refused to submit a required DMR.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to follow governing documents & State laws with respect to preparation of mandatory records and documents; retention of required records and documents; and/or fulfillment of Owner requests for same.
Petitioners alleged the HOA failed to timely produce requested board minutes and financial compilations for 2022 and 2023. The ALJ found that A.R.S. §§ 10-11601 and 10-11620 were inapplicable. Regarding A.R.S. §§ 33-1805 and 33-1810, the HOA provided reasonable explanations for delays (management transition, accountant extension). Petitioners failed to establish violations, noting they did not request inspection, offer to pay for copies, or inform the HOA of the missing 2022 compilation.
Orders: No action required of Respondent. Petition dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 10-11601
A.R.S. § 10-11620
A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 33-1810
Bylaws Article 10.1.1
Bylaws Article 10.3
Bylaws Article 7.6.3
Bylaws Article 7.6.4
Bylaws Article 5.1
CC&R Article X Section 3
Misinterpreting the CC&Rs in regards to the Petitioners' security devices.
Petitioners argued their security camera installation was exempt (a “carve out”) from requiring a Design Modification Request (DMR). They also alleged improper notice and fining under A.R.S. § 33-1803 and CC&Rs Article XI Sec 5. The ALJ found the camera created a nuisance for the neighbor by invading privacy. Although the HOA may have had a technical violation in notice (Article XI Sec 5), Petitioners failed to establish overall violations, noting Petitioners refused to submit a DMR as required of all homeowners.
Orders: No action required of Respondent. Petition dismissed. Petitioners are required to submit a DMR.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No, Civil penalty: $150.00
Briefing on the Administrative Hearing: Schafer & Lawton v. Sycamore Springs HOA
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision in the matter of Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton v. Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. (No. 25F-H027-REL). The dispute centered on two core issues: the Homeowners Association’s (HOA) alleged failure to properly prepare, retain, and provide mandatory corporate records, and its alleged misinterpretation of governing documents concerning the installation of a security camera by the petitioners.
Following a hearing on July 22, 2025, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella issued a decision on August 6, 2025, dismissing the petition in its entirety. The ALJ concluded that the petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof on all allegations.
Key findings indicate that the HOA’s explanations for delays and missing records—namely, a difficult transition between management companies and a tax filing extension—were deemed reasonable. Regarding the security camera, the ALJ determined that the device constituted a nuisance to a neighbor, a finding within the HOA board’s discretion, and upheld the HOA’s requirement for a Design Modification Request (DMR). The decision affirmed the respondent’s central legal argument distinguishing the duty to “keep” records from a requirement to “take” them.
Case Overview
Case Name
Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton, Petitioners, v. Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc., Respondent.
Case Number
25F-H027-REL
Tribunal
State of Arizona, Office of Administrative Hearings
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Hearing Date
July 22, 2025
Decision Date
August 6, 2025
Petitioners
Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton (Represented by Craig Cline, Esq.)
Respondent
Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. (Represented by Nikolas Thompson, Esq.)
The matter was subject to several continuances at the request of the Respondent, moving the final hearing date to July 22, 2025.
Core Allegations and Disputed Issues
The dispute was formally divided into two primary areas of contention, each involving alleged violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs and Bylaws).
Issue 1: Records and Document Management
• Petitioners’ Allegations: The HOA systematically failed to follow governing documents and state laws regarding the preparation, retention, and fulfillment of owner requests for mandatory records. This included the failure to provide five specific sets of board meeting minutes and the annual financial compilations for fiscal years 2022 and 2023 in a timely manner. Petitioners argued this constituted a breach of fiduciary duty and a violation of multiple statutes and bylaws.
• Respondent’s Position: The HOA contended that governing documents and statutes require them to keep records of minutes taken, but not to take minutes for every meeting. This interpretation was based on advice from legal counsel. They argued that most documents were available on the homeowner portal and that the failure to produce one specific set of minutes (December 2023) was due to them being lost by a previous “garbage” management company. The delay in providing the 2023 financial compilation was attributed to a reasonable circumstance: an extension filed for the association’s taxes.
Issue 2: Security Camera Installation
• Petitioners’ Allegations: The HOA misinterpreted its own CC&Rs by requiring a DMR for the petitioners’ security camera. Petitioners argued that Article IX, Section 18 of the CC&Rs provides a specific “carve out” for “security devices used exclusively for security purposes.” They further contended they were being targeted, as the HOA had no history of enforcing such a requirement for security cameras until after their device was installed and a neighbor complained.
• Respondent’s Position: The HOA board interpreted the CC&R “carve out” as applying only to sound-emitting devices (e.g., alarms, bells), as the clause is situated within a paragraph on noise nuisances. They argued a security camera is an “attachment to an existing structure,” which requires approval from the Architectural Control Committee under a separate CC&R article. Furthermore, the installation created a nuisance by invading a neighbor’s privacy, obligating the board to act. The HOA asserted that all homeowners, including the board president, were subsequently required to submit DMRs for their cameras to ensure consistent enforcement.
Key Testimony and Evidence
Patricia Lawton (Petitioner)
• A former HOA board president for three years, Ms. Lawton testified to having an expert-level understanding of the governing documents.
• Regarding records, she stated that of five requested sets of board minutes, only one was provided, and it was delivered late. She claimed she never received the 2022 financial compilation, only tax returns, and that the 2023 compilation was not provided within the statutorily required timeframe.
• She disputed the validity of the HOA’s tax-extension excuse, testifying that the association operates on a cash basis of accounting, which should not have prevented the timely completion of the compilation.
• She testified that due to security concerns (fear of being hacked), she does not have a registered account for the homeowner portal and accesses it through other community members.
• On the security camera, she asserted it was a residential-grade device installed in response to trespassing and property damage. She maintained that the CC&Rs provided a clear exemption and that the HOA’s enforcement action was retaliatory and inconsistent with historical practice.
Kristen Rowlette (HOA Board President)
• Ms. Rowlette testified that critical documents, including the December 2023 minutes, were lost during a problematic transition from a prior management company, Adams LLC, to the current one, Mission Management. She stated Ms. Lawton was aware of these difficulties as she attended every board meeting.
• She admitted that the board made a decision to stop taking minutes for meetings where no votes were held. She stated this was done on the advice of legal counsel (Smith and Wamsley) and was a direct response to feeling “inundated with requests from Patricia.”
• Regarding the camera, she testified that the issue arose only after a neighbor filed a formal complaint citing privacy concerns for their children. She described visiting the neighbor’s property and observing the camera’s “eye” actively tracking her movements.
• She confirmed that following the complaint, the board, on legal advice, required all homeowners to retroactively submit DMRs for any existing security cameras to ensure uniform enforcement.
Central Legal Arguments
The “Keep” vs. “Take” Debate
The primary legal conflict regarding the meeting minutes centered on the interpretation of a single word.
• Petitioners’ Argument: Counsel for the petitioners argued that the phrase “keep the minutes” must be interpreted through a “common sense application,” meaning “maintaining a written record of proceedings and decisions.” It was described as a standard practice for nonprofit organizations for decades, and the respondent’s narrow definition was “overly simplistic.”
• Respondent’s Argument: Counsel for the HOA focused on a strict textual interpretation. He argued, “they cannot point to any language in any of the governing documents in any of the statutes that requires associations to take minutes. It just doesn’t exist. What they’ve done is they’ve conflated the word keep… to mean take.” He cited dictionary definitions to assert that “keep” means to hold, maintain, or retain, not to create.
The Security Camera “Carve Out”
The dispute over the camera hinged on whether it fell under an exception in the nuisance clause of the CC&Rs.
• Petitioners’ Argument: Article IX, Section 18 exempts “security devices used exclusively for security purposes” from the general prohibition on sound devices. Petitioners argued their camera fit this description, and this carve-out, combined with a total lack of historical enforcement or specific design guidelines for cameras, meant a DMR was not required.
