The Administrative Law Judge Decision granted the remanded petition based on the parties' stipulation that the Respondent Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to timely provide the membership roster. The ALJ ordered Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee and assessed a civil penalty of $25.00 against Respondent. All other respects of the previous ALJ Decision issued February 21, 2023, remain unchanged.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to timely provide full membership roster
The remanded issue concerned whether Respondent failed to timely fulfill records requests, specifically a full roster of Association Member names and corresponding property addresses, in violation of ARS § 33-1805. The parties stipulated that a violation of ARS § 33-1805 occurred.
Orders: Petitioner's remanded petition was granted. Respondent was ordered to reimburse Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee and pay a $25.00 civil penalty.
Topics: HOA Records Request, Membership Roster, Records Disclosure, Statutory Violation, Stipulation, Remand
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-243
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09(A)(1)
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1280942.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:27:21 (50.9 KB)
25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1285833.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:27:25 (107.0 KB)
25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1286292.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:27:30 (21.7 KB)
25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1288559.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:27:36 (149.2 KB)
Briefing Doc – 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD
Briefing Document: The Matter of Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes the key events, legal arguments, and ultimate resolution of the administrative case Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (No. 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD). The dispute, which progressed through the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and the Maricopa County Superior Court, centered on a homeowner’s right to access association records, specifically the membership roster.
The case concluded on March 31, 2025, when the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA) stipulated to a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805. The HOA admitted it failed to timely fulfill a records request for the membership roster, which was submitted on October 21, 2021, and not fulfilled until May 2023—a delay of approximately 19 months.
The resolution required the HOA to pay petitioner Tom Barrs a total of $975.00, which included the reimbursement of a $500.00 filing fee. Citing the respondent’s “unconscionable conduct,” the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) also levied a nominal civil penalty of $25.00 against the association.
A critical turning point in the case was a landmark ruling by the Maricopa County Superior Court on April 4, 2024. The Court reversed an earlier OAH decision, establishing that HOA membership lists containing names and property addresses do not qualify as exempt personal records. The Court reasoned that access to such information is “essential to having a homeowners association” and necessary for members “to actively participate in HOA affairs.” This ruling, however, specified that more private data, such as email addresses and phone numbers, are not subject to mandatory disclosure. The matter was subsequently remanded to the OAH on this single issue, leading to the final stipulated resolution.
——————————————————————————–
I. Case Overview and Parties Involved
This administrative action details a prolonged dispute between a homeowner and his planned community association regarding access to records.
• Case Name: In the Matter of: Tom Barrs, Petitioner, vs. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, Respondent.
• Docket Number: 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD
• Adjudicating Body: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark
• Petitioner: Tom Barrs (Appeared pro per initially, later represented by Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq.)
• Respondent: Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Represented by HOA President Michel Olley)
II. Procedural History: From Initial Petitions to Superior Court
The case originated from four separate petitions filed by Mr. Barrs with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, each incurring a $500 filing fee.
Petition Filing Date
Alleged Violation
Subject Matter
April 18, 2022
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Document requests from Apr 2021, Nov 2021, and Feb 2022.
April 18, 2022
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
Alleged preclusion of audio recording at a meeting.
April 18, 2022
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Membership roster request from October 2021.
May 12, 2022
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Multiple document requests from Oct 2021 to Mar 2022.
• May 25, 2022: The Department of Real Estate consolidated the matters and referred them to the OAH for an evidentiary hearing.
• January 9-10, 2023: The consolidated hearing takes place before the OAH.
• February 21, 2023: The OAH issues an Administrative Law Judge Decision. It granted portions of the general document request petitions but denied the petitions regarding the audio recording and the membership roster in their entirety. The petitioner’s request for civil penalties was also denied.
• March 26, 2023: As the aggrieved party, Mr. Barrs files a timely Dispute Rehearing Petition with the Department of Real Estate.
• April 18, 2023: The Department of Real Estate issues an order denying the rehearing request.
• June 6, 2023: The Department is notified that Mr. Barrs has appealed its decision to the Maricopa County Superior Court.
III. The Superior Court Ruling: A Key Decision on HOA Record Transparency
On April 4, 2024, the Superior Court issued a pivotal order that reversed the Department of Real Estate’s decision in part, focusing squarely on the issue of membership lists.
The Court concluded that the ALJ had erred in treating the membership roster as exempt personal records. It ruled that such lists, containing names and property addresses, must be made available to all members unless they qualify for a specific statutory exception.
“In this case, Desert Ridge has kept membership lists as a part of their records undoubtedly for a variety of reasons. Unless those records qualify for an exception, they must be made available to all members… Those membership lists containing names and addresses, however, do not appear to fall within the exemption for personal records.”
The Court’s rationale was grounded in the principle of homeowner participation in association governance:
“In addition, in order to actively participate in HOA affairs, all members must have the ability to know who is in the Association and which home or land they own.”
The ruling drew a clear line between public-facing information and private contact details. It affirmed that while names and addresses are necessary for HOA functions, more personal data is not.
“The desire for additional personal information, including email addresses and phone numbers and the like, while understandable, is not necessary for active participation in the affairs of the Association… Email addresses and phone numbers, however, are more personal and less public in nature… While disclosure of names and property addresses… may be essential to having a homeowners association, the disclosure of email addresses and phone numbers is not.”
On August 2, 2024, the Court reaffirmed its ruling and remanded “only the reversed portion of the Department’s Decision” back to the OAH for “proceedings consistent” with its order. The petitioner’s request for attorneys’ fees for his pro per work was denied.
IV. The Remand Process and Clarification of Scope
Following the remand, the OAH scheduled a new hearing for March 31, 2025. A prehearing conference on March 18, 2025, revealed a significant disagreement between the parties on the scope of this new hearing.
• Petitioner’s Position: Mr. Barrs argued that the remand reopened all four of his original petitions for reconsideration.
• Respondent’s Position: Mr. Olley contended that the remand was narrowly focused on the single issue of the membership roster, as specified by the Superior Court.
ALJ Clark noted that the Department of Real Estate’s hearing notice was “deficient” because it failed to specify the issue for adjudication. To resolve the conflict, she issued a clarifying Minute Entry on March 24, 2025.
The Order explicitly narrowed the scope of the hearing:
“IT IS ORDERED that the issue to be addressed at the hearing… is whether Respondent failed to timely fulfill records requests submitted by Petitioner… by providing Petitioner with a full roster of Association Member names and corresponding property addresses per his request(s) in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”
The order further stated that in all other respects, the original ALJ Decision from February 21, 2023, “remains unchanged and in full force and effect,” thereby validating the respondent’s interpretation.
V. Final Hearing and Resolution
The remanded hearing convened on March 31, 2025. Before testimony could begin, the case moved swiftly to a resolution.
At the outset of the hearing, Mr. Olley, on behalf of the HOA, made a “motion for summary judgment,” conceding a violation of the statute regarding the withholding of the membership roster and offering to reimburse the petitioner’s $500 filing fee. The ALJ treated this as a settlement offer and allowed the parties to confer off the record.
The parties returned having reached a full agreement, which was entered into the record. The key stipulated facts were:
Stipulation
Details
Violation Admitted
The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide the membership roster.
Specific Request
The violation pertains to the request made by Mr. Barrs on October 21, 2021.
Untimeliness
The roster was not provided until May 2023, approximately 19 months after the request.
Monetary Settlement
The Association agreed to pay Mr. Barrs a total of $975.00.
Based on the parties’ stipulations, ALJ Clark issued a final decision on April 1, 2025, formalizing the outcome:
1. Petition Granted: The petitioner’s remanded petition was granted.
2. Civil Penalty: A civil penalty of $25.00 was assessed against the Respondent. In his closing argument, petitioner’s counsel argued this was warranted due to the HOA’s “unconscionable conduct” in delaying compliance for 19 months.
3. Filing Fee Reimbursement: Respondent was ordered to reimburse the petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee, as per the stipulation and statute.
4. Finality: The decision reaffirmed that all other elements of the original February 21, 2023, OAH decision remain in effect.
Study Guide – 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H2222050-REL-RMD”, “case_title”: “Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-04-01”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA refuse to give me a list of other homeowners’ names and addresses?”, “short_answer”: “No. Unless an exception applies, membership lists with names and addresses must be made available so members can participate in HOA affairs.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision clarifies that membership lists containing names and addresses are not considered ‘personal records’ that can be withheld. Access to this information is deemed necessary for members to actively participate in the association, such as knowing who belongs to the association and which properties they own.”, “alj_quote”: “Those membership lists containing names and addresses, however, do not appear to fall within the exemption for personal records. … In addition, in order to actively participate in HOA affairs, all members must have the ability to know who is in the Association and which home or land they own.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “Records Request”, “Membership List”, “Homeowner Rights” ] }, { “question”: “Am I entitled to receive the email addresses and phone numbers of other homeowners?”, “short_answer”: “No. Email addresses and phone numbers are considered personal and private, unlike physical addresses.”, “detailed_answer”: “While names and physical addresses are necessary for HOA participation, the decision states that email addresses and phone numbers are more personal. Disclosure of this contact information is not essential for association business and could lead to harassment or marketing issues.”, “alj_quote”: “The desire for additional personal information, including email addresses and phone numbers and the like, while understandable, is not necessary for active participation in the affairs of the Association. … Email addresses and phone numbers, however, are more personal and less public in nature.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Privacy”, “Records Request”, “Personal Records” ] }, { “question”: “How quickly must the HOA respond to my request to inspect records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona law grants the association ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies of records… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Timelines”, “Procedural Requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA charge me a fee for simply looking at the records?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA cannot charge for making materials available for review.”, “detailed_answer”: “The statute explicitly prohibits the association from charging a member for the act of making material available for review. Charges are only permitted for copies.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Fees”, “Records Request” ] }, { “question”: “How much can the HOA charge me for copies of records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA can charge a maximum of 15 cents per page.”, “detailed_answer”: “If a member requests copies of records, the association is legally permitted to charge a fee, but it is capped at fifteen cents per page.”, “alj_quote”: “An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Fees”, “Records Request” ] }, { “question”: “What records is the HOA allowed to withhold from me?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA can withhold privileged legal communications, pending litigation, closed meeting minutes, and specific personal or employee records.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision outlines specific statutory exceptions where records can be withheld, including attorney-client privilege, pending litigation, minutes from executive sessions, and personal/health/financial records of members or employees.”, “alj_quote”: “Books and records… may be withheld… to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: 1. Privileged communication… 2. Pending litigation. 3. Meeting minutes… of a session… not required to be open… 4. Personal, health or financial records…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Exceptions”, “Records Request”, “Privacy” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA be penalized if they delay providing records for a long time?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Significant delays can result in a violation and civil penalties.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA failed to provide a membership roster for approximately 19 months (from October 2021 to May 2023). This was deemed untimely and resulted in a civil penalty.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent’s response to Petitioner’s October 21, 2021, records request was untimely, as it was not fulfilled until May 2023. … Petitioner’s request to assess civil penalties totaling $25.00 against Respondent is granted.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Enforcement”, “Timelines” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my hearing, will the HOA have to reimburse my filing fee?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision orders the Respondent (HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee as required by statute when the Petitioner prevails.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “Costs”, “Remedies” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove that the HOA broke the law?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA violated the statute. This means showing that the contention is more probably true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “Legal Standards”, “Procedure” ] } ] }
Blog Post – 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H2222050-REL-RMD”, “case_title”: “Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-04-01”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA refuse to give me a list of other homeowners’ names and addresses?”, “short_answer”: “No. Unless an exception applies, membership lists with names and addresses must be made available so members can participate in HOA affairs.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision clarifies that membership lists containing names and addresses are not considered ‘personal records’ that can be withheld. Access to this information is deemed necessary for members to actively participate in the association, such as knowing who belongs to the association and which properties they own.”, “alj_quote”: “Those membership lists containing names and addresses, however, do not appear to fall within the exemption for personal records. … In addition, in order to actively participate in HOA affairs, all members must have the ability to know who is in the Association and which home or land they own.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “Records Request”, “Membership List”, “Homeowner Rights” ] }, { “question”: “Am I entitled to receive the email addresses and phone numbers of other homeowners?”, “short_answer”: “No. Email addresses and phone numbers are considered personal and private, unlike physical addresses.”, “detailed_answer”: “While names and physical addresses are necessary for HOA participation, the decision states that email addresses and phone numbers are more personal. Disclosure of this contact information is not essential for association business and could lead to harassment or marketing issues.”, “alj_quote”: “The desire for additional personal information, including email addresses and phone numbers and the like, while understandable, is not necessary for active participation in the affairs of the Association. … Email addresses and phone numbers, however, are more personal and less public in nature.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Privacy”, “Records Request”, “Personal Records” ] }, { “question”: “How quickly must the HOA respond to my request to inspect records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona law grants the association ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies of records… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Timelines”, “Procedural Requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA charge me a fee for simply looking at the records?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA cannot charge for making materials available for review.”, “detailed_answer”: “The statute explicitly prohibits the association from charging a member for the act of making material available for review. Charges are only permitted for copies.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Fees”, “Records Request” ] }, { “question”: “How much can the HOA charge me for copies of records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA can charge a maximum of 15 cents per page.”, “detailed_answer”: “If a member requests copies of records, the association is legally permitted to charge a fee, but it is capped at fifteen cents per page.”, “alj_quote”: “An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Fees”, “Records Request” ] }, { “question”: “What records is the HOA allowed to withhold from me?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA can withhold privileged legal communications, pending litigation, closed meeting minutes, and specific personal or employee records.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision outlines specific statutory exceptions where records can be withheld, including attorney-client privilege, pending litigation, minutes from executive sessions, and personal/health/financial records of members or employees.”, “alj_quote”: “Books and records… may be withheld… to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: 1. Privileged communication… 2. Pending litigation. 3. Meeting minutes… of a session… not required to be open… 4. Personal, health or financial records…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Exceptions”, “Records Request”, “Privacy” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA be penalized if they delay providing records for a long time?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Significant delays can result in a violation and civil penalties.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA failed to provide a membership roster for approximately 19 months (from October 2021 to May 2023). This was deemed untimely and resulted in a civil penalty.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent’s response to Petitioner’s October 21, 2021, records request was untimely, as it was not fulfilled until May 2023. … Petitioner’s request to assess civil penalties totaling $25.00 against Respondent is granted.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Enforcement”, “Timelines” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my hearing, will the HOA have to reimburse my filing fee?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision orders the Respondent (HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee as required by statute when the Petitioner prevails.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “Costs”, “Remedies” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove that the HOA broke the law?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA violated the statute. This means showing that the contention is more probably true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “Legal Standards”, “Procedure” ] } ] }
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Tom Barrs(petitioner)
Jonathan A. Dessaules(petitioner attorney) Dessaules Law Group
Respondent Side
Michael Olley(HOA President) Desert Ranch Homeowners Association Appeared on behalf of Respondent. Also referred to as Michael Ali and Michel Olley.
B. Austin Baillio(respondent attorney) Maxwell & Morgan P.C. Counsel for Respondent in official correspondence.
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Judge Mikitish(Superior Court Judge) Superior Court of Arizona – Maricopa County Issued minute entries in related Superior Court proceedings.
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official correspondence.
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official correspondence.
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official correspondence.
mneat(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official correspondence.
lrecchia(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official correspondence.
gosborn(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official correspondence.
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official correspondence.
Other Participants
Brian Schoeffler(observer) Observed the hearing.
Stephen Barrs(observer) Observed the hearing. Also referred to as Steven Bar and Steven Bars.
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Association's conduct did not violate ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 because the Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the requested records were in existence and subject to disclosure.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish that the requested records (communications) were in existence and subject to disclosure.
Key Issues & Findings
Failing to fulfill Petitioner’s records request
Petitioner claimed the HOA failed to provide copies of all communications (written/electronic) related to information requests, open meeting law compliance, and changes to bylaws, arguing they were not exempt from disclosure under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(B). The HOA asserted no disclosable records existed.
Orders: Petitioner's petition and request for civil penalty are denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner's filing fee.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Records Request, Records Disclosure, ARIZ. REV. STAT. 33-1805, Burden of Proof, Preponderance of Evidence
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
21F-H2120006-REL Decision – 834142.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:34:55 (147.6 KB)
Briefing Doc – 21F-H2120006-REL
Administrative Law Judge Decision: Kupel vs. Hidden Valley Association
Executive Summary
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings denied a petition filed by homeowner Douglas E. Kupel against the Hidden Valley Association (HVA). The core of the dispute was Kupel’s allegation that HVA violated Arizona statute ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to completely fulfill a comprehensive records request. While HVA provided its records retention policy and legal invoices, it withheld two categories of electronic and hard copy communications, claiming no such disclosable records existed.
