Samantha and Millard C. Finch v. Mountain Gate Community aka Copper Canyon Ranch

Posted on July 4, 2025 by [email protected]

Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID	25F-H017-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2025-07-03
Administrative Law Judge	Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Samantha and Millard C. Finch	Counsel	—
Respondent	Mountain Gate Community aka Copper Canyon Ranch	Counsel	B. Austin Baillio

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199.04

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioners' Dispute Petition, concluding that Petitioners failed to prove any errors in the administration or rejection of evidence or errors of law during the previous administrative hearing, which was the sole basis for the rehearing.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to satisfy their burden of proof to show procedural or evidentiary errors as required by the limited scope of the rehearing granted by the Department of Real Estate. Arguments focused on disagreement with the findings of the original decision, which were outside the scope.

Key Issues & Findings

Error in the administration or rejection of evidence or other errors occurring during the proceeding

The rehearing was limited to determining if errors occurred during the previous proceeding regarding the admission or rejection of evidence or errors of law. Petitioners alleged improper use of A.R.S. § 33-1807 by the original ALJ and claimed their evidence was rejected or not considered. The ALJ found that Petitioners failed to meet the burden of proof.

Orders: Petitioners' Dispute Petition is Dismissed. The underlying ALJ Decision is binding.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 33-1807
A.R.S. § 33-1803

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Rehearing, Procedural Error, Evidence, A.R.S. 33-1807

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1807
A.R.S. § 33-1803

Briefing Doc – 25F-H017-REL-RHG

Briefing Document: Finch v. Mountain Gate Community Administrative Proceedings

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key events, arguments, and legal conclusions from the administrative proceedings involving homeowners Millard and Samantha Finch (Petitioners) and the Mountain Gate Community Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute was a series of fees levied against the Petitioners’ account, which they contested as improper, excessive, and illegal.

The initial Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision, issued on February 26, 2025, found in favor of the Respondent on all four of the Petitioners’ claims. The ruling established that the fees resulted from a rolling delinquency caused by a payment misunderstanding, not from improper charges on timely payments. A critical distinction was made between the statutorily limited $15 late fee and separate, permissible collection costs passed on to the homeowners from the association’s management company.

The Petitioners were granted a rehearing, but on the narrow procedural ground of “Error in the administration or rejection of evidence.” During the rehearing on June 13, 2025, the Petitioners attempted to re-argue the factual basis of the original decision rather than prove a procedural error. The final ALJ decision on the rehearing, issued July 3, 2025, concluded that the Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof. It found no evidence of procedural error, confirmed all exhibits were properly admitted in the first hearing, and dismissed the Petitioners’ arguments as an improper attempt to appeal the original decision’s substance. Consequently, the initial ruling in favor of the Respondent was upheld.

——————————————————————————–

1.0 Initial Petition and Core Dispute

On October 15, 2024, Millard and Samantha Finch filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging four violations by the Mountain Gate Community HOA. The dispute centered on a recurring $45 charge applied to their account.

1.1 Parties Involved

Name/Entity

Representation

Petitioners

Millard C. and Samantha Finch

Represented themselves

Respondent

Mountain Gate Community (aka Copper Canyon Ranch)

Attorney B. Austin Baillio

Respondent’s Agent

First Service Residential (FSR)

Management Company

Initial Adjudicator

Administrative Law Judge Samuel Fox

Office of Administrative Hearings

Rehearing Adjudicator

Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn

Office of Administrative Hearings

1.2 Summary of Allegations

The Petitioners’ case was built on four primary claims:

1. Improper Late Fees: The HOA levied a 45charge(15 late charge plus a $30 “late notice fee”) even when the Petitioners believed their assessments were paid on or before the due date.

2. Excessive Fee Amount: The total $45 charge exceeded the maximum late fee of $15 permitted under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1803(A) and the community’s CC&Rs.

3. Lack of Notice for Penalties: The $30 “late notice fee” was alleged to be a monetary penalty imposed without the legally required “notice and an opportunity to be heard” under A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) and § 33-1242(A)(11).

4. Improper Threats of Legal Action: The HOA’s pre-legal team allegedly threatened foreclosure and other legal action when the Petitioners’ account was not delinquent, in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1807(A).

2.0 Initial Administrative Law Judge Decision (February 26, 2025)

Following a hearing on February 7, 2025, ALJ Samuel Fox ruled that the Respondent was the prevailing party on all four issues, concluding the Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof.

2.1 Hearing Evidence and Root Cause

The evidence showed the dispute originated from a misunderstanding of payment application rules.

• Payment Application Mandate: Per A.R.S. § 33-1807(K) and FSR’s policy, all payments received are applied first to any unpaid assessments and associated fees before being applied to the current month’s assessment.

• The Triggering Event: In November 2022, the Petitioners attempted to prepay their December 2022 assessment. However, because an outstanding balance already existed, the payment was applied to that past-due amount. This left the December 2022 assessment unpaid.

• Rolling Delinquency: From January 2023 through February 2025, every payment the Petitioners made was applied to the previous month’s outstanding balance. Consequently, each month’s assessment was deemed late, triggering a new set of late charges and collection fees.

2.2 Detailed Analysis of Conclusions by Issue

Issue 1: Propriety of Late Fees

• Conclusion: The fees were properly levied because the payments were, in fact, late.

• Rationale: The ALJ found that the Respondent and FSR correctly followed the statutory mandate of A.R.S. § 33-1807(K) by applying payments to delinquent assessments first. The Petitioners’ argument that they made timely payments each month was overcome by the fact that those payments were appropriately applied to the prior month’s balance, rendering the current month’s payment delinquent.

Issue 2: Legality of Fee Amount

• Conclusion: The total charge was not an excessive late fee.

• Rationale: The $45 charge was comprised of two distinct fees:

◦ $15.00 Late Charge: This was identified as the late fee, which is limited by statute and the CC&Rs.

◦ $30.00 Late Notice Fee / $20.00 Rebill Fee: These were determined to be collection costs. Testimony established that FSR charged the HOA for the service of processing and sending overdue notices, and this cost was passed directly to the homeowner. The community’s CC&Rs (Sections 6.1.1 and 6.10.5) and state law (A.R.S. § 33-1807(K)) explicitly allow for the collection of such costs from the member. Since the collection cost is not a “late fee,” the total charge did not violate the $15 limit.

Issue 3: Notice Requirements

• Conclusion: The “Late Notice Fee” did not require a formal notice and hearing.

• Rationale: The ALJ determined that collection fees are distinct from “monetary penalties.” The statutes requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard apply to penalties for violations of community rules, not to administrative costs incurred in collecting a debt. A.R.S. § 33-1807(K) itself lists “unpaid reasonable collection fees” separately from “monetary penalties.”

Issue 4: Alleged Threats of Foreclosure

• Conclusion: The Petitioners failed to provide any evidence to support this claim.

• Rationale: No evidence was submitted showing that the Respondent had threatened foreclosure or taken any legal action. A witness for the Respondent testified that no foreclosure efforts had ever been made against the Petitioners. The ALJ found the complaint item was either unsubstantiated or “not yet ripe for resolution.”

3.0 Rehearing Proceedings

The Petitioners filed for a rehearing on March 28, 2025. On April 29, 2025, the Department of Real Estate granted the request on a single, limited basis.

3.1 Grounds for Rehearing

The Department granted the rehearing solely on the following ground:

• “Error in the administration or rejection of evidence or other errors occurring during the proceeding.”

Notably, the Department did not grant a rehearing on the Petitioners’ other claims, such as the finding of fact being arbitrary, an abuse of discretion, or not supported by the evidence. This strictly limited the scope of the new hearing to procedural errors from the first proceeding, not the substantive outcome.

3.2 Key Arguments during the Rehearing (June 13, 2025)

The rehearing was characterized by ALJ Kay Abramsohn repeatedly guiding the Petitioners back to the hearing’s limited procedural scope.

• Petitioners’ Arguments: Samantha Finch primarily attempted to re-argue the facts of the initial case. Her claims of procedural error were:

1. Evidence Was Rejected: She argued her evidence was not considered because when she requested copies of exhibits from the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) after the first hearing, she did not receive copies of her own submissions.

2. Questioning Was Improperly Halted: She claimed she was prevented from presenting evidence when the initial ALJ stopped a line of questioning to a witness about the need for a “court order,” telling her the question sought a “legal conclusion.”

3. Incorrect Statute Was Used: She questioned the authenticity of the version of A.R.S. § 33-1807 submitted by the Respondent.

• Respondent’s Counter-Arguments:

◦ Attorney Austin Baillio clarified that the version of A.R.S. § 33-1807 they submitted was the one in effect during the period of the dispute (pre-2024 amendments).

◦ He noted that the Petitioners submitted their own version of the statute, so the judge had both available.

◦ He argued that even if the wrong version was used, the error was harmless as the outcome would have been the same under either version.

4.0 Final Decision on Rehearing (July 3, 2025)

ALJ Abramsohn issued a decision dismissing the Petitioners’ Dispute Petition, finding they failed to prove any procedural error occurred during the initial hearing.

4.1 Rationale for Dismissal

The decision systematically refuted each of the Petitioners’ claims of procedural error:

• On Rejected Evidence: The ALJ concluded that the record from the first hearing clearly showed the Petitioners’ Exhibits 1 through 10 were admitted into evidence. The post-hearing administrative issue of which copies were sent by OAH staff did not constitute a judicial rejection of evidence.

• On Improperly Halted Questioning: The ALJ found that the initial judge’s instruction was proper judicial management. Directing a party to save a legal theory for their argument, rather than asking a witness to provide a legal conclusion, is not a rejection of evidence.

• On Use of Incorrect Statute: The decision affirmed that the Respondent had used the appropriate version of the statute for the time period in question. Furthermore, with both parties having submitted a version, there was no error in what was admitted to the record for the judge’s consideration.

• On Arguments Outside the Scope: The ALJ formally concluded that the bulk of the Petitioners’ arguments—regarding the prepayment, the fairness of the hearing, and the correctness of the initial findings—were disagreements with the substance of the first decision. As the rehearing was not granted on those grounds, these arguments were improperly raised and were dismissed.

4.2 Final Order

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ Dispute Petition is Dismissed. The decision from the initial hearing on February 26, 2025, finding the Respondent to be the prevailing party, stands as the final binding order in the matter.

Study Guide – 25F-H017-REL-RHG

Finch v. Mountain Gate Community: A Case Study Guide

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing exclusively from the information provided in the case documents.

1. Identify the four primary issues raised by Millard and Samantha Finch in their initial petition to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

2. What was the Respondent’s central argument for why the Finches’ account was consistently marked as delinquent, even when they made monthly payments?

3. Explain the legal distinction made by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) between the “15.00LateCharge”andthe”30.00 Late Notice Fee.”

