Tom Barrs vs Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on March 31, 2025 by [email protected]

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

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

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to timely provide full membership roster

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

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

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

Additional Citations:

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview and Parties Involved

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

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

• Docket Number: 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD

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

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

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

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

II. Procedural History: From Initial Petitions to Superior Court

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

Petition Filing Date

Alleged Violation

Subject Matter

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

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

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Alleged preclusion of audio recording at a meeting.

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Membership roster request from October 2021.

May 12, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Multiple document requests from Oct 2021 to Mar 2022.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV. The Remand Process and Clarification of Scope

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

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

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

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

The Order explicitly narrowed the scope of the hearing:

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

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

V. Final Hearing and Resolution

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

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

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

Stipulation

Details

Violation Admitted

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

Specific Request

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

Untimeliness

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

Monetary Settlement

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal Standards
Procedure

Case

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

Records Request
Membership List
Homeowner Rights

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)

Topic Tags

Privacy
Records Request
Personal Records

Question

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

Short Answer

The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

Timelines
Procedural Requirements

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

Penalties
Enforcement
Timelines

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01

Topic Tags

Costs
Remedies

Question

Who has to prove that the HOA broke the law?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

Legal Standards
Procedure

Case

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

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

Douglas E Kupel v. Hidden Valley Association

Posted on October 30, 2020 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	21F-H2120006-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2020-10-30
Administrative Law Judge	Adam D. Stone
Outcome	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.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Douglas E. Kupel	Counsel	—
Respondent	Hidden Valley Association	Counsel	Timothy Butterfield, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

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 2026-04-24T11:29:50 (147.6 KB)

21F-H2120006-REL Decision – 834142.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:34:55 (147.6 KB)

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: 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.

Select all sources

834142.pdf

No emoji found

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

Mind Map Mind Map

Reports Reports

Flashcards

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

Patricia Wiercinski vs. Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners

Posted on January 22, 2019 by [email protected]

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

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 – 705044.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-28T10:45:33 (136.8 KB)

19F-H1918028-REL Decision – 684134.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-28T10:45:41 (149.9 KB)

19F-H1918028-REL Decision – 705044.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:17:32 (136.8 KB)

19F-H1918028-REL Decision – 684134.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:17:37 (149.9 KB)

19F-H1918028-REL Decision – 684134.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:27:32 (149.9 KB)

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.

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.

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

Rex E. Duffett vs. Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association (ROOT)

Posted on April 27, 2018 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	18F-H1818025-REL / 18F-H1818027-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2018-04-24
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	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.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Rex E. Duffett	Counsel	—
Respondent	Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association	Counsel	Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

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.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
19
20
21
22

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Document Request, Records Disclosure, Maintenance, CC&Rs, Filing Fee Refund

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.A.C. R2-19-119
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
CC&Rs

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818025-REL Decision – 630610.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:10:12 (114.0 KB)

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: 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.

——————————————————————————–

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.

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
F. Del Sol (staff)
Signed transmission document