Tag Archives: Rehearing

Clifford (Norm) Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121051-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-01-03
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Clifford (Norm) Burnes Counsel —
Respondent Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel John Crotty

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV STAT. 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the Petitioner's complaint, finding that the Respondent HOA did not violate the open meeting law (A.R.S. § 33-1804) because the action was taken without a meeting via unanimous written consent as authorized by A.R.S. § 10-3821.

Why this result: The Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof to show that the alleged violation occurred, as the board acted without holding a formal meeting.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of open meeting law by taking action via unanimous written consent

Petitioner alleged that the Board of Directors violated the open meeting law (A.R.S. § 33-1804) on May 3, 2020, by taking two actions using unanimous written consent of the Board members, which the Respondent claimed was permissible under A.R.S. § 10-3821 as action without a meeting.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV STAT. 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV STAT. 10-3821

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Open Meeting Law, Unanimous Written Consent, Rehearing, Planned Community
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV STAT. 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV STAT. 10-3821
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 41-1092.08
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 10-3701(F)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 10-3071

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121051-REL Decision – 899423.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-09T10:06:54 (101.7 KB)

21F-H2121051-REL Decision – 930803.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:15 (46.9 KB)

21F-H2121051-REL Decision – 935756.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:15 (124.8 KB)





Briefing Doc – 21F-H2121051-REL


Briefing Document: Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the legal proceedings and final decision in the case of Clifford (Norm) Burnes versus the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. (Case No. 21F-H2121051-REL). The core of the dispute was Petitioner Burnes’s allegation that the HOA Board of Directors violated Arizona’s open meeting law for planned communities by taking two official actions on May 3, 2020, without holding a public meeting. The HOA defended its actions, stating that it utilized a provision in the Arizona statutes for non-profit corporations (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821) that allows a board to take action “without a meeting” through the unanimous written consent of all directors.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Thomas Shedden, ultimately ruled in favor of the HOA. The key finding was that no “meeting” as defined by the open meeting law actually occurred on May 3, 2020. Instead, the Board President individually visited other board members to obtain signatures on consent forms. The ALJ concluded that the two relevant statutes—the open meeting law (§ 33-1803/1804) and the action-by-consent statute (§ 10-3821)—are not in conflict. An HOA board can legally use the action-by-consent procedure, but if it chooses to hold a meeting, it must comply with the open meeting law.

Mr. Burnes’s request for a rehearing, which raised several legal and jurisdictional arguments, was granted but ultimately denied on its merits. The ALJ systematically rejected each of Burnes’s arguments, reaffirming the original decision. The final order dismissed Mr. Burnes’s petition, making the HOA the prevailing party.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

• Petitioner: Clifford (Norm) Burnes

• Respondent: Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.

• Case Number: 21F-H2121051-REL (and 21F-H2121051-REL-RHG for rehearing)

• Adjudicating Body: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

• Administrative Law Judge: Thomas Shedden

• Core Allegation: The Petitioner alleged that on May 3, 2020, the Respondent’s Board of Directors violated Arizona’s open meeting law (cited as ARIZ. REV STAT. § 33-1803 in the initial decision and § 33-1804 in the rehearing decision) by taking two formal actions via unanimous written consent without allowing members to attend and speak.

• Respondent’s Defense: The Respondent acknowledged taking action by unanimous consent but asserted this was permissible under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821, which allows for action without a meeting. Therefore, the open meeting law did not apply.

Factual Background and Timeline

1. April 2020: Mr. Burnes and his wife raised two issues with the HOA Board concerning “lot 7,” which is adjacent to their property. The issues were related to a construction bond waiver and the placement of a house on the lot.

2. April 2020 (Post-Complaint): Following the complaint, research was conducted by Jamie Argueta, and emails were exchanged between Mr. Burnes, the Board members, and Mr. Argueta.

3. April 19 & 21, 2020: The Board members met with Mr. and Ms. Burnes to discuss the issues. Minutes were kept for these meetings.

4. Undated Discussions: Board President Esmerelda Sarina Martinez and Board member Mr. Madill had informal discussions with other HOA members, which Ms. Martinez characterized as “neighbors talking and not a meeting.”

5. May 3, 2020: Ms. Martinez, acting alone, drafted two unanimous consent forms. She personally brought the forms and related documents to the homes of the other Board members, who each read the information and signed. The two actions taken by consent were:

◦ Honoring a waiver of the construction deposit for lot 7.

◦ A decision regarding the placement of the home on lot 7.

6. August 29, 2020: The first regularly scheduled Board meeting after the May 3rd actions was held. The meeting minutes did not include an entry showing that the written consent documents had been filed with the corporate records, a requirement of § 10-3281(A).

Procedural History

• May 7, 2021: Mr. Burnes filed his petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, initially asserting seven violations but being required to select only one for adjudication due to paying a single fee. He selected the violation of members not being permitted to attend and speak before the Board took formal action on May 3, 2020.

• July 16, 2021: An initial hearing was held before ALJ Thomas Shedden.

• July 28, 2021: The ALJ issued a decision dismissing Mr. Burnes’s petition, finding he had not proven a violation because no meeting occurred on May 3, 2020.

• September 2, 2021 (approx.): Mr. Burnes filed a Rehearing Request.

• September 22, 2021: The Department of Real Estate granted the request for a rehearing.

• December 9, 2021: The ALJ issued an order concluding the rehearing matter, noting that since only legal issues were raised, the decision would be based on the existing record and supplemental briefs (though neither party filed one).

• January 3, 2022: The ALJ issued the final decision on the rehearing, once again dismissing the petition and upholding the original ruling. This order was final and binding, subject to judicial review in the Superior Court.

Analysis of Legal Arguments from Rehearing

In his request for a rehearing, Mr. Burnes raised six primary legal arguments against the initial decision. The ALJ addressed and rejected each one.

Petitioner’s Argument

ALJ’s Analysis and Conclusion

1. Limited Jurisdiction: The ALJ’s jurisdiction is limited to Title 33, Chapter 16 and does not include ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821.

Rejected. Jurisdiction was proper because Mr. Burnes alleged a violation of § 33-1804 (which is in Title 33, Ch. 16). Nothing prohibits a Respondent from raising defenses from outside Title 33, or the ALJ from considering them.

2. Inapplicability of § 10-3821: The statute for action-by-consent only applies to actions found in Title 10, Chapters 24-40. The actions the HOA took are not found there.

Rejected. The ALJ noted that Mr. Burnes himself acknowledged that “voting” is an action found within those chapters of Title 10, and voting is precisely the action that was taken by unanimous consent.

3. Conflict of Law (§ 10-3701(F)): Statute § 10-3701(F) states that in cases of inconsistency, Title 33 (planned communities) controls over Title 10.

Rejected. This analysis is flawed because § 10-3701(F) applies specifically to membership meetings (Title 10, Ch. 30). The statute for action by consent, § 10-3821, deals with directors’ meetings and is in a different chapter (Title 10, Ch. 31), which has no similar provision. The legislature’s choice to include this provision for membership meetings but not for board meetings indicates an intent to allow boards more latitude to act by consent.

4. Specific vs. General Statute: § 33-1804 is specific to planned communities and should control over § 10-3821, which applies to all non-profits. The policy of the state favors open meetings.

Rejected. This principle of statutory construction only applies when statutes are in conflict and cannot both be given effect. Here, they are not in conflict. Both can be given full effect: an HOA may take action without a meeting per § 10-3821, but if a meeting is held, it must follow the open meeting requirements of § 33-1804.

5. Bylaws Are Irrelevant: The ALJ wrongly cited the HOA’s bylaws allowing action-by-consent, because § 33-1804 applies “notwithstanding any provision in the… bylaws.”

Rejected. Mr. Burnes was correct that bylaws do not trump the open meeting law. However, he overlooked that § 10-3821 itself contains an exception: it does not apply if the corporation’s bylaws prohibit action by consent. The finding regarding the bylaws was necessary only to show that this exception did not apply to the HOA, thus making § 10-3821 available to them.

6. A Meeting Did Occur: Mr. Burnes asserted a meeting did take place on May 3, 2020.

Rejected. The ALJ found this position had several flaws: Mr. Burnes cited no evidence from the record to prove discussion occurred on May 3rd; he conflated prior meetings with the events of May 3rd; and he provided no legal authority to show that drawing on past discussions to draft a consent form constitutes a “meeting.” The ALJ also dismissed his reliance on new dictionary definitions not presented at the original hearing.

Key Statutes and Legal Principles

• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803 / § 33-1804 (Open Meetings Law):

◦ Mandates that “all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors… are open to all members of the association.”

◦ Members “shall be permitted to attend and speak at an appropriate time during the deliberations and proceedings.”

◦ A “quorum of the board of directors that meets informally to discuss association business… shall comply with the open meeting and notice provisions.”

◦ Reflects a state policy that provisions should be construed “in favor of open meetings.”

• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821 (Action Without Meeting):

◦ “Unless the articles of incorporation or bylaws provide otherwise, action… to be taken at a directors’ meeting may be taken without a meeting if the action is taken by all of the directors.”

◦ The action must be evidenced by one or more written consents, signed by each director, and included in the minutes filed with corporate records.

◦ A consent signed under this section has “the effect of a meeting vote.”

• Saguaro Crest HOA Bylaws (Section 3.5):

◦ The association’s bylaws explicitly provide directors with “the right to take any action in the absence of a meeting, which they could take at a meeting by obtaining the written consent of all the directors.”

Conclusion and Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Mr. Burnes failed to meet his burden of proof to show that the Saguaro Crest HOA violated the open meeting law. The central finding was that the HOA’s actions on May 3, 2020, did not constitute a “meeting” but were a legally permissible “action without a meeting” under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821. The subsequent rehearing confirmed this legal interpretation.

The final order, issued January 3, 2022, was:

“IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Clifford (Norm) Burnes’s petition is dismissed.”

The order was final and binding, with any further appeal requiring judicial review by the Superior Court within 35 days.






Study Guide – 21F-H2121051-REL


Study Guide: Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.

This study guide provides a review of the administrative law case involving Petitioner Clifford (Norm) Burnes and Respondent Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, essay questions, and a glossary of key terms based on the provided legal decisions.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer each question in 2-3 sentences, based on the information in the case documents.

1. What was the single, specific violation that Clifford (Norm) Burnes alleged against the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association’s Board of Directors?

2. What was the Respondent’s primary legal justification for the actions its Board of Directors took on May 3, 2020?

3. What two specific decisions did the Board make using the unanimous consent forms on May 3, 2020?

4. According to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), how can both the open meeting law (§ 33-1804) and the statute allowing action without a meeting (§ 10-3821) be given effect without being in conflict?

5. What was the purpose of the rehearing granted to Mr. Burnes, and what was the outcome?

6. How did the HOA’s bylaws, specifically section 3.5, support the Respondent’s case?

7. What argument did Mr. Burnes make regarding the ALJ’s jurisdiction to consider ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 10-3821?

8. What is the standard of proof required in this matter, and who bears the burden of meeting it?

9. Mr. Burnes asserted that a meeting did occur on May 3, 2020. What flaws did the ALJ identify in this assertion?

10. What specific requests did Mr. Burnes make in his petition as a remedy for the alleged violation?

——————————————————————————–

Quiz Answer Key

1. Mr. Burnes’s single alleged violation was that at the “meeting” on May 3, 2020, HOA members were not permitted to attend and speak after discussion but before the Board took formal action. This, he claimed, was a violation of Arizona’s open meeting law, cited as ARIZ. REV STAT. § 33-1803 and later § 33-1804.

2. The Respondent acknowledged taking two actions by consent but argued that no meeting actually occurred. Their defense was that they acted under the authority of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821, which explicitly allows a board of directors to take action without a meeting if it is done via unanimous written consent of all directors.

3. The two decisions made via unanimous consent related to issues Mr. Burnes had raised about lot 7, which abuts his property. The first action was to honor a waiver of the construction deposit for lot 7, and the second action was regarding the placement of the home on lot 7.

4. The ALJ reasoned that the statutes are not in conflict because they apply to different situations. Respondent may take action without a meeting as allowed by § 10-3821, but if a meeting is held, Respondent must follow all the requirements of the open meeting law, § 33-1804.

5. Mr. Burnes requested a rehearing, alleging that the initial ALJ decision’s findings of fact were not supported by evidence or were contrary to law. The rehearing was granted to review these legal issues, but the outcome was the same: the ALJ once again concluded that no violation had occurred and dismissed Mr. Burnes’s petition.

6. Section 3.5 of the Association’s bylaws, titled “Action Without a Meeting,” explicitly provides the directors with “the right to take any action in the absence of a meeting, which they could take at a meeting by obtaining the written consent of all the directors.” This directly supported the Respondent’s claim that its actions were permissible under its own governing documents as well as state law.

7. Mr. Burnes argued that the ALJ’s jurisdiction is limited to Title 33, Chapter 16, and therefore the ALJ had no jurisdiction to consider section 10-3821 as a defense because it is not found in that title. The ALJ rejected this, stating that jurisdiction was proper because the complaint was about a violation of Title 33, and nothing prohibits a respondent from raising defenses from outside that title.