• Respondent’s Argument: The exemption is located in a provision focused on noise nuisances (“speakers, horns, whistles, bells or other sound devices”). The board’s interpretation was that the exception logically applies only to sound-emitting security devices like driveway alarms. The camera, as a physical modification, was governed by architectural rules requiring a DMR and was also subject to the board’s “sole discretion” to determine if it constituted a nuisance to neighbors.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding the petitioners failed to establish their claims by a preponderance of the evidence.
Rationale on Issue 1 (Records)
Alleged Violation
ALJ Conclusion
Rationale
A.R.S. §§ 10-11601, 10-11620 (Corporate Records)
No Jurisdiction
The tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to Title 33 (planned communities) and does not extend to these Title 10 (nonprofit corporations) statutes.
A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Records Availability)
No Violation
Respondent made records “reasonably available.” The loss of minutes during a management transition and the delay of financials due to a tax extension were deemed reasonable explanations.
A.R.S. § 33-1810 (Annual Audit)
No Violation
The request was made in 2024, entitling petitioners only to 2023 statements. The CC&Rs require owners to pay for audited statements, which petitioners did not offer to do.
CC&R Article X Section 3 & Bylaws Article 10.3 (Inspection)
No Violation
These provisions govern the inspection of documents. Petitioners requested copies without offering to pay for reproduction and never formally requested an in-person inspection.
Petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence that the Secretary or Treasurer failed in their duties or that meetings were not held as required.
Rationale on Issue 2 (Camera)
Alleged Violation
ALJ Conclusion
Rationale
CC&Rs Art. IX §§ 10, 18 (Nuisance)
No Violation
The CC&Rs grant the Board “sole discretion” to determine the existence of a nuisance. The ALJ found the evidence credible that the camera invaded the neighbor’s privacy, thus creating a nuisance.
CC&Rs Art. XI § 1 (Enforcement)
No Violation
Petitioners were notified of their right to a hearing before the Board. The HOA’s request for a DMR was a reasonable enforcement action applied to all community members.
CC&Rs Art. XI § 5 (Notice by Mail)
Technical Violation, No Harm
While there may have been a “technical violation” of the certified mail requirement, the ALJ found that the “Petitioners clearly received all notices” and were not prejudiced.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Kevin W. Schafer(petitioner)
Patricia A. Lawton(petitioner) Testified on her own behalf; Former HOA Board President
Craig L. Cline(petitioner attorney) Udall Law Firm, LLP
Maile L. Belongie(petitioner attorney) Udall Law Firm, LLP
c zauner(petitioner attorney staff) Udall Law Firm, LLP Listed on email distribution list
A.R.S. §§ 10-11601, 10-11620, 33-1805, 33-1810, Bylaws Article 10.1.1, 10.3, 7.6.3, 7.6.4, 5.1, and CC&R Article X Section 3 A.R.S. § 33-1803, CC&Rs Article IX Section 10, Section 18, Article XI Section 1, Section 5, HOA Hearing and Fine Policy
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition entirely, concluding that Petitioners failed to establish any of the alleged violations of statutes, CC&Rs, or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence. The ALJ found that the HOA provided reasonable explanations regarding delays in document production and that the Petitioners' security camera created a nuisance for a neighbor, requiring the submission of a Design Modification Request (DMR).
Why this result: Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof for the numerous alleged violations. The records requests claims failed because Petitioners did not satisfy prerequisites (e.g., payment, inspection request) or because the HOA provided reasonable explanations for delays. The security camera issue failed because the device created a nuisance and Petitioners refused to submit a required DMR.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to follow governing documents & State laws with respect to preparation of mandatory records and documents; retention of required records and documents; and/or fulfillment of Owner requests for same.
Petitioners alleged the HOA failed to timely produce requested board minutes and financial compilations for 2022 and 2023. The ALJ found that A.R.S. §§ 10-11601 and 10-11620 were inapplicable. Regarding A.R.S. §§ 33-1805 and 33-1810, the HOA provided reasonable explanations for delays (management transition, accountant extension). Petitioners failed to establish violations, noting they did not request inspection, offer to pay for copies, or inform the HOA of the missing 2022 compilation.
Orders: No action required of Respondent. Petition dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 10-11601
A.R.S. § 10-11620
A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 33-1810
Bylaws Article 10.1.1
Bylaws Article 10.3
Bylaws Article 7.6.3
Bylaws Article 7.6.4
Bylaws Article 5.1
CC&R Article X Section 3
Misinterpreting the CC&Rs in regards to the Petitioners' security devices.
Petitioners argued their security camera installation was exempt (a “carve out”) from requiring a Design Modification Request (DMR). They also alleged improper notice and fining under A.R.S. § 33-1803 and CC&Rs Article XI Sec 5. The ALJ found the camera created a nuisance for the neighbor by invading privacy. Although the HOA may have had a technical violation in notice (Article XI Sec 5), Petitioners failed to establish overall violations, noting Petitioners refused to submit a DMR as required of all homeowners.
Orders: No action required of Respondent. Petition dismissed. Petitioners are required to submit a DMR.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No, Civil penalty: $150.00
Briefing on the Administrative Hearing: Schafer & Lawton v. Sycamore Springs HOA
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision in the matter of Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton v. Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. (No. 25F-H027-REL). The dispute centered on two core issues: the Homeowners Association’s (HOA) alleged failure to properly prepare, retain, and provide mandatory corporate records, and its alleged misinterpretation of governing documents concerning the installation of a security camera by the petitioners.
Following a hearing on July 22, 2025, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella issued a decision on August 6, 2025, dismissing the petition in its entirety. The ALJ concluded that the petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof on all allegations.
Key findings indicate that the HOA’s explanations for delays and missing records—namely, a difficult transition between management companies and a tax filing extension—were deemed reasonable. Regarding the security camera, the ALJ determined that the device constituted a nuisance to a neighbor, a finding within the HOA board’s discretion, and upheld the HOA’s requirement for a Design Modification Request (DMR). The decision affirmed the respondent’s central legal argument distinguishing the duty to “keep” records from a requirement to “take” them.
Case Overview
Case Name
Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton, Petitioners, v. Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc., Respondent.
Case Number
25F-H027-REL
Tribunal
State of Arizona, Office of Administrative Hearings
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Hearing Date
July 22, 2025
Decision Date
August 6, 2025
Petitioners
Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton (Represented by Craig Cline, Esq.)
Respondent
Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. (Represented by Nikolas Thompson, Esq.)
The matter was subject to several continuances at the request of the Respondent, moving the final hearing date to July 22, 2025.
Core Allegations and Disputed Issues
The dispute was formally divided into two primary areas of contention, each involving alleged violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs and Bylaws).
Issue 1: Records and Document Management
• Petitioners’ Allegations: The HOA systematically failed to follow governing documents and state laws regarding the preparation, retention, and fulfillment of owner requests for mandatory records. This included the failure to provide five specific sets of board meeting minutes and the annual financial compilations for fiscal years 2022 and 2023 in a timely manner. Petitioners argued this constituted a breach of fiduciary duty and a violation of multiple statutes and bylaws.
• Respondent’s Position: The HOA contended that governing documents and statutes require them to keep records of minutes taken, but not to take minutes for every meeting. This interpretation was based on advice from legal counsel. They argued that most documents were available on the homeowner portal and that the failure to produce one specific set of minutes (December 2023) was due to them being lost by a previous “garbage” management company. The delay in providing the 2023 financial compilation was attributed to a reasonable circumstance: an extension filed for the association’s taxes.
Issue 2: Security Camera Installation
• Petitioners’ Allegations: The HOA misinterpreted its own CC&Rs by requiring a DMR for the petitioners’ security camera. Petitioners argued that Article IX, Section 18 of the CC&Rs provides a specific “carve out” for “security devices used exclusively for security purposes.” They further contended they were being targeted, as the HOA had no history of enforcing such a requirement for security cameras until after their device was installed and a neighbor complained.