4. According to the hearing evidence, what was the specific function of the “20.00RebillFee”andthe”30.00 Late Notice Fee,” and who ultimately bore the cost?

5. What specific event in November 2022 exacerbated the delinquency issue on the Petitioners’ account, and what was the result from January 2023 to February 2025?

6. On what grounds did the ALJ in the initial decision dismiss the Petitioners’ fourth complaint regarding threats of foreclosure and legal action?

7. What was the sole, limited ground on which the Department of Real Estate granted the Petitioners a rehearing?

8. During the rehearing, what was the Respondent’s explanation for why the version of A.R.S. § 33-1807 they submitted differed from the current version of the statute?

9. According to the second ALJ’s decision, why were the Petitioners’ arguments about disagreeing with the first decision’s findings of fact improperly raised at the rehearing?

10. What was the final outcome of the rehearing, and what does the final order state about the binding nature of the decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The four issues were: (1) levying a $45.00 charge on an account that was paid on time; (2) the $45.00 charge exceeding the statutory limit of $15.00 for a late fee; (3) the 20/30 “late notice fees” being monetary penalties imposed without proper notice; and (4) improper threats of foreclosure and legal action when the account was not delinquent.

2. The Respondent argued that the Finches had fallen behind on their April 2020 assessment. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1807(K), all subsequent payments were correctly applied first to the oldest unpaid assessments. This created a rolling delinquency where each new payment covered the previous month’s balance, causing the current month’s assessment to become late.

3. The ALJ determined that the “15.00LateCharge”wasafeeforthelatepaymentofanassessment,limitedbyA.R.S.§33−1803.The”30.00 Late Notice Fee,” however, was found to be a collection cost incurred by the Association for services provided by its managing agent (FSR) and was not subject to the statutory limit for late fees.

4. The “20.00RebillFee”and”30.00 Late Notice Fee” were charges for collection services provided by the managing agent, First Service Residential (FSR). An FSR employee would review overdue accounts and send collection notices, and FSR charged the Association for this service, a cost which was then directly passed on to the homeowner.

5. In November 2022, the Petitioners attempted to prepay their December assessment, but because the charge had not yet been posted and they did not communicate their intent, the payment was applied to past due amounts. This led them to believe they were current, resulting in their payments from January 2023 through February 2025 being consistently late and incurring a Late Charge and Late Notice Fee every month.

6. The ALJ dismissed the fourth complaint because it was unclear, did not allege actionable conduct, and was not supported by evidence. The Respondent’s witnesses testified that no legal action was ever taken, and the Petitioners submitted no evidence to support the allegation that threats were made.

7. The Department of Real Estate granted the rehearing on the single, specific ground of “Error in the administration or rejection of evidence or other errors occurring during the proceeding.” It did not grant a rehearing based on the Petitioners’ claims that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence.

8. The Respondent’s attorney explained that the version of A.R.S. § 33-1807 they submitted was the version in effect at the time the payment actions in question occurred. The statute had been amended in 2024, and those changes were prospective, not applicable to past events.

9. The second ALJ found these arguments were improperly raised because the Department had explicitly not granted a rehearing on the basis of disagreeing with the first decision. The scope of the rehearing was strictly limited to procedural errors, such as the wrongful admission or rejection of evidence during the hearing itself, not a re-evaluation of the facts or the judge’s conclusions.

10. The final outcome was that the Petitioners’ Dispute Petition was dismissed, and the original decision deeming the Respondent the prevailing party was upheld. The final order states that the decision is binding on the parties and any appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response based solely on the facts, legal arguments, and procedural history presented in the source documents.

1. Analyze the legal distinction between a “late fee,” a “monetary penalty,” and a “collection cost” as presented in this case. How did the classification of the “$30.00 Late Notice Fee” as a collection cost become the pivotal factor in the dismissal of Petitioners’ Issues 2 and 3?

2. Trace the procedural journey of the Finches’ complaint from the initial petition to the final decision after the rehearing. What does this process reveal about the specific and limited grounds for a rehearing in this administrative context, and how did the Petitioners’ misunderstanding of this scope affect their arguments?

3. Examine the role and application of A.R.S. § 33-1807(K) regarding the allocation of payments. Explain how the Respondent’s adherence to this statute created a “domino effect” of delinquency that the Petitioners failed to understand, leading to the core conflict.

4. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” in this case. For each of the four initial complaints, explain why the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioners “failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence” that a violation occurred.

5. Based on the transcript of the rehearing and the final ALJ decision, describe the fundamental disagreement between Samantha Finch’s perception of the legal process and ALJ Kay Abramsohn’s explanation of it. What specific examples illustrate the difference between disagreeing with a decision’s outcome versus identifying a procedural error during a hearing?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Samuel Fox presided over the initial hearing and Kay A. Abramsohn presided over the rehearing.

A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(11)

Arizona Revised Statute cited by Petitioners, which allows an association board to impose reasonable monetary penalties on members for violations, but only after providing notice and an opportunity to be heard.

A.R.S. § 33-1803(A) & (B)

Arizona Revised Statutes governing charges for late payment of assessments. It limits late charges to the greater of $15 or 10% of the unpaid assessment and requires notice before imposition. It distinguishes these charges from monetary penalties.

A.R.S. § 33-1807(A) & (K)

Arizona Revised Statutes governing assessment liens. Subsection (A) specifies conditions for foreclosing a lien, requiring delinquency of one year or $1,200. Subsection (K) dictates the order for applying payments, requiring they first be applied to unpaid assessments and related costs before other fees or penalties.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a trial to produce evidence that proves the claims they have made. In this case, the Petitioners bore the burden of proof to establish their claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community. Several sections, including 6.1.1, 6.9, 6.10.1, and 6.10.5, were cited in the case.

ClickPay

The online portal used by Petitioners to make assessment payments. The portal included a notice that payments should be scheduled on or after the 1st of each billing cycle.

Collection Fees / Costs

Charges incurred by the Association in the process of collecting delinquent assessments. In this case, the “20.00RebillFee”and”30.00 Late Notice Fee” were identified as collection costs passed on from FSR to the homeowner.

First Service Residential (FSR)

The managing agent employed by the Respondent to perform duties such as collecting assessments and providing collection services for overdue accounts.

Late Charge

A specific charge, limited by statute to $15.00, for the late payment of an assessment. This was deemed distinct from a collection fee or monetary penalty.

Late Notice Fee

A $30.00 fee charged to the Finches’ account. The ALJ determined this was a collection cost charged by FSR for sending overdue-payment paperwork, not a late fee subject to the $15 statutory limit.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency in Arizona where administrative hearings are conducted.

Petitioners

Millard C. and Samantha Finch, who owned a home in the Mountain Gate Community and filed the petition against the association.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioners to win their case. It is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is “more probably true than not.”

Rebill Fee

A $20.00 fee charged to the Finches’ account. Like the Late Notice Fee, this was identified as a charge for collection services provided by FSR.

Respondent

Mountain Gate Community aka Copper Canyon Ranch, the planned community association (HOA) of which the Finches were members.

Tribunal

A term used in the final decision to refer to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Blog Post – 25F-H017-REL-RHG

{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “25F-H017-REL-RHG”,
“case_title”: “Samantha and Millard C. Finch, Petitioners, v. Mountain Gate Community aka Copper Canyon Ranch, Respondent.”,
“decision_date”: “2025-07-03”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Millard C. Finch”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Samantha Finch”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Appeared for herself and Millard C. Finch”
},
{
“name”: “B. Austin Baillio”,
“role”: “respondent attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Samuel Fox”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “OAH”,
“notes”: “ALJ for the initial decision (No. 25F-H017-REL)”
},
{
“name”: “Kay A. Abramsohn”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “OAH”,
“notes”: “ALJ for the rehearing decision (No. 25F-H017-REL-RHG)”
},
{
“name”: “Jonathan Sweat”,
“role”: “witness”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “First Service Residential (former Community Manager)”,
“notes”: “Testified for Respondent”
},
{
“name”: “Melinda Montoya”,
“role”: “witness”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “First Service Residential (Accounts Receivable Manager)”,
“notes”: “Testified for Respondent”
},
{
“name”: “Susan Nicolson”,
“role”: “ADRE Commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “V. Nunez”,
“role”: “ADRE/OAH staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE/OAH”,
“notes”: “Involved in decision transmission list ([email protected])”
},
{
“name”: “D. Jones”,
“role”: “ADRE/OAH staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE/OAH”,
“notes”: “Involved in decision transmission list ([email protected])”
},
{
“name”: “L. Abril”,
“role”: “ADRE/OAH staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE/OAH”,
“notes”: “Involved in decision transmission list ([email protected])”
},
{
“name”: “M. Neat”,
“role”: “ADRE/OAH staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE/OAH”,
“notes”: “Involved in decision transmission list ([email protected])”
},
{
“name”: “L. Recchia”,
“role”: “ADRE/OAH staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE/OAH”,
“notes”: “Involved in decision transmission list ([email protected])”
},
{
“name”: “G. Osborn”,
“role”: “ADRE/OAH staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE/OAH”,
“notes”: “Involved in decision transmission list ([email protected])”
}
]
}