Kupel argued that statements made in emails by HVA Board President Gary Freed—specifically that certain communications would be “filed as an HVA business record”—proved the existence of the requested records. HVA countered that this statement was a mistake on Freed’s part, resulting from an initial misunderstanding of retention requirements, and that no records subject to disclosure actually existed.
The ALJ ultimately concluded that Kupel failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard required to prove his claim. The judge found that the evidence presented was not sufficient to prove that the requested records existed and were being improperly withheld. Consequently, the petition was denied, and Kupel’s requests for reimbursement of his filing fee and the imposition of a civil penalty against HVA were also denied.
Case Overview
Case Name
Douglas E Kupel, Petitioner, vs. Hidden Valley Association, Respondent
Case Number
21F-H2120006-REL
Jurisdiction
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Hearing Date
October 22, 2020
Decision Date
October 30, 2020
Key Parties
Douglas E. Kupel (Petitioner), Hidden Valley Association (Respondent), Gary Freed (HVA Board President)
Core Dispute: The Records Request
The central issue of the hearing was whether the Hidden Valley Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to fully comply with a records request submitted by Kupel on June 22, 2020. HVA, through its community manager HOAMCO, provided a partial response on July 1, 2020.
Breakdown of the Records Request:
• Request 1 (Fulfilled): A copy of the HVA records retention policy adopted on January 15, 2020.
• Request 2 (Denied): Copies of all communications (email and hard copy) to or from current and former HVA Board and committee members regarding “information requests or open meeting law compliance” from July 2019 to the present.
• Request 3 (Denied): Copies of all communications (email and hard copy) to or from current and former HVA Board and committee members regarding any proposed, discussed, or adopted changes to the Association bylaws from January 2019 to the present.
• Request 4 (Fulfilled): Copies of invoices, billing statements, and payment records for legal services associated with revisions to the Association bylaws from January 2019 to the present.
HVA and its President, Gary Freed, asserted that the denied communications were not subject to disclosure under the exceptions outlined in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(B).
Petitioner’s Position and Evidence (Douglas E. Kupel)
• Allegation: Kupel accused HVA of willfully failing to fulfill his request, alleging that non-exempt records did exist and should have been disclosed.
• Primary Evidence: Kupel submitted several email messages from HVA President Gary Freed which contained the statement: “This communication has been received, and will be filed as an HVA business record in the files maintained by HOAMCO for the benefit of HVA” or substantially similar language.
• Argument: Kupel testified that these emails proved the existence of communications that did not meet the statutory exclusions and, therefore, HVA had failed to fully respond to his request.
• Requested Relief:
1. An order compelling HVA to abide by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.
2. Reimbursement of the $500 filing fee.
3. The levying of a civil penalty against HVA.
Respondent’s Position and Evidence (Hidden Valley Association)
• Witness Testimony: HVA Board President Gary Freed testified on behalf of the association.
• Core Defense: Freed testified that based on HVA’s records retention policy and his understanding of open meeting laws, “no records existed which were subject to disclosure.”
• Explanation of Contested Emails: Freed explained that his prior email statements about filing all communications were a mistake. He testified that he initially believed all communications needed to be retained but later learned this was incorrect.
• Search Process: Freed admitted that neither he nor other board members conducted a one-by-one search of every single email. However, he testified that he “may have scanned his personal e-mail” and did not dismiss the petitioner’s request “out-of-hand.”
• Association Practices: Freed asserted that HVA business was conducted via open meetings, with the exception of a single emergency situation, implying that no discoverable email correspondence regarding official business would exist.
Administrative Law Judge’s Analysis and Conclusion
The ALJ’s decision rested on the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as proof convincing the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. The petitioner, Kupel, bore the burden of meeting this standard.
• Evaluation of Evidence: The judge found Kupel’s primary argument unpersuasive. The decision states, “Essentially, Petitioner is claiming that there must be other records in existence because of the language that Mr. Freed used… This is not persuasive as there was no evidence presented by Petitioner to prove that the records were in existence.”
• Credibility of Testimony: The judge gave weight to Freed’s testimony that he had been mistaken about record-keeping protocols. The decision also noted that HVA’s official records retention policy, adopted six months prior to the request, specifically outlined which communications were to be kept.
• Lack of Proof: The judge concluded that Freed believed any documents that might have existed were subject to statutory exemptions and that all relevant business was conducted in open meetings. Ultimately, Kupel failed to provide sufficient proof that discoverable records actually existed.
• Final Ruling: The ALJ concluded that “the Association’s conduct, as outlined above, did not violate the charged provisions of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”
Final Order
Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders:
Outcome
Petitioner’s Petition
Denied
Request for Civil Penalty
Denied
Reimbursement of Filing Fee
Denied (Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s fee)
The decision is binding on the parties unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within thirty days of the order’s service.
Study Guide – 21F-H2120006-REL
Study Guide: Kupel v. Hidden Valley Association, No. 21F-H2120006-REL
This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing decision in the matter of Douglas E. Kupel versus the Hidden Valley Association. It includes a quiz with an answer key to test comprehension of the facts, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.
——————————————————————————–
Quiz: Short-Answer Questions
Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the provided source document.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in this hearing, and what were their respective roles?
2. What was the specific violation alleged by the Petitioner in his petition to the Department of Real Estate?
3. What four categories of records did the Petitioner request from the Hidden Valley Association (HVA) on June 22, 2020?
4. Which parts of the Petitioner’s records request did the HVA fulfill, and which parts did it deny?
5. What was the Petitioner’s central piece of evidence to argue that the HVA was improperly withholding existing communications?
6. How did HVA Board President Gary Freed explain the discrepancy between his email statements and the association’s refusal to provide the requested communications?
7. What is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, and which party was required to meet this standard?
8. According to Mr. Freed’s testimony, where was all official HVA business conducted?
9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding the HVA’s conduct in this matter?
10. What three specific outcomes were mandated by the final ORDER issued on October 30, 2020?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Douglas E. Kupel, a property owner and member of the Hidden Valley Association, and the Respondent, the Hidden Valley Association (HVA). The Petitioner brought the complaint against the Respondent, alleging a violation of state law.
2. The Petitioner alleged that the Hidden Valley Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to completely fulfill his records request. Specifically, he claimed the association improperly withheld communications records.
3. The Petitioner requested: (1) the records retention policy; (2) communications regarding information requests or open meeting law compliance; (3) communications regarding proposed changes to the association bylaws; and (4) legal invoices and payment records related to bylaw revisions.
4. The HVA fulfilled the request for the records retention policy and the legal invoices. It denied the two requests for communications between board and committee members, claiming the requested records were not subject to disclosure.
5. The Petitioner’s central evidence consisted of several emails from HVA Board President Gary Freed in which Mr. Freed stated, “[t]his communication has been received, and will be filed as an HVA business record.” The Petitioner argued this proved that such communications existed and were official records.
6. Mr. Freed testified that he was initially mistaken in his belief that all communications needed to be retained and that this was why he included that language in his emails. He clarified that based on the HVA’s records retention policy and open meeting laws, no disclosable records of the type requested existed.
7. “Preponderance of the evidence” is the standard of proof requiring the evidence to convince the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. The Petitioner, Douglas E. Kupel, bore the burden of proving his case by this standard.
8. Mr. Freed testified that all HVA business was conducted via open meetings. He stated that there were no meetings conducted solely by email, with the exception of a single emergency situation.
9. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HVA was in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. The judge found the HVA’s conduct did not violate the charged statute.
10. The final ORDER (1) denied the Petitioner’s petition, (2) denied the Petitioner’s request for a civil penalty against the Respondent, and (3) ordered that the Respondent shall not be required to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
The following questions are designed for in-depth analysis and discussion. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the legal arguments presented by both the Petitioner, Douglas E. Kupel, and the Respondent, Hidden Valley Association. How did each party use the evidence and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 to support their position?
2. Discuss the significance of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in this case. Explain how the Administrative Law Judge determined that the Petitioner failed to meet this burden of proof.
3. Evaluate the testimony of HVA Board President Gary Freed. How did his explanations regarding his email statements and the association’s record-keeping practices influence the judge’s final decision?
4. Examine ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(B), which outlines the exceptions for withholding records. Based on the case details, explain why the communications requested by the Petitioner were ultimately deemed non-disclosable or non-existent under this statute.
5. Describe the complete procedural history of the case, from the initial filing of the petition to the final order. Include key dates, entities involved (such as the Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings), and the final remedies sought by the Petitioner versus the actual outcome.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official who presides over administrative hearings and makes decisions on behalf of a government agency. In this case, the ALJ was Adam D. Stone.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
The Arizona Revised Statute that governs the examination and disclosure of a homeowners’ association’s financial and other records by its members. It outlines the process for requests, a ten-business-day fulfillment window, and specific exemptions allowing an association to withhold certain records.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
The Arizona Revised Statute cited by the Petitioner that allows an administrative law judge to levy a civil penalty against a party found to be in violation of the law.
Burden of Proof
The obligation on a party in a legal case to provide sufficient evidence to prove their allegations. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The official governing documents that establish the rules and obligations for a homeowners’ association and its members.
Department of Real Estate (“Department”)
The Arizona state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings involving disputes between homeowners and their associations.
Hidden Valley Association (HVA)
The Respondent in the case; a homeowners’ association for the Hidden Valley Ranch subdivision in Prescott, Arizona, governed by CC&Rs and a Board of Directors.
HOAMCO
The company that served as the Community Manager for the Hidden Valley Association and initially responded to the Petitioner’s records request.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency in Arizona to which the Department of Real Estate referred this matter for an evidentiary hearing.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, the Petitioner was Douglas E. Kupel, a homeowner and member of the HVA.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this hearing. It is defined as evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other, making the contention more probably true than not.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed and who is required to respond to the allegations. In this case, the Respondent was the Hidden Valley Association.
Blog Post – 21F-H2120006-REL
Select all sources
834142.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
21F-H2120006-REL
1 source
The provided text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings in Arizona, concerning a dispute between Petitioner Douglas E. Kupel and the Hidden Valley Association (HVA), a homeowners’ association. The core issue of the hearing, held on October 22, 2020, was whether the HVA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill Kupel’s records request for communications regarding open meeting law compliance and bylaw changes. Petitioner Kupel argued that undisclosed records existed based on emails sent by HVA Board President Gary Freed, while Freed testified that no disclosable records existed due to statutory exceptions and a mistaken belief about record retention. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s claim, concluding that Kupel failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the statute, thereby also denying his request for reimbursement and civil penalties.
What are the legal requirements governing homeowner association record disclosure in Arizona?
What was the core dispute between the petitioner and the homeowner association?
How did the Administrative Law Judge decide the outcome of this specific case?
Audio Overview
Video Overview Video Overview
Mind Map Mind Map
Reports Reports
Flashcards Flashcards
Quiz Quiz
00:00 / 00:00
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Douglas E. Kupel(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Timothy Butterfield(HOA attorney) Hidden Valley Association Represented Respondent
Gary Freed(board member) Hidden Valley Association Hidden Valley Ranch Association Board President and witness for HVA
Mark K. Sahl(HOA attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP Received service of the Order
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of the Administrative Law Judge Decision
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
19F-H1918037-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2019-09-12
Administrative Law Judge
Jenna Clark
Outcome
full
Filing Fees Refunded
$500.00
Civil Penalties
$500.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Tom Barrs
Counsel
Jonathan Dessaules, Esq.
Respondent
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Counsel
B. Austin Baillio
Alleged Violations
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to fully comply with Tom Barrs' records request. The petition was granted, requiring the Association to reimburse the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee and pay a $500.00 civil penalty.
Why this result: The Association failed to provide the full requested documentation (EDC actions, written requests, and approvals) within the deadline, providing only a summary table,. The Association's justification for non-compliance based on improper submission was rejected because the Petitioner had been directed by the Association to send requests to the EDC Chairman.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request.
Petitioner requested EDC records (submissions, requests, and approvals) for October 2017 through October 2018 on November 1, 2018,. The Association responded with only a summary table on November 18, 2018, which did not include the totality of the communications requested. The ALJ concluded that the Association's summary table provided was a violation of the statute,, especially since the Petitioner was not required to send the request to all Board members due to previous instructions.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was granted. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01 and tender a $500.00 civil penalty to the Department pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A),.
Briefing on Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This briefing synthesizes the legal proceedings and outcomes of case number 19F-H1918037-REL, a dispute between homeowner Tom Barrs (“Petitioner”) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (“Respondent”). The core issue was the Association’s alleged violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 for failing to completely fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner on November 1, 2018.
An initial hearing on March 21, 2019, resulted in a decision in favor of the Association. Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark found that the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request to all members of the Association’s Board, and therefore the Association’s provision of a summary table did not constitute a statutory violation.
Following an appeal by the Petitioner, a rehearing was held on August 27, 2019. New evidence was introduced demonstrating that the Petitioner had previously been expressly instructed by the Association’s President to direct records requests specifically to the Environmental Design Committee (EDC) Chairman, Brian Schoeffler, a directive the Petitioner followed. Consequently, Judge Clark reversed the initial decision, concluding that the request was properly submitted and the Association’s failure to provide the full records—offering only a summary table—was a clear violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805. The final order granted the Petitioner’s petition, ordered the reimbursement of his $500 filing fee, and levied a $500 civil penalty against the Association.
——————————————————————————–
Case Overview
Parties Involved
Name/Entity
Key Individuals
Tom Barrs
Petitioner, Homeowner
Represented himself initially; later by Jonathan Dessaules, Esq.
Desert Ranch Homeowners Assoc.
Respondent, HOA
Governed by CC&Rs and a Board of Directors.
Brian Schoeffler
Witness for Respondent
Chairman of the Environmental Design Committee (EDC).
Jenna Clark
Administrative Law Judge
Presided over both the initial hearing and the rehearing.
Catherine Overby
Association President
Appointed Schoeffler as Petitioner’s primary records contact.
Lori Loch-Lee
VP, Associated Asset Management (AAM)
Recipient of records request; AAM acted as the Association’s accounting firm.
Core Legal Issue
The central question adjudicated was whether the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request. This statute requires that an association’s records be made “reasonably available for examination” and that a request for copies be fulfilled within ten business days.
Timeline of Key Events
July 19, 2017
Association President Catherine Overby appoints EDC Director Brian Schoeffler as Petitioner’s primary records contact.
November 1, 2018
Petitioner emails a records request to Schoeffler, Overby, and Lori Loch-Lee.
November 18, 2018
The Association provides a summary table of EDC actions, not the full records requested.
December 17, 2018
Petitioner files a formal petition against the Association with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
March 6, 2019
Petitioner follows up via email, specifying the exact communications and documents he is seeking.
March 11, 2019
Schoeffler responds, asserting the request was fulfilled and directing Petitioner to submit a new one.
March 21, 2019
The first evidentiary hearing is held at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
April 10, 2019
The initial ALJ Decision is issued, denying the petition.
June 10, 2019
Petitioner submits a successful appeal to the Department.
August 27, 2019
A rehearing is held at the OAH.
September 12, 2019
The final ALJ Decision is issued, reversing the prior decision and ruling in favor of the Petitioner.
——————————————————————————–
Initial Hearing and Decision (No. 19F-H1918037-REL)
Petitioner’s Position (Tom Barrs)
• On November 1, 2018, Barrs requested “a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018.”
• The Association’s response on November 18, 2018, was a “summary table listing of some, not all, EDC actions,” which did not include the totality of communications requested.
• Barrs argued the Association willfully failed to comply, citing a similar previous dispute that required OAH adjudication.
• The dispute was clarified to be about the completeness of the response, not its timeliness.
Respondent’s Position (Desert Ranch HOA)
• Represented by Brian Schoeffler, the HOA argued it had fully, though untimelily, complied with the request.
• The core of the defense was that the request was improperly submitted because Barrs only sent it to two of the four Board members.
• Schoeffler reasoned that the Association’s response was guided by a prior OAH decision in a similar case that had been returned in the Association’s favor.
• Schoeffler also stated that fulfilling the more detailed request from March 6, 2019, could be interpreted as an “admission of guilt,” which is why he asked for a new request.
Initial Findings and Order (April 10, 2019)
• Key Finding: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to all members of the Association’s Board.
• Legal Conclusion: “Because the credible evidence of record reflects that Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to the Board, Petitioner has failed established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 for providing him with a summary table on November 18, 2018.”
• Order: The Petitioner’s petition was denied. His request for a civil penalty and reimbursement of his filing fee was also denied.
——————————————————————————–
Rehearing and Final Decision (No. 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG)
Basis for Rehearing
The Petitioner successfully appealed the initial decision, leading the Department of Real Estate to refer the matter back to the OAH for a new evidentiary hearing on the same issue.