• Respondent’s Position: The HOA board interpreted the CC&R “carve out” as applying only to sound-emitting devices (e.g., alarms, bells), as the clause is situated within a paragraph on noise nuisances. They argued a security camera is an “attachment to an existing structure,” which requires approval from the Architectural Control Committee under a separate CC&R article. Furthermore, the installation created a nuisance by invading a neighbor’s privacy, obligating the board to act. The HOA asserted that all homeowners, including the board president, were subsequently required to submit DMRs for their cameras to ensure consistent enforcement.
Key Testimony and Evidence
Patricia Lawton (Petitioner)
• A former HOA board president for three years, Ms. Lawton testified to having an expert-level understanding of the governing documents.
• Regarding records, she stated that of five requested sets of board minutes, only one was provided, and it was delivered late. She claimed she never received the 2022 financial compilation, only tax returns, and that the 2023 compilation was not provided within the statutorily required timeframe.
• She disputed the validity of the HOA’s tax-extension excuse, testifying that the association operates on a cash basis of accounting, which should not have prevented the timely completion of the compilation.
• She testified that due to security concerns (fear of being hacked), she does not have a registered account for the homeowner portal and accesses it through other community members.
• On the security camera, she asserted it was a residential-grade device installed in response to trespassing and property damage. She maintained that the CC&Rs provided a clear exemption and that the HOA’s enforcement action was retaliatory and inconsistent with historical practice.
Kristen Rowlette (HOA Board President)
• Ms. Rowlette testified that critical documents, including the December 2023 minutes, were lost during a problematic transition from a prior management company, Adams LLC, to the current one, Mission Management. She stated Ms. Lawton was aware of these difficulties as she attended every board meeting.
• She admitted that the board made a decision to stop taking minutes for meetings where no votes were held. She stated this was done on the advice of legal counsel (Smith and Wamsley) and was a direct response to feeling “inundated with requests from Patricia.”
• Regarding the camera, she testified that the issue arose only after a neighbor filed a formal complaint citing privacy concerns for their children. She described visiting the neighbor’s property and observing the camera’s “eye” actively tracking her movements.
• She confirmed that following the complaint, the board, on legal advice, required all homeowners to retroactively submit DMRs for any existing security cameras to ensure uniform enforcement.
Central Legal Arguments
The “Keep” vs. “Take” Debate
The primary legal conflict regarding the meeting minutes centered on the interpretation of a single word.
• Petitioners’ Argument: Counsel for the petitioners argued that the phrase “keep the minutes” must be interpreted through a “common sense application,” meaning “maintaining a written record of proceedings and decisions.” It was described as a standard practice for nonprofit organizations for decades, and the respondent’s narrow definition was “overly simplistic.”
• Respondent’s Argument: Counsel for the HOA focused on a strict textual interpretation. He argued, “they cannot point to any language in any of the governing documents in any of the statutes that requires associations to take minutes. It just doesn’t exist. What they’ve done is they’ve conflated the word keep… to mean take.” He cited dictionary definitions to assert that “keep” means to hold, maintain, or retain, not to create.
The Security Camera “Carve Out”
The dispute over the camera hinged on whether it fell under an exception in the nuisance clause of the CC&Rs.
• Petitioners’ Argument: Article IX, Section 18 exempts “security devices used exclusively for security purposes” from the general prohibition on sound devices. Petitioners argued their camera fit this description, and this carve-out, combined with a total lack of historical enforcement or specific design guidelines for cameras, meant a DMR was not required.
• Respondent’s Argument: The exemption is located in a provision focused on noise nuisances (“speakers, horns, whistles, bells or other sound devices”). The board’s interpretation was that the exception logically applies only to sound-emitting security devices like driveway alarms. The camera, as a physical modification, was governed by architectural rules requiring a DMR and was also subject to the board’s “sole discretion” to determine if it constituted a nuisance to neighbors.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding the petitioners failed to establish their claims by a preponderance of the evidence.
Rationale on Issue 1 (Records)
Alleged Violation
ALJ Conclusion
Rationale
A.R.S. §§ 10-11601, 10-11620 (Corporate Records)
No Jurisdiction
The tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to Title 33 (planned communities) and does not extend to these Title 10 (nonprofit corporations) statutes.
A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Records Availability)
No Violation
Respondent made records “reasonably available.” The loss of minutes during a management transition and the delay of financials due to a tax extension were deemed reasonable explanations.
A.R.S. § 33-1810 (Annual Audit)
No Violation
The request was made in 2024, entitling petitioners only to 2023 statements. The CC&Rs require owners to pay for audited statements, which petitioners did not offer to do.
CC&R Article X Section 3 & Bylaws Article 10.3 (Inspection)
No Violation
These provisions govern the inspection of documents. Petitioners requested copies without offering to pay for reproduction and never formally requested an in-person inspection.
Petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence that the Secretary or Treasurer failed in their duties or that meetings were not held as required.
Rationale on Issue 2 (Camera)
Alleged Violation
ALJ Conclusion
Rationale
CC&Rs Art. IX §§ 10, 18 (Nuisance)
No Violation
The CC&Rs grant the Board “sole discretion” to determine the existence of a nuisance. The ALJ found the evidence credible that the camera invaded the neighbor’s privacy, thus creating a nuisance.
CC&Rs Art. XI § 1 (Enforcement)
No Violation
Petitioners were notified of their right to a hearing before the Board. The HOA’s request for a DMR was a reasonable enforcement action applied to all community members.
CC&Rs Art. XI § 5 (Notice by Mail)
Technical Violation, No Harm
While there may have been a “technical violation” of the certified mail requirement, the ALJ found that the “Petitioners clearly received all notices” and were not prejudiced.
Petitioner sustained its burden of proof establishing that Respondents violated CC&Rs sections 7.2, 7.3, 7.25, 7.26, 7.28, and 7.31 by operating a cat rescue business (VKNR) from their residence, which involved unauthorized commercial activity, excessive non-pet animals, and creating a nuisance. Violation of 7.29 was not established. The petition was granted.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of CC&Rs by operating an unauthorized business out of their home and housing dozens of cats in excess of a reasonable number of household pets, creating a nuisance.
Respondents operated a nonprofit cat rescue (VKNR) from their single-family residence, housing 50+ cats in a 3-car garage, which constituted an unauthorized commercial use, exceeded a reasonable number of pets, and created traffic and waste nuisances.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is granted. Respondents must henceforth abide by CC&Rs sections 7.2, 7.3, 7.25, 7.26, 7.28, and 7.31.
Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
CC&Rs section 7.2
CC&Rs section 7.3
CC&Rs section 7.25
CC&Rs section 7.26
CC&Rs section 7.28
CC&Rs section 7.31
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Home Business, Pets/Animals, Nuisance, CC&Rs, Enforcement, HOA
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
24F-H003-REL Decision – 1094853.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:39 (51.0 KB)
24F-H003-REL Decision – 1113338.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:44 (49.4 KB)
24F-H003-REL Decision – 1125372.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:48 (65.5 KB)
24F-H003-REL Decision – 1147484.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:51 (184.8 KB)
Study Guide – 24F-H003-REL
Select all sources
1094853.pdf
1113338.pdf
1113415.aac
1113416.aac
1113417.aac
1125372.pdf
1147484.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
24F-H003-REL
7 sources
In a legal dispute before the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the VVE-Casa Grande Home Owners Association alleged that residents Duane and Mary Eitel violated community CC&Rs by operating an unauthorized cat rescue from their garage. The association contended that housing dozens of animals constituted an illegal business and a nuisance that impacted the neighborhood’s residential character. While the homeowners argued their nonprofit fostering was a charitable endeavor rather than a commercial enterprise, the Administrative Law Judge ruled that the large-scale operation exceeded the “reasonable number of pets” allowed. Evidence from Pinal County inspections and neighbor testimony confirmed that the garage held over 50 cats, leading to concerns over traffic, sanitation, and debris. Ultimately, the judge found the homeowners in violation of multiple governing documents and ordered them to cease operations.
What were the main legal arguments regarding the cat rescue?
How did the court define a home-based business versus a nonprofit?
