Michael J Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

Posted on August 3, 2020 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2020049-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-03-08
Administrative Law Judge	Jenna Clark
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Michael J Stoltenberg	Counsel	—
Respondent	Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association	Counsel	Nicole Payne, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Section 14.8

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Association did not violate CC&Rs Section 14.8. The provision was determined to be inapplicable, governing the Association’s obligation to provide notice, not the methods homeowners must use to send payments.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. CC&Rs Section 14.8 was inapplicable, and Petitioner's chosen restricted delivery method for assessment payments caused delays, which were not the responsibility of the Respondent.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the Association violated CC&Rs 14.8 concerning notice obligations.

Petitioner alleged the Association violated CC&Rs 14.8 by improperly handling or failing to receive his monthly assessment payments, which he sent via restricted delivery to a board member despite receiving instructions to mail payments to the Association's designated P.O. Box address.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied because he failed to sustain his burden of proof that the Association violated CC&Rs Section 14.8.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
CC&Rs 14.8

Analytics Highlights

Topics: homeowner assessments, CC&Rs interpretation, restricted delivery, jurisdiction, notice provision, rehearing

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842
CC&Rs 14.8
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020049-REL Decision – 861466.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:25:54 (145.6 KB)

20F-H2020049-REL Decision – 811290.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:25:59 (131.7 KB)

Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro HOA: Case Analysis and Legal Findings

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative legal case Michael J Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Case No. 20F-H2020049-REL). The central dispute arose when Mr. Stoltenberg, a homeowner, was assessed late fees on his monthly dues after unilaterally altering his payment method. He began sending payments via restricted U.S. Postal Service delivery to a specific volunteer board member, which resulted in significant processing delays and non-deliveries.

The petitioner alleged the Association was acting in “bad faith” and violating Section 14.8 of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conclusively found that Section 14.8, which governs notices sent from the Association to its members, was entirely inapplicable to payments sent by a member to the Association. The ALJ determined that the petitioner’s own “volitionally took” actions were the direct cause of the payment delays and subsequent late fees.

The petitioner’s initial petition was denied. A subsequent request for rehearing was granted, but the rehearing affirmed the original decision. The ALJ reiterated that the cited CC&R section was inapplicable, noted a lack of jurisdiction over other statutes the petitioner raised, and concluded that the petitioner had failed to meet his burden of proof in either proceeding.

Case Background and Procedural History

Parties and Governing Documents

• Petitioner: Michael J. Stoltenberg, a condominium owner within the Rancho Del Oro development and a member of the homeowners’ association.

• Respondent: Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (“the Association”), a condominium association in Yuma, Arizona, governed by its CC&Rs and overseen by a Board of Directors.

• Governing Authority: The CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner. The specific provision at the center of the dispute is Section 14.8 of the Bylaws, titled “Notices.” This section has remained unamended since the original CC&Rs were recorded on August 30, 1985.

Initial Petition and Jurisdictional Scope

On March 2, 2020, Mr. Stoltenberg filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the Association “fail to do their job, and are acting in bad faith.” The petition cited violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) §§ 10-3842 and 10-801, as well as Section 14.8 of the Association’s CC&Rs. Mr. Stoltenberg sought an order compelling the Association to comply with these regulations and the issuance of a civil penalty.

Upon filing, the Department advised the petitioner that the HOA Dispute Process lacks jurisdiction over disputes arising from Title 10 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Consequently, the case was narrowed to a single issue, and the petitioner was assessed a $500 filing fee. The sole issue for the hearing was formally defined as: “Whether the Association violated CC&Rs 14.8.”

Chronology of Legal Proceedings

Outcome

March 2, 2020

Petition filed by Michael Stoltenberg.

The case is initiated.

July 14, 2020

Initial evidentiary hearing is held.

Both parties present arguments.

August 3, 2020

Amended ALJ Decision is issued.

The petitioner’s petition is denied.

August 28, 2020

Petitioner submits a rehearing request.

Grounds cited: errors of law and an arbitrary decision.

September 9, 2020

Rehearing request is granted.

A new hearing is scheduled.

February 16, 2021

Rehearing is held.

The same issue is re-examined.

March 8, 2021

Final ALJ Decision is issued.

The petitioner’s petition is denied again; the order is binding.

Factual Analysis of the Dispute

Payment Instructions and Petitioner’s Actions

On January 4, 2016, the petitioner was advised that the Association’s “primary address for receiving all correspondence and all assessment payments from its members” was PO Box 4333, Yuma, Arizona 85366. The correspondence explicitly stated, “Please send your payments to the above address.”

Despite these clear instructions, beginning in November 2019, the petitioner began sending his monthly assessment payments to this P.O. Box via restricted delivery through the United States Postal Service (USPS), designated for pickup by board member Rhea Carlisle only.

The petitioner’s stated rationale for this change was a belief that an agent of the Association’s property management company (PMC) had previously thrown away one of his mailed payments. However, the petitioner was aware of several key facts:

• The Association employed a PMC to pick up its mail.

• Ms. Carlisle was an unpaid volunteer board member, not an employee of the PMC.

• Diana Crites was the Association’s listed Statutory Agent for 2019 and 2020.

Consequences of Restricted Delivery

The petitioner’s unilateral decision to restrict delivery caused significant disruption to the receipt of his payments. This led to his assessments being recorded as untimely, which in turn resulted in the Association assessing late fees against his account. Additionally, each late payment occurrence placed his residence “in danger of foreclosure by the Association.”

A timeline of payment delivery issues presented as evidence includes:

Payment Period

USPS Action

December 2019

Picked up.

January 25, 2020

Returned to petitioner by USPS.

January 30, 2020

Picked up.

February 26, 2020

Picked up.

April 17, 2020

Picked up.

June 8, 2020

Returned to petitioner by USPS.