New Evidence and Revised Testimony
• Petitioner’s New Evidence: Crucially, the Petitioner introduced evidence (Petitioner Exhibit 11) showing that on July 19, 2017, Association President Catherine Overby had appointed Brian Schoeffler as the Petitioner’s primary records request contact.
• Respondent’s Concession: The Association conceded that its governing documents do not require all Board members to be copied on records requests. It also conceded that its own bylaws regarding the submission of forms for records requests were not adhered to or enforced.
• Persistent Failure to Comply: It was established that as of the date of the rehearing (August 27, 2019), the Petitioner had still not received all of the documentation requested on November 1, 2018.
Final Findings and Order (September 12, 2019)
• Revised Key Finding: The ALJ found that the Petitioner’s request was not required to be sent to all Board members. Instead, the Petitioner had “expressly been instructed to only send his records requests to the Association’s EDC Chairman, Mr. Schoeffler, which he did.”
• Final Legal Conclusion: “Petitioner is correct that the Association did not fully comply with his specific request, and has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the summary table provided by the Association was a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”
• Final Order:
1. The Petitioner’s petition was granted.
2. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.
3. A civil penalty of $500.00 was levied against the Respondent, payable to the Department of Real Estate.
Key Judicial Quotes
On the Improper Submission Argument (First Decision): “Because the credible evidence of record reflects that Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to the Board, Petitioner has failed established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805…”
On the Proper Submission Argument (Final Decision): “Petitioner’s November 01, 2018, records request was not required to be sent to all members of the Association’s Board, as Petitioner had expressly been instructed to only send his records requests to the Association’s EDC Chairman, Mr. Schoeffler, which he did.”
On the Violation (Final Decision): “Petitioner is correct that the Association did not fully comply with his specific request, and has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the summary table provided by the Association was a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”
Study Guide – 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal case Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, Docket No. 19F-H1918037-REL. It covers the initial hearing, the subsequent rehearing, the key arguments, the relevant statutes, and the final outcome of the dispute. The case centers on a homeowner’s records request and the association’s legal obligations under Arizona state law.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing all information from the provided case documents.
1. Who are the Petitioner and Respondent in this case, and what is their relationship?
2. What was the central legal issue presented for adjudication at the Office of Administrative Hearings?
3. What specific records did the Petitioner, Tom Barrs, request from the Association on November 1, 2018?
4. What was the Association’s initial response to the Petitioner’s records request, and when was it provided?
5. What was the outcome of the first hearing on March 21, 2019, as detailed in the decision issued on April 10, 2019?
6. Why did the Administrative Law Judge initially rule in favor of the Respondent?
7. What new evidence presented at the rehearing on August 27, 2019, proved critical to reversing the initial decision?
8. According to Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805, what is the time frame for an association to fulfill a request for examination or copies of records?
9. What was the final outcome of the case after the rehearing, as ordered on September 12, 2019?
10. What specific penalties and reimbursements were levied against the Respondent in the final order?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner is Tom Barrs, a property owner in the Desert Ranch subdivision and a member of its homeowners’ association. The Respondent is the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (“the Association”), the governing body for the subdivision.
2. The central issue was whether the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 by failing to properly and completely fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner.
3. The Petitioner requested a copy of all Environmental Design Committee (EDC) actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018. He later clarified this included communications like letters, emails, and application forms related to specific EDC decisions.
4. On November 18, 2018, the Association provided the Petitioner with a summary table listing some EDC actions. This response did not include the full scope of communications and underlying documents that the Petitioner had requested.
5. Following the first hearing, the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The judge ruled that the Association’s conduct did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1805, denied the request for a civil penalty, and ordered that the Association did not have to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee.
6. The judge initially ruled for the Respondent because the evidence suggested the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request to all members of the Association’s Board. This procedural error was seen as the reason the Association’s response (the summary table) was not a violation of the statute.
7. At the rehearing, evidence was introduced showing that on July 19, 2017, the Association’s President had explicitly appointed Brian Schoeffler, the EDC Chairman, as the Petitioner’s primary records request contact. This demonstrated that the Petitioner was not required to send his request to all Board members and had followed prior instructions correctly.
8. A.R.S. § 33-1805 states that an association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination of records. It also specifies that the association has ten business days to provide copies of requested records upon request.
9. After the rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge granted the Petitioner’s petition. The judge concluded that the Association’s conduct did violate A.R.S. § 33-1805 by providing only a summary table instead of the full records requested.
10. In the final order, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee. Additionally, a civil penalty of $500.00 was levied against the Respondent, payable to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more analytical understanding of the case. Formulate a detailed response for each, synthesizing facts and arguments presented in the source documents.
1. Compare and contrast the findings of fact and conclusions of law from the first hearing (April 10, 2019 decision) with those from the rehearing (September 12, 2019 decision). What specific evidence or legal reasoning led to the reversal of the initial order?
2. Analyze the arguments presented by both the Petitioner, Tom Barrs, and the Respondent’s representative, Brian Schoeffler. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s position across both hearings.
3. Explain the role and significance of Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805 in this case. How did the interpretation of the Association’s obligations under this statute differ between the initial ruling and the final ruling?
4. Trace the timeline of events from the initial records request on November 1, 2018, to the final order on September 12, 2019. Highlight the key communications and procedural steps that influenced the case’s progression and ultimate outcome.
5. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined in the case documents. How did the Petitioner successfully meet this burden of proof in the rehearing after failing to do so in the initial hearing?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, reviews evidence, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues orders. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.
A.R.S. § 33-1805
The section of the Arizona Revised Statutes that governs the rights of homeowners’ association members to access association records. It mandates that records be made “reasonably available for examination” and establishes a ten-business-day deadline for associations to fulfill such requests.
Associated Asset Management (AAM)
The management company that served as the Association’s accounting firm. Petitioner was at one point instructed to direct requests to an AAM representative.
Board of Directors (the Board)
The group that oversees the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. The dispute involved questions about whether a records request needed to be sent to all members of the Board.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing documents for the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association.
Environmental Design Committee (EDC)
A committee within the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, chaired by Brian Schoeffler. The records requested by the Petitioner pertained to the actions and decisions of this committee.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency in Arizona responsible for conducting evidentiary hearings for disputes referred by other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Tom Barrs.
Preponderance of the evidence
The burden of proof in this case. It is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and represents the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG
He Fought His HOA Over Public Records and Lost. Then One Old Email Changed Everything.
1.0 Introduction: The Familiar Frustration of Fighting the System
Almost everyone has a story about the maddening frustration of dealing with a bureaucratic organization. The rules can seem arbitrary, the answers vague, and the entire process engineered to make you give up. For homeowners, that organization is often their Homeowners Association (HOA). This was precisely the situation for Tom Barrs, a homeowner in Scottsdale, Arizona, when he made what seemed like a simple request for records from his HOA, the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. His straightforward request ignited a surprising legal battle, where an initial, demoralizing defeat in court was ultimately overturned by a single, crucial piece of evidence exhumed from the past.
2.0 Takeaway 1: The First Verdict Isn’t Always the Final Word
The dispute began with a formal records request. In November 2018, Tom Barrs asked to see documents related to the HOA’s Environmental Design Committee (EDC). His request was clear, specific, and cited the relevant state law:
“Pursuant to ARS 33-1805, I am requesting a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018. Soft copies via return email are preferable; otherwise, please let me know when hard copies are available for pickup.”
The HOA refused to provide the records, and the case went before Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark on March 21, 2019. The judge denied Mr. Barrs’s petition. The ruling was based on what seemed to be a fatal procedural error: the judge concluded that Mr. Barrs had failed to properly submit his request because he did not email it to all members of the Association’s Board.
Adding a potent dose of irony, the HOA’s representative at the hearing—Brian Schoeffler, the very EDC Chairman to whom Barrs had sent the request—successfully argued that a prior case meant Barrs “knew or should have known the requirements.” For many people, this initial loss, buttressed by the HOA weaponizing their past behavior against them, would have been the end of the road. But for Mr. Barrs, it was only the first chapter.
3.0 Takeaway 2: The Paper Trail is Your Most Powerful Weapon
Unwilling to accept the verdict, Mr. Barrs appealed and was granted a rehearing. The case was heard again before the very same judge, Jenna Clark. This time, however, Mr. Barrs had a new piece of evidence—a single, forgotten email that would force the judge to re-evaluate her own initial conclusion.
The case hinged on a communication from sixteen months prior. In July 2017, the Association’s President, Catherine Overby, had sent an email specifically appointing EDC Chairman Brian Schoeffler as Mr. Barrs’s “primary records request contact.”
This single document completely dismantled the HOA’s central argument. It proved that a specific, documented protocol existed that superseded any unwritten procedure the HOA later tried to enforce. Based on this prior instruction, Judge Clark’s new conclusion was decisive: Mr. Barrs was not required to send his request to the entire board. He had, in fact, followed the HOA’s own explicit directive perfectly. The HOA’s argument, built on chastising Mr. Barrs for not knowing the rules, crumbled under the weight of a rule they themselves had established and forgotten.
4.0 Takeaway 3: A “Summary” Isn’t the Same as “The Records”
Another key issue was the HOA’s attempt to control the information it released. Instead of providing the actual letters, emails, and applications Mr. Barrs had asked for, the HOA sent him a “summary table” of the EDC’s actions.
This defense initially worked. In the first ruling, Judge Clark concluded that because the request itself was improperly submitted, the summary table was not a violation of the statute. The HOA’s failure to provide the actual records was excused on a technicality.
But once the old email proved the request was valid, that technicality vanished and the summary table argument collapsed. In her final ruling, Judge Clark determined that providing a summary was a clear violation of Arizona law (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805). The statute is unambiguous: records must be made “reasonably available for examination,” and copies must be provided upon request. The HOA’s attempt to substitute its interpretation of the records for the records themselves was not just unhelpful—it was illegal.
5.0 Takeaway 4: Resistance Can Be More Costly Than Compliance
The final, reversed decision was issued on September 12, 2019. Mr. Barrs’s petition was granted, and the HOA faced direct financial consequences for its stonewalling. The Desert Ranch HOA was ordered to:
• Reimburse Mr. Barrs’s $500.00 filing fee.
• Pay a separate $500.00 civil penalty to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
For the price of a few photocopies, the HOA chose instead to pay for a protracted legal battle, a public loss, and $1,000 in fees and penalties—a steep cost for refusing transparency. The outcome is a stark reminder that an organization’s attempt to obstruct access to information can be far more damaging to its finances and reputation than simple compliance.
6.0 Conclusion: The Power of a Single Fact
The story of Tom Barrs’s dispute offers powerful, practical lessons for anyone facing a similar challenge. It highlights the importance of persistence, the legal weight of true transparency, and, above all, the critical power of documentation. One old email—one documented fact—was enough to level the playing field, force a judge to reverse her own decision, and ensure the rules were applied fairly. It leaves us with a compelling question to consider.
How might meticulous record-keeping change the outcome of a dispute in your own life?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Tom Barrs(petitioner/witness) Appeared on his own behalf initially; appeared as witness at rehearing
Jonathan Dessaules(attorney) Dessaules Law Group Appeared on behalf of Petitioner at rehearing
Respondent Side
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association(respondent)
Brian Schoeffler(EDC chairman/witness) Desert Ranch Homeowners Association Appeared on behalf of Respondent; Chairman of the Association’s EDC
Catherine Overby(HOA president) Desert Ranch Homeowners Association Association President; records request recipient
Lori Loch-Lee(VP Client Services) Associated Asset Management (AAM) Management company contact; records request recipient
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
19F-H1918028-REL
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2019-05-01
Administrative Law Judge
Diane Mihalsky
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$0.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Patricia Wiercinski
Counsel
—
Respondent
Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc.
Counsel
Ashley N. Moscarello, Esq.
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Outcome Summary
The ALJ denied and dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner failed to establish that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The documents requested (an email string among Board members) were informal communications and were not considered official records of the association because the Board never took formal action on the incident.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Board created or possessed any official documents related to the incident that they failed to produce, as the emails were deemed private, informal communications rather than official records.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to produce association records (un-redacted email string)
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to produce official documents, specifically an un-redacted email string among Board members concerning an incident where Petitioner's husband allegedly harassed potential property buyers.
Orders: Petition dismissed because the documents sought (un-redacted emails) were informal communications, not official records of the association required to be produced under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(4)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: homeowner records request, association records, informal communications, board quorum, records disclosure
Briefing: Wiercincthe ki v. Long Meadow Ranch East POA
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings from two administrative law hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner Patricia Wiercinski (“Petitioner”) and the Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc. (“Respondent”). The core of the dispute was the Petitioner’s demand for association records related to a June 19, 2017, incident where her husband, Wayne Coates, allegedly accosted and verbally abused potential buyers of a neighboring property, causing the sale to fail.
The Petitioner filed a claim alleging the Respondent violated Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to produce documents related to the Board of Directors’ handling of the incident. The case evolved through two distinct phases:
1. Initial Hearing (January 2019): The Petitioner argued that because a quorum of the Board discussed the incident via email, they were required to create official records (e.g., minutes of a formal decision), which were not produced. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied this petition, ruling that informal email discussions among volunteer board members do not constitute “official Board business” requiring formal action or record-keeping.
2. Rehearing (April 2019): After being granted a rehearing, the Petitioner changed her legal theory. She argued that the email chain itself constituted an official association record and demanded that the Respondent produce a fully un-redacted version. The Respondent maintained the emails were private communications provided as a courtesy and that names were redacted due to Mr. Coates’ documented history of “bullying and intimidating people.”
Conclusion: The ALJ dismissed the petition again, affirming the initial ruling. The Judge concluded that the email chain was not an official “record of the association.” Consequently, the Respondent was under no statutory obligation to produce it, let alone provide an un-redacted copy. The Judge found the Respondent’s decision to redact names was “not unreasonable” given the circumstances.
Case Background and Procedural History
The Parties
Name/Entity
Patricia Wiercinski
Petitioner; homeowner and member of the Respondent association.
Wayne Coates
Petitioner’s husband; central figure in the alleged incident.
Long Meadow Ranch East POA, Inc.
Respondent; the Homeowners’ Association (HOA) for the development.
Michael “Mike” Olson
President of the Respondent’s Board of Directors.
Gregg Arthur
Director on the Respondent’s Board; also a realtor.
Joe Zielinski
Director on the Respondent’s Board.
Kathy Andrews
Community Manager for the Respondent, employed by Hoamco.
John Allen
An HOA member who was attempting to sell his lot in June 2017.
Diane Mihalsky
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Office of Administrative Hearings.
Ashley N. Moscarello, Esq.
Counsel for the Respondent, Goodman Law Group.
The Precipitating Incident (June 19, 2017)
On or about June 19, 2017, potential buyers, along with their builder, architect, and son, were visiting a lot for sale on Puntenney Rd. owned by John Allen. The lot was located across the street from the residence of Patricia Wiercinski and Wayne Coates. An incident occurred where Mr. Coates allegedly emerged from his home and confronted the visitors. According to emails later provided, Mr. Coates was “belligerent and cursing,” “verbally abusive,” and exhibited “extreme aggressive behavior,” telling the party that nothing was for sale and they needed to leave immediately. The potential buyers subsequently withdrew their interest in the lot, explicitly citing the confrontation.
Legal Proceedings
• October 18, 2018: Petitioner files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to produce records of its deliberations and actions regarding the June 2017 incident.
• January 10, 2019: An evidentiary hearing is held before ALJ Diane Mihalsky.
• January 22, 2019: The ALJ issues a decision denying the petition.
• Post-January 2019: Petitioner requests a rehearing, alleging misconduct by the judge. The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate grants the request.
• April 22, 2019: A rehearing is conducted.
• May 1, 2019: The ALJ issues a final decision, again dismissing the petition.
The Central Evidence: The Email Communications
The primary evidence in the case was an email chain from June 2017 that the Respondent voluntarily produced to the Petitioner, with the names of non-members (the potential buyers and their real estate agent) redacted. The communications reveal the immediate aftermath and concern surrounding the incident.
Key Excerpts from the Emails
• From a Potential Purchaser (June 19, 2017):
• Formal Account from Potential Purchasers (June 20, 2017):
• From the Real Estate Agent (June 20, 2017):
• From Board Director Gregg Arthur (June 20, 2017):
• From Board Director Joe Zielinski (June 20, 2017):
Analysis of Legal Arguments and Rulings
Petitioner’s Arguments
1. Initial Argument: The Petitioner contended that the email discussion among a quorum of the Board legally constituted an informal meeting to discuss association business. As such, the Board was required to memorialize its decision, even a decision to take no action, in official records like meeting minutes. The failure to produce such records was a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.
2. Rehearing Argument: Shifting her legal theory, the Petitioner argued that the email chain itself was an “official record of the association.” She claimed a right to an un-redacted copy, stating that she and Mr. Coates “had a right to know who was accusing Mr. Coates of belligerence.”