What specific HOA rules were the homeowners found to have violated?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 3:04 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 24F-H003-REL
Select all sources
1094853.pdf
1113338.pdf
1113415.aac
1113416.aac
1113417.aac
1125372.pdf
1147484.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
24F-H003-REL
7 sources
In a legal dispute before the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the VVE-Casa Grande Home Owners Association alleged that residents Duane and Mary Eitel violated community CC&Rs by operating an unauthorized cat rescue from their garage. The association contended that housing dozens of animals constituted an illegal business and a nuisance that impacted the neighborhood’s residential character. While the homeowners argued their nonprofit fostering was a charitable endeavor rather than a commercial enterprise, the Administrative Law Judge ruled that the large-scale operation exceeded the “reasonable number of pets” allowed. Evidence from Pinal County inspections and neighbor testimony confirmed that the garage held over 50 cats, leading to concerns over traffic, sanitation, and debris. Ultimately, the judge found the homeowners in violation of multiple governing documents and ordered them to cease operations.
What were the main legal arguments regarding the cat rescue?
How did the court define a home-based business versus a nonprofit?
What specific HOA rules were the homeowners found to have violated?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 3:04 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Anthony Rossetti(petitioner attorney, property manager) Rossetti Management & Realty Services Represented Petitioner and owned the newly hired management company.
Douglas Karolak(witness, homeowner) VVE-Casa Grande HOA Member Testified on behalf of Petitioner.
Nicole Elliot(property manager) Norris Management Former HOA management committee/manager who issued warning letters.
CD Mai(homeowner/neighbor) VVE-Casa Grande HOA Member Mentioned by Karolak as a vocal opponent/adjacent neighbor to the Eitels.
Respondent Side
Duane Eitel(respondent, witness) VVE-Casa Grande HOA Member Referred to as Duane S Eitel in earlier documents; DE in the decision.
Mary Eitel(respondent) VVE-Casa Grande HOA Member, CEO/Director of Valley Kitten Nursery & Rescue Inc. Referred to as Mary L Eitel in earlier documents.
Kevin Harper(respondent attorney) Harper Law, PLC
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Susan Nicolson(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Christopher Sinco(code compliance officer) Pinal County Animal Control Involved in the 2017/2018 county inspection.
Other Participants
Scott Lenderman(property manager) HOA management administrator (prior to Rossetti) Mentioned as the first HOA management administrator.
The petition was dismissed after the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent HOA did not violate CC&R Section 5.4, finding that this section applies to use restrictions on individual Lots and Members, not the Association itself.
Why this result: The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Section 5.4 because the HOA does not own or operate the nuisance-causing television, and the CC&R section governs restrictions on lot Owners/Members, not the Association. OAH jurisdiction is limited to finding the governing document or statute violated by the respondent.
Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA failed to perform its duty to enforce CC&R Section 5.4 by refusing to seek removal of a neighbor's large, outdoor television that created noise disturbances and was deemed a nuisance.
Orders: The petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §32- 2199.02(A)
CC&R Section 5.4
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Homeowners Association, CC&R, Nuisance, Enforcement, Jurisdiction, Outdoor TV
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H041-REL”, “case_title”: “In the Matter of Anthony Payson vs The Foothills Homeowners Association #1”, “decision_date”: “2023-05-01”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can I use the ADRE administrative hearing process to force my HOA to enforce CC&R rules against a neighbor?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no, if the specific rule applies to member conduct rather than Association conduct.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) clarified that the dispute process is for determining if the Respondent (the HOA) violated a statute or governing document. If a CC&R provision restricts how a ‘lot’ may be used, a violation of that rule is a breach by the member (the neighbor), not the Association. Therefore, the HOA cannot be found guilty of violating a rule that governs homeowner behavior.”, “alj_quote”: “These provisions refer to what members may and may not do within the Association. Therefore, any breach of this Article would be a breach by a Member, not the Association. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent violated CC&R Section 5.4.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 5.4; OAH Jurisdiction”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement”, “jurisdiction”, “neighbor disputes” ] }, { “question”: “Does the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) have jurisdiction to decide if my HOA was negligent or violated common law duties?”, “short_answer”: “No, the OAH jurisdiction is strictly limited to violations of statutes and governing documents.”, “detailed_answer”: “The tribunal does not have the authority to hear claims based on common law, such as negligence or general failure to perform a duty, unless it is a specific violation of the statutes or the community documents tailored to the Association’s conduct.”, “alj_quote”: “To the extent that Petitioner alleged that Respondent may have violated common law, or any other laws, the OAH lacks jurisdiction to make such a determination.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “common law”, “negligence” ] }, { “question”: “What remedies or penalties can I request from the administrative judge if I win my case against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Relief is limited to a finding of violation, an order to comply, return of filing fees, and civil penalties.”, “detailed_answer”: “The administrative process cannot award damages for things like pain, suffering, or lost property value. The remedies are strictly defined by statute: finding a violation occurred, ordering the HOA to abide by the provision, returning the petitioner’s filing fee, and levying a civil penalty.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s relief in this venue is limited to e is limited to a finding that the governing document or statute at issue has been violated by the respondent, an order that Respondent abide by the provision in the future, and to have the filing fee returned to the petitioner and a civil penalty levied against Respondent.”, “legal_basis”: “Ariz. Rev. Stat. §32- 2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “remedies”, “penalties”, “civil penalty” ] }, { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner bringing the case must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It is not the HOA’s job to disprove the claims initially; the burden lies with the person filing the petition.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated on its CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “evidence”, “legal standard” ] }, { “question”: “What is the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard used in these hearings?”, “short_answer”: “It means the claim is more probable than not to be true.”, “detailed_answer”: “This legal standard requires that the evidence presented must convince the judge that the petitioner’s argument is more likely true than the opposing side’s argument. It is described as the ‘greater weight of the evidence.'”, “alj_quote”: ““A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.””, “legal_basis”: “Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standard”, “definitions”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “How are vague or ambiguous rules in the CC&Rs interpreted by the judge?”, “short_answer”: “They are construed to give effect to the intent of the parties and the underlying purpose of the document.”, “detailed_answer”: “When interpreting restrictive covenants, the judge looks at the document as a whole. If the covenant is unambiguous, it is enforced exactly as written to match the intent.”, “alj_quote”: ““Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.””, “legal_basis”: “Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553”, “topic_tags”: [ “interpretation”, “CC&Rs”, “legal principles” ] } ] }
Blog Post – 23F-H041-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H041-REL”, “case_title”: “In the Matter of Anthony Payson vs The Foothills Homeowners Association #1”, “decision_date”: “2023-05-01”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can I use the ADRE administrative hearing process to force my HOA to enforce CC&R rules against a neighbor?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no, if the specific rule applies to member conduct rather than Association conduct.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) clarified that the dispute process is for determining if the Respondent (the HOA) violated a statute or governing document. If a CC&R provision restricts how a ‘lot’ may be used, a violation of that rule is a breach by the member (the neighbor), not the Association. Therefore, the HOA cannot be found guilty of violating a rule that governs homeowner behavior.”, “alj_quote”: “These provisions refer to what members may and may not do within the Association. Therefore, any breach of this Article would be a breach by a Member, not the Association. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent violated CC&R Section 5.4.