{ “case”: { “agency”: “ADRE”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “docket_no”: “25F-H017-REL”, “case_title”: “Samantha and Millard C. Finch, Petitioners, v. Mountain Gate Community aka Copper Canyon Ranch, Respondent.”, “decision_date”: “2025-07-03”, “alj_name”: “Kay A. Abramsohn” }, “parties”: [ { “party_id”: “P1”, “role”: “petitioner”, “name”: “Samantha and Millard C. Finch”, “party_type”: “homeowner”, “email”: “[email protected]”, “phone”: null, “attorney_name”: null, “attorney_firm”: null, “attorney_email”: null, “attorney_phone”: null }, { “party_id”: “R1”, “role”: “respondent”, “name”: “Mountain Gate Community aka Copper Canyon Ranch”, “party_type”: “HOA”, “email”: null, “phone”: null, “attorney_name”: “B. Austin Baillio”, “attorney_firm”: “Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.”, “attorney_email”: “[email protected]”, “attorney_phone”: null } ], “issues”: [ { “issue_id”: “ISS-001”, “type”: “statute”, “citation”: “A.R.S. \u00a7 33-1803(A)”, “caption”: “Excessive Late Charges vs. Collection Fees”, “violation(s)”: “Charging 45.00(15 late charge + $30 late notice fee) per delinquent assessment instance, exceeding the statutory limit of $15.00 for late payment charges.”, “summary”: “Petitioners argued that the total 45.00chargeleviedforlatepaymentsexceededthestatutorylimitforlatepaymentcharges(15.00) prescribed by A.R.S. \u00a7 33-1803(A) and CC&R 6.10.112. The ALJ concluded that the $30.00 \”late notice fee\” (or \”rebill fee\”) was a collection cost allowed under ARS \u00a7 33-1807(K) and the CC&Rs, not a late fee restricted by ARS \u00a7 33-1803(A)$34.”,”outcome”:”petitioner
l

oss”,”filing
f

ee
p

aid”:2000.0,”filing
f

ee
r

efunded”:false,”civil
p

enalty
a

mount”:0.0,”orders
s

ummary”:”TheinitialALJdecisiondeemedRespondenttheprevailingpartyonallfourpetitionissues5.Thesubsequentrehearingpetitiononproceduralerrorwasdismissed6.”,”why
t

he
l

oss”:”Petitionersfailedtodemonstratebyapreponderanceoftheevidencethatthefeesinquestion(30 Late Notice Fee / Rebill Fee) were late fees subject to the $15 limit under A.R.S. \u00a7 33-1803(A), as opposed to permissible collection costs under A.R.S. \u00a7 33-1807(K)34.”, “cited”: [ “A.R.S. \u00a7 33-1803(A)”, “A.R.S. \u00a7 33-1807(K)”, “CC\u0026R Section 6.10.1” ] } ], “money_summary”: { “issues_count”: 4, “total_filing_fees_paid”: 2000.0, “total_filing_fees_refunded”: 0.0, “total_civil_penalties”: 0.0 }, “outcomes”: { “petitioner_is_hoa”: false, “petitioner_win”: “none”, “summarize_judgement”: “The initial ALJ Decision found Respondent the prevailing party on all four petition issues5. Petitioners requested a rehearing, but the rehearing was limited to alleged errors in the admission or rejection of evidence during the initial proceeding7. The ALJ in the rehearing concluded that Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof regarding the alleged errors, and the Dispute Petition was dismissed68.”, “why_the_loss”: “Petitioners failed to meet the burden of proof for the underlying violations in the initial hearing4…, and failed to meet the burden of proof for the limited grounds granted for the rehearing (error in the administration or rejection of evidence)811.” }, “analytics”: { “cited”: [ “A.R.S. \u00a7 33-1803(A)”, “A.R.S. \u00a7 33-1803(B)”, “A.R.S. \u00a7 33-1807(A)”, “A.R.S. \u00a7 33-1807(K)”, “A.R.S. \u00a7 33-1242(A)(11)”, “CC\u0026R Section 6.10.1”, “CC\u0026R Section 6.10.5” ], “tags”: [ “HOA Dispute”, “Late Fees”, “Collection Costs”, “Statutory Interpretation”, “Rehearing” ] } }

The case involves Millard C. and Samantha Finch (Petitioners), members of the Mountain Gate Community aka Copper Canyon Ranch (Respondent), disputing alleged violations of Planned Community Statutes and community documents regarding assessment charges and collection practices1…. The matter proceeded through the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)45.

Key Facts and Main Issues (Initial Hearing – February 7, 2025)

Petitioners raised four main issues, focusing primarily on the imposition of a $45.00 charge for delinquent assessments, which consisted of a $15.00 late charge and a $30.00 “late notice fee” or “Rebill Fee”3…. Petitioners argued that this $45.00 sum exceeded the statutory limit for late charges—the greater of $15.00 or 10% of the unpaid assessment, as stipulated in A.R.S. § 33-1803(A) and the CC&Rs6…. They also challenged the imposition of fees when they believed their payments were timely, resulting from the HOA applying payments to previously delinquent balances in accordance with A.R.S. § 33-1807(K)1112. Finally, they challenged the legitimacy of the “late notice fees” as impermissible penalties imposed without proper notice and alleged inappropriate threats of foreclosure1314.

Legal Points and Initial Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Samuel Fox found that Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof on all four issues12…. The crucial legal distinction was that the $30.00 “Late Notice Fee” and “Rebill Fee” were determined to be collection fees, which are legally separate from, and permissible in addition to, the $15.00 statutory late charge15…. Collection fees and costs are contemplated under A.R.S. § 33-1807(K) and the CC&Rs1719. The ALJ determined that the Respondent (HOA) and its manager correctly applied payments first to delinquent assessments, causing subsequent monthly fees, as mandated by A.R.S. § 33-1807(K)1112. Regarding foreclosure threats, no evidence was entered to support the allegation, and Respondent’s witness testified that no foreclosure efforts had been made2021. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party in the initial matter16.

Rehearing Proceedings (June 13, 2025)

Petitioners filed a request for rehearing, which the Department of Real Estate granted on the limited issue of “Error in the administration or rejection of evidence or other errors occurring during the proceeding”2223. The Department explicitly denied rehearing based on disagreement with the factual findings or the underlying decision2425.

At the rehearing, conducted by ALJ Kay A. Abramsohn, Petitioners primarily argued that the previous ALJ had relied on an unsubstantiated or incorrect version of A.R.S. § 33-1807 and that their evidence was not properly considered2627. The Respondent noted that the statute version used was the one legally in effect at the time of the actions (prior to a 2024 amendment), and its application was harmless to the outcome28…. Petitioners repeatedly sought to re-argue their disagreement with the initial factual findings and decision, but were reminded by the ALJ that the scope was restricted to procedural errors during the original hearing31….

Final Decision (Rehearing)

The ALJ concluded that Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof that any error occurred in the administration or rejection of evidence, or any error of law, during the initial February 7, 2025 hearing34. The rehearing evidence confirmed that Petitioners’ exhibits were, in fact, admitted to the record and that the statutes relied upon were contained within the record34. Arguments concerning disagreement with the initial ALJ’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were dismissed as improperly raised under the limited scope of the granted rehearing33. The ALJ Dismissed Petitioners’ Dispute Petition35.

{ “case”: { “agency”: “ADRE”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “docket_no”: “25F-H017-REL”, “case_title”: “Millard C. and Samantha Finch Petitioners, v. Mountain Gate Community aka Copper Canyon Ranch, Respondent.”, “decision_date”: “2025-07-03”, “alj_name”: “Kay A. Abramsohn” }, “parties”: [ { “party_id”: “P1”, “role”: “petitioner”, “name”: “Millard C. and Samantha Finch”, “party_type”: “homeowner”, “email”: “[email protected]”, “phone”: null, “attorney_name”: null, “attorney_firm”: null, “attorney_email”: null, “attorney_phone”: null }, { “party_id”: “R1”, “role”: “respondent”, “name”: “Mountain Gate Community aka Copper Canyon Ranch”, “party_type”: “HOA”, “email”: null, “phone”: null, “attorney_name”: “B. Austin Baillio”, “attorney_firm”: “Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.”, “attorney_email”: “[email protected]”, “attorney_phone”: null } ], “issues”: [ { “issue_id”: “ISS-001”, “type”: “statute”, “citation”: “A.R.S. § 33-1803(B); Association Rules and Design Guidelines, Article 5.2, Article 6.10.5, and Article 6.9”, “caption”: “Charging a 45.00fee(15.00 late charge + $30.00 ‘late notice fee’) when assessment is paid before or on the due date1.”, “violation(s)”: “ARS 33-1803(B); Association Rules and Design Guidelines, Article 5.2, Article 6.10.5, and Article 6.9”, “summary”: “Petitioners argued that payments were charged as late despite being timely, but the ALJ found payments were correctly applied to previous delinquent balances per A.R.S. § 33-1807(K)2….”, “outcome”: “respondent_win”, “filing_fee_paid”: 500.0, “filing_fee_refunded”: false, “civil_penalty_amount”: 0.0, “orders_summary”: “Respondent deemed the prevailing party on this issue5.”, “why_the_loss”: “Petitioners failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent charged Late Charges for payments that were not late4.”, “cited”: [“3”, “13”, “33”, “36”] }, { “issue_id”: “ISS-002”, “type”: “statute”, “citation”: “A.R.S. § 33-1803(A); CC&R Article 6, Section 6.10.1”, “caption”: “The $45.00 charge exceeds the statutory limit of 15.00fordelinquentassessments6$.”,
“violation(s)”: “ARS 33-1803(A); CC&R Article 6, Section 6.10.1”,
“summary”: “Petitioners argued the total fee exceeded the statutory late charge limit, but the ALJ found the additional fees ($30 ‘late notice fee’) were permissible collection costs, distinct from late fees78.”, “outcome”: “respondent_win”, “filing_fee_paid”: 500.0, “filing_fee_refunded”: false, “civil_penalty_amount”: 0.0, “orders_summary”: “Respondent deemed the prevailing party on this issue5.”, “why_the_loss”: “Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the Late Notice Fee or Rebill Fee were late fees limited under A.R.S. § 33-1803(A)8.”, “cited”: [“4”, “12”, “37”, “42”] }, { “issue_id”: “ISS-003”, “type”: “statute”, “citation”: “A.R.S. §§ 33-1803(B), 33-1242(A)(11); Association Rules and Design Guidelines”, “caption”: “30.00/20.00 “late notice fees” levied against the account without providing notice, violating statutes regarding monetary penalties9.”, “violation(s)”: “ARS §33-1803(B), ARS §33-1242(A)(11), Association Rules and Design Guidelines”, “summary”: “Petitioners alleged collection fees were impermissible penalties imposed without notice and hearing, but the ALJ determined they were collection costs, distinct from monetary penalties per A.R.S. § 33-1807(K)1011.”, “outcome”: “respondent_win”, “filing_fee_paid”: 500.0, “filing_fee_refunded”: false, “civil_penalty_amount”: 0.0, “orders_summary”: “Respondent deemed the prevailing party on this issue5.”, “why_the_loss”: “Petitioners failed to meet their burden that Respondent impermissibly applied monetary penalties, as the fees were collection fees1011.”, “cited”: [“5”, “13”, “16”, “44”] }, { “issue_id”: “ISS-004”, “type”: “statute”, “citation”: “A.R.S. § 33-1807(A); CC&Rs Article 6, Section 6.10.5(ii), 6.10.5(i), and 6.10.2”, “caption”: “Pre-legal team threatening foreclosure and legal action when Petitioners are not delinquent12.”, “violation(s)”: “ARS 33-1807(A); CC&Rs Article 6, Section 6.10.5(ii), 6.10.5(i), and 6.10.2”, “summary”: “Petitioners challenged Respondent’s authority to threaten legal action without proven delinquency. The ALJ found no evidence of foreclosure threats and deemed the complaint unclear or not ripe5….”, “outcome”: “respondent_win”, “filing_fee_paid”: 500.0, “filing_fee_refunded”: false, “civil_penalty_amount”: 0.0, “orders_summary”: “Respondent deemed the prevailing party in this matter regarding Petition Issue 45.”, “why_the_loss”: “The complaint either did not allege actionable conduct or was not yet ripe for resolution, and Petitioners failed to submit evidence of threats or meet their burden5….”, “cited”: [“6”, “14”, “47”] } ], “money_summary”: { “issues_count”: 4, “total_filing_fees_paid”: 2000.0, “total_filing_fees_refunded”: 0.0, “total_civil_penalties”: 0.0 }, “outcomes”: { “petitioner_is_hoa”: false, “petitioner_win”: “none”, “summarize_judgement”: “The Administrative Law Judge Decision in the underlying matter (25F-H017-REL), which found Respondent the prevailing party on all four petition issues, stands, as Petitioners’ Dispute Petition for Rehearing was dismissed5…. Petitioners failed to meet the burden of proof that there was error in the administration or rejection of evidence or other errors occurring during the initial proceeding1718.”, “why_the_loss”: “Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws in the underlying dispute4…. Subsequently, Petitioners failed to meet the burden during rehearing to demonstrate error in the initial administrative proceeding17.” }, “analytics”: { “cited”: [ “A.R.S. § 33-1803(A)”, “A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)”, “A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(11)”, “A.R.S. § 33-1807(A)”, “A.R.S. § 33-1807(K)”, “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)”, “A.R.S. § 32-2199.04” ], “tags”: [ “HOA dispute”, “late fees”, “collection costs”, “assessment payment application”, “rehearing dismissal”, “A.R.S. Title 33 Chapter 16” ] } }