Legal Rulings and Core Arguments

Central Legal Text: CC&Rs Section 14.8 (“Notices”)

The entire case hinged on the interpretation of Section 14.8 of the Association’s Bylaws. The text reads:

“Any notice permitted or required by this Declaration or the Bylaws may be delivered either personally or by mail. If delivery is by mail, it shall be deemed to have been delivered seventy-two (72) hours after a copy of the same has been deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each person at the current address given by such person to the secretary of the Board or addressed to the Unit of such person if no address has been given to the secretary.”

ALJ’s Interpretation: In both the initial decision and the rehearing decision, the ALJ found the language of Section 14.8 to be clear, “neither vague nor ambiguous,” and definitively inapplicable to the case. The ruling stated that the “language of Section 14.8 speaks specifically to the Association’s notice obligation to its members when mailing them information. Section 14.8 has no binding authority or control over homeowners sending mail to the Association.”

Arguments Presented

• He had always technically mailed his monthly payments on time to the correct P.O. Box.

• He filed the petition out of concern over incurring late fees and the potential loss of his home.

• During the rehearing, he argued that the initial decision failed to properly interpret Section 14.8 and should have also applied ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842 (concerning standards of conduct for nonprofit officers).

• Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs was entirely inapplicable to the facts presented, as it governs the Association’s outbound notice obligations, not a member’s inbound payments.

• The Department and the Office of Administrative Hearings lack jurisdiction under Title 10 of the ARIZ. REV. STAT.

• The petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof required to show a violation.

Final Conclusions and Order

The Administrative Law Judge’s decisions in both the initial hearing and the rehearing were definitive. The core conclusions of law were as follows:

1. Burden of Proof: The petitioner bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the CC&Rs and failed to meet this burden.

2. Inapplicability of CC&Rs Section 14.8: The provision cited by the petitioner was found to be wholly irrelevant to the matter of a homeowner mailing payments to the Association.

3. Assignment of Responsibility: The ALJ concluded that the petitioner’s own choices were the cause of the issue. The decision states, “By restricting the delivery of his monthly assessment payments, Petitioner inadvertently caused delay in their ability to be picked up by the Association.” There was “no credible evidence in the record to suggest that the action(s) Petitioner volitionally took are Respondent’s responsibility.”

4. Rehearing Findings: In the final decision, the ALJ noted that the petitioner “did not introduce any evidence tending to suggest that there was an ‘error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law…'” or that the prior decision was arbitrary or capricious.

Final Order: Based on the foregoing, the ALJ ordered that the petitioner’s petition be denied. The order issued on March 8, 2021, was binding on the parties, with any further appeal requiring judicial review in superior court within 35 days.

Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case Michael J Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, Case No. 20F-H2020049-REL, including the initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing. It is designed to test and deepen understanding of the facts, legal arguments, procedures, and outcomes presented in the official decisions.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Please answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing information exclusively from the provided legal documents.

1. Who were the primary parties in this legal dispute, and what was their relationship to one another?

2. What was the specific allegation Michael Stoltenberg made against the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association in his petition?

3. What specific action did the Petitioner take regarding his monthly assessment payments starting in November 2019?

4. According to the Association, why was Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs not applicable to the Petitioner’s complaint?

5. What were the negative consequences the Petitioner faced as a result of his payments being received late by the Association?

6. What was the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and did the judge find he had met it?

7. What were the two grounds upon which the Petitioner requested a rehearing after the initial decision?

8. Why was the Petitioner’s citation of Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 10-3842 dismissed during the proceedings?

9. What was the final ruling in the Administrative Law Judge Decision issued on March 08, 2021, following the rehearing?

10. After the final order was issued, what was the Petitioner’s sole remaining avenue for appeal?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Michael J Stoltenberg, the Petitioner, and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, the Respondent. Mr. Stoltenberg was a condominium owner and a member of the Association, which governed the residential development where he lived.

2. In his petition filed on March 2, 2020, Stoltenberg alleged the Association violated Section 14.8 of its CC&Rs and Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 10-3842 and 10-801. He specifically claimed the Association “fail to do their job, and are acting in bad faith.”

3. Beginning in November 2019, the Petitioner began sending his monthly assessment payments to the Association’s P.O. Box via restricted delivery from the United States Postal Service. He specified that the mail was for board member Rhea Carlisle’s pickup only, despite knowing she was a volunteer and not an employee of the property management company that handled mail.

4. The Association argued that Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs was inapplicable because it governs the Association’s notice obligations to its members. The judge agreed, stating the section has no binding authority over how homeowners send mail to the Association.

5. Each time the Petitioner’s monthly assessment was received late, he was assessed a late fee by the Association. Additionally, each late payment occurrence placed his residence in danger of foreclosure.

6. The Petitioner bore the burden of proving his case by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means showing the contention is more probably true than not. The judge concluded in both decisions that the Petitioner failed to sustain this burden of proof.

7. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on the grounds that there was an alleged “Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding” and because “[t]he findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”

8. The citation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842, which concerns standards of conduct for officers of nonprofit corporations, was dismissed because it falls outside the jurisdiction of the Arizona Department of Real Estate’s HOA Dispute Process. The Petitioner was advised of these jurisdictional limitations when he filed his petition.

9. The final ruling issued on March 8, 2021, denied the Petitioner’s petition once again. The judge affirmed the original findings, concluding there was no violation of Section 14.8 and that the Petitioner had not introduced any evidence to support his grounds for a rehearing.

10. After the final order resulting from the rehearing, the Petitioner’s only remaining recourse was to seek judicial review by filing an appeal with the superior court. This appeal had to be filed within thirty-five days from the date the order was served upon the parties.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis. Formulate a comprehensive essay response for each prompt, using specific evidence and details from the source documents to support your arguments.

1. Analyze the legal reasoning of Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark in her interpretation of Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs. Explain why this section was deemed inapplicable to the Petitioner’s situation and how this interpretation was central to the case’s outcome in both the hearing and rehearing.

2. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied in this case. Explain who held the burden, what the “preponderance of the evidence” standard required, and why the Petitioner ultimately failed to meet this standard in the judgment of the court.

3. Trace the complete procedural history of this case, starting from the initial petition. Detail the key dates, filings (petition, answer, rehearing request), hearings, and decisions, explaining the significance of each step in the administrative legal process from March 2020 to March 2021.

4. Examine the actions of the Petitioner, Michael Stoltenberg, beginning in November 2019. Evaluate his rationale for unilaterally changing his payment method, the specific steps he took, and how his choices directly led to the late fees and risk of foreclosure he sought to avoid.

5. Explain the roles and jurisdictional limitations of the Arizona Department of Real Estate (the Department) and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in this dispute. Why were certain statutes cited by the Petitioner, such as those under Title 10 of the ARIZ. REV. STAT., dismissed by the court as being outside its purview?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge, in this case Jenna Clark, who presides over administrative hearings, reviews evidence, and issues decisions for state agencies.

Answer

The formal written response filed by the Respondent (the Association) on March 24, 2020, denying all items in the Petitioner’s complaint.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings regarding disputes within homeowners’ associations in Arizona.

Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.)

The collection of laws enacted by the Arizona state legislature. Specific statutes were cited by the Petitioner and referenced by the court.

Association

The Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, a condominium association responsible for governing the real estate development and enforcing its CC&Rs.

Board of Directors (the Board)

The governing body that oversees the Homeowners Association.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation of a party in a trial (in this case, the Petitioner) to produce evidence that proves the claims they have made against the other party.

An acronym for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner.

Conclusions of Law

The section of the judge’s decision that applies legal principles and statutes to the established facts of the case to reach a final judgment.

Findings of Fact

The section of the judge’s decision that details the factual background, procedural history, and evidence presented during the hearing.

Hearing

A formal proceeding before an administrative law judge where parties present evidence and arguments. In this case, hearings were held on July 14, 2020, and February 16, 2021.

Jurisdiction

The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The Department’s jurisdiction was limited and did not extend to disputes arising from Title 10 of the Arizona Revised Statutes.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency that provides administrative law judges to conduct hearings for other state agencies, ensuring impartiality.

The final, binding command issued by the judge at the conclusion of the decision. In this case, the order was to deny the Petitioner’s petition.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Michael J Stoltenberg.

Petition

The formal legal document filed by the Petitioner on March 2, 2020, to initiate the hearing process with the Department.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in this civil administrative case. It is defined as evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

Rehearing

A second hearing granted to a party to re-examine the issues of a case, typically requested on grounds of legal error or an unjust decision. The Petitioner’s request for a rehearing was granted.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.

Restricted Delivery

A service offered by the United States Postal Service (USPS) that ensures mail is delivered only to a specific addressee or their authorized agent.

Statutory Agent

An individual or entity designated to receive legal notices and service of process on behalf of a corporation or association. For the Association, this was Diana Crites.

Select all sources

811290.pdf

861466.pdf

No emoji found

20F-H2020049-REL-RHG

2 sources

These documents contain the Administrative Law Judge Decisions stemming from a dispute between a homeowner, Michael J. Stoltenberg, and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association regarding the timely delivery of monthly assessment payments. The initial decision in August 2020 denied the homeowner’s petition, finding that the Association did not violate Section 14.8 of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), as that provision governs the Association’s notice obligation to members, not homeowners’ mail to the Association. Following a granted request for rehearing due to alleged errors of law, the subsequent March 2021 decision affirmed the original ruling, concluding that the homeowner’s self-imposed restriction on mail delivery caused the delays and that the relevant CC&R section was inapplicable to the petitioner’s complaint. Both decisions noted that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) lacked jurisdiction over one of the statutes cited by the petitioner.

What were the legal and procedural reasons for granting the rehearing request?

How did the interpretation of CC&R Section 14.8 resolve the core dispute?

What was the Petitioner’s basis for claiming a violation against the Association?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Michael J Stoltenberg (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Nicole Payne (HOA attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
Appeared telephonically for Respondent
Rhea Carlisle (board member)
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Unpaid volunteer board member
Diana Crites (statutory agent)
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Statutory Agent for 2019 and 2020
Lydia Peirce Linsmeier (attorney contact)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
Recipient of electronic transmission for Respondent in initial decision

Neutral Parties

Jenna Clark (ALJ)
OAH
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
ADRE
Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate
Dan Gardner (HOA coordinator)
ADRE
Transmitted decision electronically (c/o Commissioner Judy Lowe)

Mary J Bartle vs. Saguaro West Owner’s Association

Posted on January 30, 2020 by [email protected]

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

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1919059-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2020-01-30
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the original conclusion and dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Association violated Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d) regarding the contested $49,000.50 fund transaction.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Mary J Bartle	Counsel	—
Respondent	Saguaro West Owner's Association	Counsel	Nicole Payne, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the original conclusion and dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Association violated Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d) regarding the contested $49,000.50 fund transaction.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the transactions violated the specific duties of the treasurer set out in Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of Treasurer duties regarding fund transactions

The petitioner alleged the Association violated Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d) by withdrawing and redepositing $49,000.50 from the operating account. The ALJ concluded that Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that these transactions violated the specific duties of the treasurer set forth in that section.

Orders: Petitioner Mary J. Bartle’s petition is dismissed and Respondent is deemed the prevailing party in this matter.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section and title 12, chapter 7, article 6
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Bylaws, Treasurer Duties, Dismissal, Burden of Proof, Rehearing

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section and title 12, chapter 7, article 6
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 12-904(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919059-REL-RHG Decision – 767041.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:29:24 (94.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Bartle vs. Saguaro West Owner’s Association (Case No. 19F-H1919059-REL-RHG)

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the matter of Mary J. Bartle vs. Saguaro West Owner’s Association. The final order, issued on January 30, 2020, dismissed the petition brought by Ms. Bartle. The core of the case revolved around a financial transaction where $49,000.50 was withdrawn from the Association’s operating account on October 22, 2018, and redeposited on November 30, 2018.