Respondent’s Defense
• Nature of Communications: The Respondent argued the emails were informal, private communications on personal servers between volunteer board members who are also neighbors. They were not official records kept in the course of association business.
• Lack of Formal Action: The Board never voted, met in an executive or open session, or took any official action regarding the incident. Testimony confirmed that only two of the board members replied to the initial email.
• Absence of Authority: The Respondent’s position was that the incident, while serious, was a personal dispute between neighbors and did not violate the association’s CC&Rs or bylaws. Therefore, the Board had no authority or jurisdiction to take official enforcement action.
• Justification for Redactions: Board President Mike Olson testified that names were redacted because “Mr. Coates had a history of bullying and intimidating people.” This was done to protect the potential buyers and their agent from potential harassment.
Administrative Law Judge’s Determinations
The ALJ’s conclusions were consistent across both decisions, finding decisively in favor of the Respondent.
• Burden of Proof: The Petitioner failed to establish by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805.
• “Official Records” Defined: The ALJ drew a clear distinction between informal discussion and official business. The ruling stated: “…the mere fact that a quorum of Board members may discuss a topic does not make it official Board business, especially if they do not end up taking any action to make a matter board business.”
• No Obligation to Create Records: The Judge found no statute requiring an HOA board to create a formal written record about topics they discuss informally but ultimately take no action on, calling such a requirement an “unnecessary and burdensome requirement on volunteers.”
• Ruling on Redacted Emails: In the rehearing decision, the ALJ concluded that because the email string was not an official record, the statute did not require the Respondent to provide it at all. Therefore, the Respondent was not obligated to provide an un-redacted version. The judge also noted the reason for the redaction “does not appear unreasonable.”
• Final Order: Both petitions were denied and dismissed.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918028-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Wiercinski v. Long Meadow Ranch East POA
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case between Petitioner Patricia Wiercinski and Respondent Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc. It includes a quiz with an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms, all based on the provided Administrative Law Judge Decisions.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing all information directly from the provided case documents.
1. Who are the primary parties in this legal dispute, and what are their roles?
2. What specific event on June 19, 2017, initiated the conflict that led to this case?
3. What was the core allegation made by the Petitioner in her original petition filed on October 18, 2018?
4. Why did the Respondent’s Board President, Mike Olson, state that the names in the email string were redacted?
5. In the initial hearing, what did the Petitioner argue the Board was required to do after discussing the incident, even if it chose not to act?
6. What was the legal conclusion of the Administrative Law Judge following the first hearing on January 10, 2019?
7. On what grounds did the Petitioner request and receive a rehearing of the case?
8. How did the Petitioner’s primary legal argument change between the first hearing and the rehearing?
9. According to the testimony of community manager Kathy Andrews, what types of documents are considered official records of the Association?
10. What was the final determination regarding the status of the email string and the Respondent’s obligation to produce an un-redacted version?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Patricia Wiercinski (“Petitioner”) and the Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc. (“Respondent”). The Petitioner is a homeowner and member of the Respondent association who filed a complaint alleging the association violated state law. The Respondent is the homeowners’ association defending against the petition.
2. The initiating event was an incident where the Petitioner’s husband, Wayne Coates, allegedly acted belligerent, cursed at, and was verbally abusive to a potential buyer, their family, and their architect who were viewing a property for sale across the street from the Petitioner’s home. The potential buyers were so disturbed by the encounter that they decided to remove the lot from their list of considerations.
3. The Petitioner’s core allegation was that the Respondent had violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to produce official documents related to the Board’s deliberations, decisions, and actions concerning the June 19, 2017 incident involving her husband.
4. Mike Olson testified that the names of the potential purchasers and their real estate agent were redacted from the email string because Mr. Coates has a documented history of bullying, intimidating, and threatening people. The redaction was done to protect these individuals from potential harassment.
5. In the initial hearing, the Petitioner argued that if the Board decided not to take action against her husband over the incident, it was required to make a formal motion and arrive at a formal, written decision to that effect. She claimed she never received such a document or evidence that the Board addressed it in an official meeting.
6. Following the first hearing, the Administrative Law Judge ordered that the petition be denied. The judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish that any official documents regarding the incident existed that the Respondent had failed to produce, as the email discussions were informal and did not constitute official Board business.
7. The Petitioner requested a rehearing by alleging misconduct on the part of the Administrative Law Judge. The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted the request, though the decision noted the Commissioner did not specify what the misconduct was or how it should have changed the outcome.
8. In the rehearing, the Petitioner changed her argument from claiming the Board failed to produce a formal decision to arguing that the email string itself constituted an official record of the Association’s business. Consequently, she contended that A.R.S. § 33-1805 required the Respondent to produce a fully un-redacted copy of it.
9. Kathy Andrews testified that official records include matters of record regarding the Association’s business, such as governing documents, architectural guidelines, Board and general meeting minutes, and anything submitted to the Board for action. Because the Board took no action on the June 19, 2017 incident, the email was not included in the Association’s archived records.
10. The final determination was that the email string was not an official record of the association but rather an informal communication. Therefore, A.R.S. § 33-1805 did not require the Respondent to provide an un-redacted version, and the Petitioner’s petition was dismissed.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, analytical understanding of the case. Formulate a detailed essay-format response for each.
1. Analyze the legal distinction made by the Administrative Law Judge between informal discussions among board members and official association business. How was A.R.S. § 33-1805 applied in this context, and what precedent might this set for volunteer HOA board members?
2. Discuss the evolution of Patricia Wiercinski’s legal argument from the initial hearing to the rehearing. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each argument and explain why the second argument was also ultimately unsuccessful.
3. Examine the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as it applies to this case. Explain what the Petitioner was required to prove and detail the specific evidence (or lack thereof) that led the judge to conclude she had not met this burden in either hearing.
4. The Respondent voluntarily provided the redacted email string after the petition was filed. Discuss the strategic implications of this action and how it influenced the proceedings. Furthermore, analyze the justification provided for the redactions and the judge’s assessment of its reasonableness.
5. Based on the testimony from individuals like Mike Olson, Gregg Arthur, and Kathy Andrews, construct a comprehensive narrative of the events and communications following the June 19, 2017 incident from the perspective of the HOA Board. How did their collective testimony undermine the Petitioner’s claim that official records were being withheld or that the emails constituted official business?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Term / Entity
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The presiding judge, Diane Mihalsky, from the Office of Administrative Hearings who heard the evidence and issued the legal decisions.
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
The Arizona Revised Statute cited by the Petitioner, which stipulates that all financial and other records of a homeowners’ association must be made reasonably available for examination by any member.
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(4)
An Arizona Revised Statute stating that a quorum of a board of directors meeting informally to discuss association business must comply with open meeting and notice provisions, regardless of whether a vote is taken.
Department, The
The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and adjudicate petitions from and about homeowners’ associations.
Hoamco
The property management company employed by the Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association. Kathy Andrews is an employee of this company.
June 19, 2017 Incident
An altercation where Wayne Coates allegedly engaged in belligerent, cursing, and verbally abusive behavior towards potential property buyers, causing them to lose interest in the property.
Long Meadow Ranch East POA
The Respondent in the case; the homeowners’ association for the Long Meadow Ranch East development in Prescott, Arizona.
Office of Administrative Hearings
An independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.
Petitioner
Patricia Wiercinski, a homeowner in Long Meadow Ranch East and a member of the Respondent association who filed the legal petition.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The evidentiary standard the Petitioner was required to meet. It is defined as proof that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other, meaning the contention is more probably true than not.
Respondent
The Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc., which was the defendant in the petition filed by Patricia Wiercinski.
Wayne Coates
The husband of the Petitioner, Patricia Wiercinski. His alleged actions during the June 19, 2017 incident are the central subject of the dispute.
An acronym for the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office, mentioned in an email as a potential agency to file charges for disorderly conduct/harassment.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918028-REL-RHG
4 Shocking Lessons from One Homeowner’s Lawsuit Against Her HOA
Introduction: The Perils of Neighbor Disputes
Most people who live in a planned community harbor a quiet fear of two things: a “neighbor from hell” and a legal dispute with their Homeowners’ Association (HOA). For one Arizona homeowner, those fears collided in a dramatic fashion. When her husband was involved in an incident with prospective buyers of a neighboring lot, she took her HOA to court to demand records of the board’s discussions. The resulting public legal documents provide a masterclass in community association law, revealing several shocking and counter-intuitive lessons for anyone living under an HOA.
——————————————————————————–
1. Takeaway 1: A “Neighbor from Hell” Can Literally Destroy a Real Estate Deal
The case began with a single incident on June 19, 2017. According to court filings, the homeowner’s husband, Wayne Coates, first confronted the wife and son of a builder viewing a vacant lot across the street. The prospective buyers described Mr. Coates’ behavior as “belligerent and cursing,” telling them that “nothing was for sale around here and they shouldn’t be snooping around.” The wife and son then drove up to inform the builder and architect of the hostile encounter.
The confrontation was so severe that it directly caused the potential buyers to walk away from the deal. They documented their experience in an email that eventually became part of the court record.
In closing when we returned one thing that stands out is would we want to live next to this type of behavior of [a] neighbor? The answer is no, this lot was one that we had in our top 2 Lots as a consideration for purchase but due to the volatile potential of this man, we have decided at this point to remove it from our list.
This case is a rare and powerful illustration of tortious interference with a business relationship in a community association context, providing unambiguous, written proof—from the aggrieved party themselves—that a single resident’s conduct directly caused a quantifiable financial loss to a neighbor.
2. Takeaway 2: Your HOA Board’s Private Emails Aren’t Always “Official Records”
The homeowner, Patricia Wiercinski, filed the lawsuit because she believed an email discussion about the incident among a quorum of the HOA board members constituted official business. Therefore, she argued, those emails were “official records” of the association that she had a legal right to inspect.
In a surprising decision, the court disagreed. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that just because board members informally discuss a topic via email does not automatically make it official HOA business or create an official record. This is especially true if the board never takes any formal action on the matter.
The judge’s reasoning was grounded in the practical realities of volunteer-run corporations. To treat every informal chat as official, recordable business would impose “an unnecessary and burdensome requirement on volunteers who are not compensated for their time who are may be neighbors and who may also be friends, in addition to being Board members.” This ruling reinforces a crucial legal boundary between governance and informal communication. It protects a board’s ability to “think out loud” and explore issues before committing to a formal course of action, an essential function for effective volunteer leadership.
3. Takeaway 3: An HOA’s Power Isn’t Unlimited
After learning that Mr. Coates’ actions had killed a property sale, some board members were immediately and deeply alarmed. They recognized the potential damage to property values for everyone in the community. Board member Gregg Arthur expressed this urgency in an email to his colleagues:
Wayne thru his actions appears to have interfered with and destroyed a property sale. We need to meet and take action on this matter as it will have a broad and chilling effect amongst the realtor community… action needs to be taken and quickly to prevent this from happening again.
Despite this initial alarm, the board ultimately took no formal action against Mr. Coates. Why? Because after reviewing the situation, they determined that the incident was a personal dispute between neighbors. Critically, his conduct did not violate any specific provision of the association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), bylaws, or other governing documents.
This decision underscores a vital legal principle: an HOA’s authority is fundamentally contractual, derived solely from the powers granted to it in its governing documents. It is not a governmental body with general police powers. Its authority is strictly limited to enforcing the community’s written rules, not policing all neighborhood conduct.
4. Takeaway 4: A Lawsuit Can Create a Devastating—and Public—Record
The petitioner’s goal was straightforward: to force the HOA to produce an un-redacted copy of the board’s private email chain. The result of her legal action, however, was a textbook example of the “Streisand Effect,” where an attempt to suppress information leads to it being publicized far more widely. In her attempt to access a private record, she created a permanent, public legal record that contained far more damaging information about her husband than the emails she sought.
Because of the lawsuit, the following details about Mr. Coates are now cemented in publicly accessible court documents:
• The full, detailed account from the potential buyers describing his “verbally abusive and extremely confrontational” behavior.
• A statement from a board member, Joe Zielinski, referencing Mr. Coates’ “arrest record and prison term and criminal history.”
• Sworn testimony from the HOA President, Mike Olson, explaining that names were redacted from the original email because Mr. Coates has a “history of bullying and intimidating people.”
The irony is devastating. In her quest to unmask the identities of her husband’s accusers in a private email, the petitioner inadvertently created a permanent, public, and deeply unflattering legal record that now constitutes a matter adjudicated by a court.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: The High Cost of Conflict
This single, unfortunate neighborhood dispute offers powerful lessons for anyone living in a planned community. It clarifies the real-world impact of resident behavior on property rights, sets a clear boundary on what constitutes an “official” HOA record, demonstrates the legal limits of an HOA’s power, and serves as a sobering warning about the unforeseen consequences of litigation. It leaves us with a final, critical question to ponder: When conflict arises in a community, what is the true cost of escalating it, and is the official record you might create worth the price?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Patricia Wiercinski(petitioner)
Wayne Coates(petitioner's husband) Involved in the June 19, 2017 incident
Respondent Side
Ashley N. Moscarello(HOA attorney) Goodman Law Group
Michael Olson(board member) President of Respondent's board; testified as witness
Gregg Arthur(board member) Director on Respondent's board; testified as witness
Kathy Andrews(property manager) HOAMCO Community Manager; testified as witness
Jim Robertson(board member) Director on Respondent's board
Joe Zielinski(board member) Director on Respondent's board
Boris Biloskirka(board member) Director on Respondent's board (identified as former in one source)
Tom Reid(board member) Director on Respondent's board
Neutral Parties
Diane Mihalsky(ALJ)
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) ADRE
Felicia Del Sol(administrative staff) Decision transmittal clerk
Other Participants
John Allen(HOA member) Property owner attempting to sell lot (also spelled Allan)
[Redacted Name](potential purchaser/witness) Includes potential buyers, builder, builder's wife, son, and architect involved in the incident
[Redacted Name](real estate agent/witness) Real estate agent(s) associated with John Allen's property
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
19F-H1918028-REL
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2019-05-01
Administrative Law Judge
Diane Mihalsky
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$0.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Patricia Wiercinski
Counsel
—
Respondent
Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc.
Counsel
Ashley N. Moscarello, Esq.
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Outcome Summary
The ALJ denied and dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner failed to establish that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The documents requested (an email string among Board members) were informal communications and were not considered official records of the association because the Board never took formal action on the incident.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Board created or possessed any official documents related to the incident that they failed to produce, as the emails were deemed private, informal communications rather than official records.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to produce association records (un-redacted email string)
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to produce official documents, specifically an un-redacted email string among Board members concerning an incident where Petitioner's husband allegedly harassed potential property buyers.
Orders: Petition dismissed because the documents sought (un-redacted emails) were informal communications, not official records of the association required to be produced under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(4)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: homeowner records request, association records, informal communications, board quorum, records disclosure
Briefing: Wiercincthe ki v. Long Meadow Ranch East POA
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings from two administrative law hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner Patricia Wiercinski (“Petitioner”) and the Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc. (“Respondent”). The core of the dispute was the Petitioner’s demand for association records related to a June 19, 2017, incident where her husband, Wayne Coates, allegedly accosted and verbally abused potential buyers of a neighboring property, causing the sale to fail.
The Petitioner filed a claim alleging the Respondent violated Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to produce documents related to the Board of Directors’ handling of the incident. The case evolved through two distinct phases:
1. Initial Hearing (January 2019): The Petitioner argued that because a quorum of the Board discussed the incident via email, they were required to create official records (e.g., minutes of a formal decision), which were not produced. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied this petition, ruling that informal email discussions among volunteer board members do not constitute “official Board business” requiring formal action or record-keeping.
2. Rehearing (April 2019): After being granted a rehearing, the Petitioner changed her legal theory. She argued that the email chain itself constituted an official association record and demanded that the Respondent produce a fully un-redacted version. The Respondent maintained the emails were private communications provided as a courtesy and that names were redacted due to Mr. Coates’ documented history of “bullying and intimidating people.”
Conclusion: The ALJ dismissed the petition again, affirming the initial ruling. The Judge concluded that the email chain was not an official “record of the association.” Consequently, the Respondent was under no statutory obligation to produce it, let alone provide an un-redacted copy. The Judge found the Respondent’s decision to redact names was “not unreasonable” given the circumstances.
Case Background and Procedural History
The Parties
Name/Entity
Patricia Wiercinski
Petitioner; homeowner and member of the Respondent association.
Wayne Coates
Petitioner’s husband; central figure in the alleged incident.
Long Meadow Ranch East POA, Inc.
Respondent; the Homeowners’ Association (HOA) for the development.
Michael “Mike” Olson
President of the Respondent’s Board of Directors.
Gregg Arthur
Director on the Respondent’s Board; also a realtor.