{
“rehearing”: {
“is_rehearing”: true,
“base_case_id”: “25F-H017-REL”,
“original_decision_status”: “affirmed”,
“original_decision_summary”: “The original decision (25F-H017-REL) found the Respondent (Mountain Gate Community) to be the prevailing party on all four petition issues related to late fees, collection costs, the proper application of assessment payments under A.R.S. § 33-1807(K), and threats of legal action [1], [2]. The ALJ found Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof on all claims [3], [4], [5], [1].”,
“rehearing_decision_summary”: “The Department granted the rehearing on the limited ground of: ‘Error in the administration or rejection of evidence or other errors occurring during the proceeding’ [6], [7]. The rehearing ALJ found that Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof to show such errors occurred during the original hearing [8], [9]. The Petitioners’ Dispute Petition was dismissed, affirming the underlying findings and conclusions of the original decision [10], [11].”,
“issues_challenged”: [
{
“issue”: “Issue 1: Charging a $45.00 fee ($15.00 late charge + $30.00 ‘late notice fee’) when assessment is paid before or on the due date.”,
“challenge_status”: “Affirmed (Petitioner failed to prove procedural/evidentiary error)”
},
{
“issue”: “Issue 2: The $45.00 charge exceeds the statutory limit of $15.00 for delinquent assessments.”,
“challenge_status”: “Affirmed (Petitioner failed to prove procedural/evidentiary error)”
},
{
“issue”: “Issue 3: $30.00/$20.00 “late notice fees” levied against the account without providing notice, violating statutes regarding monetary penalties.”,
“challenge_status”: “Affirmed (Petitioner failed to prove procedural/evidentiary error)”
},
{
“issue”: “Issue 4: Pre-legal team threatening foreclosure and legal action when Petitioners are not delinquent.”,
“challenge_status”: “Affirmed (Petitioner failed to prove procedural/evidentiary error)”
}
]
}
}

{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “25F-H017-REL-RHG”,
“case_title”: “Samantha and Millard C. Finch, Petitioners, v. Mountain Gate Community aka Copper Canyon Ranch, Respondent.”,
“decision_date”: “2025-07-03”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Samantha Finch”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Millard C. Finch”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “B. Austin Baillio”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Samuel Fox”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “OAH”,
“notes”: “Presided over initial hearing (25F-H017-REL)”
},
{
“name”: “Kay A. Abramsohn”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “OAH”,
“notes”: “Presided over rehearing (25F-H017-REL-RHG)”
},
{
“name”: “Jonathan Sweat”,
“role”: “witness (former community manager)”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “First Service Residential”,
“notes”: “Testified for Respondent”
},
{
“name”: “Melinda Montoya”,
“role”: “witness (accounts receivable manager)”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “First Service Residential”,
“notes”: “Testified for Respondent”
},
{
“name”: “Susan Nicolson”,
“role”: “ADRE Commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “vnunez”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: “Listed as recipient of decisions”
},
{
“name”: “djones”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: “Listed as recipient of decisions”
},
{
“name”: “labril”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: “Listed as recipient of decisions”
},
{
“name”: “mneat”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: “Listed as recipient of decisions”
},
{
“name”: “lrecchia”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: “Listed as recipient of decisions”
},
{
“name”: “gosborn”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: “ADRE”,
“notes”: “Listed as recipient of decisions”
}
]
}

This summary details the proceedings and decisions of the underlying legal dispute and the subsequent administrative rehearing concerning alleged violations of planned community statutes and governing documents.

——————————————————————————–

Case Title: 25F-H017-REL (Original Decision)

Parties: Millard C. and Samantha Finch (Petitioners) versus Mountain Gate Community aka Copper Canyon Ranch (Respondent)1. Hearing Date: February 7, 20251. Key Facts: The Petitioners, homeowners in the community, became involved in a dispute over late assessment payments2. The core issue stemmed from payments applied according to A.R.S. § 33-1807(K), which dictates that payments received must be applied first to delinquent assessments, then to collection fees, and then to other amounts3,4. An attempt by Petitioners to pre-pay the December 2022 assessment was unsuccessful and the payment was applied to past due amounts, leading to a continuous cycle of late charges and collection fees through February 20255,6.

Main Issues (Original Case): Petitioners raised four complaints, primarily alleging that Respondent violated law and community documents by:

1. Levying a **45.00charge∗∗(15.00 late charge plus $30.00 “late notice fee”) when assessments were allegedly paid on time7.

2. Levying a total charge ($45.00) that exceeded the statutory $15.00 limit for late payment charges set by A.R.S. § 33-1803(A) and CC&R 6.10.18,9.

3. Imposing 30.00/20.00 “late notice fees” (Rebill Fees) without proper notice, treating them as penalties10,11.

4. Threatening foreclosure and legal action without proper cause12,13.

Outcome and Key Legal Points (Original Case): The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ Samuel Fox) ordered that the Respondent was the prevailing party regarding all four Petition Issues14,15.

• The ALJ found that Respondent correctly applied payments to delinquent assessments first, pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1807(K), and that Petitioners failed to prove the charges were levied against timely payments4,16.

• Crucially, the ALJ determined that the $30.00 “Late Notice Fee” or “Rebill Fee” was a collection cost, not a “late charge” restricted by the $15.00 limit in A.R.S. § 33-1803(A)17,11. A.R.S. § 33-1807(K) differentiates between collection fees/costs and monetary penalties/late charges, allowing for the application of collection costs incurred by the association3,18.

——————————————————————————–

Case Title: 25F-H017-REL-RHG (Rehearing)

Procedural History: This matter constitutes a rehearing (RHG), granted by the Arizona Department of Real Estate (DRE) following Petitioners’ timely request19,20. Rehearing Date: June 13, 202521. Scope of Rehearing: The DRE limited the sole issue for rehearing to: “Error in the administration or rejection of evidence or other errors occurring during the proceeding” of the original hearing22,23,24. The DRE explicitly denied rehearing requests based on disagreement with the original findings of fact or the overall decision (e.g., that the decision was arbitrary or unsupported by evidence)25,26.

Key Arguments (Rehearing): Petitioners (represented by Samantha Finch) argued that:

• The original ALJ erred by using an “unsubstantiated” version of A.R.S. § 33-1807, suggesting that their version, which they believed was the proper law, would have changed the outcome27,28.

• The original ALJ rejected or failed to consider their evidence, evidenced partially by the fact they did not receive copies of their own exhibits after the decision29.

• The original ALJ improperly prevented them from questioning a witness about the need for a “court order” regarding payment application, ruling the question sought a legal conclusion30,31.

Outcome and Key Legal Points (Rehearing): The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ Kay A. Abramsohn) concluded that Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof regarding any alleged error within the limited scope of the rehearing32,33.

• The rehearing evidence confirmed that Petitioners’ documents were admitted to the record of the original hearing33.

• The ALJ found no evidence that Petitioners were prevented from presenting any evidence during the February 7, 2025 hearing34.

• The ALJ dismissed Petitioners’ repeated arguments concerning their disagreement with the original findings of fact and conclusions of law because those issues were improperly raised and outside the limited scope of the granted rehearing26.

Final Decision: The Tribunal Dismissed Petitioners’ Dispute Petition35. This order is binding, and any subsequent appeal must be filed with the superior court35.

Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC. vs Matthew P. Petrovic

Posted on July 1, 2025 by [email protected]

Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID	25F-H019-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2025-07-01
Administrative Law Judge	Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC	Counsel	Danny M. Ford, Esq.
Respondent	Matthew P. Petrovic	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199.04

Outcome Summary

The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted the Respondent's request for rehearing of the underlying ALJ Decision.

Why this result: The Commissioner found grounds (errors of law and arbitrary decision) sufficient to grant the Respondent's motion for rehearing.

Key Issues & Findings

Rehearing Request: Errors of Law and Arbitrary Decision

Respondent Matthew Petrovic successfully requested rehearing of the original ALJ decision, alleging errors of law, improper evidence rejection, procedural irregularities, and that the findings were arbitrary or capricious regarding alleged HOA enforcement violations (landscape, paint, walkway denial).

Orders: The Commissioner granted the rehearing request based on grounds of error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law, and that the findings or decision was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
Arizona Administrative Code R4-28-1310
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Rehearing, Procedural Error, Arbitrary Decision, Selective Enforcement

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
Arizona Administrative Code R4-28-1310
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC. vs Matthew P. Petrovic

Posted on May 6, 2025 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	25F-H019-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2025-07-01
Administrative Law Judge	Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC	Counsel	Danny M. Ford, Esq.
Respondent	Matthew P. Petrovic	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199.04

Outcome Summary

The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted the Respondent's request for rehearing of the underlying ALJ Decision.

Why this result: The Commissioner found grounds (errors of law and arbitrary decision) sufficient to grant the Respondent's motion for rehearing.