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 5.4; OAH Jurisdiction”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement”, “jurisdiction”, “neighbor disputes” ] }, { “question”: “Does the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) have jurisdiction to decide if my HOA was negligent or violated common law duties?”, “short_answer”: “No, the OAH jurisdiction is strictly limited to violations of statutes and governing documents.”, “detailed_answer”: “The tribunal does not have the authority to hear claims based on common law, such as negligence or general failure to perform a duty, unless it is a specific violation of the statutes or the community documents tailored to the Association’s conduct.”, “alj_quote”: “To the extent that Petitioner alleged that Respondent may have violated common law, or any other laws, the OAH lacks jurisdiction to make such a determination.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “common law”, “negligence” ] }, { “question”: “What remedies or penalties can I request from the administrative judge if I win my case against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Relief is limited to a finding of violation, an order to comply, return of filing fees, and civil penalties.”, “detailed_answer”: “The administrative process cannot award damages for things like pain, suffering, or lost property value. The remedies are strictly defined by statute: finding a violation occurred, ordering the HOA to abide by the provision, returning the petitioner’s filing fee, and levying a civil penalty.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s relief in this venue is limited to e is limited to a finding that the governing document or statute at issue has been violated by the respondent, an order that Respondent abide by the provision in the future, and to have the filing fee returned to the petitioner and a civil penalty levied against Respondent.”, “legal_basis”: “Ariz. Rev. Stat. §32- 2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “remedies”, “penalties”, “civil penalty” ] }, { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner bringing the case must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It is not the HOA’s job to disprove the claims initially; the burden lies with the person filing the petition.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated on its CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “evidence”, “legal standard” ] }, { “question”: “What is the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard used in these hearings?”, “short_answer”: “It means the claim is more probable than not to be true.”, “detailed_answer”: “This legal standard requires that the evidence presented must convince the judge that the petitioner’s argument is more likely true than the opposing side’s argument. It is described as the ‘greater weight of the evidence.'”, “alj_quote”: ““A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.””, “legal_basis”: “Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standard”, “definitions”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “How are vague or ambiguous rules in the CC&Rs interpreted by the judge?”, “short_answer”: “They are construed to give effect to the intent of the parties and the underlying purpose of the document.”, “detailed_answer”: “When interpreting restrictive covenants, the judge looks at the document as a whole. If the covenant is unambiguous, it is enforced exactly as written to match the intent.”, “alj_quote”: ““Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.””, “legal_basis”: “Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553”, “topic_tags”: [ “interpretation”, “CC&Rs”, “legal principles” ] } ] }
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Anthony Payson(petitioner) Homeowner
Respondent Side
Sean K. Mohnihan(HOA attorney) Smith & Wamsley, PLLC Appeared for Respondent The Foothills Homeowners Association #1
Jason E Smith(attorney) Smith & Wamsley, PLLC Listed with counsel
Gabron(board member) The Foothills Homeowners Association #1 Board representative/potential witness
Linda Armo(board member) The Foothills Homeowners Association #1 Board representative/potential witness
Philip Brown(former HOA attorney) Previously represented the HOA; wrote a letter to Petitioner
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) OAH
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Other Participants
Barry Callahan(neighbor) Alleged violator of CC&Rs, neighbor to Petitioner
Laveen Meadows HOA c/o Planned Development Services
Counsel
Chad Gallacher, Esq.
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs Sections 10.11.2, 10.11.4, and 10.16; A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
Outcome Summary
The Petitioner's challenge against the HOA was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the community documents or statutes when issuing citations.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof.
Key Issues & Findings
Challenge to HOA fine citations/improper enforcement of parking and nuisance rules
Petitioner claimed the Respondent HOA improperly issued citations against him for vehicle violations (inoperable vehicle, street parking, nuisance), asserting the HOA could not violate CC&R 10.11.4 but that the citations alleging the violation were unwarranted.
Orders: Petitioner Jerry R. Collis’s petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014)
McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Enforcement, CC&Rs, Vehicle Parking, Nuisance, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014)
McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
19F-H18020-REL Decision – 677244.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:25:31 (97.6 KB)
Briefing Doc – 19F-H18020-REL
Briefing Document: Collis v. Laveen Meadows HOA (Case No. 19F-H18020-REL)
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and decision in the administrative hearing of Jerry R. Collis (Petitioner) versus the Laveen Meadows HOA (Respondent). The Administrative Law Judge dismissed Mr. Collis’s petition, which alleged the HOA had wrongly issued citations concerning his vehicle.
The central issue revolved around a series of violation notices issued to Mr. Collis for an “Inoperable Vehicle.” While Mr. Collis focused his argument on proving the vehicle was, in fact, operational, the HOA successfully argued that the citations were based on a broader set of violations. These included not only the vehicle’s condition under CC&R Section 10.11.4 but also violations for street parking (Section 10.11.2) and creating a nuisance (Section 10.16) due to its unsightly appearance, which included cobwebs, debris, a flat tire, and a covered window.
The Judge concluded that the petitioner, Mr. Collis, failed to meet the burden of proof. By only addressing the vehicle’s operability, he did not disprove the other valid grounds for the citations. Consequently, the Judge found that the HOA had not violated its own governing documents or state statutes, dismissing the petition and declaring the HOA the prevailing party.
——————————————————————————–
1. Case Overview and Core Dispute
• Case Number: 19F-H18020-REL
• Parties:
◦ Petitioner: Jerry R. Collis (representing himself)
◦ Respondent: Laveen Meadows HOA (represented by Chad Gallacher, Esq.)
• Adjudicator: Thomas Shedden, Administrative Law Judge
• Hearing Date: December 4, 2018
• Decision Date: December 20, 2018
The Petitioner’s Allegation
On September 17, 2018, Jerry R. Collis filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The initial Notice of Hearing framed the allegation as the Laveen Meadows HOA having violated Article 10, Section 10.11.4 of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which pertains to inoperable vehicles.
At the December 4, 2018 hearing, Mr. Collis clarified his position. He argued that the issue was not that the HOA itself could violate that section, but that the HOA had wrongly issued him citations alleging a violation of that provision when his vehicle was fully operational.
The Respondent’s Position
The Laveen Meadows HOA, represented by Community Manager Lisa Riesland, objected to this reframing of the issue. The HOA contended that the citations issued to Mr. Collis were justified under multiple sections of the CC&Rs, not solely the “inoperable vehicle” clause. The HOA’s actions were based on violations of Sections 10.11.2 (street parking), 10.11.4 (inoperable vehicle), and 10.16 (nuisance).
2. Relevant CC&R Provisions
The dispute centered on the interpretation and application of three specific sections within the Laveen Meadows HOA CC&Rs.
Section
Title / Subject
Description
10.11.4
Inoperable Vehicles
Prohibits any motor vehicle “which are not in operating condition” from being parked in unenclosed areas, including driveways. This section was amended in May 2013 to clarify the definition of “operating condition.”
10.11.2
Street Parking
Prohibits parking on the streets within the community.
Nuisances
Prohibits nuisances, which are defined to include conditions that are “unsightly or that could reasonably cause annoyance to other members of the Association.”
3. Analysis of Evidence and Timeline
Violation Notices and Fines
Between September 2016 and June 2017, the HOA sent seven notifications to Mr. Collis regarding his vehicle. A key finding from the hearing was that while all seven notices stated, “Violation: Vehicle Parking – Inoperable Vehicle,” none of them cited a specific provision of the CC&Rs.
The timeline of notifications and fines is as follows:
• September 19, 2016: Initial letter citing expired tags and an inoperable vehicle on the street. Given 10 days to correct.
• October 11, 2016: Letter warning of a potential $25 fine. Notified of appeal rights. No evidence of appeal by Collis.
• December 1, 2016: A $25 fine was charged to Mr. Collis’s account. Mr. Collis appealed this to the HOA Board.
• January 26, 2017: The HOA Board sent a letter to Mr. Collis denying his appeal.
• April 20, 2017: A $50 fine and a $10 mailing fee were charged. No evidence of appeal.
• May 9, 2017: A $100 fine and a $10 mailing fee were charged. No evidence of appeal.
• May 23, 2017: A $100 fine and a $10 mailing fee were charged. No evidence of appeal.
• June 8, 2017: A $100 fine and a $10 mailing fee were charged. No evidence of appeal.
• June 26, 2017: A $100 fine and a $10 mailing fee were charged. No evidence of appeal.
For each fine assessed from October 2016 onwards, the HOA’s letters informed Mr. Collis of his right to appeal to the Board and to request an administrative hearing. The record shows no evidence that Mr. Collis requested an administrative hearing for any of the fines prior to filing his petition in 2018.