Joe Zielinski
Director on the Respondent’s Board.
Kathy Andrews
Community Manager for the Respondent, employed by Hoamco.
John Allen
An HOA member who was attempting to sell his lot in June 2017.
Diane Mihalsky
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Office of Administrative Hearings.
Ashley N. Moscarello, Esq.
Counsel for the Respondent, Goodman Law Group.
The Precipitating Incident (June 19, 2017)
On or about June 19, 2017, potential buyers, along with their builder, architect, and son, were visiting a lot for sale on Puntenney Rd. owned by John Allen. The lot was located across the street from the residence of Patricia Wiercinski and Wayne Coates. An incident occurred where Mr. Coates allegedly emerged from his home and confronted the visitors. According to emails later provided, Mr. Coates was “belligerent and cursing,” “verbally abusive,” and exhibited “extreme aggressive behavior,” telling the party that nothing was for sale and they needed to leave immediately. The potential buyers subsequently withdrew their interest in the lot, explicitly citing the confrontation.
Legal Proceedings
• October 18, 2018: Petitioner files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to produce records of its deliberations and actions regarding the June 2017 incident.
• January 10, 2019: An evidentiary hearing is held before ALJ Diane Mihalsky.
• January 22, 2019: The ALJ issues a decision denying the petition.
• Post-January 2019: Petitioner requests a rehearing, alleging misconduct by the judge. The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate grants the request.
• April 22, 2019: A rehearing is conducted.
• May 1, 2019: The ALJ issues a final decision, again dismissing the petition.
The Central Evidence: The Email Communications
The primary evidence in the case was an email chain from June 2017 that the Respondent voluntarily produced to the Petitioner, with the names of non-members (the potential buyers and their real estate agent) redacted. The communications reveal the immediate aftermath and concern surrounding the incident.
Key Excerpts from the Emails
• From a Potential Purchaser (June 19, 2017):
• Formal Account from Potential Purchasers (June 20, 2017):
• From the Real Estate Agent (June 20, 2017):
• From Board Director Gregg Arthur (June 20, 2017):
• From Board Director Joe Zielinski (June 20, 2017):
Analysis of Legal Arguments and Rulings
Petitioner’s Arguments
1. Initial Argument: The Petitioner contended that the email discussion among a quorum of the Board legally constituted an informal meeting to discuss association business. As such, the Board was required to memorialize its decision, even a decision to take no action, in official records like meeting minutes. The failure to produce such records was a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.
2. Rehearing Argument: Shifting her legal theory, the Petitioner argued that the email chain itself was an “official record of the association.” She claimed a right to an un-redacted copy, stating that she and Mr. Coates “had a right to know who was accusing Mr. Coates of belligerence.”
Respondent’s Defense
• Nature of Communications: The Respondent argued the emails were informal, private communications on personal servers between volunteer board members who are also neighbors. They were not official records kept in the course of association business.
• Lack of Formal Action: The Board never voted, met in an executive or open session, or took any official action regarding the incident. Testimony confirmed that only two of the board members replied to the initial email.
• Absence of Authority: The Respondent’s position was that the incident, while serious, was a personal dispute between neighbors and did not violate the association’s CC&Rs or bylaws. Therefore, the Board had no authority or jurisdiction to take official enforcement action.
• Justification for Redactions: Board President Mike Olson testified that names were redacted because “Mr. Coates had a history of bullying and intimidating people.” This was done to protect the potential buyers and their agent from potential harassment.
Administrative Law Judge’s Determinations
The ALJ’s conclusions were consistent across both decisions, finding decisively in favor of the Respondent.
• Burden of Proof: The Petitioner failed to establish by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805.
• “Official Records” Defined: The ALJ drew a clear distinction between informal discussion and official business. The ruling stated: “…the mere fact that a quorum of Board members may discuss a topic does not make it official Board business, especially if they do not end up taking any action to make a matter board business.”
• No Obligation to Create Records: The Judge found no statute requiring an HOA board to create a formal written record about topics they discuss informally but ultimately take no action on, calling such a requirement an “unnecessary and burdensome requirement on volunteers.”
• Ruling on Redacted Emails: In the rehearing decision, the ALJ concluded that because the email string was not an official record, the statute did not require the Respondent to provide it at all. Therefore, the Respondent was not obligated to provide an un-redacted version. The judge also noted the reason for the redaction “does not appear unreasonable.”
• Final Order: Both petitions were denied and dismissed.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918028-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Wiercinski v. Long Meadow Ranch East POA
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case between Petitioner Patricia Wiercinski and Respondent Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc. It includes a quiz with an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms, all based on the provided Administrative Law Judge Decisions.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing all information directly from the provided case documents.
1. Who are the primary parties in this legal dispute, and what are their roles?
2. What specific event on June 19, 2017, initiated the conflict that led to this case?
3. What was the core allegation made by the Petitioner in her original petition filed on October 18, 2018?
4. Why did the Respondent’s Board President, Mike Olson, state that the names in the email string were redacted?
5. In the initial hearing, what did the Petitioner argue the Board was required to do after discussing the incident, even if it chose not to act?
6. What was the legal conclusion of the Administrative Law Judge following the first hearing on January 10, 2019?
7. On what grounds did the Petitioner request and receive a rehearing of the case?
8. How did the Petitioner’s primary legal argument change between the first hearing and the rehearing?
9. According to the testimony of community manager Kathy Andrews, what types of documents are considered official records of the Association?
10. What was the final determination regarding the status of the email string and the Respondent’s obligation to produce an un-redacted version?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Patricia Wiercinski (“Petitioner”) and the Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc. (“Respondent”). The Petitioner is a homeowner and member of the Respondent association who filed a complaint alleging the association violated state law. The Respondent is the homeowners’ association defending against the petition.
2. The initiating event was an incident where the Petitioner’s husband, Wayne Coates, allegedly acted belligerent, cursed at, and was verbally abusive to a potential buyer, their family, and their architect who were viewing a property for sale across the street from the Petitioner’s home. The potential buyers were so disturbed by the encounter that they decided to remove the lot from their list of considerations.
3. The Petitioner’s core allegation was that the Respondent had violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to produce official documents related to the Board’s deliberations, decisions, and actions concerning the June 19, 2017 incident involving her husband.
4. Mike Olson testified that the names of the potential purchasers and their real estate agent were redacted from the email string because Mr. Coates has a documented history of bullying, intimidating, and threatening people. The redaction was done to protect these individuals from potential harassment.
5. In the initial hearing, the Petitioner argued that if the Board decided not to take action against her husband over the incident, it was required to make a formal motion and arrive at a formal, written decision to that effect. She claimed she never received such a document or evidence that the Board addressed it in an official meeting.
6. Following the first hearing, the Administrative Law Judge ordered that the petition be denied. The judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish that any official documents regarding the incident existed that the Respondent had failed to produce, as the email discussions were informal and did not constitute official Board business.
7. The Petitioner requested a rehearing by alleging misconduct on the part of the Administrative Law Judge. The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted the request, though the decision noted the Commissioner did not specify what the misconduct was or how it should have changed the outcome.
8. In the rehearing, the Petitioner changed her argument from claiming the Board failed to produce a formal decision to arguing that the email string itself constituted an official record of the Association’s business. Consequently, she contended that A.R.S. § 33-1805 required the Respondent to produce a fully un-redacted copy of it.
9. Kathy Andrews testified that official records include matters of record regarding the Association’s business, such as governing documents, architectural guidelines, Board and general meeting minutes, and anything submitted to the Board for action. Because the Board took no action on the June 19, 2017 incident, the email was not included in the Association’s archived records.
10. The final determination was that the email string was not an official record of the association but rather an informal communication. Therefore, A.R.S. § 33-1805 did not require the Respondent to provide an un-redacted version, and the Petitioner’s petition was dismissed.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, analytical understanding of the case. Formulate a detailed essay-format response for each.
1. Analyze the legal distinction made by the Administrative Law Judge between informal discussions among board members and official association business. How was A.R.S. § 33-1805 applied in this context, and what precedent might this set for volunteer HOA board members?
2. Discuss the evolution of Patricia Wiercinski’s legal argument from the initial hearing to the rehearing. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each argument and explain why the second argument was also ultimately unsuccessful.
3. Examine the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as it applies to this case. Explain what the Petitioner was required to prove and detail the specific evidence (or lack thereof) that led the judge to conclude she had not met this burden in either hearing.
4. The Respondent voluntarily provided the redacted email string after the petition was filed. Discuss the strategic implications of this action and how it influenced the proceedings. Furthermore, analyze the justification provided for the redactions and the judge’s assessment of its reasonableness.
5. Based on the testimony from individuals like Mike Olson, Gregg Arthur, and Kathy Andrews, construct a comprehensive narrative of the events and communications following the June 19, 2017 incident from the perspective of the HOA Board. How did their collective testimony undermine the Petitioner’s claim that official records were being withheld or that the emails constituted official business?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Term / Entity
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The presiding judge, Diane Mihalsky, from the Office of Administrative Hearings who heard the evidence and issued the legal decisions.
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
The Arizona Revised Statute cited by the Petitioner, which stipulates that all financial and other records of a homeowners’ association must be made reasonably available for examination by any member.
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(4)
An Arizona Revised Statute stating that a quorum of a board of directors meeting informally to discuss association business must comply with open meeting and notice provisions, regardless of whether a vote is taken.
Department, The
The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and adjudicate petitions from and about homeowners’ associations.
Hoamco
The property management company employed by the Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association. Kathy Andrews is an employee of this company.
June 19, 2017 Incident
An altercation where Wayne Coates allegedly engaged in belligerent, cursing, and verbally abusive behavior towards potential property buyers, causing them to lose interest in the property.
Long Meadow Ranch East POA
The Respondent in the case; the homeowners’ association for the Long Meadow Ranch East development in Prescott, Arizona.
Office of Administrative Hearings
An independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.
Petitioner
Patricia Wiercinski, a homeowner in Long Meadow Ranch East and a member of the Respondent association who filed the legal petition.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The evidentiary standard the Petitioner was required to meet. It is defined as proof that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other, meaning the contention is more probably true than not.
Respondent
The Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc., which was the defendant in the petition filed by Patricia Wiercinski.
Wayne Coates
The husband of the Petitioner, Patricia Wiercinski. His alleged actions during the June 19, 2017 incident are the central subject of the dispute.
An acronym for the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office, mentioned in an email as a potential agency to file charges for disorderly conduct/harassment.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918028-REL-RHG
4 Shocking Lessons from One Homeowner’s Lawsuit Against Her HOA
Introduction: The Perils of Neighbor Disputes
Most people who live in a planned community harbor a quiet fear of two things: a “neighbor from hell” and a legal dispute with their Homeowners’ Association (HOA). For one Arizona homeowner, those fears collided in a dramatic fashion. When her husband was involved in an incident with prospective buyers of a neighboring lot, she took her HOA to court to demand records of the board’s discussions. The resulting public legal documents provide a masterclass in community association law, revealing several shocking and counter-intuitive lessons for anyone living under an HOA.
——————————————————————————–
1. Takeaway 1: A “Neighbor from Hell” Can Literally Destroy a Real Estate Deal
The case began with a single incident on June 19, 2017. According to court filings, the homeowner’s husband, Wayne Coates, first confronted the wife and son of a builder viewing a vacant lot across the street. The prospective buyers described Mr. Coates’ behavior as “belligerent and cursing,” telling them that “nothing was for sale around here and they shouldn’t be snooping around.” The wife and son then drove up to inform the builder and architect of the hostile encounter.
The confrontation was so severe that it directly caused the potential buyers to walk away from the deal. They documented their experience in an email that eventually became part of the court record.
In closing when we returned one thing that stands out is would we want to live next to this type of behavior of [a] neighbor? The answer is no, this lot was one that we had in our top 2 Lots as a consideration for purchase but due to the volatile potential of this man, we have decided at this point to remove it from our list.
This case is a rare and powerful illustration of tortious interference with a business relationship in a community association context, providing unambiguous, written proof—from the aggrieved party themselves—that a single resident’s conduct directly caused a quantifiable financial loss to a neighbor.
2. Takeaway 2: Your HOA Board’s Private Emails Aren’t Always “Official Records”
The homeowner, Patricia Wiercinski, filed the lawsuit because she believed an email discussion about the incident among a quorum of the HOA board members constituted official business. Therefore, she argued, those emails were “official records” of the association that she had a legal right to inspect.
In a surprising decision, the court disagreed. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that just because board members informally discuss a topic via email does not automatically make it official HOA business or create an official record. This is especially true if the board never takes any formal action on the matter.
The judge’s reasoning was grounded in the practical realities of volunteer-run corporations. To treat every informal chat as official, recordable business would impose “an unnecessary and burdensome requirement on volunteers who are not compensated for their time who are may be neighbors and who may also be friends, in addition to being Board members.” This ruling reinforces a crucial legal boundary between governance and informal communication. It protects a board’s ability to “think out loud” and explore issues before committing to a formal course of action, an essential function for effective volunteer leadership.
3. Takeaway 3: An HOA’s Power Isn’t Unlimited
After learning that Mr. Coates’ actions had killed a property sale, some board members were immediately and deeply alarmed. They recognized the potential damage to property values for everyone in the community. Board member Gregg Arthur expressed this urgency in an email to his colleagues:
Wayne thru his actions appears to have interfered with and destroyed a property sale. We need to meet and take action on this matter as it will have a broad and chilling effect amongst the realtor community… action needs to be taken and quickly to prevent this from happening again.
Despite this initial alarm, the board ultimately took no formal action against Mr. Coates. Why? Because after reviewing the situation, they determined that the incident was a personal dispute between neighbors. Critically, his conduct did not violate any specific provision of the association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), bylaws, or other governing documents.
This decision underscores a vital legal principle: an HOA’s authority is fundamentally contractual, derived solely from the powers granted to it in its governing documents. It is not a governmental body with general police powers. Its authority is strictly limited to enforcing the community’s written rules, not policing all neighborhood conduct.
4. Takeaway 4: A Lawsuit Can Create a Devastating—and Public—Record
The petitioner’s goal was straightforward: to force the HOA to produce an un-redacted copy of the board’s private email chain. The result of her legal action, however, was a textbook example of the “Streisand Effect,” where an attempt to suppress information leads to it being publicized far more widely. In her attempt to access a private record, she created a permanent, public legal record that contained far more damaging information about her husband than the emails she sought.
Because of the lawsuit, the following details about Mr. Coates are now cemented in publicly accessible court documents:
• The full, detailed account from the potential buyers describing his “verbally abusive and extremely confrontational” behavior.
• A statement from a board member, Joe Zielinski, referencing Mr. Coates’ “arrest record and prison term and criminal history.”
• Sworn testimony from the HOA President, Mike Olson, explaining that names were redacted from the original email because Mr. Coates has a “history of bullying and intimidating people.”
The irony is devastating. In her quest to unmask the identities of her husband’s accusers in a private email, the petitioner inadvertently created a permanent, public, and deeply unflattering legal record that now constitutes a matter adjudicated by a court.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: The High Cost of Conflict
This single, unfortunate neighborhood dispute offers powerful lessons for anyone living in a planned community. It clarifies the real-world impact of resident behavior on property rights, sets a clear boundary on what constitutes an “official” HOA record, demonstrates the legal limits of an HOA’s power, and serves as a sobering warning about the unforeseen consequences of litigation. It leaves us with a final, critical question to ponder: When conflict arises in a community, what is the true cost of escalating it, and is the official record you might create worth the price?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Patricia Wiercinski(petitioner)
Wayne Coates(petitioner's husband) Involved in the June 19, 2017 incident
Respondent Side
Ashley N. Moscarello(HOA attorney) Goodman Law Group
Michael Olson(board member) President of Respondent's board; testified as witness
Gregg Arthur(board member) Director on Respondent's board; testified as witness
Kathy Andrews(property manager) HOAMCO Community Manager; testified as witness
Jim Robertson(board member) Director on Respondent's board
Joe Zielinski(board member) Director on Respondent's board
Boris Biloskirka(board member) Director on Respondent's board (identified as former in one source)
Tom Reid(board member) Director on Respondent's board
Neutral Parties
Diane Mihalsky(ALJ)
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) ADRE
Felicia Del Sol(administrative staff) Decision transmittal clerk
Other Participants
John Allen(HOA member) Property owner attempting to sell lot (also spelled Allan)
[Redacted Name](potential purchaser/witness) Includes potential buyers, builder, builder's wife, son, and architect involved in the incident
[Redacted Name](real estate agent/witness) Real estate agent(s) associated with John Allen's property
Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc.
Counsel
Ashley N. Moscarello, Esq.