Key Issues & Findings

Rehearing Request: Errors of Law and Arbitrary Decision

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
Arizona Administrative Code R4-28-1310
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Rehearing, Procedural Error, Arbitrary Decision, Selective Enforcement

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
Arizona Administrative Code R4-28-1310
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H019-REL Decision – 1301437.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:14:36 (137.3 KB)

25F-H019-REL Decision – 1327903.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:14:44 (2245.4 KB)

25F-H019-REL Decision – 1344402.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:14:49 (57.4 KB)

25F-H019-REL Decision – 1353469.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:14:53 (73.9 KB)

25F-H019-REL Decision – 1353471.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:14:58 (9.4 KB)

25F-H019-REL Decision – 1364458.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:15:02 (59.3 KB)

25F-H019-REL Decision – 1381249.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-11T07:31:56 (233.9 KB)

Briefing Doc – 25F-H019-REL

Briefing Document: Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC vs. Matthew Petrovic

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key events, arguments, and rulings in the administrative dispute between homeowner Matthew Petrovic (Respondent) and the Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC (Petitioner), case number 25F-H019. Following an initial Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision on May 5, 2025, that found the Petitioner to be the prevailing party, the Respondent successfully petitioned for a rehearing.

The Respondent’s request for a rehearing was based on several grounds, including the misinterpretation of evidence regarding landscaping (Sago palms), insufficient evidence for a paint violation, and the arbitrary denial of a medically necessary walkway. Critically, Mr. Petrovic also cited significant procedural failures, alleging he was denied due process because he was misinformed about the nature of the original hearing and was thus unprepared and without legal counsel. He further claimed that the Petitioner’s witness provided false testimony and that key evidence was improperly excluded.

The Petitioner objected to the rehearing request, arguing solely that it was filed five days past the statutory 30-day deadline. Despite this objection, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate granted the rehearing. The official order cites two specific grounds for granting the request: “Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding,” and “That the findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” A subsequent continuance has moved the new hearing to October 22, 2025.

Case Overview and Procedural History

The case involves a dispute between a homeowner and his HOA that was initially adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The homeowner, Matthew Petrovic, appealed the initial decision to the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) Commissioner and was granted a new hearing.

Key Parties and Representatives:

Name/Entity

Affiliation

Petitioner

Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC

Attorney for Petitioner

Danny M. Ford, Esq.

Goodman Law Group

Respondent

Matthew P. Petrovic

Original ALJ

Velva Moses–Thompson

Office of Administrative Hearings

Deputy Commissioner

Mandy Neat

Arizona Department of Real Estate

ALJ for Continuance

Nicole Robinson

Office of Administrative Hearings

Timeline of Events:

Description

April 15, 2025

Original Hearing

The initial hearing on the dispute takes place.

May 5, 2025

Initial ALJ Decision

ALJ Velva Moses–Thompson issues a decision deeming the Petitioner the “prevailing party.” The decision includes a notice of a 30-day deadline to request a rehearing.

June 9, 2025

Rehearing Request Filed

Respondent Matthew Petrovic files a Dispute Rehearing Request with the ADRE Commissioner.

June 17, 2025

Objection to Rehearing

The Petitioner files a timely response, objecting to the rehearing request on the grounds that it was filed five days past the deadline.

July 3, 2025

Rehearing Granted

The ADRE Deputy Commissioner issues an “Order Granting Rehearing Request.”

July 23, 2025

Notice of Hearing Issued

A notice for the new hearing is issued (as referenced in a later document).

August 28, 2025

Continuance Granted

At the Respondent’s request, ALJ Nicole Robinson grants a continuance for the hearing.

October 22, 2025 (1:00 PM)

Scheduled Rehearing

The new, continued date for the rehearing is set.

Respondent’s Grounds for Rehearing Petition

Matthew Petrovic submitted a detailed petition outlining four primary areas of concern: the factual basis for the violations, procedural irregularities, false testimony, and a lack of due process.

1. Landscape Violation – Sago Palms

Mr. Petrovic argues the ruling that Sago palms are prohibited was incorrect and contradicted the evidence he presented.

• Evidence Submitted: He claims to have provided copies of the CC&Rs, documentation from the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association (AMWUA) classifying Sago palms as drought-tolerant plants and not true palm trees, and supporting witness testimony.

• Allegation of False Testimony: He asserts that the petitioner’s witness, identified as “Kevin,” gave false testimony under oath by stating the plants were not allowed, despite being presented with contrary evidence.

• New Evidence: Since the hearing, Mr. Petrovic states he has directly contacted AMWUA, which confirmed Sago palms are not in the palm family. He also notes that a current board member is willing to testify that the plants are permitted under the HOA’s governing documents.

2. Paint Condition Dispute

The petition contends that the ruling on his home’s paint being “in disrepair” was not supported by credible evidence.

• Conflicting Testimony: Three witnesses, including Mr. Petrovic, testified that the paint is in good condition. The individual who testified against the paint’s condition is reportedly no longer a sitting board member.

• Prior Approval and Inconsistent Reasoning: The exterior paint was reviewed and approved by the HOA board when he purchased the home. He alleges the board has demonstrated “inconsistent reasoning” by first claiming the violation was due to the paint needing to be two colors and later changing the reason to “disrepair.”

• Lack of Evidence from Petitioner: The petition states the board has not submitted objective proof, such as photographs or condition reports, to support its claim. Mr. Petrovic views these actions as potential “selective enforcement and retaliation” for his opposition to prior board actions.

3. Paver Walkway Denial

Mr. Petrovic claims the HOA has engaged in selective enforcement and bad faith by repeatedly denying his application for a modified walkway over the past three years.

• Medical Necessity: The walkway modifications are supported by a physician’s letter referencing chronic back and shoulder conditions.

• Selective Enforcement: Similar walkways have allegedly been approved for other homeowners, yet his requests have been denied without justification.

• Violation of CC&Rs: He argues the denial violates the community’s CC&Rs, which require the board to act reasonably and impartially, and that the denial could be viewed as discrimination.

4. Procedural and Due Process Concerns

A significant portion of the petition focuses on procedural failures that Mr. Petrovic believes deprived him of a fair hearing.

• Exclusion of Evidence: He states that key evidence relevant to his claim of selective enforcement was excluded from the hearing due to concerns about third-party privacy.

• Misunderstanding of Hearing Nature: Mr. Petrovic was “led to believe the meeting was a mediation session” and was unaware that binding decisions could result.

• Inability to Prepare Defense: Due to this misunderstanding and “financial hardship,” he was unable to retain legal counsel or properly prepare his case, which he argues “constitutes a denial of due process.”

Petitioner’s Objection to Rehearing

The Tatum Highlands Community Association, through its attorney Danny M. Ford of Goodman Law Group, filed an objection based on a single procedural argument.

• Untimely Filing: The Petitioner’s core argument is that the request for rehearing was time-barred.

◦ The decision was served on May 5, 2025.

◦ The 30-day statutory deadline, per A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, was June 4, 2025.

◦ Mr. Petrovic filed his request on June 9, 2025, five days late.

• Notice of Deadline: The objection notes that the deadline was “plainly written on the very Decision” and that being unrepresented is not an excuse for missing it.

• Requested Action: The Petitioner respectfully requested that the ALJ deny and dismiss the rehearing request as untimely.

Official Rulings and Current Status

Order Granting Rehearing Request

On July 3, 2025, Deputy Commissioner Mandy Neat of the Arizona Department of Real Estate issued an order granting Mr. Petrovic’s request. The order implicitly overruled the Petitioner’s objection regarding the filing deadline. The Commissioner cited two of the grounds available for granting a rehearing, which directly align with the arguments made in Mr. Petrovic’s petition:

1. Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.

2. That the findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Order Granting Continuance and Current Status

An order dated August 28, 2025, from Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson shows that the rehearing was continued at the request of the Respondent, Matthew Petrovic.

• The rehearing is officially scheduled to take place on October 22, 2025, at 1:00 PM.

Study Guide – 25F-H019-REL

{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “25F-H019-REL-RHG”,
“case_title”: “Tatum Highlands Community Association, Inc. v. Matthew P. Petrovic”,
“decision_date”: “2025-12-26”,
“alj_name”: “Nicole Robinson”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“questions”: [
{
“question”: “Who has the burden of proof in an HOA violation hearing?”,
“short_answer”: “The Petitioner (usually the HOA initiating the case) bears the burden of proof.”,
“detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the party filing the petition (the Petitioner) must prove that the other party violated the governing documents by a preponderance of the evidence.”,
“alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the aforementioned CC&Rs and Design Guidelines.”,
“legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”,
“topic_tags”: [
“burden of proof”,
“legal standards”,
“procedure”
]
},
{
“question”: “What is the standard of proof used in these hearings?”,
“short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The standard is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means the existence of a contested fact is more probable than not.”,
“alj_quote”: “A preponderance of the evidence means ‘proof which leads the [trier of fact] to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.'”,
“legal_basis”: “In re William L., 211 Ariz. 236, 238 (App. 2005)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“legal standards”,
“evidence”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can I install a driveway extension without prior HOA approval if neighbors have similar ones?”,
“short_answer”: “No. You must seek approval first.”,
“detailed_answer”: “Even if neighbors have similar features, failing to seek Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approval prior to installation constitutes a violation of the CC&Rs. The presence of other potentially non-compliant homes does not excuse the failure to follow the approval process.”,
“alj_quote”: “Regardless, the record has established that Respondent did not seek ARC approval prior to installing the paver driveway extension. … As such, Petitioner has established that Respondent violated CC&R, Section 4.2.1.”,
“legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 4.2.1”,
“topic_tags”: [
“architectural control”,
“driveways”,
“selective enforcement”
]
},
{
“question”: “What happens if I plant trees that the Architectural Committee specifically denied?”,
“short_answer”: “It is a violation of the governing documents.”,
“detailed_answer”: “Proceeding to install landscaping that was explicitly denied by the Architectural Review Committee establishes a clear violation of the community’s restrictions.”,
“alj_quote”: “In regard to the pigmy palm tree matter, the evidence clearly established that Respondent requested to plant two pigmy palm trees in his front yard, was denied by ARC, and planted them anyway. … Hence, Petitioner has established that Respondent violated CC&R Section 4.2.7.”,
“legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 4.2.7 / Design Guidelines”,
“topic_tags”: [
“landscaping”,
“architectural control”,
“violations”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the Administrative Law Judge rule on Fair Housing Act discrimination claims?”,
“short_answer”: “No, that venue cannot address Fair Housing Act claims.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The Office of Administrative Hearings for the Department of Real Estate does not have jurisdiction to address claims regarding violations of the Fair Housing Act in these proceedings.”,
“alj_quote”: “In addition, Respondent’s claims regarding the Association violating the Fair Housing Act cannot be addressed in this venue.”,
“legal_basis”: “Jurisdiction limits”,
“topic_tags”: [
“jurisdiction”,
“discrimination”,
“Fair Housing Act”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the HOA fine me for ‘disrepair’ of paint if the paint is just old but not damaged?”,
“short_answer”: “Not necessarily, if evidence shows it is not in disrepair.”,
“detailed_answer”: “If witness testimony establishes that the paint is not actually in disrepair, fines based on that allegation may be waived, even if the homeowner needs to eventually repaint to meet new color schemes.”,
“alj_quote”: “Also, the evidence established from firsthand witnesses that Respondent’s paint was not in disrepair. Therefore, Respondent should be given the opportunity to move forward with the ARC approval for painting his home and any fines he received in regards to the paint be waived.”,
“legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 4.2.7”,
“topic_tags”: [
“maintenance”,
“paint”,
“fines”
]
},
{
“question”: “Do I have to reimburse the HOA’s filing fees if I lose the hearing?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes, typically for the issues on which the HOA prevails.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ may order the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fees. In this case, the Respondent was ordered to pay fees proportional to the two issues the HOA won.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,000.00 in certified funds for the two issues.”,
“legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01”,
“topic_tags”: [
“penalties”,
“fees”
]
},
{
“question”: “Does the HOA have to waive fines if a violation was not proven?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes.”,
“detailed_answer”: “If the HOA fails to prove a specific violation (e.g., that paint was in disrepair), the ALJ may order the Association to waive fines related to that specific issue.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner waive all fines issued to Respondent in regards to the paint issue.”,
“legal_basis”: “Administrative Order”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fines”,
“penalties”
]
}
]
}