The petitioner, Ms. Bartle, alleged this transaction violated a specific provision of the Association’s bylaws—Article VIII, section 8(d)—which outlines the duties of the Treasurer. Despite two hearings, the Administrative Law Judge consistently concluded that Ms. Bartle failed to meet her burden of proof. The central finding was that while evidence suggested the transaction “may have been in violation of the law or otherwise improper,” the petitioner did not demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, how this transaction specifically violated any of the enumerated duties of the Treasurer as set forth in the cited bylaw. The decision underscores a critical legal distinction between a potentially improper act and a proven violation of the specific bylaw under which the complaint was filed.

Case Overview

Case Name

Mary J. Bartle, Petitioner, vs. Saguaro West Owner’s Association, Respondent

Case Number

19F-H1919059-REL-RHG

Jurisdiction

Arizona Department of Real Estate, Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden

Petitioner

Mary J. Bartle (representing herself)

Respondent

Saguaro West Owner’s Association (represented by Nicole Payne, Esq.)

Rehearing Date

January 14, 2020

Final Decision Date

January 30, 2020

Procedural History and Core Allegation

The case proceeded through an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing, following a specific timeline of events:

• April 22, 2019: Ms. Bartle filed the initial petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• August 29, 2019: The first hearing was held. At the outset, a discussion was held to narrow the scope of the hearing. Ms. Bartle agreed to limit her petition to a single issue.

• The Single Issue: Whether the Association violated Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d) through a withdrawal of $49,000.50 on October 22, 2018, and a redeposit of the same amount on November 30, 2018.

• September 18, 2019: The initial Administrative Law Judge Decision was issued, dismissing Ms. Bartle’s petition.

• October 23, 2019: Ms. Bartle filed a request for a rehearing, asserting an error in the admission of evidence.

• November 18, 2019: The Department of Real Estate granted the request for a rehearing.

• January 14, 2020: The rehearing was convened. Ms. Bartle testified, while the Respondent presented no witnesses.

• January 30, 2020: The final Administrative Law Judge Decision was issued, reaffirming the dismissal of the petition.

At the rehearing, Ms. Bartle testified “to the effect that laws must have been violated by the withdrawal and redepositing of the $49,000.50 without the Association’s members being provided any notice of these transactions.”

Analysis of Bylaw and Judicial Findings

Bylaw Article VIII, Section 8(d): The Treasurer’s Duties

The entirety of the petitioner’s case rested on proving a violation of the specific duties outlined for the Treasurer in the Association’s bylaws. The text of the bylaw is as follows:

The Treasurer shall receive and deposit in the Association’s bank accounts all monies received by the Association and shall disburse such funds as directed by resolution [of] the Board of Directors; shall properly prepare and sign all checks before presenting them to be co-signed; keep proper books of account; cause an annual audit of the Association’s books to be made by a public accountant at the completion of each fiscal year; and shall prepare an annual budget to be presented to the membership at the annual meeting; to cause all Federal and State reports to be prepared; and shall prepare all monthly statements of finance for the Board of Directors.

Key Judicial Findings and Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision hinged on the petitioner’s failure to connect the disputed financial transaction to a specific violation of the duties listed above. The judge made a clear distinction between the potential impropriety of the transaction and the narrow scope of the legal claim.

• Initial Hearing Conclusion: The decision from the first hearing, which the judge took notice of in the rehearing, established the core finding:

• Rehearing Conclusion: The final decision after the rehearing reinforced this exact point, stating:

Ultimately, the case was dismissed because Ms. Bartle did not meet the legal standard required to prove her specific claim.

Legal Framework and Final Order

Applicable Legal Standards

The decision was grounded in several key legal principles cited by the Administrative Law Judge:

• Jurisdiction: The Arizona Department of Real Estate possesses authority over the matter pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11.

• Burden of Proof: Ms. Bartle, as the petitioner, bore the burden of proof on all issues.

• Standard of Proof: The standard was a “preponderance of the evidence,” 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.”

• Contractual Nature of Bylaws: Citing McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., the decision notes that “The Bylaws are a contract between the parties and the parties are required to comply with its terms.”

Final Order and Implications

Based on the failure to meet the burden of proof, the Administrative Law Judge issued a binding order with the following key points:

1. Dismissal: Petitioner Mary J. Bartle’s petition is dismissed.

2. Prevailing Party: The Respondent, Saguaro West Owner’s Association, is deemed the prevailing party.

3. Appeal Rights: A party wishing to appeal the order must seek judicial review with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served, as prescribed by ARIZ. REV. STAT. sections 12-904(A) and Title 12, Chapter 7, Article 6.

Study Guide: Bartle v. Saguaro West Owner’s Association

This guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1919059-REL-RHG. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a comprehensive understanding of the legal matter.

——————————————————————————–

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing all information directly from the case document.

1. Who were the primary parties in this legal matter, and what were their respective roles?

2. What specific financial transaction was the central subject of the petitioner’s complaint?

3. Which specific article and section of the Association’s Bylaws did the petitioner claim was violated?

4. What was the legal standard of proof that the petitioner was required to meet, and who had the burden of proof?

5. On what grounds did Ms. Bartle file her request for a rehearing after the initial decision?

6. According to the judge’s decision, what was the key failure in the petitioner’s argument regarding the financial transaction?

7. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge on January 30, 2020?

8. Although the judge dismissed the petition, what did the decision state about the nature of the financial transactions?

9. Which government department granted the request for a rehearing and has authority over this type of matter?

10. What options does a party have if they wish to appeal the final administrative law judge order?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Mary J. Bartle, and the Respondent, Saguaro West Owner’s Association. Ms. Bartle brought the petition against the Association, alleging a violation of its bylaws.