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Outcome Summary
The ALJ denied and dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner failed to establish that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The documents requested (an email string among Board members) were informal communications and were not considered official records of the association because the Board never took formal action on the incident.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Board created or possessed any official documents related to the incident that they failed to produce, as the emails were deemed private, informal communications rather than official records.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to produce association records (un-redacted email string)
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to produce official documents, specifically an un-redacted email string among Board members concerning an incident where Petitioner's husband allegedly harassed potential property buyers.
Orders: Petition dismissed because the documents sought (un-redacted emails) were informal communications, not official records of the association required to be produced under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(4)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: homeowner records request, association records, informal communications, board quorum, records disclosure
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(4)
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
19F-H1918028-REL Decision – 684134.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:27:32 (149.9 KB)
Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918028-REL
Legal Dispute Briefing: Wiercinski v. Long Meadow Ranch East POA
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal dispute between homeowner Patricia Wiercinski and the Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc. (the “Respondent” or “HOA”). The case, adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, centered on the HOA’s alleged failure to produce official records in violation of Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1805. The dispute originated from a June 19, 2017 incident where Wiercinski’s husband, Wayne Coates, allegedly confronted and verbally abused potential buyers of a neighboring property, causing them to withdraw their interest.
The core of the legal challenge involved an email exchange among HOA board members discussing the incident. Wiercinski’s petition, filed on October 18, 2018, demanded access to what she believed were official HOA documents related to this event. The case proceeded through an initial hearing on January 10, 2019, and a subsequent rehearing on April 22, 2019, both overseen by Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky.
In both hearings, the Judge ruled decisively in favor of the HOA. The central finding was that the private email communications among board members did not constitute an “official record of the association.” Therefore, the HOA had no statutory obligation to produce them or provide an un-redacted version. The judge upheld the HOA’s decision to redact the names of the potential buyers and their agent, citing credible testimony regarding Mr. Coates’ history of “threatening and bullying neighbors” as a reasonable justification for protecting those individuals from potential harassment. Both of Wiercinski’s petitions were ultimately denied and dismissed.
Case Overview and Parties Involved
The dispute was formally adjudicated within the jurisdiction of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for evidentiary proceedings.
• Case Number: 19F-H1918028-REL
• Initial Hearing Date: January 10, 2019
• Rehearing Date: April 22, 2019
• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Key Individuals and Entities
Name/Entity
Patricia Wiercinski
Petitioner; homeowner and member of the HOA.
Wayne Coates
Petitioner’s husband; central figure in the June 19, 2017 incident.
Long Meadow Ranch East POA, Inc.
Respondent; the Homeowners’ Association (“HOA”).
Michael “Mike” Olson
President of the Respondent’s Board of Directors.
Gregg Arthur
Director on the Respondent’s Board and a realtor.
Joe Zielinski
Director on the Respondent’s Board.
Kathy Andrews
Community Manager for the Respondent, employed by HOAMCO.
John Allen
HOA member and owner of the lot being sold.
Ashley N. Moscarello, Esq. (Goodman Law Group)
Legal representative for the Respondent.
Diane Mihalsky
Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings.
The Core Incident of June 19, 2017
The legal dispute stemmed from an encounter on June 19, 2017, involving Wayne Coates and a family considering the purchase of a vacant lot on Puntenney Rd., located across the street from the Wiercinski/Coates residence.
According to an email from the prospective buyers, Mr. Coates confronted them, their son, and their architect as they were viewing the property.
• Coates’ Alleged Actions: He “came out of his house and was belligerent and cursing at them,” claiming “nothing was for sale around here.” The potential buyer described him as “verbally abusive and extremely confrontational,” making “rude remarks while cussing” and displaying “extreme aggressive behavior.”
• Impact on the Sale: The confrontation directly caused the potential buyers to withdraw their offer. In their correspondence, they stated:
• Broader Concerns: The incident was seen by some as detrimental to the entire community. Board Director Gregg Arthur noted, “Wayne thru his actions appears to have interfered with and destroyed a property sale. We need to meet and take action on this matter as it will have a broad and chilling effect amongst the realtor community (effecting us all) not to mention the property owners.”
The Initial Hearing and Decision (January 2019)
The initial hearing focused on whether the HOA had withheld official records of its deliberations or decisions regarding the June 19, 2017 incident.
Petitioner’s Position
Patricia Wiercinski argued that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to produce documents. Her key assertions were:
• Because an email about the incident was sent to a quorum of the Board, the matter constituted official business.
• The Board was legally required to make a formal motion and arrive at a documented decision, even if that decision was to take no action.
• She had never received any such documentation, such as minutes from an executive session or an open meeting.
• She pointed to a Board resolution regarding the electronic storage of documents as evidence that such records must exist.
Respondent’s Position
The HOA, represented by Ashley N. Moscarello, denied any violation. Their defense included:
• The email chain was an informal communication among neighbors and Board members on their personal email servers, not an official HOA record.
• No member had ever requested the Board take official action on the matter.
• The email string was provided voluntarily to the Petitioner.
• The names of the potential buyers and their real estate agent were redacted specifically because “Mr. Coates had a history of bullying and intimidating people.”
• The Board never formally discussed the incident, held a meeting, voted, or took any official action.
• The Community Manager, Kathy Andrews, testified that no official records (agendas, resolutions, minutes, etc.) pertaining to the incident existed.
Outcome and Rationale
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition. The key conclusions of law were:
• The burden of proof was on the Petitioner to show a violation occurred.
• The simple fact that a quorum of Board members discussed a topic in private emails “does not make it official Board business,” especially when no action is taken.
• Forcing volunteer board members to formally document every informal discussion would be an “unnecessary and burdensome requirement.”
• Because the Petitioner did not establish that any official documents regarding the incident existed, the petition was dismissed.
The Rehearing and Final Decision (May 2019)
Wiercinski requested and was granted a rehearing, alleging “misconduct by the judge.” In this second hearing, she significantly altered her legal argument.
Petitioner’s Evolved Position
Wiercinski abandoned her claim that the Board was required to create a formal record of inaction. Instead, her new theory was:
• The email string itself, having been voluntarily produced by the HOA, must be considered an “official record of the association.”
• As an official record, A.R.S. § 33-1805 required the HOA to produce a complete, un-redacted copy.
• She argued that she and Mr. Coates had a right to know the identities of those who had accused him of belligerence.
Respondent’s Defense
The HOA’s defense remained consistent:
• The redaction of names was a necessary and reasonable measure to protect the individuals from potential harassment by Mr. Coates.
• The incident was a personal dispute between neighbors and did not violate any of the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs, bylaws), placing it outside the Board’s enforcement authority.
• Kathy Andrews again testified that the email was not part of the association’s archived business records, as the Board took no official action.
Final Outcome and Rationale
The Judge once again dismissed the petition. The final ruling reinforced the initial decision and provided further clarity:
• The email string was definitively not a “record of the association.”
• Because it was not an official record, A.R.S. § 33-1805 did not compel the HOA to provide an un-redacted version.
• The Judge explicitly validated the HOA’s motive for the redactions, stating that the Board President’s fear that “Mr. Coates would harass the real estate agent and potential purchaser… does not appear unreasonable.”
Key Evidence and Testimony
The email communications provided the primary evidentiary basis for the case.
Incriminating Email Content
Several emails from June 20, 2017, highlighted the severity of the incident and concerns about Wayne Coates:
• From Real Estate Agent to Potential Buyer: “He [John Allen] knows this person, Wayne Coates, and said he has been an issue in the neighborhood before. He has contacted Hoamco and is seeking legal [counsel] to stop this menace.”
• From Director Joe Zielinski to the Board: “The YCSO [Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office] may file charges against Wayne for disorderly conduct/harassment… given Wayne’s arrest record and prison term and criminal history. … I don’t believe Wayne (and Patricia’s) aggressive and disruptive behavior will stop.”
• From Director Gregg Arthur to the Board: “I was hoping that this would not be a situation we would have to encounter with Wayne Coates and Patricia however here it is on our door step.”
Definition of “Official Records”
Testimony from Community Manager Kathy Andrews was crucial in establishing the distinction between official and unofficial communications. She defined official records as including:
• Governing documents and architectural guidelines.
• Board and general meeting minutes.
• Expenditures, receipts, contracts, and financials.
• Anything submitted to the Board for official action.
She confirmed that because the Board took no action on the June 19, 2017 incident, the related emails were not included in Respondent’s archived records.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918028-REL
Wiercinski v. Long Meadow Ranch East POA: A Case Study
This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative case of Patricia Wiercinski versus the Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc. The case revolves around a homeowner’s request for association records and the legal definition of what constitutes an official document that a homeowners’ association is required to produce under Arizona law. The material is drawn from two Administrative Law Judge Decisions, dated January 22, 2019, and May 1, 2019.
Key Parties and Individuals
Role / Title
Affiliation
Patricia Wiercinski
Petitioner
Homeowner, Member of Respondent
Wayne Coates
Petitioner’s Husband
Homeowner
Long Meadow Ranch East POA, Inc.
Respondent
Homeowners’ Association (HOA)
Diane Mihalsky
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Ashley N. Moscarello, Esq.
Legal Counsel for Respondent
Goodman Law Group
Michael “Mike” Olson
President of the Board
Respondent (HOA)
Gregg Arthur
Director on the Board
Respondent (HOA)
Kathy Andrews
Community Manager
HOAMCO (Respondent’s management company)
John Allen
Property Owner / HOA Member
Long Meadow Ranch East
Joe Zielinski
Director on the Board
Respondent (HOA)
Jim Robertson
Director on the Board
Respondent (HOA)
Tom Reid
Director on the Board
Respondent (HOA)
Boris Biloskirka
Former Board Member
Respondent (HOA)
Timeline of Key Events
June 19, 2017
An incident occurs where Wayne Coates allegedly acts belligerently toward potential buyers of John Allen’s property.
June 20, 2017
An email exchange regarding the incident occurs between John Allen, his realtor, and members of the HOA Board.
October 18, 2018
Patricia Wiercinski files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805.
January 10, 2019
The initial evidentiary hearing is held before Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky.
January 22, 2019
The ALJ issues a decision denying Wiercinski’s petition.
Post-Jan 22, 2019
Wiercinski requests a rehearing, alleging misconduct by the judge. The request is granted.
April 22, 2019
The rehearing is held.
May 1, 2019
The ALJ issues a final decision, again dismissing Wiercinski’s petition.
The Core Dispute: The June 19, 2017 Incident
On June 19, 2017, potential buyers, along with their builder, architect, and son, were viewing a lot for sale owned by John Allen on Puntenney Rd. The lot was across the street from the home of Patricia Wiercinski and Wayne Coates. An elderly man, later identified as Wayne Coates, came out of the house and was allegedly “belligerent and cursing” at the group, telling them nothing was for sale and they should not be snooping around. The potential buyers described the individual as “verbally abusive and extremely confrontational,” displaying “extreme aggressive behavior.” As a result of this encounter, the potential buyers decided to remove the lot from their list of considerations, stating they were seeking a “quiet, peaceful, and neighborly place to retire. Not a place with hostility and confrontation.”
This incident prompted John Allen to contact his realtor and members of the HOA Board, seeking action to prevent such behavior from interfering with future property sales.
The Legal Proceedings
Petitioner’s Argument: Patricia Wiercinski alleged that the HOA (Respondent) violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to produce documents related to its deliberations, decisions, and actions regarding the June 19, 2017 incident. Her core arguments were:
• The email about the incident was sent to a quorum of the Board, making it official business.
• The Board was required to make a formal motion and decision, even if it decided to take no action against her husband.
• She never received documents showing the Board addressed the incident in an executive session or open meeting.
• She did not receive a map referenced in one of the emails or a letter mentioned by board member Joe Zielninski in a video.
• An HOA resolution to electronically store all association business documents meant the requested records must exist.
Respondent’s Argument: The HOA denied violating any statute. Its defense was based on the following points:
• The Board never took any official action against Wiercinski or Coates as a result of the incident.
• The email string was an informal communication among Board Directors on their personal servers and was not kept as an official record. It was provided to Wiercinski voluntarily.
• The names of the potential purchasers and real estate agent were redacted from the emails because Wayne Coates has a known history of “threatening and bullying neighbors and others.”
• No official discussion or vote on the incident ever occurred in an executive session or general meeting.
ALJ’s Decision (January 22, 2019): The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition. The decision concluded that Wiercinski did not meet her burden of proof to establish that any official documents regarding the incident existed that the Respondent failed to produce. The judge reasoned that the mere fact a quorum of Board members informally discusses a topic in private emails does not make it official Board business, especially when no action is taken.
Reason for Rehearing: Wiercinski requested a rehearing, alleging misconduct by the judge. The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted the request without noting any specific misconduct or stating why it should have changed the result.
Petitioner’s Changed Argument: At the rehearing, Wiercinski changed her theory of the case. She no longer argued that the Board failed to produce a record of a formal decision. Instead, she argued that:
• The email string itself was an official record of the association’s business.
• A.R.S. § 33-1805 therefore required the HOA to produce a fully un-redacted copy of the emails.
• She and Mr. Coates had a right to know the names of the individuals accusing Mr. Coates of belligerence.
Respondent’s Rebuttal: The HOA maintained its position:
• The email string was not an official record because the Board never took any action on the matter. The incident did not violate any of the HOA’s CC&Rs, bylaws, or anything else it was empowered to enforce.
• Community Manager Kathy Andrews testified that official records include governing documents, minutes, and items submitted to the Board for action. Since the Board took no action, the email was not included in the association’s archived records.
• The names were redacted because of Mr. Coates’s history of intimidation, and the Board president feared he would harass the individuals involved.
ALJ’s Final Decision (May 1, 2019): The petition was dismissed again. The ALJ reaffirmed that the email string was not a “record of the association.” Therefore, A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) did not require the Respondent to provide an un-redacted version to the Petitioner. The judge also noted that the fear of harassment by Mr. Coates, which prompted the redactions, “does not appear unreasonable.”
——————————————————————————–
Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the case documents.
1. What specific event on June 19, 2017, initiated the legal dispute?
2. What Arizona statute did Patricia Wiercinski claim the HOA violated, and what does that statute generally require?
3. Why did the HOA state it redacted names from the email chain it provided to Wiercinski?
4. In the initial hearing, what did Wiercinski argue the HOA Board was required to do even if it decided to take no action on the incident?
5. How did Wiercinski’s primary legal argument change between the first hearing and the rehearing?
6. Who is Kathy Andrews, and what was her testimony regarding the HOA’s official records?
7. Did the HOA Board ever hold a formal meeting or take an official vote regarding the incident involving Wayne Coates?
8. According to the ALJ, does an informal email discussion among a quorum of board members automatically constitute “official Board business”?
9. What was the final ruling in the case after the rehearing?
10. What reason did HOA President Mike Olson give for the Board not taking official action on the June 19, 2017 incident?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The event was an alleged confrontation where Wayne Coates was belligerent and verbally abusive toward potential buyers who were viewing a property for sale across the street from his home. This encounter caused the buyers to lose interest in the property.
2. Wiercinski claimed the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. This statute requires that all financial and other records of a homeowners’ association be made reasonably available for examination by any member.
3. The HOA stated it redacted the names of the potential purchasers and their real estate agent due to Wayne Coates’s history of “threatening and bullying neighbors and others.” Board President Mike Olson testified he feared Mr. Coates would harass the individuals if their identities were revealed.
4. In the initial hearing, Wiercinski argued that the Board was required to make a formal motion and arrive at a formal, documented decision even if it decided it was not going to take any action against her husband.
5. In the rehearing, Wiercinski’s argument shifted from claiming the HOA failed to produce a record of a decision to arguing the email string itself was an official record. She then demanded that the HOA provide a fully un-redacted version of this email string.
6. Kathy Andrews is the community manager for the HOA, employed by the management company Hoamco. She testified that the association’s official records include items like governing documents, meeting minutes, and anything submitted to the Board for action, and that the email was not an official record because the Board took no action.
7. No. Testimony from multiple witnesses, including Mike Olson and Gregg Arthur, confirmed that the Board never discussed the incident at an executive meeting or general membership meeting and never voted or took any official action as a result of the incident.
8. No. The ALJ’s decision states that the mere fact a quorum of Board members discusses a topic does not make it official Board business, especially if they do not take any action to make it so.
9. The final ruling was that the Petitioner’s petition was dismissed. The ALJ found that the email string was not an official record of the association, so the HOA was not required by law to provide an un-redacted version.
10. Mike Olson testified that the Board never voted to take any action because the alleged incident did not violate the Respondent’s CC&Rs, bylaws, or anything else that the HOA was authorized or empowered to enforce.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
1. Analyze the distinction made by the Administrative Law Judge between informal discussions among board members and “official Board business.” How did this distinction shape the outcome of both hearings?
2. Discuss the evolution of Patricia Wiercinski’s legal strategy from the initial hearing to the rehearing. Was the change in argument effective, and why or why not?