Blog Post – 25F-H019-REL

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Danny Ford (HOA attorney)
Goodman Law Group
Attorney for Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC.
Kevin Hufnagel (board member)
Tatum Highlands HOA Board
Testified as a witness for Petitioner; served on Board of Directors.
Brian Lumpkey (board member)
Tatum Highlands HOA Board
Board Vice President; testified as witness/representative for Petitioner.
Elizabeth Lindlam (HOA attorney)
Goodman Law Group
Appeared for observation only.
Pat Diaz (board member)
Tatum Highlands HOA Board
Current President, previously on ARC Board.
Leanne Dilberto (property manager)
Trestle Management
Observed violations during paint audit; referred to as Leanne Dilberto, Lean Zioto, and Leand Alberto in sources.
Caitlyn Flores (staff)
Trestle Management
Denied ARC application.
Karen Vanderos (staff)
Trestle Management
Trestle Management employee.

Respondent Side

Matthew P. Petrovic (respondent)
Appeared on behalf of himself; also testified.
Tracy Kennedy (witness)
Listed as a potential witness for Respondent.
Todd Pearson (witness)
Listed as a potential witness for Respondent.
Thomas KTO (witness)
Listed as a potential witness for Respondent.

Neutral Parties

Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
Administrative Law Judge for the initial decision.
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
ADRE
Mandy Neat (Deputy Commissioner)
ADRE
Nicole Robinson (ALJ)
Administrative Law Judge for the rehearing.
vnunez (staff)
ADRE
Listed in transmission for ADRE.
djones (staff)
ADRE
Listed in transmission for ADRE.
labril (staff)
ADRE
Listed in transmission for ADRE.
lrecchia (staff)
ADRE
Listed in transmission for ADRE.
gosborn (staff)
ADRE
Listed in transmission for ADRE.
dmorehouse (staff)
ADRE
Listed in transmission for ADRE.

Asmaa Kadhum v. Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association

Posted on October 12, 2022 by [email protected]

Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID	22F-H2222028-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2022-10-11
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Asmaa Kadhum	Counsel	—
Respondent	Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1256

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to prove a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1256 because the specific issue raised—a complaint about a recorded lien—was moot, as the lien had been released, and no current enforcement action regarding the disputed legal fees was pending.

Why this result: The ALJ determined that absent a recorded lien or pending enforcement action, the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction to address the reasonableness or accuracy of the disputed legal fees under the specific statute cited (A.R.S. § 33-1256).

Key Issues & Findings

Requesting to Waive/or Adjust Unreasonable Collection Fees.

Petitioner sought to waive or adjust unreasonable collection fees and attorney fees ($2,351.40 or $3,500.00) charged by the HOA related to a lien placed on their unit, which was later released because it was allegedly based on incorrect amounts.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1256
A.A.C. R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA lien, Collection fees, Attorney fees, Statutory violation, Jurisdiction, Rehearing

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1256
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.A.C. R2-19-119
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – 1005275.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:10 (101.7 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – 1009064.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:12 (37.4 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/1_aamg stmt.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:16 (21.1 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/2_email from silvia regarding late fees.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:19 (457.3 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/3_email regarding plumbing repair from laweyer.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:23 (983.8 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/4_ledger dec 2021.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:27 (96.5 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/5_letter from lawyer.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:30 (138.0 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/7_petition response.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:34 (25.0 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/975165.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:37 (104.8 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_ElectronicNotice_Hearing.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:41 (93.3 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_ElectronicNotice_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:46 (122.6 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_HearingScheduled.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:50 (129.6 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_MC_Pet.ResponseToRespondentsResponseToPetition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:54 (132.2 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_MC_Response&ADRERequest.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:59 (133.2 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_Notice_Hearing.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:03 (1101.1 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_Notice_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:07 (3755.5 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_Payment.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:11 (221.2 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_Pet.ResponseTo.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:17 (5499.9 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:21 (5828.4 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_Response_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:25 (125.4 KB)

Briefing Doc – 22F-H2222028-REL-RHG

Briefing Document: Dispute Between Asmaa Kadhum and Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key facts and legal proceedings concerning a dispute between homeowner Asmaa Kadhum (Petitioner) and the Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association (Respondent). The central conflict is the Petitioner’s refusal to pay approximately $3,500 in legal fees that the Respondent incurred during collection efforts for past-due assessments.

The dispute escalated when the Respondent, on June 15, 2020, filed a lien for $2,199.00 against the Petitioner’s property. The Petitioner contested the lien’s validity, citing numerous accounting errors. Subsequently, the Respondent’s own legal counsel advised releasing the lien on November 13, 2020, acknowledging it contained “invalid late fee charges” and was released to protect the association from a “potential false lien claim.”

Despite the release of the lien, the Respondent continued to demand payment for the legal fees. The Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) on January 12, 2022, alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1256 and arguing the collection fees were unreasonable.

Following a hearing and a rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of the Respondent. The decision was based on a critical jurisdictional issue: because there was no active lien on the property at the time the petition was filed or heard, there was no existing violation of the cited statute for the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to adjudicate. The ALJ concluded that the OAH lacks the authority to issue a declaratory judgment on the reasonableness of the fees in the absence of a pending enforcement action by the association. The underlying liability for the legal fees remains an unresolved issue between the parties.

Parties Involved

Name/Entity

Key Representative(s)

Petitioner

Asmaa Kadhum

Asmaa Kadhum, Mazin Ahmed Al-Salih

Respondent

Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association

Jerry Latschar (Vice President), Cammy Bowring

Chronology of Key Events

Prior to May 1, 2019

Petitioner accrued unpaid assessments and fees totaling $1,375.00 under previous management (AAMG).

April 21, 2020

Respondent sent a notice to Petitioner demanding payment of $1,435.00 in past-due assessments and fees within 30 days.

April 30, 2020

Petitioner responded via email, stating it was “not a good timing for collections” due to the pandemic and requested late fees be removed.

June 15, 2020

Respondent recorded a Notice of Lien on Petitioner’s unit for an amount of $2,199.00.

August 7, 2020

Respondent’s attorney sent a notice stating the total amount due, including legal fees, was now $2,504.00.

September 10, 2020

Petitioner notified Respondent that the lien amount was incorrect and constituted an “improper lien.”

November 13, 2020

Respondent recorded a Release of Lien against the Petitioner’s unit.

December 10, 2020

Respondent’s attorney explained in a letter that the lien was released because it “included late fee charges that were found to be invalid.”

Post-Release

Respondent maintained that Petitioner still owed approximately $3,500.00 in legal fees from the collection process.

December 2021

An account ledger showed a balance of $2,685.40.

January 12, 2022

Petitioner filed a petition with the ADRE (Case No. HO22-22/028) alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1256.

April 4, 2022

An administrative hearing was held before ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer.

October 11, 2022

Following a rehearing, the ALJ issued a final decision, finding no violation of the cited statute and dismissing the petition.

October 27, 2022

Petitioner filed a miscellaneous motion, which the OAH did not consider, stating it could take no further action on the matter.

Analysis of the Core Dispute

The Disputed Legal Fees

The primary point of contention is the legal fees assessed to the Petitioner’s account for the collection of past-due assessments.

• Respondent’s Claim: The Respondent asserts that legal fees of approximately $3,500.00 are owed. However, during testimony, Respondent’s representative, Mr. Latschar, was “uncertain where the $3,500.00 total originated.”

• Conflicting Evidence: The amount claimed is inconsistent with other documents. Invoices from counsel submitted after the initial hearing showed total charges of only 661.50∗∗attributabletothePetitioner′smatterbetweenAugustandNovember2020.AledgerfromDecember2021showedatotaloutstandingbalanceof∗∗2,685.40, which included legal fees.

The Improper Lien

A foundational element of the Petitioner’s argument is the improper nature of the lien filed by the Respondent.

• Filing and Release: A lien for $2,199.00 was recorded on June 15, 2020, and officially released on November 13, 2020.

• Reason for Release: The Respondent’s attorney stated the release was necessary to “protect [Respondent] and our firm from a potential false lien claim” because the original notice “included late fee charges that were found to be invalid.” The Respondent’s response to the petition also states, “the lawyer was forced to release the lien” because of “errors” related to posting late fees.

• Varying Amounts: The Petitioner highlighted the inconsistent amounts demanded throughout the process:

◦ $1,435.00 in the April 2020 notice.

◦ $2,199.00 in the June 2020 lien filing.

◦ $2,504.00 in the August 2020 attorney notice.

Petitioner’s Position and Arguments

The Petitioner contends they should not be held responsible for legal fees stemming from the Respondent’s flawed collection process.

• Fees are Unreasonable: The core argument is that charging legal fees for an “invalid” lien based on “false statements and invoices” is unreasonable and unacceptable.

• Lack of Cooperation: The Petitioner claims to have made multiple attempts to discuss the matter and arrange payments, sending meeting requests in December 2021 that were allegedly ignored or cancelled.

• Principle of Fairness: The Petitioner argued, “if someone files a claim then realized that his filing process was based on wrong documents, and then dropped the claim himself, should the other party be responsible for the legal fees for that.”

Respondent’s Position and Arguments

The Respondent maintains that the legal fees are a legitimate debt resulting from the Petitioner’s failure to pay assessments.

• Legal Action was Necessary: The Respondent initiated legal action because the Petitioner had not paid assessments for “nearly a year” and had stated they would not make back payments until late fees were waived.

• Lien Release vs. Debt: The Respondent argues that the release of the lien “doesn’t release the balance owing, just the lien at the county.” The legal fees incurred to collect the past assessments remain due.

• Petitioner Contributed to Costs: The Respondent claims the Petitioner “proceeded to force the attorney to review the ledger, which caused further legal fees to be charged.”