2. The central subject was the withdrawal of $49,000.50 from the Association’s operating account on October 22, 2018. The same amount was subsequently redeposited into the account on November 30, 2018.

3. The petitioner claimed the Association violated Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d). This section outlines the specific duties and responsibilities of the Association’s Treasurer.

4. The standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence.” The burden of proof was on the petitioner, Ms. Bartle, to demonstrate that the Association had violated the bylaw.

5. Ms. Bartle filed her Rehearing Request on the grounds that there was an error in the admission of evidence. She specifically referenced documents dated July 5, August 6, and September 13, 2019, in her request.

6. The key failure was that Ms. Bartle did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the withdrawal and redeposit specifically violated any of the treasurer’s duties as explicitly listed in Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d). Her claim was too narrow for the evidence she presented.

7. The final order was that Petitioner Mary J. Bartle’s petition be dismissed. The Respondent, Saguaro West Owner’s Association, was deemed to be the prevailing party in the matter.

8. The decision stated that there was evidence to suggest that the withdrawal and redeposit of the $49,000.50 “may have been in violation of the law or otherwise improper.” However, this was not sufficient to prove a violation of the specific bylaw in question.

9. The Arizona Department of Real Estate granted the rehearing on November 18, 2019. This department has authority over the matter as established by ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11.

10. A party wishing to appeal the order must seek judicial review as prescribed by Arizona Revised Statutes. The appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served upon the parties.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: Consider the following questions for a deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response based solely on the information provided in the source document.

1. Analyze the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the decision. Explain why Mary J. Bartle failed to meet this standard, despite the judge’s acknowledgment that the transaction may have been “improper” or in “violation of the law.”

2. Discuss the procedural significance of limiting the hearing to the single issue of Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d). How might the case’s outcome have differed if the scope of the hearing had been broader?

3. Trace the complete timeline of the case from the initial petition filing in April 2019 to the final order in January 2020. What do the key events and dates reveal about the process of administrative hearings and rehearings?

4. Based on the full text of Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d), what specific types of evidence would the petitioner have needed to present to successfully prove that the treasurer’s duties were violated by the $49,000.50 transaction?

5. Evaluate the distinction made by the Administrative Law Judge between a transaction that is potentially illegal or improper and a transaction that specifically violates the duties enumerated in Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d). Why is this distinction critical to the final order of dismissal?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, weighs evidence, and issues decisions on matters under the jurisdiction of a government agency. In this case, the ALJ was Thomas Shedden.

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE

The Arizona Administrative Code, a compilation of rules and regulations of Arizona’s state agencies. Section R2-19-119 is cited as establishing the standard of proof.

ARIZ. REV. STAT.

The Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona. Various sections are cited to establish jurisdiction and the appeals process.

Bylaws

A set of rules established by an organization, such as a homeowners’ association, to regulate itself. In this case, the bylaws are treated as a binding contract between the parties.

Conclusion of Law

The section of a legal decision where the judge applies legal principles and statutes to the established facts of the case.

Finding of Fact

The section of a legal decision that lists the factual determinations made by the judge based on the evidence presented during the hearing.

Judicial Review

The process by which a court of law reviews the decision of a lower court or an administrative agency to determine if the decision was legally sound.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

A state agency that provides a neutral forum for conducting administrative hearings for other state agencies. The hearings in this matter were held at the OAH.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a lawsuit or files a petition seeking a legal remedy. In this case, the petitioner was Mary J. Bartle.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases. It is met when the evidence presented has the most convincing force and is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of an issue over the other.

Prevailing Party

The party in a legal dispute who is successful and in whose favor the judgment is rendered. In this case, the Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case to consider new evidence or to argue against the original decision on the basis of an error. Ms. Bartle’s request for a rehearing was granted.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the respondent was the Saguaro West Owner’s Association.

A Homeowner Found a Mysterious $49,000 Transaction in Her HOA’s Books. The Reason She Lost in Court Is a Lesson for Everyone.

Introduction: The David-vs-Goliath Fight That Didn’t Go as Planned

For many homeowners, dealing with a Homeowners’ Association (HOA) can feel like a constant battle for transparency and fairness. It’s a common story: a resident raises concerns about financial decisions made behind closed doors, only to be met with resistance or silence. But what happens when a homeowner pushes back and takes that fight to an administrative hearing?

After an initial hearing and a persistent request for a rehearing, the final decision in Mary J. Bartle’s case against the Saguaro West Owner’s Association seemed, on the surface, like a clear-cut quest for accountability. The dispute centered on a single, alarming event: the withdrawal and subsequent redeposit of $49,000.50 from the association’s operating account without any notice to the members. It appeared to be a straightforward case of a concerned resident demanding answers.

However, the ruling from the administrative hearing offers a surprising and crucial lesson in how the legal system operates. The outcome reveals that suspicion, no matter how justified, is not enough to win. This article breaks down the top counter-intuitive takeaways from the judge’s decision and what they mean for any homeowner considering a legal challenge against their HOA.

Takeaway 1: A “Suspicious” Act Isn’t a Guaranteed Win

Feeling Something Is Wrong Isn’t the Same as Proving It.

The core facts of the case were not in dispute. On October 22, 2018, $49,000.50 was withdrawn from the Saguaro West Owner’s Association’s operating account. On November 30, 2018, the exact same amount was redeposited. Members were not notified of these transactions. To any reasonable observer, this activity raises immediate questions.

Even the Administrative Law Judge presiding over the case acknowledged the questionable nature of the transaction. In his final decision, he validated Ms. Bartle’s initial concerns with a striking statement:

The evidence shows that $49,000.50 was withdrawn from the Association’s account in October 2018 and the same amount was deposited in November 2018, and there is evidence to suggest that the transactions may have been in violation of the law.