Competing Testimonies
• Petitioner (Collis): Testified that his vehicle was never inoperable. He acknowledged that at the time of the June 2017 letters, the vehicle had a flat tire and a covered window, but explained this was the result of vandalism.
• Respondent (HOA): Community Manager Lisa Riesland provided testimony deemed “credible” by the Judge. She stated that the vehicle’s condition constituted a nuisance under Section 10.16. Specific details included:
◦ Cobwebs and debris on or beneath the vehicle.
◦ At various times, cobwebs extended from the vehicle to the ground, trapping leaves.
◦ The condition was deemed “unsightly.”
4. Legal Conclusions and Final Order
Burden of Proof
The Judge established that Mr. Collis, as the petitioner, bore the burden of proof. The standard required was a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning evidence sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue over the other.
Judge’s Rationale
The decision rested on the following legal conclusions:
1. CC&Rs as a Contract: The CC&Rs constitute a binding contract between the homeowner and the HOA, requiring both parties to comply with its terms. The HOA must act reasonably in exercising its authority.
2. Multiple Grounds for Citations: The preponderance of evidence demonstrated that the HOA’s citations were based on violations of Sections 10.11.2 (street parking), 10.11.4 (inoperable vehicle), and 10.16 (nuisance).
3. Insufficiency of Petitioner’s Argument: Because the citations were multifaceted, Mr. Collis’s argument that his vehicle was in operating condition was insufficient to prove the citations were unwarranted. His claim did not address the evidence of street parking or the unsightly conditions that constituted a nuisance.
4. Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: Ultimately, the Judge concluded: “Mr. Collis has failed to show that the Respondent violated any of the CC&Rs, other community documents, or the statutes that regulate planned communities.”
Final Order
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Jerry R. Collis’s petition is dismissed.
The decision established the Laveen Meadows HOA as the prevailing party. This order is binding unless a rehearing is requested with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order (December 20, 2018).
Study Guide – 19F-H18020-REL
Study Guide: Collis v. Laveen Meadows HOA
This guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the matter of Jerry R. Collis (Petitioner) versus Laveen Meadows HOA (Respondent), Case No. 19F-H18020-REL. It includes a short-answer quiz with an answer key, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found within the legal document.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the provided source document.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in this administrative hearing, and who represented them?
2. What was the original violation Mr. Collis alleged against the Laveen Meadows HOA in his petition filed on September 17, 2018?
3. How did Mr. Collis clarify or reframe the issue he was raising during the December 4, 2018 hearing?
4. According to the HOA’s community manager, Lisa Riesland, what three CC&R sections were the basis for the citations issued to Mr. Collis?
5. What common phrase was used to describe the violation in all seven notifications sent to Mr. Collis, and what crucial detail did these notifications omit?
6. Describe the initial fine issued to Mr. Collis, including the date of the letter and the amount.
7. What physical evidence did the HOA present to support its claim that Mr. Collis’s vehicle created an “unsightly condition” under CC&R Section 10.16?
8. In addition to the unsightly conditions, what two other issues with the vehicle were noted around June 2017, and what was Mr. Collis’s explanation for them?
9. According to the “Conclusions of Law,” who bears the burden of proof in this matter, and what is the required standard of proof?
10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge, and what was the legal consequence of this decision for the parties?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Jerry R. Collis, the Petitioner, who appeared on his own behalf, and Laveen Meadows HOA, the Respondent. The Respondent was represented by Chad Gallacher, Esq.
2. Mr. Collis’s original petition, as shown in the Notice of Hearing, alleged that the Laveen Meadows HOA had violated Article 10, Section 10.11.4 of its own CC&Rs. This section pertains to parking motor vehicles that are not in operating condition in unenclosed areas.
3. At the hearing, Mr. Collis acknowledged the HOA could not violate its own rule and clarified that the real issue was that the HOA had wrongly issued him citations for violating Section 10.11.4. He argued that he was not, in fact, in violation of that provision.
4. Lisa Riesland testified that the citations were based not just on Section 10.11.4 (inoperable vehicles), but also on Section 10.11.2, which prohibits parking on the streets, and Section 10.16, which prohibits nuisances.
5. All seven notifications sent to Mr. Collis included the statement: “Violation: Vehicle Parking – Inoperable Vehicle.” However, none of the notifications listed a specific provision of the CC&Rs that had allegedly been violated.
6. The first fine was detailed in a letter dated December 1, 2016. The letter informed Mr. Collis that his account had been charged a $25 fine for the ongoing violation of storing an inoperable vehicle on the street.
7. The HOA presented credible testimony from Lisa Riesland that there were cobwebs and debris on or beneath the vehicle. At various times, these cobwebs extended from the vehicle to the ground and had trapped leaves, creating an unsightly condition.
8. Around June 2017, the vehicle also had a flat tire and a bag or cardboard covering one window. Mr. Collis acknowledged these facts and explained that the vehicle had been vandalized.
9. The “Conclusions of Law” state that Mr. Collis, the petitioner, bears the burden of proof. The standard of proof required to decide all issues in the matter is that of a “preponderance of the evidence.”
10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that Mr. Collis’s petition be dismissed. This legally binding order deemed the Respondent (Laveen Meadows HOA) to be the prevailing party in the matter.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses to encourage a deeper analysis of the case. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the discrepancy between Mr. Collis’s initial petition alleging a violation of Section 10.11.4 and the actual issue he raised at the hearing. How did this “reframing” of the issue affect his case, and how did the Respondent react?
2. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the document. Explain how the Administrative Law Judge applied this standard to the evidence presented by both Mr. Collis and the HOA to reach the final decision.
3. Trace the series of notifications and fines issued by the Laveen Meadows HOA, beginning with the September 19, 2016 letter. Evaluate the HOA’s process and communication based on the details provided in the letters. Did the HOA act reasonably, according to the legal standards cited in the decision?
4. The HOA cited three different CC&R sections (10.11.2, 10.11.4, and 10.16) as the basis for the citations, even though the notifications only stated “Vehicle Parking – Inoperable Vehicle.” Explore the significance of each of these sections and explain why Mr. Collis’s focus on his vehicle being operable was insufficient to win his case.
5. Examine the appeal options available to Mr. Collis at each stage of the violation process. Based on the “Findings of Fact,” what actions did he take or fail to take regarding his appeal rights, and how might this have impacted the overall trajectory of the dispute?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official (Thomas Shedden in this case) who presides over administrative hearings, weighs evidence, and makes legal rulings and decisions.
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE
The Arizona Administrative Code, a compilation of rules and regulations of Arizona state agencies. Section R2-19-119 is cited as establishing the standard of proof for the hearing.
ARIZ. REV. STAT.
The Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona. Various sections are cited regarding homeowner association disputes and administrative procedures.
Appearances
A formal term for the individuals present and participating in the hearing. In this case, it was Jerry R. Collis and Chad Gallacher, Esq.
The governing body of the Laveen Meadows HOA, to which Mr. Collis had the right to appeal fines. He appealed one fine to the Board, which was denied.
Burden of Proof
The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this case, the burden of proof was on Mr. Collis.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions)
The governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community or homeowners’ association. The decision establishes the CC&Rs as a contract between the HOA and its members.
Community Manager
An individual responsible for managing the operations of the HOA. Lisa Riesland served this role for the Respondent and testified at the hearing.
Conclusions of Law
The section of the decision where the Administrative Law Judge applies legal principles and statutes to the established facts to reach a judgment.
Findings of Fact
The section of the decision that lists the established, undisputed facts of the case based on evidence and testimony presented during the hearing.
Nuisance
A condition prohibited by CC&R Section 10.16. It is defined as a condition that is unsightly or could reasonably cause annoyance to other members of the Association.
Operating Condition
A term from CC&R Section 10.11.4, which was amended in May 2013 to clarify its meaning. Mr. Collis argued his vehicle was always in operating condition.