8. The standard of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence.” The Petitioner, Mr. Burnes, bore the burden of proof to show that the alleged violation occurred.

9. The ALJ found several flaws in this assertion: Mr. Burnes did not cite evidence from the record proving a discussion occurred on May 3rd, he conflated prior meetings with the events of May 3rd, and he provided no legal authority showing that prior discussions are pertinent to whether a meeting occurred on that specific day.

10. Mr. Burnes requested that the Respondent be ordered to rescind the consent actions, comply with the open meeting law, pay his filing fee, and be assessed a civil penalty.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

1. Analyze the central conflict between ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 (“Open meetings”) and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821 (“Action without meeting”) as presented in this case. Explain the ALJ’s reasoning for concluding that the statutes do not conflict and can both be given effect.

2. Describe the timeline of events leading up to the May 3, 2020 unanimous written consent. How did the meetings and communications in April 2020 between Mr. Burnes and the Board influence the context of the dispute, even though they were not the subject of the final legal violation claim?

3. Evaluate the six specific legal arguments Mr. Burnes raised in his request for rehearing. For each, summarize his point and the ALJ’s counter-argument or legal conclusion.

4. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the case documents. Explain why the ALJ concluded that Mr. Burnes failed to meet this standard of proof in both the initial hearing and the rehearing.

5. Examine the relationship between state statutes and an association’s governing documents (like bylaws) in this case. How did the ALJ address Mr. Burnes’s argument that § 33-1804 should apply “notwithstanding any provision in the…bylaws”?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Term / Statute

Definition

Action without meeting

A procedure allowed by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821 and the Association’s Bylaws (Section 3.5) where a board of directors may take action if it is evidenced by one or more written consents signed by all directors. The consent has the effect of a meeting vote.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Thomas Shedden, assigned to adjudicate complaints and ensure compliance with relevant statutes for the Office of Administrative Hearings.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821

The state statute titled “Action without meeting” that permits a board of directors to take action without a meeting if all directors provide written consent, unless the articles of incorporation or bylaws provide otherwise.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803 / § 33-1804

The state’s “Open meetings” law for planned communities. It requires that all meetings of an HOA board be open to all members, who shall be permitted to attend and speak at an appropriate time.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party. In this case, the Petitioner (Mr. Burnes) bore the burden of proof.

Clifford (Norm) Burnes

The Petitioner in the case, a member of the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or brings an action; in this case, Clifford (Norm) Burnes.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof in this case, defined as “The greater weight of the evidence…sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed; in this case, Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.

Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.

The Respondent in the case; a planned community governed by a Board of Directors.

Unanimous Written Consent

The method used by the Respondent’s Board of Directors on May 3, 2020, to take action. It involved each board member signing written consent forms, as permitted by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821.






Blog Post – 21F-H2121051-REL


Your HOA Board Can Legally Make Decisions in Secret—Here’s How One Homeowner’s Lawsuit Proved It

1.0 Introduction: The Expectation vs. The Reality

For most homeowners living in a planned community, the principle of transparency is paramount. The common expectation is that all significant decisions made by the Homeowners Association (HOA) board of directors will happen in open meetings. These are forums where members can attend, listen to the deliberations, and, at the appropriate time, make their voices heard before the board takes a formal vote. This commitment to openness is often seen as a cornerstone of fair governance.

But what if a board could make a decision without ever holding a meeting at all? This question was at the heart of a legal dispute in Arizona, where a homeowner named Clifford (Norm) Burnes took his HOA, Saguaro Crest, to court. Mr. Burnes alleged that his board violated the state’s open meeting law when it took action on two separate issues without convening a meeting. The case worked its way through an administrative law court, and the final decision sided with the HOA, establishing a critical legal precedent that boards can, under specific circumstances, bypass open meetings entirely.

2.0 Takeaway 1: Boards Can Legally Act “Without a Meeting”

The central facts of the case were not in dispute. On May 3, 2020, the Saguaro Crest HOA board made two formal decisions concerning a neighboring lot, specifically regarding a construction bond waiver and home placement—issues that Mr. Burnes himself had previously raised. Instead of calling a meeting, the board used a procedure known as “unanimous written consent.” The Board President, Ms. Martinez, drafted two consent forms, personally brought them to the homes of the other board members, and had each director sign them.

This action, while sidestepping an open meeting, was found to be perfectly legal. The board was operating under the authority of a specific Arizona state law, ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 10-3821, titled “Action without meeting.” This statute explicitly allows the board of a non-profit corporation to take action without a meeting, provided the action is taken by all directors and is documented by written consent.

Furthermore, this power was not just granted by state law; it was also written directly into the HOA’s own governing documents. Section 3.5 of the Saguaro Crest HOA’s bylaws, titled “Action Without a Meeting,” explicitly grants its directors “the right to take any action in the absence of a meeting, which they could take at a meeting by obtaining the written consent of all the directors.”

3.0 Takeaway 2: A Legal Puzzle—When Two State Laws Seem to Conflict

Mr. Burnes’s case created a compelling legal puzzle by highlighting two state laws that appeared to be in direct opposition. On one side was Arizona’s Planned Community law (ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804), which strongly mandates open meetings for HOA boards and includes a policy statement that any interpretation of the law should be construed “in favor of open meetings.”

On the other side was the state’s Nonprofit Corporation law (ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 10-3821), which, as noted, expressly permits a board to act without a meeting. Mr. Burnes argued that the open meeting law should take precedence.

The Administrative Law Judge, however, made a crucial distinction. Applying a standard legal principle that courts must try to give effect to both laws if possible, the judge determined the two statutes do not actually conflict. The judge’s reasoning clarifies how both can exist and be applied legally.

In this case, both sections 10-3821 and 33-1804 can be given effect in that Respondent may take action without a meeting as allowed by section 10-3821, but if a meeting is held, Respondent must follow the requirements of section 33-1804.

This interpretation is the core of the decision. The open meeting law, with all its requirements for notice and member participation, only applies if a meeting is held. By using the “action without meeting” statute, the Saguaro Crest board legally sidestepped the requirement to hold a meeting in the first place, thereby rendering the open meeting law inapplicable to their actions on that day.

4.0 Takeaway 3: Legislative Intent Can Be Read in a Law’s Silence

Mr. Burnes also advanced a more sophisticated legal argument: that in any conflict, the specific laws written for HOAs (found in Title 33 of the state code) should overrule the more general laws for non-profit corporations (found in Title 10).

The judge’s response to this provided a fascinating lesson in how courts interpret legislative intent, not just from what a law says, but from what it doesn’t say. The judge noted that the section of law governing general membership meetings does contain a specific clause stating that in the case of an inconsistency, the HOA laws control.

Crucially, the section of law governing board meetings, where the “action without meeting” statute is found, has no such clause. The judge interpreted this difference not as an oversight, but as a deliberate choice by lawmakers. This “silence” in the statute was read as a “legislative intent to allow boards latitude to act by consent.” In other words, if the legislature had intended for the open meeting law to always override the board’s ability to act by written consent, it would have explicitly said so, just as it did for membership meetings.

5.0 Conclusion: Efficiency vs. Transparency

While homeowners understandably value and expect open meetings as a tool for transparency and participation, the law also recognizes the need for boards to operate efficiently. The unanimous written consent procedure provides a legal mechanism for boards to make decisions, particularly on straightforward matters, without the time and expense of convening a formal meeting.

This case is more than a legal curiosity; it’s a practical lesson for every homeowner. The power wielded by the Saguaro Crest board is not unique to Arizona. If you want to understand the true scope of your own board’s authority, take these two steps:

1. Review your HOA’s bylaws. Look for a clause titled “Action Without a Meeting” or similar language that grants the board the right to act via written consent. This is the internal authorization.

2. Check your state’s Nonprofit Corporation Act. Search for a statute similar to Arizona’s § 10-3821. This is the ultimate source of the board’s power, and it likely exists in some form in your state, defining the boundary between efficiency and transparency for your community.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Clifford (Norm) Burnes (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf at the original hearing

Respondent Side

  • John Crotty (HOA attorney)
    Law Offices of Farley, Choate & Wood
    Attorney for Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
  • Esmerelda Sarina Martinez (board president, witness)
    Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Testified as a witness for Respondent
  • Madill (board member)
    Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Referred to as Mr. Madill

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Commissioner during original decision transmittal
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Commissioner during rehearing transmittal
  • Miranda Alvarez (staff)
    Transmittal staff (also noted as Miranda A.)
  • c. serrano (staff)
    Transmittal staff

Other Participants

  • Jamie Argueta (staff)
    Conducted research; position and function apparently not in the record

Charles P Mandela vs. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

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

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-04-27
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Charles P Mandela Counsel —
Respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners' Association Counsel Nicholas Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article X; CC&R Section 10.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge, following a rehearing, affirmed the original decision, concluding that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Article X regarding the denial of an architectural modification request for a patio shade. The Respondent was found to have acted in compliance with the community documents, and the appeal was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish a violation of the CC&R's and failed to follow the procedural requirements necessary to appeal a deemed disapproval under CC&R Section 10.3.

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of request for patio shade structure and alleged violation of response timeline

Petitioner challenged the HOA's denial of his application for a patio shade, arguing the denial was improper because the shade would be attached (not a separate structure) and that the HOA missed the 30-day response deadline. The ALJ determined that the HOA's denial based on the 'only one structure other than the residence' rule (since a shed already existed) complied with the non-exhaustive Architectural Committee Standards (Article X, 10.2). Regarding the delayed response, the ALJ noted that Section 10.3 mandated that a late response results in the request being 'deemed disapproved,' and the Petitioner failed to subsequently request the required appeal meeting.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent violated Article X of the CC&R’s. The Respondent was declared the prevailing party, and the Petitioner's appeal (rehearing) was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • CC&R Article X
  • CC&R Section 10.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Architectural Review, Denial, Rehearing, Burden of Proof, Deemed Disapproved
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020042-REL-RHG Decision – 876009.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:31:30 (118.9 KB)

20F-H2020042-REL-RHG Decision – ../20F-H2020042-REL/850032.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:31:33 (113.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG


Briefing on Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from two administrative law judge decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Charles P. Mandela and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association (“Blue Ridge”). The core issue was Blue Ridge’s denial of Mr. Mandela’s request to build a patio shade structure.

In the initial hearing on January 13, 2021, Mr. Mandela argued the denial was erroneous because the shade would be attached to his house, not a separate structure, and that similar structures existed in the community. Blue Ridge defended its decision based on Article X of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which limits properties to one structure besides the main residence. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Mr. Mandela’s petition, finding that Blue Ridge acted within the authority granted by its CC&Rs, as its architectural standards were not exhaustive and it provided a reasonably detailed written reason for the denial.

Following this decision, Mr. Mandela was granted a rehearing, which took place on April 16, 2021. During this second hearing, he introduced a new argument that Blue Ridge had violated Article 10.3 of the CC&Rs by failing to respond to his request within the stipulated 30-day timeframe. However, the ALJ found that the same article specifies that a failure to respond results in the request being “deemed disapproved.” The ALJ concluded that Mr. Mandela had failed to follow the subsequent appeal procedures outlined in the CC&Rs and again failed to meet his burden of proof. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Blue Ridge was declared the prevailing party. Notably, during the rehearing, Mr. Mandela testified that his request for the patio shade had since been approved by the Blue Ridge board.

Initial Hearing and Decision (Case No. 20F-H2020042-REL)

The first evidentiary hearing was held on January 13, 2021, before Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone to address Mr. Mandela’s petition alleging Blue Ridge violated its CC&Rs.

The Core Dispute

• Petitioner’s Request: On August 28, 2019, Charles P. Mandela submitted a request to build a “patio shade less than 200 sq. feet,” described as a four-post structure he intended to attach to the east wall of his residence.

• Respondent’s Denial: On October 25, 2019, Blue Ridge denied the request, stating: “Only one structure other than the residence may be placed on the property. The site plan that was given for review shows the residence and also a shed on property already existing, this would be the allowable limit per the Architectural Standards.”

Arguments Presented

• Petitioner (Charles P. Mandela):

◦ Argued passionately that the denial was erroneous because the patio shade was to be attached to the house, not a separate, stand-alone structure.

◦ Presented photographs of other properties within Blue Ridge Estates that had multiple structures and stand-alone patio shades similar to his proposal.

• Respondent (Blue Ridge Estates HOA):

◦ Contended it properly followed Article X of the CC&Rs in its denial.

◦ At the hearing, Blue Ridge pointed to Article III of the CC&Rs as justification, classifying the proposed shade as an additional structure on the property.

Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Mr. Mandela’s petition, concluding he had not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Blue Ridge violated Article X of the CC&Rs.

• Interpretation of CC&R Section 10.2: The judge found that the architectural standards listed in this section were explicitly not exhaustive. The text states standards “may include, without limitation, provisions regarding” aspects like size, design, and placement. This allowed the architectural committee to deny the request based on the “one additional structure” rule, even if not explicitly listed.