This is the most stunning part of the case: the judge agreed that the transaction looked suspicious and might have broken the law, yet Ms. Bartle still lost. This reveals a critical distinction in legal proceedings. A judge is not an arbiter of general fairness but an interpreter of specific laws and rules. The judge’s comment shows he understood the spirit of Ms. Bartle’s complaint, but his hands were tied by the letter of her petition. The legal system requires more than a gut feeling; it demands specific proof that a specific rule was violated, which leads directly to the next critical lesson.

Takeaway 2: You Must Prove theExactRule Was Broken

Specificity Is Your Only Weapon.

Ms. Bartle’s case was ultimately narrowed to a single, highly specific issue: whether the $49,000.50 transaction violated Article VIII, section 8(d) of the association’s bylaws. This is a crucial detail because courts and administrative bodies require this rigid specificity to ensure fairness, prevent “moving goalposts,” and keep proceedings focused on the actual claims filed, not a general feeling of grievance.

Her entire case hinged on proving a violation of that specific section and no other. The rule in question outlines the treasurer’s duties, which include the power to: “receive and deposit…all monies,” “disburse such funds as directed,” “sign all checks,” and “keep proper books of account.”

The judge’s conclusion was brutally precise. He found that Ms. Bartle had “not shown by a preponderance of the evidence” that the transaction violated any of those specific, listed duties. She couldn’t prove the treasurer failed to deposit money or keep proper books; she could only prove a strange transaction occurred that wasn’t explicitly forbidden by the rule she cited. This is a critical lesson: it doesn’t matter if an HOA’s action feels wrong; what matters is whether you can prove it violated the precise rule you cited in your petition.

Takeaway 3: The Burden of Proof Rests Entirely on the Accuser

It’s Your Job to Build the Case, Not Theirs to Disprove It.

In a civil administrative hearing like this, the petitioner—Ms. Bartle—carries the “burden of proof.” The standard she had to meet was the “preponderance of the evidence.” The legal definition for this is:

“superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

In simple terms, she had to present enough convincing evidence to make the judge believe that her version of events was more likely true than not. The judge’s decision explicitly states that Ms. Bartle bore this burden and ultimately failed to meet it.

One of the most powerful details from the case file illustrates this point perfectly: the Saguaro West Owner’s Association, though represented by legal counsel, “presented no witnesses.” They didn’t have to. They didn’t need to explain the transaction or justify their actions because Ms. Bartle failed to build a strong enough case to prove her specific claim. The onus was completely on her to prove her argument, and when it fell short, the case was dismissed.

Conclusion: A Sobering Reminder for Homeowners

The case of Mary Bartle is a sobering reminder that winning a legal fight against a well-resourced entity like an HOA is less about moral rightness and more about meticulous legal strategy and precision.

While the judge acknowledged that Ms. Bartle’s concerns about the $49,000.50 transaction were potentially valid, her petition was dismissed not on a simple technicality, but because of a core principle of law: the failure to prove that the specific rule cited had actually been broken. Her case highlights the immense challenge for individual homeowners seeking transparency. It leaves us asking, if the legal bar is this specific, what practical recourse do residents have when they feel something is fundamentally wrong?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Mary J Bartle (petitioner)
Appeared on her own behalf and testified

Respondent Side

Nicole Payne (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Counsel for Saguaro West Owner's Association
Edith Rudder (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Counsel for Saguaro West Owner's Association

Neutral Parties

Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Joan A. Tober, vs. Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association

Posted on January 16, 2020 by [email protected]

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

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1918042-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2020-01-15
Administrative Law Judge	Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge concluded, both in the original decision and the rehearing, that the HOA was the prevailing party. The final decision affirmed that the HOA acted in compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) and (B), specifically ruling that privileged documents are exempt from disclosure timelines and that the Petitioner's request for 'all background information' was unreasonably broad and unclarified.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Joan A. Tober	Counsel	—
Respondent	Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association	Counsel	Diana J. Elston

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded, both in the original decision and the rehearing, that the HOA was the prevailing party. The final decision affirmed that the HOA acted in compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) and (B), specifically ruling that privileged documents are exempt from disclosure timelines and that the Petitioner's request for 'all background information' was unreasonably broad and unclarified.

Why this result: Petitioner lost because she failed to meet the burden of proof that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The primary record sought was protected by attorney-client privilege, and her vague request for 'any and all documentation' made it impossible for the HOA to reasonably comply within the 10-day period.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA violation of requirement to provide association records within ten business days.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide access to requested documents, including a privileged attorney letter and 'all background information', within the required 10-business day period. The rehearing focused specifically on the timeliness aspect.

Orders: The HOA was deemed the prevailing party in the rehearing, and Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed. The ALJ concluded the HOA acted in compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) and (B).

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2102
A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
A.R.S. § 32-2199(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(D)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
A.R.S. § 41-1092
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, Attorney-Client Privilege, A.R.S. 33-1805, Planned Community, Rehearing, Unreasonably Broad Request, Timeliness of Disclosure

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2102
A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
A.R.S. § 32-2199(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(D)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
A.R.S. § 41-1092
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918042-REL-RHG Decision – 764197.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:28:27 (187.4 KB)

19F-H1918042-REL-RHG Decision – ../19F-H1918042-REL/714863.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:28:32 (51.7 KB)

19F-H1918042-REL-RHG Decision – ../19F-H1918042-REL/725808.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:28:37 (89.7 KB)

Briefing Document: Tober v. Civano 1 Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the legal proceedings and outcomes of the case Joan A. Tober v. Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association (No. 19F-H1918042-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute was Petitioner Joan A. Tober’s demand for records from her Homeowners Association (HOA), specifically a legal opinion letter concerning the “North Ridge wall.”

The Petitioner argued that the HOA violated Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide this letter and other “background information.” She contended the HOA waived attorney-client privilege by discussing the letter in an open board meeting and, in a subsequent rehearing, failed to provide records within the statutorily required 10-day timeframe.