Administrative Hearing and Legal Rulings

Case Details and Petition

• OAH Docket: 22F-H2222028-REL

• ADRE Case: HO22-22/028

• Alleged Violation: A.R.S. § 33-1256, which governs the placement of liens for assessments and requires that they be for “reasonable collection fees and for reasonable attorney fee.”

• Relief Sought: An order to “Waive / or Adjust Unreasonable Collection Fees.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

Across both the initial hearing and the rehearing, the ALJ’s decision was consistent and based on a narrow interpretation of the OAH’s jurisdiction under the cited statute.

• Primary Finding: The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1256.

• Jurisdictional Limitation: The ALJ repeatedly emphasized that her authority was limited to evaluating existing liens. Since the lien was released in November 2020, well before the petition was filed in January 2022, there was no active lien to assess for reasonableness.

• Corrective Action: The ALJ stated that by releasing the improper lien, the Respondent had “fixed” the past error, removing it from the OAH’s purview.

• No Declaratory Judgment: The decision clarified that the OAH has “no jurisdiction to issue declaratory judgments.” It could not rule on whether the legal fees themselves were reasonable as a standalone issue, only whether an active lien containing those fees was compliant with statute.

• No Enforcement Action: The decision noted that at the time of the hearing, the Respondent was not pursuing any enforcement action (such as filing a new lien or foreclosure) to collect the disputed fees. The fees existed only as “a number on a ledger.”

Salient Quotes

• Petitioner: “Why why we have to pay for for them mistakes? That’s totally issue.”

• Petitioner: “$3,377 legal fee for placing lean is not reasonable or acceptable.”

• Respondent: “they caused us to obtain legal counsel by not paying their bills for almost a year… It doesn’t release the balance owing, just the lien at the county.”

• Respondent’s Attorney (via letter): “…because the original Notice of Lien ‘included late fee charges that were found to be invalid . . . a Release of Lien was recorded in order to protect [Respondent] and our firm from a potential false lien claim.'”

• Administrative Law Judge: “There is no lean on your property. I can’t say the lean is wrong because there is no lean at this point.”

• Administrative Law Judge: “I can’t I can’t say that what they did in the past was wrong because they have fixed it by releasing the lean.”

• Administrative Law Judge (Decision): “the exact amount of legal fees attributable to Petitioner is not relevant in this matter as there were no pending enforcement actions. This is not to say Petitioner may not be entitled to raise this question in a separate venue.”

Study Guide – 22F-H2222028-REL-RHG

Study Guide: Case No. 22F-H2222028-REL

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Based on the provided source materials, answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences.

1. Identify the Petitioner and the Respondent in this case and describe the nature of their dispute.

2. What specific Arizona Revised Statute did the Petitioner allege the Respondent violated, and what was the core of this allegation?

3. On what date did the Respondent file a Notice of Lien against the Petitioner’s property, what was the amount, and why was this lien later released?

4. According to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), why did the Office of Administrative Hearings lack the jurisdiction to rule on the reasonableness of the legal fees sought by the Respondent?

5. How did the Petitioner respond to the Respondent’s April 21, 2020 notice of past-due assessments?

6. What action did the Respondent’s law firm state it was prohibited from taking until May 21, 2020, and what was the legal basis for this restriction?

7. After the initial hearing, what was the total amount of legal fees supported by the four invoices submitted by Mr. Latschar for the period between August 1 and November 30, 2020?

8. The Petitioner sought to sell their property and requested a statement from the Respondent showing a zero balance. What was the central point of contention preventing this?

9. In December 2021, the Petitioner attempted to schedule a meeting with the board to dispute a fee. What was the outcome of these requests?

10. What was the final outcome of the case as stated in the Administrative Law Judge’s decision on October 11, 2022?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner is Asmaa Kadhum, a condominium owner. The Respondent is the Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association. Their dispute centers on the reasonableness of approximately $3,500 in legal fees the Association charged to Kadhum for collection efforts related to past-due assessments, particularly after the Association filed and then released an invalid lien on the property.

2. The Petitioner alleged a violation of A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16, Section 33-1256. The core of the allegation was that the Association was charging unreasonable collection and attorney fees, which is a standard addressed by this statute when an HOA places a lien against a unit.

3. The Respondent filed a Notice of Lien for $2,199.00 on June 15, 2020. The lien was later released on November 13, 2020, because, as the Respondent’s attorney noted, the original Notice of Lien “included late fee charges that were found to be invalid,” and the release was recorded to protect the Association and the law firm from a potential false lien claim.

4. The ALJ stated that the court could not rule on the reasonableness of the fees because there was no longer a recorded lien against the property. The petition was filed under A.R.S. § 33-1256, which governs liens, and since the lien had been released, there was no active violation or enforcement action for the court to evaluate or remedy. The OAH has no jurisdiction to issue declaratory judgments on such matters in the absence of an active enforcement action.

5. In an email dated April 30, 2020, the Petitioner responded to the notice by stating it was “not a good timing for collections” due to the pandemic. The Petitioner disputed the total amount, claiming late fees should be removed, and stated they were planning to pay the whole amount “after this pandemic goes away.”

6. In a May 5, 2020 email, the law firm, Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C., stated that pursuant to state law, it could not proceed with collection efforts until 30 days had passed from the April 21 notice. This meant the file could not be turned over to their office for collection until after May 21, 2020, giving the owner time to pay or arrange a payment agreement.

7. According to the ALJ’s decision from the initial hearing, the four invoices submitted by Mr. Latschar after the hearing showed total charges of $661.50 attributable to the Petitioner’s matter between August 1, 2020, and November 30, 2020.

8. The Petitioner wanted a zero-balance statement to sell the property, arguing all assessments had been paid. The Respondent refused to provide this, contending that while the assessments were paid, there was still an outstanding balance for legal fees incurred during the collection process, which the Petitioner disputed as unreasonable and resulting from the Respondent’s own mistakes.

9. The Petitioner sent multiple meeting requests in December 2021 to dispute a fee of $3,377. The Respondent ultimately canceled the meeting with the homeowner and held one with only the board members, citing COVID-19 and the use of Zoom, even though previous meetings had been held via Zoom.

10. In the final decision dated October 11, 2022, the ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1256. This was because there was no recorded lien against the property at the time of the petition or hearings, and thus no active enforcement action for the OAH to adjudicate.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings for government agencies, such as the Office of Administrative Hearings. In this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer served as the ALJ.

A.R.S. § 33-1256

The specific Arizona Revised Statute cited by the Petitioner. This statute pertains to liens for assessments in condominiums, including provisions for reasonable collection and attorney fees associated with such liens.

Assessment

A mandatory fee paid by condominium owners to the homeowners’ association (HOA) for the maintenance of common elements and other association expenses.

Declaratory Judgment

A binding judgment from a court defining the legal relationship between parties and their rights in a matter before any harm has occurred. The OAH stated it had no jurisdiction to issue such a judgment on the legal fees.

Department of Real Estate (ADRE)

The Arizona state agency responsible for licensing and regulating the real estate industry. Its functions include the Homeowners Association Dispute Resolution process.

A legal claim or hold on a property as security for a debt. In this case, the Condominium Association placed a lien on the Petitioner’s unit for unpaid assessments and fees.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent Arizona state agency authorized to conduct hearings in contested matters for other state agencies, ensuring a fair and impartial process.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal case or administrative hearing. In this matter, the petitioner is the homeowner, Asmaa Kadhum.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof in most civil and administrative cases. It requires the party with the burden of proof (the Petitioner in this case) to show that their claim is more likely true than not.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case to re-examine the issues and evidence. In this matter, a rehearing was granted after the initial April 4, 2022 hearing.

Release of Lien

A legal document that removes a previously recorded lien on a property. The Respondent recorded a Release of Lien on November 13, 2020, after acknowledging the original lien amount was incorrect.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the respondent is the Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association.

Blog Post – 22F-H2222028-REL-RHG

5 Shocking Lessons from a Homeowner’s Two-Year War with Her HOA

Introduction: The Notice on the Door

It’s a moment many homeowners dread: finding an official notice from the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) taped to the front door. For most, it’s a minor issue—a reminder about lawn care or trash cans. But for homeowner Asmaa Kadhum, a notice in April 2020 regarding approximately $1,400 in past-due assessments was the first step in a spiraling, multi-year legal war with her Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association.

What began as a manageable debt quickly escalated into a complex battle involving property liens, lawyers, and a dispute over thousands of dollars in legal fees. The case of Kadhum versus her HOA serves as a powerful cautionary tale, revealing several surprising and counter-intuitive truths about the high-stakes world of HOA disputes.

——————————————————————————–

1. You Can Win the Battle Over a Lien, But Still Owe the Fees

One of the central ironies of this case is how a clear victory on one front failed to end the war. After the homeowner fell behind on assessments, the HOA’s collection efforts caused the initial $1,435 dispute to snowball. On June 15, 2020, the HOA placed a lien on her property for $2,199. The homeowner disputed the lien’s accuracy, arguing that it contained errors.

Ultimately, she was proven correct. The HOA was forced to record a Release of Lien on November 13, 2020. This should have been the end of it, but here’s the twist: even with the lien gone, the HOA maintained that the homeowner was still responsible for approximately $3,500 in legal fees that had been incurred during the process of trying to collect the original debt. This reveals a crucial distinction in HOA law: getting an improper lien removed from your property title doesn’t automatically erase the associated collection costs from the HOA’s ledger. The manageable debt had now become a much larger problem.

——————————————————————————–

2. A Legal Technicality Can Get a Valid Complaint Dismissed

The homeowner, now facing a bill for thousands in legal fees related to a lien the HOA admitted was flawed, took her case to the Arizona Department of Real Estate. This move, however, highlights a critical strategic error. She filed her petition on January 12, 2022, alleging a violation of statute A.R.S. § 33-1256, which governs HOA liens and the reasonableness of the fees associated with them.

This led to a procedural “Catch-22” that doomed her case. The problem was timing. The HOA had released the improper lien on November 13, 2020—a full 14 months before the homeowner filed her petition. The case hinged on a procedural nuance that many homeowners might overlook: the statute she cited applies exclusively to active liens. Since the target of her complaint no longer existed by the time of the April 2022 hearing, the judge had no jurisdiction.

The Administrative Law Judge explained this jurisdictional trap in plain English:

and if there was a lien on your property right now, I could look at it and say whether or not the collection fees were appropriate, were reasonable. There isn’t one, so there’s nothing for me to evaluate.

The homeowner’s complaint about the fees might have had merit, but because she legally tied it to a violation that was no longer active, the court’s hands were tied. A different legal approach, perhaps focused on disputing the fees in another venue, may have been necessary.