The final, legally binding ruling of the Administrative Law Judge. In this case, the Order was to dismiss the petitioner’s petition.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action or files a petition. In this matter, Jerry R. Collis is the Petitioner.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this hearing. It is defined as “The greater weight of the evidence…sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, Laveen Meadows HOA is the Respondent.
Blog Post – 19F-H18020-REL
🏛️
No emoji found
Loading
19F-H18020-REL
1 source
The provided text consists of an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings concerning a dispute between Petitioner Jerry R. Collis and the Laveen Meadows HOA, which is the Respondent. This decision addresses Mr. Collis’s petition alleging the HOA violated its CC&Rs by improperly issuing citations related to his vehicle. The Findings of Fact detail that Mr. Collis’s vehicle was cited for being inoperable, having expired tags, and creating an unsightly condition defined as a nuisance under multiple CC&R sections. Ultimately, the Conclusions of Law state that Mr. Collis failed to meet his burden of proof to show the HOA violated any community documents or statutes, leading to the dismissal of his petition.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Jerry R. Collis(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Chad Gallacher(HOA attorney) Maxwell & Morgan, P.C. Counsel for Respondent Laveen Meadows HOA
Lisa Riesland(community manager) Laveen Meadows HOA Testified for Respondent
Neutral Parties
Thomas Shedden(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Other Participants
f del sol(admin support) Signed copy distribution notice
Laveen Meadows HOA c/o Planned Development Services
Counsel
Chad Gallacher, Esq.
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs Sections 10.11.2, 10.11.4, and 10.16; A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
Outcome Summary
The Petitioner's challenge against the HOA was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the community documents or statutes when issuing citations.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof.
Key Issues & Findings
Challenge to HOA fine citations/improper enforcement of parking and nuisance rules
Petitioner claimed the Respondent HOA improperly issued citations against him for vehicle violations (inoperable vehicle, street parking, nuisance), asserting the HOA could not violate CC&R 10.11.4 but that the citations alleging the violation were unwarranted.
Orders: Petitioner Jerry R. Collis’s petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014)
McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Enforcement, CC&Rs, Vehicle Parking, Nuisance, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014)
McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
19F-H18020-REL Decision – 677244.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:11 (97.6 KB)
Briefing Doc – 19F-H18020-REL
Briefing Document: Collis v. Laveen Meadows HOA (Case No. 19F-H18020-REL)
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and decision in the administrative hearing of Jerry R. Collis (Petitioner) versus the Laveen Meadows HOA (Respondent). The Administrative Law Judge dismissed Mr. Collis’s petition, which alleged the HOA had wrongly issued citations concerning his vehicle.
The central issue revolved around a series of violation notices issued to Mr. Collis for an “Inoperable Vehicle.” While Mr. Collis focused his argument on proving the vehicle was, in fact, operational, the HOA successfully argued that the citations were based on a broader set of violations. These included not only the vehicle’s condition under CC&R Section 10.11.4 but also violations for street parking (Section 10.11.2) and creating a nuisance (Section 10.16) due to its unsightly appearance, which included cobwebs, debris, a flat tire, and a covered window.
The Judge concluded that the petitioner, Mr. Collis, failed to meet the burden of proof. By only addressing the vehicle’s operability, he did not disprove the other valid grounds for the citations. Consequently, the Judge found that the HOA had not violated its own governing documents or state statutes, dismissing the petition and declaring the HOA the prevailing party.
——————————————————————————–
1. Case Overview and Core Dispute
• Case Number: 19F-H18020-REL
• Parties:
◦ Petitioner: Jerry R. Collis (representing himself)
◦ Respondent: Laveen Meadows HOA (represented by Chad Gallacher, Esq.)
• Adjudicator: Thomas Shedden, Administrative Law Judge
• Hearing Date: December 4, 2018
• Decision Date: December 20, 2018
The Petitioner’s Allegation
On September 17, 2018, Jerry R. Collis filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The initial Notice of Hearing framed the allegation as the Laveen Meadows HOA having violated Article 10, Section 10.11.4 of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which pertains to inoperable vehicles.
At the December 4, 2018 hearing, Mr. Collis clarified his position. He argued that the issue was not that the HOA itself could violate that section, but that the HOA had wrongly issued him citations alleging a violation of that provision when his vehicle was fully operational.
The Respondent’s Position
The Laveen Meadows HOA, represented by Community Manager Lisa Riesland, objected to this reframing of the issue. The HOA contended that the citations issued to Mr. Collis were justified under multiple sections of the CC&Rs, not solely the “inoperable vehicle” clause. The HOA’s actions were based on violations of Sections 10.11.2 (street parking), 10.11.4 (inoperable vehicle), and 10.16 (nuisance).
2. Relevant CC&R Provisions
The dispute centered on the interpretation and application of three specific sections within the Laveen Meadows HOA CC&Rs.
Section
Title / Subject
Description
10.11.4
Inoperable Vehicles
Prohibits any motor vehicle “which are not in operating condition” from being parked in unenclosed areas, including driveways. This section was amended in May 2013 to clarify the definition of “operating condition.”
10.11.2
Street Parking
Prohibits parking on the streets within the community.
Nuisances
Prohibits nuisances, which are defined to include conditions that are “unsightly or that could reasonably cause annoyance to other members of the Association.”
3. Analysis of Evidence and Timeline
Violation Notices and Fines
Between September 2016 and June 2017, the HOA sent seven notifications to Mr. Collis regarding his vehicle. A key finding from the hearing was that while all seven notices stated, “Violation: Vehicle Parking – Inoperable Vehicle,” none of them cited a specific provision of the CC&Rs.
The timeline of notifications and fines is as follows:
• September 19, 2016: Initial letter citing expired tags and an inoperable vehicle on the street. Given 10 days to correct.
• October 11, 2016: Letter warning of a potential $25 fine. Notified of appeal rights. No evidence of appeal by Collis.
• December 1, 2016: A $25 fine was charged to Mr. Collis’s account. Mr. Collis appealed this to the HOA Board.
• January 26, 2017: The HOA Board sent a letter to Mr. Collis denying his appeal.
• April 20, 2017: A $50 fine and a $10 mailing fee were charged. No evidence of appeal.
• May 9, 2017: A $100 fine and a $10 mailing fee were charged. No evidence of appeal.
• May 23, 2017: A $100 fine and a $10 mailing fee were charged. No evidence of appeal.
• June 8, 2017: A $100 fine and a $10 mailing fee were charged. No evidence of appeal.
• June 26, 2017: A $100 fine and a $10 mailing fee were charged. No evidence of appeal.
For each fine assessed from October 2016 onwards, the HOA’s letters informed Mr. Collis of his right to appeal to the Board and to request an administrative hearing. The record shows no evidence that Mr. Collis requested an administrative hearing for any of the fines prior to filing his petition in 2018.
Competing Testimonies
• Petitioner (Collis): Testified that his vehicle was never inoperable. He acknowledged that at the time of the June 2017 letters, the vehicle had a flat tire and a covered window, but explained this was the result of vandalism.
• Respondent (HOA): Community Manager Lisa Riesland provided testimony deemed “credible” by the Judge. She stated that the vehicle’s condition constituted a nuisance under Section 10.16. Specific details included:
◦ Cobwebs and debris on or beneath the vehicle.
◦ At various times, cobwebs extended from the vehicle to the ground, trapping leaves.
◦ The condition was deemed “unsightly.”
4. Legal Conclusions and Final Order
Burden of Proof
The Judge established that Mr. Collis, as the petitioner, bore the burden of proof. The standard required was a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning evidence sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue over the other.
Judge’s Rationale
The decision rested on the following legal conclusions:
1. CC&Rs as a Contract: The CC&Rs constitute a binding contract between the homeowner and the HOA, requiring both parties to comply with its terms. The HOA must act reasonably in exercising its authority.
2. Multiple Grounds for Citations: The preponderance of evidence demonstrated that the HOA’s citations were based on violations of Sections 10.11.2 (street parking), 10.11.4 (inoperable vehicle), and 10.16 (nuisance).