• Compliance with CC&R Section 10.3: This section requires the committee to provide “reasonably detailed written reasons for such disapproval.” The judge found that the denial email of October 25, 2019, fulfilled this requirement. The email did not need to cite a specific CC&R section, only to provide an explanation.

• On Precedent and Fairness: The ALJ acknowledged Mr. Mandela’s evidence of similar structures on other properties. However, the decision noted: “While those properties may have had their shades approved by different members of the Blue Ridge Architectural Committee that does not follow that Mr. Mandela’s request was improperly denied under Article X.”

• Final Ruling: The petition was denied in a decision dated January 29, 2021.

Rehearing and Final Decision (Case No. 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG)

Mr. Mandela filed for a rehearing on February 5, 2021, on the grounds that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence. The Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner granted the request, and a new hearing was held on April 16, 2021.

New Testimony and Arguments

• Petitioner (Charles P. Mandela):

◦ Subsequent Approval: Testified that since the January 29, 2021 decision, his request for the patio shade had been approved by the Blue Ridge board.

◦ Procedural Violation: Argued that Blue Ridge violated CC&R Section 10.3 by failing to respond to his August 28, 2019, request within the required 30-day period, as the denial was not issued until October 25, 2019.

◦ History of Denials: Stated he had made several previous requests in 2018 and 2019 that were either denied or ignored.

◦ Discrimination: Claimed he had been discriminated against due to the previous denials.

• Respondent (Blue Ridge Estates HOA):

◦ Interpretation of Section 10.3: Argued that while the section may be “confusingly drafted,” it stipulates that if the committee fails to respond within 30 days, the request is “deemed disapproved.” Therefore, the board acted within its authority.

◦ Failure to Appeal: Contended that Mr. Mandela failed to follow the proper appeal procedure outlined in the CC&Rs, as he never specifically requested a meeting to discuss the denial.

Judge’s Final Findings and Conclusions

The ALJ affirmed the original decision, finding for the Respondent as the prevailing party and dismissing Mr. Mandela’s appeal.

• Scope of Rehearing: The judge determined that the rehearing was limited to the August 28, 2019, request and its subsequent denial, as that was the sole focus of the original petition. Mr. Mandela’s arguments about prior denials were not considered new evidence relevant to the specific violation alleged.

• Interpretation of the 30-Day Rule: The ALJ sided with the HOA’s interpretation of Section 10.3. While acknowledging that Blue Ridge took more than thirty days to issue a written denial, the judge ruled that the CC&R’s provision for a “deemed disapproved” status meant the request was properly denied under the rules.

• Petitioner’s Failure to Follow Procedure: The judge noted that Mr. Mandela admitted he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee after the denial, which was the required next step in the appeal process under Section 10.3.

• Final Ruling: The final decision, dated April 27, 2021, concluded that Mr. Mandela failed to sustain his burden of proof. The HOA was found to have acted in compliance with the CC&Rs, and the appeal was dismissed. This order was declared binding on the parties.

Timeline of Key Events

August 28, 2019

Charles Mandela submits his request to build a patio shade.

October 25, 2019

Blue Ridge HOA denies the request via email, citing the one-additional-structure limit.

January 13, 2020

Mandela files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

January 13, 2021

The first evidentiary hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

January 29, 2021

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues a decision denying Mandela’s petition.

February 5, 2021

Mandela files a request for a rehearing.

March 15, 2021

The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate grants the rehearing request.

April 16, 2021

The rehearing is conducted.

April 27, 2021

The ALJ issues a final decision, finding for the HOA and dismissing Mandela’s appeal.

Central CC&R Provision: Article X, Section 10.3

The most heavily debated provision was Section 10.3 of the Blue Ridge Estates CC&Rs, which outlines the procedure for architectural requests. Its language was central to the outcome of the rehearing.

Key text from Section 10.3:

“The Architectural Committee shall have thirty (30) days after receipt of such plans, specifications, and elevations to approve or disapprove of the proposed construction… In the event the Architectural Committee fails either to approve or disapprove the proposed construction… within said thirty (30) day period, such proposed construction… shall be deemed disapproved and the Owner can then request a meeting with the Architectural Committee to discuss the reasons for such disapproval…”

This clause was interpreted by the ALJ to mean that the HOA’s failure to provide a written response within 30 days automatically constituted a denial, shifting the burden to the homeowner to request a follow-up meeting, a step Mr. Mandela did not take.






Study Guide – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between homeowner Charles P. Mandela and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association, as detailed in the Administrative Law Judge Decisions from January 29, 2021, and April 27, 2021. The case centers on the denial of an architectural request and the interpretation of the association’s governing documents (CC&Rs).

——————————————————————————–

Quiz: Key Facts and Arguments

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the provided legal decisions.

1. Who were the primary parties in this case, and what were their roles?

2. What specific structure did Charles P. Mandela request approval to build on August 28, 2019?

3. What was the initial reason given by the Blue Ridge Estates HOA for denying Mr. Mandela’s request on October 25, 2019?

4. What was Mr. Mandela’s central argument during the first hearing on January 13, 2021?

5. According to the decision from the first hearing, why did the Administrative Law Judge rule that the HOA’s denial was in compliance with Section 10.2 of the CC&Rs?

6. On what grounds did Mr. Mandela file his Homeowner’s Association (HOA) Dispute Rehearing Request on February 5, 2021?

7. During the rehearing, what new argument did Mr. Mandela raise concerning the timeline of the HOA’s denial of his August 28, 2019 request?

8. How did the HOA’s legal counsel counter Mr. Mandela’s argument regarding the 30-day response time outlined in Section 10.3?

9. What procedural step, outlined in Section 10.3, did Mr. Mandela admit he failed to take after his request was deemed denied?

10. What was the final outcome of the rehearing on April 16, 2021, and what was the judge’s conclusion regarding the HOA’s actions?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Petitioner Charles P. Mandela, a homeowner, and Respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association of Coconino County. Mr. Mandela filed the petition against the HOA after it denied his request to build a patio shade.

2. On August 28, 2019, Mr. Mandela requested approval to build a “patio shade less than 200 sq. feet.” The structure was a four-post shade that he intended to attach to the east side wall of his residence.

3. The HOA denied the request based on Architectural Committee Standards Article X. The denial stated that only one structure other than the residence may be placed on the property, and Mr. Mandela already had a residence and a shed.

4. Mr. Mandela’s central argument was that the denial was erroneous because the patio shade was not a separate stand-alone structure. He planned to attach it to his house, and he presented photographs of other properties with similar structures.

5. The judge ruled the denial complied with Section 10.2 because the list of standards the Architectural Committee could enforce was “not an exhaustive one.” This meant the committee could properly deny the request based on the one-structure limit, even if it wasn’t explicitly enumerated.

6. Mr. Mandela requested a rehearing on the grounds that the findings of fact were arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. He also claimed the decision was not supported by the evidence or was contrary to law.

7. During the rehearing, Mr. Mandela argued that the Board violated Section 10.3 of the CC&Rs. He contended that since he made his request on August 28, 2019, and the Board did not respond until October 25, 2019, it had failed to provide a written response within the required 30-day period.

8. The HOA’s counsel argued that while Section 10.3 may be “confusingly drafted,” it specifies that if the committee fails to approve or disapprove within the 30-day period, the request is “deemed disapproved.” Therefore, the Board was within its authority.

9. Mr. Mandela admitted that he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee to discuss the reasons for the disapproval. This is the procedural step required by Section 10.3 after a request is deemed denied.

10. The final outcome was that the petition was dismissed, and the Respondent (HOA) was declared the prevailing party. The judge concluded that the HOA had not violated the CC&Rs and had acted in compliance with its governing documents.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions for Further Study

The following questions are designed to promote a deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, citing specific details from the legal decisions.

1. Analyze the interpretation of CC&R Section 10.3, specifically the “deemed disapproved” clause. Discuss how this clause functioned as a key legal defense for the HOA and ultimately shaped the outcome of the rehearing.

2. The legal standard in this case was “a preponderance of the evidence.” Define this standard as described in the legal text and evaluate the evidence Mr. Mandela presented in both hearings. Why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude that Mr. Mandela failed to meet his burden of proof?

3. Compare and contrast the arguments presented by the Petitioner and Respondent in the initial hearing (January 13, 2021) versus the rehearing (April 16, 2021). How did the focus of the legal arguments shift between the two proceedings?

4. Examine the authority and jurisdiction of the Architectural Committee as outlined in CC&R Section 10.2. Discuss the significance of the phrase “Such standards and procedures may include, without limitation, provisions regarding…” in the judge’s initial decision.

5. Trace the procedural history of this case, from Mr. Mandela’s initial request in August 2019 to the final order in April 2021. Identify at least four key procedural milestones and explain their significance to the case’s progression and ultimate resolution.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge, in this case Adam D. Stone, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and makes decisions on petitions concerning disputes regulated by state agencies.

Architectural Committee

A body within the Blue Ridge Estates HOA established by Article X of the CC&Rs, with jurisdiction over all original construction and any modifications, additions, or alterations to the exterior of homes or properties.

Arizona Department of Real Estate

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations and the associations themselves in Arizona.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to produce evidence that proves the facts it claims are true. In this case, the Petitioner (Mr. Mandela) bore the burden of proof.

An abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, which are the governing legal documents for a planned community like Blue Ridge Estates. This case centered on the interpretation of Article X of the Blue Ridge CC&Rs.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

The governing organization for a planned community. In this case, the Respondent was the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association of Coconino County.

Motion to Dismiss

A formal request filed by a party asking for a lawsuit or petition to be dismissed. The Blue Ridge HOA filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was denied on October 7, 2020, allowing the case to proceed.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency in Arizona where petitions related to disputes with HOAs are sent for an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Charles P. Mandela was the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” representing the greater weight of evidence.

Rehearing

A second hearing granted to review a legal decision. Mr. Mandela was granted a rehearing after the initial decision, based on his claim that the findings were arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association was the Respondent.

Tribunal

A term used in the documents to refer to the judicial body hearing the case, specifically the Office of Administrative Hearings and the presiding Administrative Law Judge.






Blog Post – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG


He Fought the HOA Over a Patio and Lost. Here Are 5 Shocking Lessons Every Homeowner Needs to Learn.

Introduction: The Perils of a Simple Home Improvement Project

For any homeowner, the excitement of a new project—a deck, a fence, or a simple patio shade—can quickly turn to frustration when it collides with the dense rulebook of a Homeowners’ Association (HOA). What seems like a straightforward improvement can become a complex battle of bylaws and procedures.

This was the reality for Charles P. Mandela, a homeowner in the Blue Ridge Estates community. His plan to build a simple patio shade was denied by his HOA, sparking a legal challenge that went before an Administrative Law Judge. While Mr. Mandela ultimately lost his case on its legal merits, the details of his fight offer a masterclass in the surprising and often counter-intuitive world of HOA governance. This article distills the most shocking lessons from his case, providing critical insights for any homeowner living under an HOA.

——————————————————————————–

1. The “Deemed Disapproved” Clause: How an HOA’s Silence Becomes a Legal “No”

Mr. Mandela submitted his request to build a patio shade on August 28, 2019. He argued that the HOA, Blue Ridge Estates, violated its own rules, which required a response within 30 days. The HOA didn’t send its formal denial until October 25, 2019, well past the deadline. On the surface, it seemed like a clear procedural violation by the HOA.

However, a bizarre and “unartfully drafted” clause hidden in the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs) turned this logic on its head. The rule stated:

In the event the Architectural Committee fails either to approve or disapprove the proposed construction… within said thirty (30) day period, such proposed construction… shall be deemed disapproved…

Contrary to common sense, the rule meant that the HOA’s failure to respond on time resulted in an automatic denial, not a pending approval. The Administrative Law Judge was bound by this text, concluding that because the 30-day period had passed without a formal approval, the request was “properly deemed denied.”

2. The “My Neighbor Has One” Argument Is Weaker Than You Think

To support his case, Mr. Mandela presented photographs showing that “similar shades exist on other properties with additional structures.” He argued that the HOA was engaging in selective enforcement by denying his project while having approved others like it. This is one of the most frequent arguments homeowners make when they feel singled out by their HOA board.

The judge’s conclusion was a stunning reality check. The legal decision stated:

While those properties may have had their shades approved by different members of the Blue Ridge Architectural Committee that does not follow that Mr. Mandela’s request was improperly denied under Article X.

The legal reasoning here is crucial for homeowners to understand. Architectural committees are not static; members change, and so can their interpretation of aesthetic standards. Each application is legally considered a distinct request, evaluated under the rules in place at that moment. A previous committee’s approval—which may have even been a mistake or a variance granted under different circumstances—does not create a binding legal precedent that forces the current committee to repeat it.