3. Examine the roles of A.R.S. § 33-1805 and A.R.S. § 33-1804 in this case. Explain how the Petitioner and Respondent interpreted these statutes differently and how the Administrative Law Judge ultimately applied them.
4. Based on the testimony of Mike Olson and Kathy Andrews, describe the HOA’s official position on record-keeping and its justification for not treating the email string as an official document.
5. Evaluate the Respondent’s decision to redact the names of non-members from the email string. What reasons were given for this action, and how did the Administrative Law Judge view this justification in the final ruling?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary
• Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): The impartial judge who presides over administrative hearings, hears evidence, and makes legal decisions. In this case, the ALJ was Diane Mihalsky.
• A.R.S. § 33-1805(A): An Arizona Revised Statute cited in the case which provides that “all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member.”
• A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(4): An Arizona Revised Statute cited in the case which provides that any quorum of the board of directors that meets informally to discuss association business must comply with open meeting and notice provisions.
• Homeowners’ Association (HOA): An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium building that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. In this case, the Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc.
• Petitioner: The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, Patricia Wiercinski.
• Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and as evidence with the “most convincing force.”
• Quorum: The minimum number of members of a deliberative assembly (such as a board of directors) necessary to conduct the business of that group. The petitioner argued that because a quorum of the board was included on the emails, the discussion constituted official business.
• Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918028-REL
4 Shocking Lessons from an HOA Lawsuit About a “Nightmare Neighbor”
Introduction: Behind the Closed Doors of the HOA Board
Many people live in communities governed by a Homeowners’ Association (HOA), navigating the rules and paying the dues as part of modern suburban life. But what happens when a serious dispute between neighbors erupts? What if one resident’s behavior is so aggressive that it costs another the sale of their property? A real-life administrative law case from Prescott, Arizona, provides a rare and fascinating look into the messy reality of HOA governance. The lawsuit, filed by a homeowner against her HOA for allegedly withholding records, reveals surprising truths about what constitutes “official business” and the real-world limits of an HOA’s power.
——————————————————————————–
1. Not All HOA Talk is “Official Business”—Even When the Whole Board Is In on It.
The case centered on a dramatic incident. A homeowner’s husband, Wayne Coates, was accused of being “belligerent and cursing” at potential buyers viewing a lot across the street, causing them to back out of the sale. The distressed property seller, John Allen, emailed an HOA board member, Gregg Arthur, who then forwarded the complaint to the entire board. The petitioner, Mr. Coates’ wife, argued that this email chain was an official HOA record.
Her argument rested on a profound misunderstanding of board governance that many residents likely share: she claimed the board was legally required to make a motion and arrive at a formal decision even if it decided to do nothing. The administrative law judge firmly rejected this idea. The emails were deemed informal, private communications, not official records.
The judge clarified that “official business” is triggered when a board moves toward a formal decision or action that would bind the association, such as spending funds, issuing a violation, or changing a rule. These emails were purely informational and investigatory, never reaching that threshold. This distinction is a cornerstone of volunteer board governance, as it protects boards from being paralyzed by procedure. The judge’s decision powerfully refutes the notion that boards must formally document every issue they choose not to pursue:
the mere fact that a quorum of Board members may discuss a topic does not make it official Board business, especially if they do not end up taking any action to make a matter board business. Any other result would impose an unnecessary and burdensome requirement on volunteers who are not compensated for their time who are may be neighbors and who may also be friends, in addition to being Board members.
2. A Neighbor’s Behavior Can Kill a Property Sale, and Your HOA Might Be Powerless.
The impact of Mr. Coates’ alleged actions was immediate and severe. The potential buyers, seeking a peaceful retirement, were so shaken by the confrontation that they explicitly withdrew their interest in the property.
An email from the potential buyer, submitted as evidence, vividly illustrates the direct financial consequence of the neighbor’s behavior:
In closing when we returned one thing that stands out is would we want to live next to this type of behavior of [a] neighbor? The answer is no, this lot was one that we had in our top 2 Lots as a consideration for purchase but due to the volatile potential of this man, we have decided at this point to remove it from our list.
Despite the clear harm to a member, the HOA concluded it could not intervene. According to testimony, Community Manager Kathy Andrews explained that the HOA had “no authority to become involved in a personal dispute between neighbors.” Further, Board President Mike Olson testified that the incident did not violate any specific CC&Rs or bylaws the board was empowered to enforce. This highlights a counter-intuitive reality for many homeowners: not all bad neighbor behavior falls under an HOA’s jurisdiction, even when it negatively affects property sales. However, while the HOA was powerless, the situation was not a dead end for the seller, who court records show did eventually sell his lot to someone else.
3. Transparency Has Limits, Especially When a Resident Is Seen as a Threat.
The petitioner demanded an un-redacted copy of the emails, wanting to know exactly who was accusing her husband. The HOA refused, redacting the names of the potential buyers and their real estate agent.
The reason, according to sworn testimony from HOA President Mike Olson, was that Mr. Coates had a “history of threatening and bullying neighbors and others.” This case highlights the inherent tension between a member’s right to information and the board’s fiduciary duty to protect individuals from harm. While members have a right to access official records, that right is not absolute.
The judge validated the board’s exercise of its duty of care, finding its rationale for the redactions to be sound. In a moment of legal irony, the judge noted that the board’s fear was reasonable, “especially given Mr. Coates’ role in causing Petitioner to prosecute this petition at the original hearing and rehearing.” In effect, the petitioner’s own aggressive pursuit of the case in court helped to legally justify the board’s initial decision to protect identities from her husband.
4. Suing Your HOA Can Put Your Own Dirty Laundry on Display.
Perhaps the greatest irony of the lawsuit is what it ultimately accomplished. In her quest to obtain what she believed were improperly withheld documents, the petitioner’s legal action placed deeply unflattering information about her husband directly into the public record for anyone to see.
Emails submitted as evidence contained damaging statements, including an email from board member Joe Zielinski that is now a permanent part of the court file. It contained severe allegations that went far beyond the initial incident.
The YCSO [Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office] may file charges against Wayne for disorderly conduct/harassment, based on what happened to Mr. Allan and the others in attendance, given Wayne’s arrest record and prison term and criminal history. . . . I don’t believe Wayne (and Patricia’s) aggressive and disruptive behavior will stop.
This serves as a powerful “be careful what you wish for” lesson in HOA litigation. The lawsuit, intended to hold the HOA accountable, permanently enshrined the allegations about her husband’s “arrest record and prison term” in the public court record—the very opposite of the privacy and vindication the petitioner was likely seeking.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: The Fine Line Between Community and Controversy
This case peels back the curtain on the complex world of volunteer-run HOAs. It demonstrates that the line between an informal discussion among neighbors and official, actionable HOA business is finer and more consequential than most residents assume. It shows that an HOA’s power has clear limits and that a board’s duty to protect individuals can sometimes override demands for total transparency. It makes you wonder: when you see a problem in your neighborhood, is it truly the HOA’s business to solve, or is it a personal dispute between neighbors?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Patricia Wiercinski(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf
Wayne Coates(petitioner's husband) Central figure in the June 19, 2017 incident
Respondent Side
Ashley N. Moscarello(HOA attorney) Goodman Law Group Represented Respondent
Michael Olson(board president, witness) President of Respondent's board; testified at hearing and rehearing
Gregg Arthur(board director, witness) Director on Respondent's board; testified at hearing
Kathy Andrews(property manager, witness) HOAMCO Respondent's community manager; employed by HOAMCO; testified at hearing and rehearing
John Allen(member/complainant) Owner trying to sell property across the street from Petitioner; member of Respondent
Jim Robertson(board director) Director on Respondent's board
Joe Zielinski(board director, witness) Director on Respondent's board; mentioned conversation with YCSO deputy
Tom Reid(board director) Director on Respondent's board
Boris Biloskirka(former board member) Recipient of emails; identified as a former Board member
Josh(compliance officer) Referenced in emails regarding compliance inspections
Neutral Parties
Diane Mihalsky(ALJ) Administrative Law Judge
Shelia Polk(head prosecutor) Head of the office Joe Zielinski sought to contact regarding Wayne Coates
YCSO’s deputy(deputy) Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office Conversed with Joe Zielinski regarding the incident
Judy Lowe(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate
Felicia Del Sol(administrative staff) Transmitted decision electronically
Petitioner won the statutory claim regarding access to association documents (A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)) and was refunded the $500 filing fee. Petitioner lost the claim regarding the failure to maintain exterior walls (CC&Rs) due to insufficient evidence.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the maintenance issue by a preponderance of the evidence (for case 18F-H1818025-REL).
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to repair and maintain exterior walls
Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to repair damage (crack) to the exterior wall of his unit as required by the CC&Rs. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence (black and white photographs did not clearly show the damage) to establish a violation.
Orders: Petitioner's petition in Case Number 18F-H1818025-REL is denied.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
CC&Rs
5
17
Failure to provide requested association records
Petitioner requested meeting notices and minutes in December 2017. Respondent's former management company failed to respond in a timely fashion. Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the statute.
Orders: Petitioner deemed the prevailing party in Case Number 18F-H1818027-REL. Respondent ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) in the future and pay Petitioner the filing fee of $500.00.
Administrative Hearing Brief: Duffett vs. Suntech Patio Homes HOA
Executive Summary
This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in two consolidated cases filed by homeowner Rex E. Duffett against the Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association (HOA). The ruling presents a split decision, with the petitioner prevailing on one claim while failing to provide sufficient evidence for the other.
The first petition, concerning the HOA’s alleged failure to repair exterior walls, was denied. The petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, as the submitted photographic evidence was unclear and did not sufficiently establish the existence or severity of the damage requiring immediate repair.
The second petition, concerning the HOA’s failure to provide association records upon request, was upheld. The judge found that the HOA, through its former management company, violated state law (A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)) by not responding to a formal document request within the mandated ten-business-day window.
As a result, Mr. Duffett was deemed the prevailing party in the records-request case. The HOA was ordered to pay his $500 filing fee and to ensure future compliance with the relevant statutes. The case highlights critical issues of evidence quality in homeowner disputes and demonstrates the legal liability an HOA retains for the failures of its management agents, particularly during periods of transition.
——————————————————————————–
Case Overview
Case Numbers
18F-H1818025-REL and 18F-H1818027-REL (Consolidated)
Petitioner
Rex E. Duffett
Respondent
Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association
Hearing Date
April 4, 2018
Decision Date
April 24, 2018
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
The hearing addressed two separate petitions filed by Rex E. Duffett with the Arizona Department of Real Estate:
1. Petition 1 (18F-H1818025-REL): Alleged the HOA violated community CC&Rs by failing to repair exterior walls of the petitioner’s unit.
2. Petition 2 (18F-H1818027-REL): Alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide requested documents.
Petition 1: Failure to Repair Exterior Walls (Denied)
Petitioner’s Allegations and Evidence
• Core Claim: The petitioner alleged the HOA failed its duty, as defined by a March 1993 amendment to the CC&Rs, to maintain the exterior walls of his unit. The CC&Rs state, “The Suntech Patio Homeowners Association shall be responsible for the painting and maintenance of the following: A) Exterior walls of all units . . . .”
• Initial Request (July 14, 2017): Mr. Duffett faxed the HOA’s management company, The Management Trust, stating, “While inspecting the outside of my property I noticed a crack in the exterior wall. Please inspect, repair and paint the wall as soon as possible to prevent any damage which could result from rain water in the interior of the wall.”
• Follow-Up Request (August 21, 2017): In a certified letter, Mr. Duffett provided more detail, identifying a crack in the entryway wall allowing “rain water to seep into the interior wall,” a “bare concrete” area on the garage, and a previously cracked garage wall that had been repaired by a roofing company but not painted.
• Hearing Testimony: Mr. Duffett testified that a roofing company he hired to find a leak in his garage ceiling determined the source was not the roof but a crack in the exterior wall.
• Submitted Evidence: The petitioner submitted five black-and-white photographs of his home’s exterior across his two communications.
Respondent’s Position and Evidence
• Management Transition: Pride Community Management took over from The Management Trust on February 1, 2018. The new manager, Rebecca Stowers, and owner, Frank Peake, testified to a difficult transition where The Management Trust initially provided only one box of records, later discovering seven or eight more boxes in storage. Mr. Peake stated that Pride had not seen the petitioner’s communications regarding the damage until the hearing.
• Inspection: Ms. Stowers testified that she inspected the petitioner’s home on March 27, 2018. While she noted “a missing area of stucco on the front of the garage that needed to be repaired,” she “denied being able to identify a crack in the stucco anywhere else on the front of the house.”
• Community-Wide Repair Plan: Ms. Stowers stated that the HOA intended to repair the stucco and paint all exterior walls in the community during the 2018 calendar year at a projected cost of $46,000, to be funded potentially through a special assessment due to the HOA being underfunded.
Conclusion of Law and Ruling
• Burden of Proof: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the petitioner bore the burden of proving his claim by a preponderance of the evidence.
• Evidence Failure: The ALJ found the submitted evidence insufficient. The decision states: “The black and white photographs submitted at hearing did not clearly show the crack Petitioner alleged existed on the exterior wall of his unit… The Administrative Law Judge was unable to identify the location or severity of the alleged crack, and therefore, cannot conclude that such a crack exists and/or that it is necessary to be repaired immediately.”
• Final Ruling: The petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof. The petition in Case Number 18F-H1818025-REL was denied.
Petition 2: Failure to Provide Association Records (Upheld)
Petitioner’s Allegations and Evidence
• Core Claim: The petitioner alleged that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), which requires an association to fulfill a request for records within ten business days.
• The Request (December 22, 2017): Mr. Duffett faxed The Management Trust a request for specific documents, citing a statement made by the HOA in a separate case. He requested copies of:
◦ Meeting notices and minutes for all meetings where “rules and regulations were discussed” in August/September 2017.
◦ Meeting notices and minutes for meetings where the last HOA dues increase was discussed.
◦ A copy of the notice for the last association rate increase.
Respondent’s Position and Evidence
• Lack of Awareness: The HOA’s initial response on January 29, 2018, indicated it had only become aware of the request upon receiving notice of the petition. The current management company, Pride, testified they had not seen the original communication from the petitioner.
• Vagueness of Request: Frank Peake of Pride testified that the request for minutes of meetings “where the rules and regulations were discussed” was unclear “because rules and regulations are discussed in some form at virtually every meeting of the association.”
• Claim of Privilege: The initial response from The Management Trust on January 29, 2018, claimed that the requested minutes were for “closed executive meetings and were only available to Board members.”
Conclusion of Law and Ruling
• Statutory Violation: The ALJ concluded that the petitioner clearly made a request for documents and that the HOA, via its former management company, failed to act as required by law.
• Failure of Former Management: The decision explicitly faults the prior management company: “The Management Trust should have responded or requested additional clarification of what documents Petitioner was requesting as it was the management company during the ten day window Respondent had to respond pursuant to the statute.”
• Final Ruling: The petitioner successfully established by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). Mr. Duffett was deemed the prevailing party in Case Number 18F-H1818027-REL.
Final Order and Implications
The Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders based on the conclusions of law:
Case Number
Subject
Ruling
18F-H1818025-REL
Exterior Wall Repairs
Petition Denied
18F-H1818027-REL
Document Request
Petitioner Deemed Prevailing Party
Directives to the Respondent (Suntech Patio Homes HOA):
1. Future Compliance: The HOA must comply with the provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) going forward.
2. Payment of Filing Fee: The HOA must pay the petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days of the order.
This order is considered binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted.
Petitioner won the statutory claim regarding access to association documents (A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)) and was refunded the $500 filing fee. Petitioner lost the claim regarding the failure to maintain exterior walls (CC&Rs) due to insufficient evidence.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the maintenance issue by a preponderance of the evidence (for case 18F-H1818025-REL).
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to repair and maintain exterior walls
Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to repair damage (crack) to the exterior wall of his unit as required by the CC&Rs. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence (black and white photographs did not clearly show the damage) to establish a violation.
Orders: Petitioner's petition in Case Number 18F-H1818025-REL is denied.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
CC&Rs
5
17
Failure to provide requested association records
Petitioner requested meeting notices and minutes in December 2017. Respondent's former management company failed to respond in a timely fashion. Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the statute.
Orders: Petitioner deemed the prevailing party in Case Number 18F-H1818027-REL. Respondent ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) in the future and pay Petitioner the filing fee of $500.00.
Administrative Hearing Brief: Duffett vs. Suntech Patio Homes HOA
Executive Summary
This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in two consolidated cases filed by homeowner Rex E. Duffett against the Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association (HOA). The ruling presents a split decision, with the petitioner prevailing on one claim while failing to provide sufficient evidence for the other.
The first petition, concerning the HOA’s alleged failure to repair exterior walls, was denied. The petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, as the submitted photographic evidence was unclear and did not sufficiently establish the existence or severity of the damage requiring immediate repair.