3. Insufficiency of Petitioner’s Argument: Because the citations were multifaceted, Mr. Collis’s argument that his vehicle was in operating condition was insufficient to prove the citations were unwarranted. His claim did not address the evidence of street parking or the unsightly conditions that constituted a nuisance.
4. Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: Ultimately, the Judge concluded: “Mr. Collis has failed to show that the Respondent violated any of the CC&Rs, other community documents, or the statutes that regulate planned communities.”
Final Order
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Jerry R. Collis’s petition is dismissed.
The decision established the Laveen Meadows HOA as the prevailing party. This order is binding unless a rehearing is requested with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order (December 20, 2018).
Study Guide – 19F-H18020-REL
Study Guide: Collis v. Laveen Meadows HOA
This guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the matter of Jerry R. Collis (Petitioner) versus Laveen Meadows HOA (Respondent), Case No. 19F-H18020-REL. It includes a short-answer quiz with an answer key, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found within the legal document.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the provided source document.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in this administrative hearing, and who represented them?
2. What was the original violation Mr. Collis alleged against the Laveen Meadows HOA in his petition filed on September 17, 2018?
3. How did Mr. Collis clarify or reframe the issue he was raising during the December 4, 2018 hearing?
4. According to the HOA’s community manager, Lisa Riesland, what three CC&R sections were the basis for the citations issued to Mr. Collis?
5. What common phrase was used to describe the violation in all seven notifications sent to Mr. Collis, and what crucial detail did these notifications omit?
6. Describe the initial fine issued to Mr. Collis, including the date of the letter and the amount.
7. What physical evidence did the HOA present to support its claim that Mr. Collis’s vehicle created an “unsightly condition” under CC&R Section 10.16?
8. In addition to the unsightly conditions, what two other issues with the vehicle were noted around June 2017, and what was Mr. Collis’s explanation for them?
9. According to the “Conclusions of Law,” who bears the burden of proof in this matter, and what is the required standard of proof?
10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge, and what was the legal consequence of this decision for the parties?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Jerry R. Collis, the Petitioner, who appeared on his own behalf, and Laveen Meadows HOA, the Respondent. The Respondent was represented by Chad Gallacher, Esq.
2. Mr. Collis’s original petition, as shown in the Notice of Hearing, alleged that the Laveen Meadows HOA had violated Article 10, Section 10.11.4 of its own CC&Rs. This section pertains to parking motor vehicles that are not in operating condition in unenclosed areas.
3. At the hearing, Mr. Collis acknowledged the HOA could not violate its own rule and clarified that the real issue was that the HOA had wrongly issued him citations for violating Section 10.11.4. He argued that he was not, in fact, in violation of that provision.
4. Lisa Riesland testified that the citations were based not just on Section 10.11.4 (inoperable vehicles), but also on Section 10.11.2, which prohibits parking on the streets, and Section 10.16, which prohibits nuisances.
5. All seven notifications sent to Mr. Collis included the statement: “Violation: Vehicle Parking – Inoperable Vehicle.” However, none of the notifications listed a specific provision of the CC&Rs that had allegedly been violated.
6. The first fine was detailed in a letter dated December 1, 2016. The letter informed Mr. Collis that his account had been charged a $25 fine for the ongoing violation of storing an inoperable vehicle on the street.
7. The HOA presented credible testimony from Lisa Riesland that there were cobwebs and debris on or beneath the vehicle. At various times, these cobwebs extended from the vehicle to the ground and had trapped leaves, creating an unsightly condition.
8. Around June 2017, the vehicle also had a flat tire and a bag or cardboard covering one window. Mr. Collis acknowledged these facts and explained that the vehicle had been vandalized.
9. The “Conclusions of Law” state that Mr. Collis, the petitioner, bears the burden of proof. The standard of proof required to decide all issues in the matter is that of a “preponderance of the evidence.”
10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that Mr. Collis’s petition be dismissed. This legally binding order deemed the Respondent (Laveen Meadows HOA) to be the prevailing party in the matter.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses to encourage a deeper analysis of the case. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the discrepancy between Mr. Collis’s initial petition alleging a violation of Section 10.11.4 and the actual issue he raised at the hearing. How did this “reframing” of the issue affect his case, and how did the Respondent react?
2. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the document. Explain how the Administrative Law Judge applied this standard to the evidence presented by both Mr. Collis and the HOA to reach the final decision.
3. Trace the series of notifications and fines issued by the Laveen Meadows HOA, beginning with the September 19, 2016 letter. Evaluate the HOA’s process and communication based on the details provided in the letters. Did the HOA act reasonably, according to the legal standards cited in the decision?
4. The HOA cited three different CC&R sections (10.11.2, 10.11.4, and 10.16) as the basis for the citations, even though the notifications only stated “Vehicle Parking – Inoperable Vehicle.” Explore the significance of each of these sections and explain why Mr. Collis’s focus on his vehicle being operable was insufficient to win his case.
5. Examine the appeal options available to Mr. Collis at each stage of the violation process. Based on the “Findings of Fact,” what actions did he take or fail to take regarding his appeal rights, and how might this have impacted the overall trajectory of the dispute?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official (Thomas Shedden in this case) who presides over administrative hearings, weighs evidence, and makes legal rulings and decisions.
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE
The Arizona Administrative Code, a compilation of rules and regulations of Arizona state agencies. Section R2-19-119 is cited as establishing the standard of proof for the hearing.
ARIZ. REV. STAT.
The Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona. Various sections are cited regarding homeowner association disputes and administrative procedures.
Appearances
A formal term for the individuals present and participating in the hearing. In this case, it was Jerry R. Collis and Chad Gallacher, Esq.
The governing body of the Laveen Meadows HOA, to which Mr. Collis had the right to appeal fines. He appealed one fine to the Board, which was denied.
Burden of Proof
The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this case, the burden of proof was on Mr. Collis.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions)
The governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community or homeowners’ association. The decision establishes the CC&Rs as a contract between the HOA and its members.
Community Manager
An individual responsible for managing the operations of the HOA. Lisa Riesland served this role for the Respondent and testified at the hearing.
Conclusions of Law
The section of the decision where the Administrative Law Judge applies legal principles and statutes to the established facts to reach a judgment.
Findings of Fact
The section of the decision that lists the established, undisputed facts of the case based on evidence and testimony presented during the hearing.
Nuisance
A condition prohibited by CC&R Section 10.16. It is defined as a condition that is unsightly or could reasonably cause annoyance to other members of the Association.
Operating Condition
A term from CC&R Section 10.11.4, which was amended in May 2013 to clarify its meaning. Mr. Collis argued his vehicle was always in operating condition.
The final, legally binding ruling of the Administrative Law Judge. In this case, the Order was to dismiss the petitioner’s petition.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action or files a petition. In this matter, Jerry R. Collis is the Petitioner.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this hearing. It is defined as “The greater weight of the evidence…sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, Laveen Meadows HOA is the Respondent.
Blog Post – 19F-H18020-REL
🏛️
No emoji found
Loading
19F-H18020-REL
1 source
The provided text consists of an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings concerning a dispute between Petitioner Jerry R. Collis and the Laveen Meadows HOA, which is the Respondent. This decision addresses Mr. Collis’s petition alleging the HOA violated its CC&Rs by improperly issuing citations related to his vehicle. The Findings of Fact detail that Mr. Collis’s vehicle was cited for being inoperable, having expired tags, and creating an unsightly condition defined as a nuisance under multiple CC&R sections. Ultimately, the Conclusions of Law state that Mr. Collis failed to meet his burden of proof to show the HOA violated any community documents or statutes, leading to the dismissal of his petition.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Jerry R. Collis(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Chad Gallacher(HOA attorney) Maxwell & Morgan, P.C. Counsel for Respondent Laveen Meadows HOA
Lisa Riesland(community manager) Laveen Meadows HOA Testified for Respondent
Neutral Parties
Thomas Shedden(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Other Participants
f del sol(admin support) Signed copy distribution notice