3. Procedure is Everything: A Missed Step Can Cost You the Case

The HOA’s rules contained a specific process for appealing a denial. After a project is “deemed disapproved” because the 30-day clock ran out, the homeowner must then formally request a meeting with the committee to discuss the denial.

The judge found that Mr. Mandela had failed to take this critical next step. This procedural misstep, however small it might seem, became a key factor in the case against him. The decision hinged on this procedural failure, stating:

Further, Petitioner admitted that in his several email responses that he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee, thus he failed to follow the procedures in Section 10.3.

This highlights a crucial lesson: meticulously follow every single procedural step outlined in your HOA’s documents. Failure to do so, such as not using the correct language to request a meeting, can be used to dismiss your claim, regardless of its other merits.

4. “Unartfully Drafted” Rules Can Still Be Legally Binding

Even the Administrative Law Judge acknowledged the poor quality of the HOA’s rulebook. In the decision, the judge offered a candid assessment of the rule regarding the 30-day response time, stating, “Admittedly this section is unartfully drafted…”

Despite this observation, the rule was enforced exactly as written. The judge was bound by the text, however confusing, and concluded that “from the evidence presented, the request was properly deemed denied.”

This is perhaps the most sobering lesson. Homeowners often assume that a rule that is confusing or seems illogical won’t hold up under scrutiny. This case proves that the literal text of the governing documents possesses immense power. What a rule literally says is far more important than what one might assume it should mean.

5. The Final Twist: He Lost the Case But Got His Patio Anyway

After the initial decision was made against him, Mr. Mandela requested a rehearing. During this second hearing, a surprising fact emerged. Mr. Mandela testified that “since the decision on January 29, 2021, his request for the patio shade had been approved by the Board.”

This outcome highlights a crucial dynamic: while Mr. Mandela lost the legal argument based on procedural history, his persistent engagement in the process—including filing a formal appeal—likely created enough administrative and community pressure to compel the Board to find a practical, non-legal solution. It’s a powerful reminder that a legal loss on a technicality does not always foreclose a real-world victory.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Do You Really Know Your HOA’s Rules?

The case of Charles Mandela serves as a powerful cautionary tale. It reveals that HOA disputes are rarely won on appeals to fairness or common sense. Instead, they are won or lost in the fine print of the governing documents—documents that can contain counter-intuitive clauses, procedural traps, and “unartfully drafted” rules that are nonetheless legally binding.

A homeowner’s best defense is not passion or conviction, but a deep and thorough understanding of the specific rules and procedures they agreed to live by. This case forces every homeowner to ask: Are you prepared to navigate the literal text of your community’s rules, where silence can mean “no” and a neighbor’s precedent is no precedent at all?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Charles P Mandela (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas Nogami (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Charles P Mandela vs. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

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

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-04-27
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Charles P Mandela Counsel —
Respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners' Association Counsel Nicholas Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article X; A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated Article X of the CC&R’s regarding the denial of an architectural modification request (patio shade). The Respondent was found to be the prevailing party, and the appeal (rehearing) was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation of the CC&R's by a preponderance of the evidence. The ALJ concluded the Respondent acted in compliance with the CC&R’s Section 10.2 and 10.3 when denying the request, and Petitioner failed to follow the requisite procedures in Section 10.3 to appeal the denial.

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of request for patio shade structure

Petitioner challenged the HOA's denial of his application to build a patio shade. The HOA denied the request stating that 'Only one structure other than the residence may be placed on the property,' and a shed already existed. Petitioner argued the shade, being attached, was not a stand-alone structure. The ALJ upheld the denial, finding the HOA acted in compliance with CC&Rs Article X, Sections 10.2 and 10.3, and that Petitioner failed to follow appeal procedures outlined in Section 10.3.

Orders: Petitioner's appeal (rehearing request) was dismissed, and Respondent was declared the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • CC&R Article X
  • CC&R Section 10.3
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Architectural Review, Denial, Rehearing, Burden of proof
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020042-REL-RHG Decision – 876009.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:51 (118.9 KB)

20F-H2020042-REL-RHG Decision – ../20F-H2020042-REL/850032.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-20T13:55:35 (113.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG


Briefing on Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from two administrative law judge decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Charles P. Mandela and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association (“Blue Ridge”). The core issue was Blue Ridge’s denial of Mr. Mandela’s request to build a patio shade structure.

In the initial hearing on January 13, 2021, Mr. Mandela argued the denial was erroneous because the shade would be attached to his house, not a separate structure, and that similar structures existed in the community. Blue Ridge defended its decision based on Article X of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which limits properties to one structure besides the main residence. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Mr. Mandela’s petition, finding that Blue Ridge acted within the authority granted by its CC&Rs, as its architectural standards were not exhaustive and it provided a reasonably detailed written reason for the denial.

Following this decision, Mr. Mandela was granted a rehearing, which took place on April 16, 2021. During this second hearing, he introduced a new argument that Blue Ridge had violated Article 10.3 of the CC&Rs by failing to respond to his request within the stipulated 30-day timeframe. However, the ALJ found that the same article specifies that a failure to respond results in the request being “deemed disapproved.” The ALJ concluded that Mr. Mandela had failed to follow the subsequent appeal procedures outlined in the CC&Rs and again failed to meet his burden of proof. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Blue Ridge was declared the prevailing party. Notably, during the rehearing, Mr. Mandela testified that his request for the patio shade had since been approved by the Blue Ridge board.

Initial Hearing and Decision (Case No. 20F-H2020042-REL)

The first evidentiary hearing was held on January 13, 2021, before Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone to address Mr. Mandela’s petition alleging Blue Ridge violated its CC&Rs.

The Core Dispute

• Petitioner’s Request: On August 28, 2019, Charles P. Mandela submitted a request to build a “patio shade less than 200 sq. feet,” described as a four-post structure he intended to attach to the east wall of his residence.

• Respondent’s Denial: On October 25, 2019, Blue Ridge denied the request, stating: “Only one structure other than the residence may be placed on the property. The site plan that was given for review shows the residence and also a shed on property already existing, this would be the allowable limit per the Architectural Standards.”

Arguments Presented

• Petitioner (Charles P. Mandela):

◦ Argued passionately that the denial was erroneous because the patio shade was to be attached to the house, not a separate, stand-alone structure.

◦ Presented photographs of other properties within Blue Ridge Estates that had multiple structures and stand-alone patio shades similar to his proposal.

• Respondent (Blue Ridge Estates HOA):

◦ Contended it properly followed Article X of the CC&Rs in its denial.

◦ At the hearing, Blue Ridge pointed to Article III of the CC&Rs as justification, classifying the proposed shade as an additional structure on the property.

Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Mr. Mandela’s petition, concluding he had not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Blue Ridge violated Article X of the CC&Rs.

• Interpretation of CC&R Section 10.2: The judge found that the architectural standards listed in this section were explicitly not exhaustive. The text states standards “may include, without limitation, provisions regarding” aspects like size, design, and placement. This allowed the architectural committee to deny the request based on the “one additional structure” rule, even if not explicitly listed.

• Compliance with CC&R Section 10.3: This section requires the committee to provide “reasonably detailed written reasons for such disapproval.” The judge found that the denial email of October 25, 2019, fulfilled this requirement. The email did not need to cite a specific CC&R section, only to provide an explanation.

• On Precedent and Fairness: The ALJ acknowledged Mr. Mandela’s evidence of similar structures on other properties. However, the decision noted: “While those properties may have had their shades approved by different members of the Blue Ridge Architectural Committee that does not follow that Mr. Mandela’s request was improperly denied under Article X.”

• Final Ruling: The petition was denied in a decision dated January 29, 2021.

Rehearing and Final Decision (Case No. 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG)

Mr. Mandela filed for a rehearing on February 5, 2021, on the grounds that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence. The Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner granted the request, and a new hearing was held on April 16, 2021.

New Testimony and Arguments

• Petitioner (Charles P. Mandela):

◦ Subsequent Approval: Testified that since the January 29, 2021 decision, his request for the patio shade had been approved by the Blue Ridge board.

◦ Procedural Violation: Argued that Blue Ridge violated CC&R Section 10.3 by failing to respond to his August 28, 2019, request within the required 30-day period, as the denial was not issued until October 25, 2019.

◦ History of Denials: Stated he had made several previous requests in 2018 and 2019 that were either denied or ignored.

◦ Discrimination: Claimed he had been discriminated against due to the previous denials.

• Respondent (Blue Ridge Estates HOA):

◦ Interpretation of Section 10.3: Argued that while the section may be “confusingly drafted,” it stipulates that if the committee fails to respond within 30 days, the request is “deemed disapproved.” Therefore, the board acted within its authority.

◦ Failure to Appeal: Contended that Mr. Mandela failed to follow the proper appeal procedure outlined in the CC&Rs, as he never specifically requested a meeting to discuss the denial.

Judge’s Final Findings and Conclusions

The ALJ affirmed the original decision, finding for the Respondent as the prevailing party and dismissing Mr. Mandela’s appeal.

• Scope of Rehearing: The judge determined that the rehearing was limited to the August 28, 2019, request and its subsequent denial, as that was the sole focus of the original petition. Mr. Mandela’s arguments about prior denials were not considered new evidence relevant to the specific violation alleged.

• Interpretation of the 30-Day Rule: The ALJ sided with the HOA’s interpretation of Section 10.3. While acknowledging that Blue Ridge took more than thirty days to issue a written denial, the judge ruled that the CC&R’s provision for a “deemed disapproved” status meant the request was properly denied under the rules.

• Petitioner’s Failure to Follow Procedure: The judge noted that Mr. Mandela admitted he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee after the denial, which was the required next step in the appeal process under Section 10.3.

• Final Ruling: The final decision, dated April 27, 2021, concluded that Mr. Mandela failed to sustain his burden of proof. The HOA was found to have acted in compliance with the CC&Rs, and the appeal was dismissed. This order was declared binding on the parties.

Timeline of Key Events

August 28, 2019

Charles Mandela submits his request to build a patio shade.

October 25, 2019

Blue Ridge HOA denies the request via email, citing the one-additional-structure limit.

January 13, 2020

Mandela files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

January 13, 2021

The first evidentiary hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

January 29, 2021

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues a decision denying Mandela’s petition.

February 5, 2021

Mandela files a request for a rehearing.

March 15, 2021

The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate grants the rehearing request.

April 16, 2021

The rehearing is conducted.

April 27, 2021

The ALJ issues a final decision, finding for the HOA and dismissing Mandela’s appeal.

Central CC&R Provision: Article X, Section 10.3

The most heavily debated provision was Section 10.3 of the Blue Ridge Estates CC&Rs, which outlines the procedure for architectural requests. Its language was central to the outcome of the rehearing.

Key text from Section 10.3:

“The Architectural Committee shall have thirty (30) days after receipt of such plans, specifications, and elevations to approve or disapprove of the proposed construction… In the event the Architectural Committee fails either to approve or disapprove the proposed construction… within said thirty (30) day period, such proposed construction… shall be deemed disapproved and the Owner can then request a meeting with the Architectural Committee to discuss the reasons for such disapproval…”

This clause was interpreted by the ALJ to mean that the HOA’s failure to provide a written response within 30 days automatically constituted a denial, shifting the burden to the homeowner to request a follow-up meeting, a step Mr. Mandela did not take.






Study Guide – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between homeowner Charles P. Mandela and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association, as detailed in the Administrative Law Judge Decisions from January 29, 2021, and April 27, 2021. The case centers on the denial of an architectural request and the interpretation of the association’s governing documents (CC&Rs).

——————————————————————————–

Quiz: Key Facts and Arguments

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the provided legal decisions.

1. Who were the primary parties in this case, and what were their roles?

2. What specific structure did Charles P. Mandela request approval to build on August 28, 2019?

3. What was the initial reason given by the Blue Ridge Estates HOA for denying Mr. Mandela’s request on October 25, 2019?

4. What was Mr. Mandela’s central argument during the first hearing on January 13, 2021?

5. According to the decision from the first hearing, why did the Administrative Law Judge rule that the HOA’s denial was in compliance with Section 10.2 of the CC&Rs?

6. On what grounds did Mr. Mandela file his Homeowner’s Association (HOA) Dispute Rehearing Request on February 5, 2021?

7. During the rehearing, what new argument did Mr. Mandela raise concerning the timeline of the HOA’s denial of his August 28, 2019 request?

8. How did the HOA’s legal counsel counter Mr. Mandela’s argument regarding the 30-day response time outlined in Section 10.3?

9. What procedural step, outlined in Section 10.3, did Mr. Mandela admit he failed to take after his request was deemed denied?

10. What was the final outcome of the rehearing on April 16, 2021, and what was the judge’s conclusion regarding the HOA’s actions?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Petitioner Charles P. Mandela, a homeowner, and Respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association of Coconino County. Mr. Mandela filed the petition against the HOA after it denied his request to build a patio shade.

2. On August 28, 2019, Mr. Mandela requested approval to build a “patio shade less than 200 sq. feet.” The structure was a four-post shade that he intended to attach to the east side wall of his residence.