——————————————————————————–

3. Correcting an Error Doesn’t Erase the Cost of Making It

The homeowner’s core argument was simple and relatable: why should she be forced to pay for the HOA’s mistakes? This question became even more pointed when documents revealed the HOA’s own attorney admitting the error. The attorney explained that the lien was released because it “included late fee charges that were found to be invalid” and the release was done to protect the association from a “potential false lien claim.”

During the hearing, the homeowner put the fundamental question to the judge: “Why… do we have to pay for their mistakes?”

Despite the HOA’s admission of error, the legal fees incurred during the entire collections process—including the work related to filing and defending the faulty lien—remained on her account. The situation reached a shocking climax during the hearing. When the judge reviewed the case, he noted that the HOA’s own representative, Mr. Latschar, “was uncertain where the $3,500.00 total originated.” The homeowner was being held liable for a debt that even her creditor couldn’t fully explain.

——————————————————————————–

4. A Disputed Debt Can Haunt a Property Sale

Even after the lien was officially released, the homeowner found herself in a financial vise. As she explained in the hearing, she wanted to sell her property and needed a formal statement from the HOA showing a zero balance to provide to potential buyers and title companies.

However, because the HOA’s books still showed she owed thousands in disputed legal fees, they would not provide this statement. This situation highlights the immense leverage an HOA maintains during a property conveyance. The dispute created a “phantom debt”—not an active lien recorded with the county, but a disputed balance on a ledger that can effectively halt a sale. The judge acknowledged this limbo, describing the amount as “just a number on a ledger.”

Yet, that number is a powerful barrier. Title insurance companies, which are essential for nearly all property sales, will not issue a clear policy if there is a known, unresolved financial dispute with an HOA. This gives the association the power to delay or prevent a sale, even without an active lien on the property.

——————————————————————————–

5. Small Communication Failures Lead to Big Legal Bills

This entire conflict escalated because of a pattern of communication failures that eroded trust long before lawyers were involved. Records show the friction began as early as November 2019, with the homeowner claiming disputes over incorrect receipts and the HOA’s alleged failure to waive late fees as promised.

The situation came to a head in April 2020. When the homeowner received the collection notice, she responded via email, stating it was “not a good timing for collections” due to the pandemic and that she planned to pay the full amount “after this pandemic goes away.” Instead of working toward a formal payment agreement, the HOA proceeded with legal action. The homeowner later claimed she tried to schedule meetings with the board to resolve the matter directly but “was never responded to.”

These failures in communication and negotiation were the direct catalyst for involving lawyers. That decision is what caused the debt to balloon from the original $1,435 to a prolonged, stressful, and expensive dispute over thousands in legal fees.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: A Pyrrhic Victory?

The ordeal of Asmaa Kadhum offers critical lessons for any homeowner in an HOA. It demonstrates that in these disputes, legal technicalities matter immensely, clear communication is non-negotiable, and winning a single battle doesn’t mean you’ve won the war. Even when a homeowner is “right” on a key point—like forcing the removal of an improper lien—they can still face significant and lasting financial consequences.

This case leaves every homeowner with a final, thought-provoking question to ponder: When facing a dispute with an HOA, how do you know when to fight for what’s right versus when to avoid a battle that might cost you more than you stand to gain?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Asmaa Kadhum (petitioner)
Homeowner of Unit 101 who filed the initial petition.
Mazin Ahmed (petitioner)
Co-owner/husband of Petitioner; primary contact for correspondence and identified as part of 'Petitioner' in the decision.

Respondent Side

Jerry Latschar (board member)
Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association
Vice President of the Board of Directors and Statutory Agent; appeared on behalf of the Association.
Robert Kellerman (board member)
Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association
President of the Board of Directors.
Silvia Petzold (board member)
Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association
Former Treasurer who initiated debt collection contact with Petitioner.
Solomon Padilla (board member)
Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association
Board member included in internal association correspondence.
Cammy Bowring (property manager)
The Bowring Team
Bookkeeper and point of contact for the Association's financial matters.
Lauren Vie (HOA attorney)
Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C.
Legal counsel for the Association.
Beth Mulcahy (HOA attorney)
Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C.
Lead attorney for the Association's legal representation.
Morgan Ronimus (HOA attorney)
Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C.
Paralegal acting as a legal representative in correspondence with Petitioner.
Pam Latschar (respondent)
Recipient of correspondence regarding Unit 101.

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Presiding Administrative Law Judge; also referenced phonetically as Tammy Agon and Tammy Aganeer in transcripts.
Louis Dettorre (hearing officer)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Commissioner who granted the request for rehearing.
Dan Gardner (staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
HOA Coordinator.
Miranda Alvarez (staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Legal Secretary who transmitted the ALJ decision.
c. serrano (staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Clerk who transmitted the minute entry.

Other Participants

David Villasenor (unknown)
Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association
Owner of Unit 107; CC'd on association communications.

Asmaa Kadhum v. Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association

Posted on June 7, 2022 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	22F-H2222028-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2022-10-11
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Asmaa Kadhum	Counsel	—
Respondent	Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1256

Outcome Summary

Key Issues & Findings

Requesting to Waive/or Adjust Unreasonable Collection Fees.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1256
A.A.C. R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA lien, Collection fees, Attorney fees, Statutory violation, Jurisdiction, Rehearing

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1256
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.A.C. R2-19-119
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 1_aamg stmt.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:35:00 (21.1 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 2_email from silvia regarding late fees.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:35:08 (457.3 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 3_email regarding plumbing repair from laweyer.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:35:22 (983.8 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 4_ledger dec 2021.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:35:27 (96.5 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 5_letter from lawyer.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:35:32 (138.0 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 7_petition response.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-20T14:11:40 (25.0 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 975165.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:35:36 (104.8 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_ElectronicNotice_Hearing.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:35:39 (93.3 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_ElectronicNotice_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:35:43 (122.6 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_HearingScheduled.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:35:47 (129.6 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_MC_Pet.ResponseToRespondentsResponseToPetition.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:35:51 (132.2 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_MC_Response&ADRERequest.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:35:55 (133.2 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_Notice_Hearing.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:36:14 (1101.1 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_Notice_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:37:15 (3755.5 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_Payment.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:37:20 (221.2 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_Pet.ResponseTo.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:38:48 (5499.9 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:40:23 (5828.4 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_Response_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:40:26 (125.4 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 1005275.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:44 (101.7 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 1009064.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:44 (37.4 KB)

Briefing Doc – 22F-H2222028-REL

Briefing Document: Dispute Between Asmaa Kadhum and Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association

Executive Summary

Parties Involved

Name/Entity

Key Representative(s)

Petitioner

Asmaa Kadhum

Asmaa Kadhum, Mazin Ahmed Al-Salih

Respondent

Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association

Jerry Latschar (Vice President), Cammy Bowring

Chronology of Key Events

Prior to May 1, 2019

Petitioner accrued unpaid assessments and fees totaling $1,375.00 under previous management (AAMG).

April 21, 2020

Respondent sent a notice to Petitioner demanding payment of $1,435.00 in past-due assessments and fees within 30 days.

April 30, 2020

Petitioner responded via email, stating it was “not a good timing for collections” due to the pandemic and requested late fees be removed.

June 15, 2020

Respondent recorded a Notice of Lien on Petitioner’s unit for an amount of $2,199.00.

August 7, 2020

Respondent’s attorney sent a notice stating the total amount due, including legal fees, was now $2,504.00.

September 10, 2020

Petitioner notified Respondent that the lien amount was incorrect and constituted an “improper lien.”

November 13, 2020

Respondent recorded a Release of Lien against the Petitioner’s unit.

December 10, 2020

Respondent’s attorney explained in a letter that the lien was released because it “included late fee charges that were found to be invalid.”

Post-Release

Respondent maintained that Petitioner still owed approximately $3,500.00 in legal fees from the collection process.

December 2021

An account ledger showed a balance of $2,685.40.

January 12, 2022

Petitioner filed a petition with the ADRE (Case No. HO22-22/028) alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1256.

April 4, 2022

An administrative hearing was held before ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer.

October 11, 2022

Following a rehearing, the ALJ issued a final decision, finding no violation of the cited statute and dismissing the petition.

October 27, 2022

Petitioner filed a miscellaneous motion, which the OAH did not consider, stating it could take no further action on the matter.

Analysis of the Core Dispute

The Disputed Legal Fees

The primary point of contention is the legal fees assessed to the Petitioner’s account for the collection of past-due assessments.

The Improper Lien

A foundational element of the Petitioner’s argument is the improper nature of the lien filed by the Respondent.

• Filing and Release: A lien for $2,199.00 was recorded on June 15, 2020, and officially released on November 13, 2020.

• Varying Amounts: The Petitioner highlighted the inconsistent amounts demanded throughout the process:

◦ $1,435.00 in the April 2020 notice.

◦ $2,199.00 in the June 2020 lien filing.

◦ $2,504.00 in the August 2020 attorney notice.

Petitioner’s Position and Arguments

The Petitioner contends they should not be held responsible for legal fees stemming from the Respondent’s flawed collection process.

• Fees are Unreasonable: The core argument is that charging legal fees for an “invalid” lien based on “false statements and invoices” is unreasonable and unacceptable.

Respondent’s Position and Arguments

The Respondent maintains that the legal fees are a legitimate debt resulting from the Petitioner’s failure to pay assessments.

• Petitioner Contributed to Costs: The Respondent claims the Petitioner “proceeded to force the attorney to review the ledger, which caused further legal fees to be charged.”

Administrative Hearing and Legal Rulings

Case Details and Petition

• OAH Docket: 22F-H2222028-REL

• ADRE Case: HO22-22/028

• Alleged Violation: A.R.S. § 33-1256, which governs the placement of liens for assessments and requires that they be for “reasonable collection fees and for reasonable attorney fee.”

• Relief Sought: An order to “Waive / or Adjust Unreasonable Collection Fees.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

Across both the initial hearing and the rehearing, the ALJ’s decision was consistent and based on a narrow interpretation of the OAH’s jurisdiction under the cited statute.

• Primary Finding: The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1256.

• Corrective Action: The ALJ stated that by releasing the improper lien, the Respondent had “fixed” the past error, removing it from the OAH’s purview.

Salient Quotes

• Petitioner: “Why why we have to pay for for them mistakes? That’s totally issue.”

• Petitioner: “$3,377 legal fee for placing lean is not reasonable or acceptable.”

• Respondent: “they caused us to obtain legal counsel by not paying their bills for almost a year… It doesn’t release the balance owing, just the lien at the county.”

• Administrative Law Judge: “There is no lean on your property. I can’t say the lean is wrong because there is no lean at this point.”

• Administrative Law Judge: “I can’t I can’t say that what they did in the past was wrong because they have fixed it by releasing the lean.”

Study Guide – 22F-H2222028-REL