The HOA maintained that the letter was a privileged communication with its attorney and therefore exempt from disclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B). The HOA also argued that the Petitioner’s broader request for “any and all documentation” was overly vague and that she failed to clarify the request when asked.

Administrative Law Judge Kay Abramsohn ultimately ruled in favor of the HOA in both the initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing. The final decision affirmed that the legal letter was privileged and could be withheld. Crucially, the judge concluded the HOA did not violate the 10-day provision because the Petitioner’s request was “unreasonably broad” and she failed to respond to the HOA’s request for clarification, thereby preventing the HOA from being able to “reasonably make records available.” The HOA was declared the prevailing party in both instances.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

This matter involves a formal dispute between a homeowner and her homeowners’ association, brought before the Arizona Department of Real Estate and heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Case Name

Joan A. Tober, Petitioner, vs. Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association, Respondent.

Case Number

19F-H1918042-REL

Adjudicating Body

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Administrative Law Judge

Kay A. Abramsohn

Core Issue

Alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805, which governs member access to association records.

Initial Hearing Date

June 5, 2019

Initial Decision Date

July 29, 2019

Rehearing Date

December 11, 2019

Final Decision Date

January 15, 2020

——————————————————————————–

Key Parties and Individuals

• Petitioner: Joan A. Tober

◦ A homeowner in the Civano 1 Neighborhood since 2001.

◦ Previously worked for the company that developed the land/homes in the association area.

◦ Has served as a past Board member for the HOA.

◦ Served as an alternate member on the Finance Committee in 2018.

◦ Exhibits a high level of engagement with HOA affairs, having taped and often transcribed every meeting since 2008.

• Respondent: Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association (HOA)

◦ The governing body for the planned community.

◦ Represented by Diana J. Elston, Esq., of Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.

• Adjudicator: Kay Abramsohn

◦ The Administrative Law Judge for the Office of Administrative Hearings who presided over both the initial hearing and the rehearing.

——————————————————————————–

Chronology of the Dispute

Nov 20, 2018

At an HOA Board meeting, the Board President mentions receiving a letter (“the Letter”) from its attorney regarding the North Ridge wall, states it concerns the HOA’s legal responsibility, and suggests it can be sent out to residents.

Nov 26, 2018

Petitioner sends her first email request for a copy of the Letter.

Nov 27, 2018

Petitioner sends a second request. The HOA replies that it is waiting for clarification from its attorney.

Nov 29, 2018

At 4:58 a.m., Petitioner sends a third, formal request citing A.R.S. § 33-1805, demanding “any and all documentation to include the letter… regarding the structural integrity and the Association members’ responsibility for same and all background information.”

Nov 29, 2018

At 9:44 a.m., the HOA responds, stating the President misspoke and the Letter is a privileged legal opinion. The HOA asks if Petitioner needs a copy of “the original engineer report.” The judge later finds no evidence that Petitioner responded to this clarification query.

Dec 13, 2018

Petitioner writes to the Board, stating she will use “all means… to obtain the requested materials, to include a formal complaint.”

Dec 26, 2018

Petitioner files her single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Jan 15-16, 2019

The HOA forwards to Petitioner the “Civano historical erosion reports” (2013 and 2014) and an invoice related to the 2014 study.

June 5, 2019

The initial administrative hearing is held.

July 29, 2019

Initial Decision Issued: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) finds the Letter is privileged and the HOA is the prevailing party.

Aug 5, 2019

Petitioner files a request for rehearing, arguing the initial decision “did not address the timeliness aspect of the law.”

Aug 23, 2019

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

Dec 11, 2019

The rehearing is conducted.

Jan 15, 2020

Final Decision Issued: The ALJ again finds for the HOA, concluding it did not violate the statute because Petitioner’s request was overly broad and she failed to clarify it. The appeal is dismissed.

——————————————————————————–

Core Dispute and Arguments

Petitioner’s Position (Joan A. Tober)

1. Waiver of Privilege: The Petitioner’s central argument was that the HOA intentionally waived attorney-client privilege regarding the Letter when the Board President mentioned it in an open meeting and offered to distribute it, with the other Board members not objecting, thereby showing “unanimous consent to waive confidentiality.”

2. Right to “Background Information”: Petitioner argued that because the North Ridge wall issue had been ongoing since 2013, her request for “any and all documents” and “background information” was justified, and that more than just two prior engineering reports must exist.

3. Untimely Response (Rehearing Argument): In her request for rehearing, Petitioner’s primary argument shifted to timeliness, asserting that even if the HOA “eventually” provided some records, it failed to do so within the 10-business-day period mandated by A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

Respondent’s Position (Civano 1 HOA)

1. Attorney-Client Privilege: The HOA’s primary defense was that the Letter constituted “privileged communication between an attorney for the association and the association,” which may be withheld from members under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B).

2. No Waiver: The HOA contended that the “mere mention” of the Letter by the Board President at a meeting did not constitute a legal waiver of the attorney-client privilege.

3. Vague and Overly Broad Request: The HOA argued that the Petitioner’s request for “any and all” documents was too broad to know what she wanted.

4. Prior Possession of Documents: The HOA indicated that it could be determined from the Petitioner’s own exhibits that she had already received or possessed copies of key requested documents, such as the 2013 and 2014 erosion reports.

——————————————————————————–

Key Findings of Fact and Evidence

The Administrative Law Judge made several critical findings of fact based on the evidence presented across both hearings.

• The Nature of the “Letter”: The document at the center of the dispute was confirmed to be a legal opinion from the HOA’s attorney. It had been discussed by the Board in an executive session prior to the November 20, 2018 meeting. The letter advised that the HOA was responsible for the land below the wall and recommended hiring a “licensed bonded engineer.”

• Petitioner’s Pre-existing Knowledge: The Petitioner was well-informed on the North Ridge wall issue. She acknowledged at the rehearing that at the time of her November 29, 2018 request, she already possessed copies of the 2013 and 2014 engineering reports, which she had obtained from the city in 2014.