3. The HOA denied the request based on Architectural Committee Standards Article X. The denial stated that only one structure other than the residence may be placed on the property, and Mr. Mandela already had a residence and a shed.

4. Mr. Mandela’s central argument was that the denial was erroneous because the patio shade was not a separate stand-alone structure. He planned to attach it to his house, and he presented photographs of other properties with similar structures.

5. The judge ruled the denial complied with Section 10.2 because the list of standards the Architectural Committee could enforce was “not an exhaustive one.” This meant the committee could properly deny the request based on the one-structure limit, even if it wasn’t explicitly enumerated.

6. Mr. Mandela requested a rehearing on the grounds that the findings of fact were arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. He also claimed the decision was not supported by the evidence or was contrary to law.

7. During the rehearing, Mr. Mandela argued that the Board violated Section 10.3 of the CC&Rs. He contended that since he made his request on August 28, 2019, and the Board did not respond until October 25, 2019, it had failed to provide a written response within the required 30-day period.

8. The HOA’s counsel argued that while Section 10.3 may be “confusingly drafted,” it specifies that if the committee fails to approve or disapprove within the 30-day period, the request is “deemed disapproved.” Therefore, the Board was within its authority.

9. Mr. Mandela admitted that he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee to discuss the reasons for the disapproval. This is the procedural step required by Section 10.3 after a request is deemed denied.

10. The final outcome was that the petition was dismissed, and the Respondent (HOA) was declared the prevailing party. The judge concluded that the HOA had not violated the CC&Rs and had acted in compliance with its governing documents.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions for Further Study

The following questions are designed to promote a deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, citing specific details from the legal decisions.

1. Analyze the interpretation of CC&R Section 10.3, specifically the “deemed disapproved” clause. Discuss how this clause functioned as a key legal defense for the HOA and ultimately shaped the outcome of the rehearing.

2. The legal standard in this case was “a preponderance of the evidence.” Define this standard as described in the legal text and evaluate the evidence Mr. Mandela presented in both hearings. Why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude that Mr. Mandela failed to meet his burden of proof?

3. Compare and contrast the arguments presented by the Petitioner and Respondent in the initial hearing (January 13, 2021) versus the rehearing (April 16, 2021). How did the focus of the legal arguments shift between the two proceedings?

4. Examine the authority and jurisdiction of the Architectural Committee as outlined in CC&R Section 10.2. Discuss the significance of the phrase “Such standards and procedures may include, without limitation, provisions regarding…” in the judge’s initial decision.

5. Trace the procedural history of this case, from Mr. Mandela’s initial request in August 2019 to the final order in April 2021. Identify at least four key procedural milestones and explain their significance to the case’s progression and ultimate resolution.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge, in this case Adam D. Stone, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and makes decisions on petitions concerning disputes regulated by state agencies.

Architectural Committee

A body within the Blue Ridge Estates HOA established by Article X of the CC&Rs, with jurisdiction over all original construction and any modifications, additions, or alterations to the exterior of homes or properties.

Arizona Department of Real Estate

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations and the associations themselves in Arizona.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to produce evidence that proves the facts it claims are true. In this case, the Petitioner (Mr. Mandela) bore the burden of proof.

An abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, which are the governing legal documents for a planned community like Blue Ridge Estates. This case centered on the interpretation of Article X of the Blue Ridge CC&Rs.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

The governing organization for a planned community. In this case, the Respondent was the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association of Coconino County.

Motion to Dismiss

A formal request filed by a party asking for a lawsuit or petition to be dismissed. The Blue Ridge HOA filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was denied on October 7, 2020, allowing the case to proceed.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency in Arizona where petitions related to disputes with HOAs are sent for an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Charles P. Mandela was the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” representing the greater weight of evidence.

Rehearing

A second hearing granted to review a legal decision. Mr. Mandela was granted a rehearing after the initial decision, based on his claim that the findings were arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association was the Respondent.

Tribunal

A term used in the documents to refer to the judicial body hearing the case, specifically the Office of Administrative Hearings and the presiding Administrative Law Judge.






Blog Post – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG


He Fought the HOA Over a Patio and Lost. Here Are 5 Shocking Lessons Every Homeowner Needs to Learn.

Introduction: The Perils of a Simple Home Improvement Project

For any homeowner, the excitement of a new project—a deck, a fence, or a simple patio shade—can quickly turn to frustration when it collides with the dense rulebook of a Homeowners’ Association (HOA). What seems like a straightforward improvement can become a complex battle of bylaws and procedures.

This was the reality for Charles P. Mandela, a homeowner in the Blue Ridge Estates community. His plan to build a simple patio shade was denied by his HOA, sparking a legal challenge that went before an Administrative Law Judge. While Mr. Mandela ultimately lost his case on its legal merits, the details of his fight offer a masterclass in the surprising and often counter-intuitive world of HOA governance. This article distills the most shocking lessons from his case, providing critical insights for any homeowner living under an HOA.

——————————————————————————–

1. The “Deemed Disapproved” Clause: How an HOA’s Silence Becomes a Legal “No”

Mr. Mandela submitted his request to build a patio shade on August 28, 2019. He argued that the HOA, Blue Ridge Estates, violated its own rules, which required a response within 30 days. The HOA didn’t send its formal denial until October 25, 2019, well past the deadline. On the surface, it seemed like a clear procedural violation by the HOA.

However, a bizarre and “unartfully drafted” clause hidden in the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs) turned this logic on its head. The rule stated:

In the event the Architectural Committee fails either to approve or disapprove the proposed construction… within said thirty (30) day period, such proposed construction… shall be deemed disapproved…

Contrary to common sense, the rule meant that the HOA’s failure to respond on time resulted in an automatic denial, not a pending approval. The Administrative Law Judge was bound by this text, concluding that because the 30-day period had passed without a formal approval, the request was “properly deemed denied.”

2. The “My Neighbor Has One” Argument Is Weaker Than You Think

To support his case, Mr. Mandela presented photographs showing that “similar shades exist on other properties with additional structures.” He argued that the HOA was engaging in selective enforcement by denying his project while having approved others like it. This is one of the most frequent arguments homeowners make when they feel singled out by their HOA board.

The judge’s conclusion was a stunning reality check. The legal decision stated:

While those properties may have had their shades approved by different members of the Blue Ridge Architectural Committee that does not follow that Mr. Mandela’s request was improperly denied under Article X.

The legal reasoning here is crucial for homeowners to understand. Architectural committees are not static; members change, and so can their interpretation of aesthetic standards. Each application is legally considered a distinct request, evaluated under the rules in place at that moment. A previous committee’s approval—which may have even been a mistake or a variance granted under different circumstances—does not create a binding legal precedent that forces the current committee to repeat it.

3. Procedure is Everything: A Missed Step Can Cost You the Case

The HOA’s rules contained a specific process for appealing a denial. After a project is “deemed disapproved” because the 30-day clock ran out, the homeowner must then formally request a meeting with the committee to discuss the denial.

The judge found that Mr. Mandela had failed to take this critical next step. This procedural misstep, however small it might seem, became a key factor in the case against him. The decision hinged on this procedural failure, stating:

Further, Petitioner admitted that in his several email responses that he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee, thus he failed to follow the procedures in Section 10.3.

This highlights a crucial lesson: meticulously follow every single procedural step outlined in your HOA’s documents. Failure to do so, such as not using the correct language to request a meeting, can be used to dismiss your claim, regardless of its other merits.

4. “Unartfully Drafted” Rules Can Still Be Legally Binding

Even the Administrative Law Judge acknowledged the poor quality of the HOA’s rulebook. In the decision, the judge offered a candid assessment of the rule regarding the 30-day response time, stating, “Admittedly this section is unartfully drafted…”

Despite this observation, the rule was enforced exactly as written. The judge was bound by the text, however confusing, and concluded that “from the evidence presented, the request was properly deemed denied.”

This is perhaps the most sobering lesson. Homeowners often assume that a rule that is confusing or seems illogical won’t hold up under scrutiny. This case proves that the literal text of the governing documents possesses immense power. What a rule literally says is far more important than what one might assume it should mean.

5. The Final Twist: He Lost the Case But Got His Patio Anyway

After the initial decision was made against him, Mr. Mandela requested a rehearing. During this second hearing, a surprising fact emerged. Mr. Mandela testified that “since the decision on January 29, 2021, his request for the patio shade had been approved by the Board.”

This outcome highlights a crucial dynamic: while Mr. Mandela lost the legal argument based on procedural history, his persistent engagement in the process—including filing a formal appeal—likely created enough administrative and community pressure to compel the Board to find a practical, non-legal solution. It’s a powerful reminder that a legal loss on a technicality does not always foreclose a real-world victory.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Do You Really Know Your HOA’s Rules?

The case of Charles Mandela serves as a powerful cautionary tale. It reveals that HOA disputes are rarely won on appeals to fairness or common sense. Instead, they are won or lost in the fine print of the governing documents—documents that can contain counter-intuitive clauses, procedural traps, and “unartfully drafted” rules that are nonetheless legally binding.

A homeowner’s best defense is not passion or conviction, but a deep and thorough understanding of the specific rules and procedures they agreed to live by. This case forces every homeowner to ask: Are you prepared to navigate the literal text of your community’s rules, where silence can mean “no” and a neighbor’s precedent is no precedent at all?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Charles P Mandela (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas Nogami (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Charles P Mandela vs. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-04-27
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Charles P Mandela Counsel —
Respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners' Association Counsel Nicholas Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article X; CC&R Section 10.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge, following a rehearing, affirmed the original decision, concluding that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Article X regarding the denial of an architectural modification request for a patio shade. The Respondent was found to have acted in compliance with the community documents, and the appeal was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish a violation of the CC&R's and failed to follow the procedural requirements necessary to appeal a deemed disapproval under CC&R Section 10.3.

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of request for patio shade structure and alleged violation of response timeline

Petitioner challenged the HOA's denial of his application for a patio shade, arguing the denial was improper because the shade would be attached (not a separate structure) and that the HOA missed the 30-day response deadline. The ALJ determined that the HOA's denial based on the 'only one structure other than the residence' rule (since a shed already existed) complied with the non-exhaustive Architectural Committee Standards (Article X, 10.2). Regarding the delayed response, the ALJ noted that Section 10.3 mandated that a late response results in the request being 'deemed disapproved,' and the Petitioner failed to subsequently request the required appeal meeting.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent violated Article X of the CC&R’s. The Respondent was declared the prevailing party, and the Petitioner's appeal (rehearing) was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • CC&R Article X
  • CC&R Section 10.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Architectural Review, Denial, Rehearing, Burden of Proof, Deemed Disapproved
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)

Decision Documents

20F-H2020042-REL Decision – 850032.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-17T18:18:33 (113.4 KB)

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Charles P Mandela (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf via Google Meet

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas Nogami (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Issued the decision for the original hearing and the rehearing
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Issued an Order Granting Rehearing

Nancy L Babington v. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation

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

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020064-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-03-24
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $2,500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Nancy L. Babington Counsel —
Respondent Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation Counsel Mark K. Sahl and Scott B. Carpenter

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)

Outcome Summary

Following a rehearing based on newly discovered evidence, the Administrative Law Judge found that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) by failing to timely provide records it possessed. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee and pay a $2,500.00 civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to make association financial and other records reasonably available for examination/provide copies within ten business days.

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by failing to provide requested records (including bank statements and contracts) following a formal request on May 1, 2020. The Administrative Law Judge, in the rehearing, found that the evidence showed Respondent was in possession of bank statements and two signed contracts at the time of the request, contradicting prior testimony, thereby establishing a violation of the statute.

Orders: Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee reimbursement and pay a civil penalty of $2,500.00 to the Department of Real Estate, both payments due within 30 days.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $2,500.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA records request, A.R.S. 33-1258, Rehearing, Civil Penalty, Possession of Records
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020064-REL-RHG Decision – 866802.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:33:54 (123.5 KB)

20F-H2020064-REL-RHG Decision – ../20F-H2020064-REL/823263.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:33:57 (108.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020064-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Babington v. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key findings, arguments, and outcomes from the administrative case of Nancy L. Babington (Petitioner) versus the Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation (Respondent). The dispute centered on the Respondent’s failure to provide association records as required by Arizona state law (A.R.S. § 33-1258).

The case progressed through two distinct phases: an initial hearing that ruled in favor of the Respondent, and a subsequent rehearing that reversed the decision. The initial ruling was based on the Respondent’s testimony that it did not possess the requested records due to a dispute with a former management company. However, the rehearing was granted based on newly discovered evidence proving the Respondent, through its management company and board, did possess key documents at the time of the request.

The final judgment established that the Respondent had violated state law. The Administrative Law Judge rejected the Respondent’s defense, including the argument that records held in a corporate satellite office were not in its possession. As a result, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee and pay a $2,500 civil penalty to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Case Background and Timeline

The dispute arose from a records request made by Petitioner Nancy L. Babington to her condominium association, Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation, and its management company, Associa Arizona. The timeline of key events is as follows:

June-July 2019

Respondent’s prior management company, Community Management & Consulting, LLC (CMC), terminates its agreement.