The second petition, concerning the HOA’s failure to provide association records upon request, was upheld. The judge found that the HOA, through its former management company, violated state law (A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)) by not responding to a formal document request within the mandated ten-business-day window.
As a result, Mr. Duffett was deemed the prevailing party in the records-request case. The HOA was ordered to pay his $500 filing fee and to ensure future compliance with the relevant statutes. The case highlights critical issues of evidence quality in homeowner disputes and demonstrates the legal liability an HOA retains for the failures of its management agents, particularly during periods of transition.
——————————————————————————–
Case Overview
Case Numbers
18F-H1818025-REL and 18F-H1818027-REL (Consolidated)
Petitioner
Rex E. Duffett
Respondent
Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association
Hearing Date
April 4, 2018
Decision Date
April 24, 2018
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
The hearing addressed two separate petitions filed by Rex E. Duffett with the Arizona Department of Real Estate:
1. Petition 1 (18F-H1818025-REL): Alleged the HOA violated community CC&Rs by failing to repair exterior walls of the petitioner’s unit.
2. Petition 2 (18F-H1818027-REL): Alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide requested documents.
Petition 1: Failure to Repair Exterior Walls (Denied)
Petitioner’s Allegations and Evidence
• Core Claim: The petitioner alleged the HOA failed its duty, as defined by a March 1993 amendment to the CC&Rs, to maintain the exterior walls of his unit. The CC&Rs state, “The Suntech Patio Homeowners Association shall be responsible for the painting and maintenance of the following: A) Exterior walls of all units . . . .”
• Initial Request (July 14, 2017): Mr. Duffett faxed the HOA’s management company, The Management Trust, stating, “While inspecting the outside of my property I noticed a crack in the exterior wall. Please inspect, repair and paint the wall as soon as possible to prevent any damage which could result from rain water in the interior of the wall.”
• Follow-Up Request (August 21, 2017): In a certified letter, Mr. Duffett provided more detail, identifying a crack in the entryway wall allowing “rain water to seep into the interior wall,” a “bare concrete” area on the garage, and a previously cracked garage wall that had been repaired by a roofing company but not painted.
• Hearing Testimony: Mr. Duffett testified that a roofing company he hired to find a leak in his garage ceiling determined the source was not the roof but a crack in the exterior wall.
• Submitted Evidence: The petitioner submitted five black-and-white photographs of his home’s exterior across his two communications.
Respondent’s Position and Evidence
• Management Transition: Pride Community Management took over from The Management Trust on February 1, 2018. The new manager, Rebecca Stowers, and owner, Frank Peake, testified to a difficult transition where The Management Trust initially provided only one box of records, later discovering seven or eight more boxes in storage. Mr. Peake stated that Pride had not seen the petitioner’s communications regarding the damage until the hearing.
• Inspection: Ms. Stowers testified that she inspected the petitioner’s home on March 27, 2018. While she noted “a missing area of stucco on the front of the garage that needed to be repaired,” she “denied being able to identify a crack in the stucco anywhere else on the front of the house.”
• Community-Wide Repair Plan: Ms. Stowers stated that the HOA intended to repair the stucco and paint all exterior walls in the community during the 2018 calendar year at a projected cost of $46,000, to be funded potentially through a special assessment due to the HOA being underfunded.
Conclusion of Law and Ruling
• Burden of Proof: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the petitioner bore the burden of proving his claim by a preponderance of the evidence.
• Evidence Failure: The ALJ found the submitted evidence insufficient. The decision states: “The black and white photographs submitted at hearing did not clearly show the crack Petitioner alleged existed on the exterior wall of his unit… The Administrative Law Judge was unable to identify the location or severity of the alleged crack, and therefore, cannot conclude that such a crack exists and/or that it is necessary to be repaired immediately.”
• Final Ruling: The petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof. The petition in Case Number 18F-H1818025-REL was denied.
Petition 2: Failure to Provide Association Records (Upheld)
Petitioner’s Allegations and Evidence
• Core Claim: The petitioner alleged that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), which requires an association to fulfill a request for records within ten business days.
• The Request (December 22, 2017): Mr. Duffett faxed The Management Trust a request for specific documents, citing a statement made by the HOA in a separate case. He requested copies of:
◦ Meeting notices and minutes for all meetings where “rules and regulations were discussed” in August/September 2017.
◦ Meeting notices and minutes for meetings where the last HOA dues increase was discussed.
◦ A copy of the notice for the last association rate increase.
Respondent’s Position and Evidence
• Lack of Awareness: The HOA’s initial response on January 29, 2018, indicated it had only become aware of the request upon receiving notice of the petition. The current management company, Pride, testified they had not seen the original communication from the petitioner.
• Vagueness of Request: Frank Peake of Pride testified that the request for minutes of meetings “where the rules and regulations were discussed” was unclear “because rules and regulations are discussed in some form at virtually every meeting of the association.”
• Claim of Privilege: The initial response from The Management Trust on January 29, 2018, claimed that the requested minutes were for “closed executive meetings and were only available to Board members.”
Conclusion of Law and Ruling
• Statutory Violation: The ALJ concluded that the petitioner clearly made a request for documents and that the HOA, via its former management company, failed to act as required by law.
• Failure of Former Management: The decision explicitly faults the prior management company: “The Management Trust should have responded or requested additional clarification of what documents Petitioner was requesting as it was the management company during the ten day window Respondent had to respond pursuant to the statute.”
• Final Ruling: The petitioner successfully established by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). Mr. Duffett was deemed the prevailing party in Case Number 18F-H1818027-REL.
Final Order and Implications
The Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders based on the conclusions of law:
Case Number
Subject
Ruling
18F-H1818025-REL
Exterior Wall Repairs
Petition Denied
18F-H1818027-REL
Document Request
Petitioner Deemed Prevailing Party
Directives to the Respondent (Suntech Patio Homes HOA):
1. Future Compliance: The HOA must comply with the provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) going forward.
2. Payment of Filing Fee: The HOA must pay the petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days of the order.
This order is considered binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted.
Study Guide – 18F-H1818025-REL
Study Guide: Duffett v. Suntech Patio Homes HOA
This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the consolidated cases of Rex E. Duffett v. Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association, Case Numbers 18F-H1818025-REL and 18F-H1818027-REL. The decision, issued by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, addresses two separate petitions filed by a homeowner against his Homeowners Association (HOA), one concerning property maintenance and the other concerning access to association records.
——————————————————————————–
Quiz: Short-Answer Questions
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing all information directly from the case decision.
1. Who were the primary parties in this administrative hearing, and what were their respective roles?
2. What were the two distinct allegations made by the Petitioner in the petitions that were consolidated for this hearing?
3. According to the community’s governing documents (CC&Rs), what specific responsibility did the HOA have regarding the exterior of residential units?
4. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge rule against the Petitioner in his claim for wall repairs (Case No. 18F-H1818025-REL)?
5. What specific Arizona statute did the Petitioner claim the HOA violated in his second petition regarding access to records (Case No. 18F-H1818027-REL)?
6. Describe the roles and performance of the two management companies, The Management Trust and Pride Community Management, as detailed in the hearing evidence.
7. What was the final outcome of the petition concerning the HOA’s failure to provide documents, and who was named the prevailing party?
8. What specific types of documents did the Petitioner request from the HOA in his fax dated December 22, 2017?
9. What was the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and for which petition did he successfully meet it?
10. What financial penalty was imposed upon the Respondent as part of the final Order?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner was Rex E. Duffett, a homeowner who filed the petitions. The Respondent was the Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association, the entity Mr. Duffett alleged had violated community rules and state law.
2. The first petition alleged that the HOA violated the CC&Rs by failing to respond to repeated requests for repairs to the exterior walls of his unit. The second petition alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide requested association documents.
3. A March 1993 amendment to the CC&Rs states that the Suntech Patio Homeowners Association “shall be responsible for the painting and maintenance of the… Exterior walls of all units.”
4. The judge ruled against the Petitioner because he failed to establish his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. The black and white photographs submitted did not clearly show the alleged crack’s location or severity, so the judge could not conclude that a repair was immediately necessary.
5. The Petitioner claimed the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). This statute requires an association to make records reasonably available for examination and to provide copies of requested records within ten business days.
6. The Management Trust was the HOA’s management company when the incidents occurred and failed to properly respond to the Petitioner’s requests. Pride Community Management took over on February 1, 2018, and testified that the transition was difficult due to the sparse documentation initially provided by The Management Trust.
7. The judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner, deeming him the prevailing party in Case Number 18F-H1818027-REL. The judge ordered the HOA to comply with the applicable statute in the future.
8. The Petitioner requested copies of meeting notices and minutes for meetings where rules and regulations were discussed and where the last HOA dues increase was discussed. He also requested a copy of the notice of the last rate increase and any associated signed written consents.
9. The legal standard was “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as evidence with the most convincing force. The Petitioner failed to meet this standard for the wall repair petition but successfully met it for the document request petition.
10. The Respondent (HOA) was ordered to pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00. The payment was to be made directly to the Petitioner within thirty days of the Order.
——————————————————————————–
Suggested Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate a response using only the information and evidence presented in the provided decision.
1. Analyze the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined and applied in this case. How did the quality of evidence submitted by the Petitioner lead to two different outcomes for his two petitions?
2. Discuss the role and responsibilities of a homeowners association’s management company, using the actions of The Management Trust and the subsequent challenges faced by Pride Community Management as primary examples. How did the transition between these two companies impact the case?
3. Evaluate the Respondent’s arguments and actions in both petitions. In the wall repair case, what was their stated plan, and why was it ultimately not considered by the judge? In the document request case, what was their defense, and why did it fail?
4. Based on the text of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), explain the specific obligations of an HOA regarding member requests for records. Detail how the Suntech Patio Homes HOA, through its management, failed to meet these obligations, leading to the ruling against them.
5. Examine the communication breakdown between the Petitioner and the Respondent. Citing specific examples from the “Findings of Fact” and “Hearing Evidence” sections, explain how miscommunication and lack of timely response exacerbated the conflict.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official who presides over administrative hearings, weighs evidence, and issues a legally binding decision. In this case, the ALJ was Tammy L. Eigenheer.
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
An Arizona Revised Statute that legally requires homeowners associations to make financial and other records available for member examination and to provide copies upon request within ten business days.
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
The section of the Arizona Revised Statutes that grants jurisdiction to the Arizona Department of Real Estate to hear disputes between homeowners and their associations.
Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing legal documents that establish the rules, obligations, and restrictions for a planned community and its homeowners association.
Consolidated for Hearing
A procedural step where two or more separate legal cases involving the same parties are combined into a single hearing for efficiency.
Department
Within the context of this case, refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency where the Petitioner initially filed his petitions.
The final, legally binding ruling issued by the Administrative Law Judge at the conclusion of the hearing.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, homeowner Rex E. Duffett.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this proceeding. It is met when the evidence presented has “the most convincing force” and is more likely true than not.
Prevailing Party
The party who is found to have won the legal dispute. The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party in the document request case.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed and who must respond to the allegations. In this case, the Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association.
Blog Post – 18F-H1818025-REL
A Homeowner Sued His HOA Over a Cracked Wall. He Lost Because of Bad Photocopies.
Introduction: The David vs. Goliath Battle Against Your HOA
For many homeowners, a dispute with their Homeowners Association (HOA) can feel like an uphill battle. It’s a common story of frustration, complex rules, and feeling unheard. The legal case of Rex E. Duffett versus the Suntech Patio Homes HOA is a perfect example, but with a twist. This isn’t just a story about winning or losing; it’s a fascinating cautionary tale filled with surprising lessons for any homeowner navigating a conflict with their association. This breakdown of the real-life administrative court decision reveals the unexpected details that can make or break a case.
——————————————————————————–
1. Takeaway #1: The Quality of Your Proof Matters More Than the Truth
The dispute began when Rex Duffett filed a petition alleging his HOA had failed to repair a crack in his exterior wall that he claimed was causing a water leak. According to the association’s own CC&Rs, maintaining exterior walls was the HOA’s responsibility. To document the problem, he diligently sent faxes and certified mail to the management company, including photographs of the damage.
Despite his efforts, the Administrative Law Judge denied his petition for repairs.
The reason was as surprising as it was simple: the evidence he submitted was not clear enough. The black and white copies of the photographs he provided at the hearing “did not clearly show any damage.” The judge’s finding was blunt and highlights a critical point for any legal dispute:
The Administrative Law Judge was unable to identify the location or severity of the alleged crack, and therefore, cannot conclude that such a crack exists and/or that it is necessary to be repaired immediately.
The lesson here is critical. In a legal dispute, having proof is not enough; the proof must be clear, convincing, and well-presented. Mr. Duffett’s primary case failed not because he was necessarily wrong, but because his evidence failed to persuade the judge. In an administrative hearing, a handful of high-resolution color photographs, or even a short video, would have provided irrefutable evidence and could have changed the entire outcome of his primary petition.
2. Takeaway #2: Your HOA is on the Hook for Its Management Company’s Failures
Mr. Duffett also filed a second petition against the HOA for failing to provide records he requested, such as meeting minutes. Under Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)), an association must fulfill such a request within ten business days. The HOA failed to do so.
The root of the problem was the HOA’s previous management company, “The Management Trust.” This company not only failed to respond to the homeowner’s request but also failed to notify the new management company about it. The relationship between the HOA and this vendor was so poor that the HOA had previously tried to terminate the contract, but the management company “refused to acknowledge the termination and held Respondent to the full two year contract.” The transition was chaotic; the old company initially provided only one box of information before later discovering “seven or eight more boxes” in storage.
Even though the management company was clearly at fault, the Judge ruled that the HOA violated the law. This provides a powerful insight for both boards and homeowners: an HOA cannot blame its vendors. Legally, the association is the responsible party. Hiring an incompetent or unresponsive management company creates significant legal and financial liability for the association and, by extension, every homeowner. This is not an abstract risk; in this case, the management company’s failure to forward a simple request directly led to a legal violation that cost the association—and thus, its members—the $500 filing fee ordered by the judge.
3. Takeaway #3: A “Win” Can Be More Complicated Than It Looks
When you look at the final outcome, Mr. Duffett’s case presents a nuanced picture of what a “win” really means in an HOA dispute. The judge issued a split decision:
• Petition for Repairs: Denied. The homeowner lost.
• Petition for Documents: The homeowner was deemed the “prevailing party.” He won.
As the prevailing party in the second petition, the homeowner received a clear victory. The judge ordered the HOA to comply with the document access law in the future and, crucially, to pay the homeowner back his $500 filing fee.
This highlights a common reality in legal disputes: a homeowner can secure a clear procedural victory (enforcing the right to documents and recovering fees) while simultaneously failing to achieve their core substantive goal (getting the wall repaired). The outcome shows that legal victories can be partial and may not address the real-world problem that initiated the dispute in the first place.
4. Takeaway #4: Vague Requests and Messy Records Create Chaos
This case is a masterclass in how poor communication from both sides can create a perfect storm of dysfunction.
First, the homeowner’s request for documents was “somewhat vague.” The new management company testified it was “unclear because rules and regulations are discussed in some form at virtually every meeting.” While the HOA still violated the law by failing to respond at all, this highlights a crucial lesson for homeowners: be as specific and clear as possible in all written communication to avoid ambiguity.
This vague request then ran headlong into the second problem: the HOA’s institutional chaos. The new Community Manager testified that the only relevant document they possessed was the minutes from a single meeting, and that “seven or eight more boxes” of records were missing after a disastrous transition between management companies. The homeowner’s ambiguous request met an organization that likely couldn’t have responded effectively even if it wanted to.
For both sides, meticulous documentation is a shield. For homeowners, a clear, specific, and undeniable paper trail strengthens their position. For HOA boards, organized records are essential for smooth operations, seamless transitions between management companies, and, most importantly, avoiding legal liability.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: The Devil is in the Details
The case of Duffett v. Suntech Patio Homes HOA is a powerful reminder that in legal disputes, the outcome often hinges on the small stuff. Small details—the quality of a photocopy, the precise wording of a request, the competence of a vendor, the location of a box of files—can have massive consequences. They can mean the difference between winning and losing, between getting a problem solved and walking away with only a partial victory.
This case shows how easily things can go wrong. The next time you’re in a dispute, what’s the one small detail you might be overlooking that could change everything?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Rex E. Duffett(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Nathan Tennyson(attorney) BROWN/OLCOTT, PLLC
Rebecca Stowers(property manager) Pride Community Management Community Manager
Frank Peake(property manager) Pride Community Management Owner of Pride
Shawn Mason(property manager) The Management Trust Former management company staff
Neutral Parties
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
LDettorre(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
DGardner(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
ncano(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