Post-July 2019

Respondent hires Associa Arizona (Associa). Associa and the Respondent encounter difficulty obtaining records from CMC due to a financial dispute.

April 29, 2020

Petitioner sends a formal email requesting association records from September 1, 2019, to April 28, 2020, citing A.R.S. § 33-1258.

May 1, 2020

Petitioner provides a specific, nine-point list of requested documents, including bank statements, financial statements, and contracts.

May 28, 2020

Having received no documents, Petitioner files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

August 28, 2020

The Office of Administrative Hearings conducts the initial hearing.

September 17, 2020

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues a decision denying the petition.

Post-Sept 2020

Respondent provides some of the requested documents to the Petitioner. Upon review, Petitioner discovers evidence that the documents had been in the Respondent’s possession prior to her request.

Date Unspecified

Petitioner files a request for rehearing based on newly discovered material evidence.

March 4, 2021

A rehearing is held.

March 24, 2021

The ALJ issues a new decision, reversing the original finding and ruling in favor of the Petitioner.

The Initial Hearing: Petition Denied

The initial hearing on August 28, 2020, focused on whether the Respondent had violated its statutory obligation to provide records.

Petitioner’s Allegation

The Petitioner’s case was based on her formal request for records on April 29, 2020, and the Respondent’s failure to produce any documents. Her petition stated:

“After repeated attempts since the beginning of this year to get information, on April 29, 2020 I emailed Associa Arizona and the Board of Directors of Park Scottsdale II formally requesting records per ARS 33-1258 and to date, May 25, 2020, I have not received anything.”

Respondent’s Defense

The Respondent’s primary defense was that it could not provide documents that were not in its possession.

• Withheld Records: Joseph Silberschlag, Secretary of the Board of Directors, testified that due to ongoing issues with the former management company (CMC), neither the association nor Associa had possession of many documents, including previous financial records.

• Inability to Create Documents: Mr. Silberschlag stated that without the starting balances from CMC, it was not possible to create current financial statements.

• No Obligation to Create: The Respondent argued it was “under no statutory obligation to create documents to respond to Petitioner’s request.”

Ruling and Rationale

The ALJ sided with the Respondent in the initial decision. The judge noted that while there was no dispute that the documents were not provided within the 10-day statutory period, the Petitioner had not provided any authority showing the Respondent was required to create a document responsive to her request. The ruling concluded:

“Respondent did not have possession of any of the documents requested at the time of Petitioner’s request… Thus, Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).”

The petition was subsequently denied on September 17, 2020.

The Rehearing: Decision Reversed

A rehearing was granted after the Petitioner discovered that, contrary to the testimony at the initial hearing, the Respondent had possessed several of the requested documents. The rehearing on March 4, 2021, introduced new evidence that fundamentally changed the outcome of the case.

New Evidence and Testimony

The Petitioner presented evidence focusing on three categories of documents she had requested:

• Bank Statements: Petitioner testified that bank statements she received after the initial hearing showed they had been sent to Associa starting in August 2019. Evelyn Shanley, Community Director for Associa, testified that the statements were sent to a national office in Richardson, Texas, and admitted she did not contact that office to obtain them in response to the Petitioner’s request.

• Contracts: Petitioner received two contracts signed by board members on March 27 and March 31, 2020, which were in existence prior to her request. Ms. Shanley admitted these were not provided because the board members had not given them to Associa.

• 1099s: Petitioner noted a document indicating four vendors were eligible for 1099s for 2019. Ms. Shanley denied that any 1099s had been issued.

Respondent’s Evolved Arguments

Faced with the new evidence, the Respondent’s arguments shifted:

• “Immediate Possession”: Counsel argued that the requested documents were not in the “immediate possession” of Associa’s local office.

• Concession on Bank Statements: During closing arguments, Respondent’s counsel acknowledged that “‘one could concede’ the bank statements located in Richardson, Texas were in the possession of Associa and should have been provided to Petitioner in response to her request.”

• Mootness and Penalties: Counsel argued the matter was now moot because the documents had been provided. It was further argued that a civil penalty was inappropriate because the Petitioner did not specifically request one on her initial petition form.

Final Ruling and Rationale

The ALJ found the new evidence compelling and decisive.

• Direct Contradiction: The ruling stated that “the evidence presented during the rehearing was directly contradictory” to the representation made at the initial hearing that Respondent did not have possession of the documents.

• Violation Established: The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner successfully “established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).”

• Authority for Civil Penalty: The ALJ firmly rejected the Respondent’s argument against a civil penalty. The decision cited A.R.S. § 32-2199.02, noting that the plain language of the statute grants the judge the authority to levy a penalty for established violations. The judge wrote, “Nothing in the statute limits the available remedies to those specifically requested by a petitioner.”

Final Order and Penalties

Given the established violation, the ALJ found that a civil penalty was appropriate. The final order, issued March 24, 2021, mandated the following actions by the Respondent within 30 days of the decision’s mailing date:

1. Reimbursement of Filing Fee: Pay the Petitioner, Nancy L. Babington, her filing fee of $500.00.

2. Payment of Civil Penalty: Pay the Arizona Department of Real Estate a civil penalty of $2,500.00.






Study Guide – 20F-H2020064-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Babington v. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case Nancy L. Babington vs. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation. It covers the initial hearing, the subsequent rehearing, the key arguments presented by both parties, and the final legal outcome. The materials are designed to test and deepen understanding of the case’s facts, legal principles, and timeline.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, using only information provided in the case documents.

1. What specific Arizona statute did Petitioner Nancy L. Babington allege that the Respondent, Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation, had violated?

2. What was the Respondent’s primary defense during the initial hearing for not providing the requested documents within the statutory timeframe?

3. What was the official outcome of the first Administrative Law Judge Decision issued on September 17, 2020?

4. On what legal grounds did the Petitioner successfully request a rehearing of the case?

5. What new evidence regarding the requested bank statements was introduced during the rehearing?

6. How did the Respondent’s management company, Associa Arizona, explain its failure to produce the two contracts signed in March 2020?

7. What was the Respondent’s counsel’s argument at the rehearing for why a civil penalty should not be levied?

8. How did the Administrative Law Judge counter the Respondent’s argument regarding the imposition of a civil penalty?

9. What two financial penalties were included in the final order issued on March 24, 2021?

10. What is the standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and what is its definition according to the case file?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had violated A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16, Section 33-1258. This statute requires a condominium owners association to make its financial and other records reasonably available for examination by any member within ten business days of a request.

2. During the initial hearing, the Respondent argued that it was unable to provide the documents because they were not in its possession. This was attributed to a financial disagreement with its former management company, Community Management & Consulting (CMC), which was withholding records.

3. The first decision, issued on September 17, 2020, was in favor of the Respondent. The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition, concluding she had failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the statute, as it was not required to create or provide documents it did not possess.

4. A rehearing was granted based on the Petitioner’s claim of “newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.” After the initial ruling, the Respondent provided some documents, which revealed that it had, in fact, been in possession of them prior to the Petitioner’s formal request.

5. During the rehearing, it was revealed that bank statements were being sent to Associa’s national central office in Richardson, Texas, starting in August 2019. An Associa representative admitted that the local office never contacted the central office to obtain these statements in response to the Petitioner’s request.

6. Associa’s representative, Evelyn Shanley, admitted that two signed contracts existed but had not been provided to the Petitioner. She stated this was because the members of the Board of Directors who signed them had not yet provided the contracts to Associa.

7. The Respondent’s counsel argued that a civil penalty was not appropriate because the Petitioner did not specifically request one by checking the corresponding box on the initial petition. Counsel asserted that the rehearing process was not designed for the Petitioner to change the relief requested.

8. The Judge rejected the Respondent’s argument, stating it was an erroneous interpretation of A.R.S. § 32-2199.02. The Judge clarified that the plain language of the statute allows the Administrative Law Judge to levy a civil penalty for established violations, and nothing in the statute limits available remedies to only those specifically requested by a petitioner.

9. The final order required the Respondent to pay the Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00. Additionally, the Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $2,500.00 to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

10. The required standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence.” The case document defines this as “Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for essay-style responses. Formulate a comprehensive argument using only the evidence and legal reasoning presented in the source documents.

1. Analyze the concept of “possession” as it applied to the association’s records in this case. How did the distinction between Associa’s local Arizona office and its national central office in Texas impact the initial ruling versus the outcome of the rehearing?

2. Trace the evolution of the Respondent’s legal arguments from the first hearing to the second. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of their positions at each stage, including the “mootness” argument, and explain why their defense ultimately failed.

3. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence.” How did the Petitioner fail to meet this standard in the initial hearing but succeed in the rehearing? Use specific examples of evidence related to the bank statements and contracts to support the analysis.

4. Examine the role and authority of the Administrative Law Judge in this case, particularly concerning the decision to grant a rehearing and the authority to levy a civil penalty even when not explicitly requested by the petitioner.

5. Evaluate the significance of A.R.S. § 33-1258 for condominium owners. Using the facts of this case, explain the rights it grants to members and the obligations it places on associations and their management companies regarding record-keeping and transparency.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions and orders. In this case, the ALJ was Tammy L. Eigenheer.

A.R.S. § 33-1258

The specific Arizona Revised Statute that requires condominium associations to make all financial and other records reasonably available for examination by a member within ten business days of a request.

Associa Arizona (Associa)

The management company hired by Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation after the termination of the previous management agreement. Associa was responsible for handling the Petitioner’s records request on behalf of the association.

Civil Penalty

A monetary penalty levied by a government agency or administrative judge for a violation of a statute or regulation. In this case, a $2,500 penalty was levied against the Respondent for violating A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Community Management & Consulting, LLC (CMC)

The previous management company for Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation. CMC terminated its agreement in 2019 and was withholding records from the association due to a financial disagreement.

Department of Real Estate

The Arizona state agency with jurisdiction to hear disputes between property owners and condominium owners associations. The Petitioner filed her initial petition with this department.

HOA Dispute Rehearing Request

The formal request filed by the Petitioner with the Department of Real Estate to have the case reheard. It was granted based on the discovery of new material evidence.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, the Petitioner was Nancy L. Babington, a member of the condominium association.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent was Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation, the condominium owners association.






Blog Post – 20F-H2020064-REL-RHG


She Sued Her HOA and Lost. What Happened Next Reversed Everything: 4 Lessons from a Homeowner’s Fight for Records

For too many homeowners, the Homeowner’s Association is a black box. Simple requests for financial records or board contracts—information you are legally entitled to—are met with delays, excuses, or outright silence. This isn’t just an annoyance; it’s an abuse of power that can leave residents feeling helpless against a secretive body that controls their property and their money. But what happens when one homeowner refuses to accept the stonewalling?

The case of Nancy L. Babington versus her Scottsdale, Arizona HOA provides a powerful playbook for fighting back. Documented in public legal records, her journey began with a standard request for records, escalated to a legal petition that she initially lost, and ended with a stunning reversal that holds critical lessons for every homeowner in America. Her fight demonstrates how persistence, diligence, and an understanding of the law can turn a seemingly hopeless situation into a victory for transparency.

Here are the four essential lessons from her successful battle for accountability.

1. Lesson One: An Initial Loss Isn’t the Final Word

Nancy Babington’s initial petition against her HOA was denied. At the first hearing on August 28, 2020, the HOA presented a seemingly plausible defense: they couldn’t provide the records because of an ongoing dispute with a former management company, CMC, which they claimed was withholding the documents.

The judge sided with the HOA. In a decision issued on September 17, 2020, the judge ruled against Babington, stating she had not sufficiently proven her case. The official ruling found she “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).” For most people, this would have been the end of the story.

But then the HOA made a critical, almost theatrical, miscalculation. After their victory, they provided Babington with some of the documents she had requested. As she reviewed them, she discovered the bombshell: the records proved the HOA had possessed crucial documents like bank statements and signed board contracts all along. These documents had nothing to do with the former management company, CMC, making the HOA’s initial defense appear to be a deliberate misdirection. This was the “newly discovered material evidence” she needed. The homeowner turned the HOA’s own actions against them, securing a rehearing on March 4, 2021, that would unravel their entire case.

2. Lesson Two: “Possession” Is More Than What’s in the Local Office

During the rehearing, the HOA pivoted to a new excuse, this time concerning bank statements. Their national management company, Associa, had its bank statements sent to a central office in Richardson, Texas. Because the records weren’t physically in the local Arizona office, the HOA argued they were not in their “immediate possession” and therefore not subject to the production deadline.

Under questioning, the Community Director, Evelyn Shanley, admitted she never even contacted the Texas office to get the statements for the homeowner. The HOA’s legal argument rested on the idea that their own corporate geography could shield them from transparency laws.

The judge flatly rejected this logic. An organization is responsible for its own records, no matter where they are stored. The argument was so weak that the HOA’s own lawyer was forced to backpedal during the hearing. The final decision noted:

Counsel acknowledged during closing arguments that “one could concede” the bank statements located in Richardson, Texas were in the possession of Associa and should have been provided to Petitioner in response to her request.

This ruling is a critical precedent: Your HOA cannot hide records in a corporate vault in another state and claim they are out of reach. If the documents belong to the association, they are in its possession, period.

3. Lesson Three: The Board Is the HOA, Not a Separate Entity

The next fight was over two contracts signed by board members in March 2020—documents that were created months after the dispute with the old management company. The excuse for not providing them? The management company claimed the contracts “had not been provided by the members of the Board of Directors to Associa.”

This was an attempt to create a legal fiction—that the Board of Directors and the HOA’s management company are separate entities, and that if the Board withholds a document from its own agent, the HOA can claim ignorance. The court did not buy it. By holding the HOA (the Respondent) responsible for the failure to produce the documents, the judge made it clear that this distinction is invalid.

For the purposes of records law, the Board is the HOA. The lesson is clear: The buck stops with the HOA. Board members cannot play a shell game with documents to evade their legal duty.

4. Lesson Four: Justice Doesn’t Require You to Check the Right Box

Having lost on the facts, the HOA’s counsel made one last-ditch effort to avoid a penalty. They argued that a civil penalty was inappropriate because the petitioner “did not indicate in her petition that she was seeking a civil penalty.” In essence, they claimed that because she hadn’t checked the right box on a form, the judge was powerless to punish them for breaking the law.

The Administrative Law Judge swiftly dismantled this procedural excuse. The judge’s final decision, issued on March 24, 2021, explicitly called out the HOA’s flawed logic:

Respondent erroneously interpreted A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 to require a petitioner to identify the requested relief in the petition when the plain language of the statute provides that the Administrative Law Judge may levy a civil penalty for violations that are established. Nothing in the statute limits the available remedies to those specifically requested by a petitioner.

The final ruling was the tangible consequence of the HOA’s failed arguments and lack of transparency. The judge ordered the HOA to reimburse Babington’s $500 filing fee and levied a separate $2,500 civil penalty payable to the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The message was unmistakable: the law has teeth, and a judge can use them based on the facts, regardless of which boxes were checked on a form.

Conclusion: Knowledge is Power

Nancy Babington’s fight is a masterclass in homeowner advocacy. Her journey from a seemingly hopeless loss to a precedent-setting victory proves that a single resident, armed with facts and relentless persistence, can force an HOA to follow the law. This case affirms that transparency is a legal requirement, not an optional courtesy. It serves as a powerful reminder that while the law is on the side of transparency, it often falls to diligent homeowners to hold their associations accountable.

This case was won because the facts came to light—do you know what your rights are, and what records you’re entitled to see from your own HOA?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Nancy L. Babington (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf at both the initial hearing and the rehearing.,

Respondent Side

  • Lydia Linsmeier (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
    Represented Respondent at the initial hearing.,
  • Mark K. Sahl (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
    Represented Respondent at the rehearing.,
  • Scott B. Carpenter (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
    Represented Respondent at the rehearing.,
  • Joseph Silberschlag (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
    Secretary of the Board of Directors; testified at the initial hearing; also referred to as 'Joe Silberschlag' in the petition request.,,,
  • Debbie Schumacher (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
    Named in Petitioner's record request email.,
  • Marty Shuford (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
    Named in Petitioner's record request email.,
  • Angelina Rajenovich (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
    Named in Petitioner's record request email.,
  • Dermot Brown (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
    Named in Petitioner's record request email.,
  • Lori Nusbaum (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
    Named in Petitioner's record request email.,
  • Linda Parker (property manager)
    Associa Arizona
    Director of Client Services; responded to Petitioner's record requests.,,,
  • Evelyn Shanley (property manager/witness)
    Associa Arizona
    Community Director; previously communicated with Petitioner; testified at the rehearing.,,,
  • Laura Smith (property manager)
    Associa Arizona
    Previously communicated with Petitioner regarding records.,

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • c. serrano (admin staff)
    Transmitted the initial decision.

Other Participants

  • Stephen Silberschlag (unknown)
    Petitioner requested proof of his liability insurance.,

Nancy L Babington v. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation

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

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020064-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-03-24
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $2,500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Nancy L. Babington Counsel —
Respondent Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation Counsel Mark K. Sahl, Scott B. Carpenter

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge found Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A). Respondent was ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee and pay a $2,500.00 civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to make financial and other association records reasonably available for examination/provide copies within ten business days

Petitioner formally requested several records on May 1, 2020, but Respondent failed to provide the documents within the 10-day statutory limit. Evidence presented at the rehearing established that Respondent possessed the requested bank statements and contracts prior to the request.

Orders: Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner her $500.00 filing fee and pay a civil penalty of $2,500.00 to the Department of Real Estate.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $2,500.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: A.R.S. § 33-1258, Records Access, HOA Dispute, Civil Penalty, Rehearing
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020064-REL-RHG Decision – 866802.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:34 (123.5 KB)

20F-H2020064-REL-RHG Decision – ../20F-H2020064-REL/823263.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-20T13:59:35 (108.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020064-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Babington v. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key findings, arguments, and outcomes from the administrative case of Nancy L. Babington (Petitioner) versus the Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation (Respondent). The dispute centered on the Respondent’s failure to provide association records as required by Arizona state law (A.R.S. § 33-1258).

The case progressed through two distinct phases: an initial hearing that ruled in favor of the Respondent, and a subsequent rehearing that reversed the decision. The initial ruling was based on the Respondent’s testimony that it did not possess the requested records due to a dispute with a former management company. However, the rehearing was granted based on newly discovered evidence proving the Respondent, through its management company and board, did possess key documents at the time of the request.

The final judgment established that the Respondent had violated state law. The Administrative Law Judge rejected the Respondent’s defense, including the argument that records held in a corporate satellite office were not in its possession. As a result, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee and pay a $2,500 civil penalty to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Case Background and Timeline

The dispute arose from a records request made by Petitioner Nancy L. Babington to her condominium association, Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation, and its management company, Associa Arizona. The timeline of key events is as follows:

June-July 2019

Respondent’s prior management company, Community Management & Consulting, LLC (CMC), terminates its agreement.

Post-July 2019

Respondent hires Associa Arizona (Associa). Associa and the Respondent encounter difficulty obtaining records from CMC due to a financial dispute.

April 29, 2020

Petitioner sends a formal email requesting association records from September 1, 2019, to April 28, 2020, citing A.R.S. § 33-1258.

May 1, 2020

Petitioner provides a specific, nine-point list of requested documents, including bank statements, financial statements, and contracts.

May 28, 2020

Having received no documents, Petitioner files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

August 28, 2020

The Office of Administrative Hearings conducts the initial hearing.

September 17, 2020

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues a decision denying the petition.

Post-Sept 2020

Respondent provides some of the requested documents to the Petitioner. Upon review, Petitioner discovers evidence that the documents had been in the Respondent’s possession prior to her request.

Date Unspecified

Petitioner files a request for rehearing based on newly discovered material evidence.

March 4, 2021

A rehearing is held.

March 24, 2021

The ALJ issues a new decision, reversing the original finding and ruling in favor of the Petitioner.

The Initial Hearing: Petition Denied

The initial hearing on August 28, 2020, focused on whether the Respondent had violated its statutory obligation to provide records.

Petitioner’s Allegation

The Petitioner’s case was based on her formal request for records on April 29, 2020, and the Respondent’s failure to produce any documents. Her petition stated:

“After repeated attempts since the beginning of this year to get information, on April 29, 2020 I emailed Associa Arizona and the Board of Directors of Park Scottsdale II formally requesting records per ARS 33-1258 and to date, May 25, 2020, I have not received anything.”

Respondent’s Defense

The Respondent’s primary defense was that it could not provide documents that were not in its possession.

• Withheld Records: Joseph Silberschlag, Secretary of the Board of Directors, testified that due to ongoing issues with the former management company (CMC), neither the association nor Associa had possession of many documents, including previous financial records.

• Inability to Create Documents: Mr. Silberschlag stated that without the starting balances from CMC, it was not possible to create current financial statements.

• No Obligation to Create: The Respondent argued it was “under no statutory obligation to create documents to respond to Petitioner’s request.”

Ruling and Rationale

The ALJ sided with the Respondent in the initial decision. The judge noted that while there was no dispute that the documents were not provided within the 10-day statutory period, the Petitioner had not provided any authority showing the Respondent was required to create a document responsive to her request. The ruling concluded:

“Respondent did not have possession of any of the documents requested at the time of Petitioner’s request… Thus, Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).”

The petition was subsequently denied on September 17, 2020.

The Rehearing: Decision Reversed

A rehearing was granted after the Petitioner discovered that, contrary to the testimony at the initial hearing, the Respondent had possessed several of the requested documents. The rehearing on March 4, 2021, introduced new evidence that fundamentally changed the outcome of the case.

New Evidence and Testimony

The Petitioner presented evidence focusing on three categories of documents she had requested:

• Bank Statements: Petitioner testified that bank statements she received after the initial hearing showed they had been sent to Associa starting in August 2019. Evelyn Shanley, Community Director for Associa, testified that the statements were sent to a national office in Richardson, Texas, and admitted she did not contact that office to obtain them in response to the Petitioner’s request.

• Contracts: Petitioner received two contracts signed by board members on March 27 and March 31, 2020, which were in existence prior to her request. Ms. Shanley admitted these were not provided because the board members had not given them to Associa.

• 1099s: Petitioner noted a document indicating four vendors were eligible for 1099s for 2019. Ms. Shanley denied that any 1099s had been issued.

Respondent’s Evolved Arguments

Faced with the new evidence, the Respondent’s arguments shifted:

• “Immediate Possession”: Counsel argued that the requested documents were not in the “immediate possession” of Associa’s local office.

• Concession on Bank Statements: During closing arguments, Respondent’s counsel acknowledged that “‘one could concede’ the bank statements located in Richardson, Texas were in the possession of Associa and should have been provided to Petitioner in response to her request.”

• Mootness and Penalties: Counsel argued the matter was now moot because the documents had been provided. It was further argued that a civil penalty was inappropriate because the Petitioner did not specifically request one on her initial petition form.

Final Ruling and Rationale

The ALJ found the new evidence compelling and decisive.

• Direct Contradiction: The ruling stated that “the evidence presented during the rehearing was directly contradictory” to the representation made at the initial hearing that Respondent did not have possession of the documents.

• Violation Established: The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner successfully “established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).”

• Authority for Civil Penalty: The ALJ firmly rejected the Respondent’s argument against a civil penalty. The decision cited A.R.S. § 32-2199.02, noting that the plain language of the statute grants the judge the authority to levy a penalty for established violations. The judge wrote, “Nothing in the statute limits the available remedies to those specifically requested by a petitioner.”

Final Order and Penalties

Given the established violation, the ALJ found that a civil penalty was appropriate. The final order, issued March 24, 2021, mandated the following actions by the Respondent within 30 days of the decision’s mailing date:

1. Reimbursement of Filing Fee: Pay the Petitioner, Nancy L. Babington, her filing fee of $500.00.

2. Payment of Civil Penalty: Pay the Arizona Department of Real Estate a civil penalty of $2,500.00.






Study Guide – 20F-H2020064-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Babington v. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case Nancy L. Babington vs. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation. It covers the initial hearing, the subsequent rehearing, the key arguments presented by both parties, and the final legal outcome. The materials are designed to test and deepen understanding of the case’s facts, legal principles, and timeline.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, using only information provided in the case documents.

1. What specific Arizona statute did Petitioner Nancy L. Babington allege that the Respondent, Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation, had violated?

2. What was the Respondent’s primary defense during the initial hearing for not providing the requested documents within the statutory timeframe?

3. What was the official outcome of the first Administrative Law Judge Decision issued on September 17, 2020?

4. On what legal grounds did the Petitioner successfully request a rehearing of the case?

5. What new evidence regarding the requested bank statements was introduced during the rehearing?

6. How did the Respondent’s management company, Associa Arizona, explain its failure to produce the two contracts signed in March 2020?

7. What was the Respondent’s counsel’s argument at the rehearing for why a civil penalty should not be levied?

8. How did the Administrative Law Judge counter the Respondent’s argument regarding the imposition of a civil penalty?

9. What two financial penalties were included in the final order issued on March 24, 2021?

10. What is the standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and what is its definition according to the case file?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had violated A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16, Section 33-1258. This statute requires a condominium owners association to make its financial and other records reasonably available for examination by any member within ten business days of a request.

2. During the initial hearing, the Respondent argued that it was unable to provide the documents because they were not in its possession. This was attributed to a financial disagreement with its former management company, Community Management & Consulting (CMC), which was withholding records.

3. The first decision, issued on September 17, 2020, was in favor of the Respondent. The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition, concluding she had failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the statute, as it was not required to create or provide documents it did not possess.

4. A rehearing was granted based on the Petitioner’s claim of “newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.” After the initial ruling, the Respondent provided some documents, which revealed that it had, in fact, been in possession of them prior to the Petitioner’s formal request.

5. During the rehearing, it was revealed that bank statements were being sent to Associa’s national central office in Richardson, Texas, starting in August 2019. An Associa representative admitted that the local office never contacted the central office to obtain these statements in response to the Petitioner’s request.

6. Associa’s representative, Evelyn Shanley, admitted that two signed contracts existed but had not been provided to the Petitioner. She stated this was because the members of the Board of Directors who signed them had not yet provided the contracts to Associa.

7. The Respondent’s counsel argued that a civil penalty was not appropriate because the Petitioner did not specifically request one by checking the corresponding box on the initial petition. Counsel asserted that the rehearing process was not designed for the Petitioner to change the relief requested.

8. The Judge rejected the Respondent’s argument, stating it was an erroneous interpretation of A.R.S. § 32-2199.02. The Judge clarified that the plain language of the statute allows the Administrative Law Judge to levy a civil penalty for established violations, and nothing in the statute limits available remedies to only those specifically requested by a petitioner.

9. The final order required the Respondent to pay the Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00. Additionally, the Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $2,500.00 to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

10. The required standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence.” The case document defines this as “Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for essay-style responses. Formulate a comprehensive argument using only the evidence and legal reasoning presented in the source documents.

1. Analyze the concept of “possession” as it applied to the association’s records in this case. How did the distinction between Associa’s local Arizona office and its national central office in Texas impact the initial ruling versus the outcome of the rehearing?

2. Trace the evolution of the Respondent’s legal arguments from the first hearing to the second. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of their positions at each stage, including the “mootness” argument, and explain why their defense ultimately failed.

3. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence.” How did the Petitioner fail to meet this standard in the initial hearing but succeed in the rehearing? Use specific examples of evidence related to the bank statements and contracts to support the analysis.

4. Examine the role and authority of the Administrative Law Judge in this case, particularly concerning the decision to grant a rehearing and the authority to levy a civil penalty even when not explicitly requested by the petitioner.

5. Evaluate the significance of A.R.S. § 33-1258 for condominium owners. Using the facts of this case, explain the rights it grants to members and the obligations it places on associations and their management companies regarding record-keeping and transparency.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions and orders. In this case, the ALJ was Tammy L. Eigenheer.

A.R.S. § 33-1258

The specific Arizona Revised Statute that requires condominium associations to make all financial and other records reasonably available for examination by a member within ten business days of a request.

Associa Arizona (Associa)

The management company hired by Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation after the termination of the previous management agreement. Associa was responsible for handling the Petitioner’s records request on behalf of the association.

Civil Penalty

A monetary penalty levied by a government agency or administrative judge for a violation of a statute or regulation. In this case, a $2,500 penalty was levied against the Respondent for violating A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Community Management & Consulting, LLC (CMC)

The previous management company for Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation. CMC terminated its agreement in 2019 and was withholding records from the association due to a financial disagreement.

Department of Real Estate

The Arizona state agency with jurisdiction to hear disputes between property owners and condominium owners associations. The Petitioner filed her initial petition with this department.

HOA Dispute Rehearing Request

The formal request filed by the Petitioner with the Department of Real Estate to have the case reheard. It was granted based on the discovery of new material evidence.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, the Petitioner was Nancy L. Babington, a member of the condominium association.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent was Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation, the condominium owners association.






Blog Post – 20F-H2020064-REL-RHG


She Sued Her HOA and Lost. What Happened Next Reversed Everything: 4 Lessons from a Homeowner’s Fight for Records

For too many homeowners, the Homeowner’s Association is a black box. Simple requests for financial records or board contracts—information you are legally entitled to—are met with delays, excuses, or outright silence. This isn’t just an annoyance; it’s an abuse of power that can leave residents feeling helpless against a secretive body that controls their property and their money. But what happens when one homeowner refuses to accept the stonewalling?

The case of Nancy L. Babington versus her Scottsdale, Arizona HOA provides a powerful playbook for fighting back. Documented in public legal records, her journey began with a standard request for records, escalated to a legal petition that she initially lost, and ended with a stunning reversal that holds critical lessons for every homeowner in America. Her fight demonstrates how persistence, diligence, and an understanding of the law can turn a seemingly hopeless situation into a victory for transparency.

Here are the four essential lessons from her successful battle for accountability.

1. Lesson One: An Initial Loss Isn’t the Final Word

Nancy Babington’s initial petition against her HOA was denied. At the first hearing on August 28, 2020, the HOA presented a seemingly plausible defense: they couldn’t provide the records because of an ongoing dispute with a former management company, CMC, which they claimed was withholding the documents.

The judge sided with the HOA. In a decision issued on September 17, 2020, the judge ruled against Babington, stating she had not sufficiently proven her case. The official ruling found she “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).” For most people, this would have been the end of the story.

But then the HOA made a critical, almost theatrical, miscalculation. After their victory, they provided Babington with some of the documents she had requested. As she reviewed them, she discovered the bombshell: the records proved the HOA had possessed crucial documents like bank statements and signed board contracts all along. These documents had nothing to do with the former management company, CMC, making the HOA’s initial defense appear to be a deliberate misdirection. This was the “newly discovered material evidence” she needed. The homeowner turned the HOA’s own actions against them, securing a rehearing on March 4, 2021, that would unravel their entire case.

2. Lesson Two: “Possession” Is More Than What’s in the Local Office

During the rehearing, the HOA pivoted to a new excuse, this time concerning bank statements. Their national management company, Associa, had its bank statements sent to a central office in Richardson, Texas. Because the records weren’t physically in the local Arizona office, the HOA argued they were not in their “immediate possession” and therefore not subject to the production deadline.

Under questioning, the Community Director, Evelyn Shanley, admitted she never even contacted the Texas office to get the statements for the homeowner. The HOA’s legal argument rested on the idea that their own corporate geography could shield them from transparency laws.

The judge flatly rejected this logic. An organization is responsible for its own records, no matter where they are stored. The argument was so weak that the HOA’s own lawyer was forced to backpedal during the hearing. The final decision noted:

Counsel acknowledged during closing arguments that “one could concede” the bank statements located in Richardson, Texas were in the possession of Associa and should have been provided to Petitioner in response to her request.

This ruling is a critical precedent: Your HOA cannot hide records in a corporate vault in another state and claim they are out of reach. If the documents belong to the association, they are in its possession, period.

3. Lesson Three: The Board Is the HOA, Not a Separate Entity

The next fight was over two contracts signed by board members in March 2020—documents that were created months after the dispute with the old management company. The excuse for not providing them? The management company claimed the contracts “had not been provided by the members of the Board of Directors to Associa.”

This was an attempt to create a legal fiction—that the Board of Directors and the HOA’s management company are separate entities, and that if the Board withholds a document from its own agent, the HOA can claim ignorance. The court did not buy it. By holding the HOA (the Respondent) responsible for the failure to produce the documents, the judge made it clear that this distinction is invalid.

For the purposes of records law, the Board is the HOA. The lesson is clear: The buck stops with the HOA. Board members cannot play a shell game with documents to evade their legal duty.

4. Lesson Four: Justice Doesn’t Require You to Check the Right Box

Having lost on the facts, the HOA’s counsel made one last-ditch effort to avoid a penalty. They argued that a civil penalty was inappropriate because the petitioner “did not indicate in her petition that she was seeking a civil penalty.” In essence, they claimed that because she hadn’t checked the right box on a form, the judge was powerless to punish them for breaking the law.

The Administrative Law Judge swiftly dismantled this procedural excuse. The judge’s final decision, issued on March 24, 2021, explicitly called out the HOA’s flawed logic:

Respondent erroneously interpreted A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 to require a petitioner to identify the requested relief in the petition when the plain language of the statute provides that the Administrative Law Judge may levy a civil penalty for violations that are established. Nothing in the statute limits the available remedies to those specifically requested by a petitioner.

The final ruling was the tangible consequence of the HOA’s failed arguments and lack of transparency. The judge ordered the HOA to reimburse Babington’s $500 filing fee and levied a separate $2,500 civil penalty payable to the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The message was unmistakable: the law has teeth, and a judge can use them based on the facts, regardless of which boxes were checked on a form.

Conclusion: Knowledge is Power

Nancy Babington’s fight is a masterclass in homeowner advocacy. Her journey from a seemingly hopeless loss to a precedent-setting victory proves that a single resident, armed with facts and relentless persistence, can force an HOA to follow the law. This case affirms that transparency is a legal requirement, not an optional courtesy. It serves as a powerful reminder that while the law is on the side of transparency, it often falls to diligent homeowners to hold their associations accountable.

This case was won because the facts came to light—do you know what your rights are, and what records you’re entitled to see from your own HOA?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Nancy L. Babington (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf at both the initial hearing and the rehearing.,

Respondent Side

  • Lydia Linsmeier (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
    Represented Respondent at the initial hearing.,
  • Mark K. Sahl (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
    Represented Respondent at the rehearing.,
  • Scott B. Carpenter (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
    Represented Respondent at the rehearing.,
  • Joseph Silberschlag (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
    Secretary of the Board of Directors; testified at the initial hearing; also referred to as 'Joe Silberschlag' in the petition request.,,,
  • Debbie Schumacher (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
    Named in Petitioner's record request email.,
  • Marty Shuford (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
    Named in Petitioner's record request email.,
  • Angelina Rajenovich (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
    Named in Petitioner's record request email.,
  • Dermot Brown (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
    Named in Petitioner's record request email.,
  • Lori Nusbaum (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
    Named in Petitioner's record request email.,
  • Linda Parker (property manager)
    Associa Arizona
    Director of Client Services; responded to Petitioner's record requests.,,,
  • Evelyn Shanley (property manager/witness)
    Associa Arizona
    Community Director; previously communicated with Petitioner; testified at the rehearing.,,,
  • Laura Smith (property manager)
    Associa Arizona
    Previously communicated with Petitioner regarding records.,

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • c. serrano (admin staff)
    Transmitted the initial decision.

Other Participants

  • Stephen Silberschlag (unknown)
    Petitioner requested proof of his liability insurance.,

Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020063-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-03-16
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marc Archer Counsel —
Respondent PMPE Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nicholas Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Vacating Hearing after the Petitioner voluntarily withdrew his request for rehearing.

Key Issues & Findings

Request for Rehearing Withdrawal

Petitioner requested a rehearing based on actions taken by the Respondent after the initial decision. When informed that a rehearing could only address matters occurring prior to the initial petition filing, Petitioner chose to withdraw the request for rehearing and stated intent to file a new petition challenging Respondent’s denial of his submission to build an addition to his house.

Orders: The hearing in this matter is vacated from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: dismissed

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Rehearing, Withdrawal, Vacated Hearing, Procedural
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Decision Documents

20F-H2020063-REL-RHG Decision – 864308.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:28:11 (52.9 KB)

20F-H2020063-REL-RHG Decision – 864361.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:28:13 (8.2 KB)

Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

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

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020063-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-03-16
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marc Archer Counsel —
Respondent PMPE Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nicholas Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Vacating Hearing after the Petitioner voluntarily withdrew his request for rehearing.

Key Issues & Findings

Request for Rehearing Withdrawal

Petitioner requested a rehearing based on actions taken by the Respondent after the initial decision. When informed that a rehearing could only address matters occurring prior to the initial petition filing, Petitioner chose to withdraw the request for rehearing and stated intent to file a new petition challenging Respondent’s denial of his submission to build an addition to his house.

Orders: The hearing in this matter is vacated from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: dismissed

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Rehearing, Withdrawal, Vacated Hearing, Procedural
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020063-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-03-16
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marc Archer Counsel —
Respondent PMPE Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nicholas Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Vacating Hearing after the Petitioner voluntarily withdrew his request for rehearing.

Key Issues & Findings

Request for Rehearing Withdrawal

Petitioner requested a rehearing based on actions taken by the Respondent after the initial decision. When informed that a rehearing could only address matters occurring prior to the initial petition filing, Petitioner chose to withdraw the request for rehearing and stated intent to file a new petition challenging Respondent’s denial of his submission to build an addition to his house.

Orders: The hearing in this matter is vacated from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: dismissed

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Rehearing, Withdrawal, Vacated Hearing, Procedural
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020063-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-03-16
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marc Archer Counsel —
Respondent PMPE Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nicholas Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Vacating Hearing after the Petitioner voluntarily withdrew his request for rehearing.

Key Issues & Findings

Request for Rehearing Withdrawal

Petitioner requested a rehearing based on actions taken by the Respondent after the initial decision. When informed that a rehearing could only address matters occurring prior to the initial petition filing, Petitioner chose to withdraw the request for rehearing and stated intent to file a new petition challenging Respondent’s denial of his submission to build an addition to his house.

Orders: The hearing in this matter is vacated from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: dismissed

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Rehearing, Withdrawal, Vacated Hearing, Procedural
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)