• Petitioner’s Request and Failure to Clarify:

◦ The Petitioner’s initial requests on November 26 and 27 were solely for the attorney’s Letter.

◦ Her formal request on November 29 expanded to “any and all documentation… and all background information.”

◦ On the same day, the HOA asked for clarification, specifically inquiring if she “still need[ed] a copy of the original engineer report.”

◦ The ALJ found “no document supporting” the Petitioner’s claim that she responded to this email. During the rehearing, the Petitioner was unable to produce such a response. This failure to clarify was a key factor in the final ruling.

• Lack of Other Documents: The hearing record contained no evidence of any other erosion reports besides the 2013 and 2014 reports. The HOA President, Mr. Mastrosimone, testified that “there were no documents other than the Letter that would have been responsive” to the request.

——————————————————————————–

Legal Rulings and Conclusions of Law

Initial Decision (July 29, 2019)

• Jurisdiction: The OAH confirmed its authority to hear the dispute under Arizona statutes.

• Privilege: The ALJ concluded that under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B), “privileged communication between an attorney for the association and the association” may be withheld. Therefore, the HOA was “not statutorily required to provide access or a copy of the Letter to Petitioner.”

• Outcome: The ALJ concluded that the HOA provided records in compliance with the statute and was deemed the prevailing party.

Final Decision on Rehearing (January 15, 2020)

• Issue for Rehearing: The sole issue on rehearing was whether the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide access to records within 10 business days.

• Privileged Communication: The ALJ reaffirmed that the Letter was privileged communication and the HOA was not required to provide it “within any time period.”

• Unreasonably Broad Request: The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner’s formal request was “unreasonably broad and remained unclarified.”

• Failure to Clarify: The ruling explicitly states: “Petitioner failed to respond to the HOA request for clarification of her unreasonably broad request, preventing the HOA from being able to reasonably make records available. An association is not required to guess what records are being requested.”

• No Violation of Timeliness: Because the request was unclarified, the ALJ found the HOA did not violate the 10-day rule in A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The decision notes that the initial ruling “inartfully stated” that the HOA had provided records in compliance, and that it “should have simply stated that the HOA acted in compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1805.”

• Final Outcome: The ALJ concluded that the HOA acted in compliance with both subsections (A) and (B) of the statute. The HOA was again declared the prevailing party, and the Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed. The decision was declared binding on the parties, subject to judicial review in superior court.

Study Guide: Tober v. Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case No. 19F-H1918042-REL, involving Petitioner Joan A. Tober and Respondent Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a thorough understanding of the case’s facts, legal arguments, and procedural history.

——————————————————————————–

Short Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences, using only information provided in the source documents.

1. What specific event prompted Joan Tober to first request documents from the HOA in November 2018?

2. What was the HOA’s primary legal justification for refusing to provide a copy of “the Letter” to the Petitioner?

3. According to Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), what is the required timeframe for an HOA to make records available to a member after a written request?

4. What was the Petitioner’s core argument for why the HOA had forfeited its right to keep “the Letter” confidential?

5. On what grounds did the Petitioner file her request for a rehearing after the initial decision on July 29, 2019?

6. How did the Petitioner’s document request evolve between her first communication on November 26, 2018, and her third request on November 29, 2018?

7. What crucial step did the Administrative Law Judge conclude the Petitioner failed to take after the HOA’s email on November 29, 2018?

8. Besides “the Letter,” what other key documents related to the North Ridge wall did the Petitioner already possess when she filed her formal request?

9. Describe the Petitioner’s long-standing involvement and activities within the Civano 1 HOA community.

10. What was the final ruling in the Administrative Law Judge Decision on Rehearing, issued January 15, 2020?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The request was prompted by the HOA Board meeting on November 20, 2018. At this meeting, the Board President mentioned receiving a letter from the HOA’s attorney regarding the North Ridge wall, stated its legal conclusion, and indicated, “I believe we can … send it out … so people can have it.”

2. The HOA’s primary justification was that the document was a privileged attorney-client communication. The HOA argued that the letter contained legal analysis and advice to the Board and was therefore exempt from disclosure under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1805(B).

3. A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) states that a homeowners association has “ten business days” to fulfill a written request for examination of its financial and other records.

4. The Petitioner argued that the HOA had intentionally waived confidentiality. She contended that because the Board President mentioned the letter in an open meeting and the other Board members did not object, they showed unanimous consent to waive the attorney-client privilege.

5. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on the grounds that the initial Administrative Law Judge ruling “did not address the timeliness aspect of the law.” She argued that while the HOA eventually provided access to some records, it had not done so within the required 10-business day period.

6. The Petitioner’s request evolved from a specific ask for a copy of “the Letter” on November 26 and 27 to a much broader request on November 29. Her third request asked for “any and all documentation to include the letter… regarding the structural integrity and the Association members’ responsibility for same and all background information.”

7. The Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to respond to the HOA’s request for clarification in its November 29 email. The HOA had asked if she needed a copy of the “original engineer report,” and the Judge found no evidence in the hearing records that the Petitioner ever answered this question, thus preventing the HOA from being able to reasonably make records available.

8. The Petitioner already possessed the 2013 Engineering report and the 2014 report concerning erosion issues with the North Ridge wall. She acknowledged at the rehearing that she had obtained these from the city in 2014.

9. The Petitioner worked for the company that developed the land, purchased her home in 2001, and has been a past Board member. At the time of the dispute, she was an alternate member of the Finance Committee and had been taping and often transcribing every HOA meeting since 2008.

10. The final ruling was that the HOA was the prevailing party and had not violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. The Judge concluded the HOA was not required to provide the privileged letter and that its failure to provide other documents within 10 days was excused because the Petitioner’s request was “unreasonably broad” and she failed to clarify it. The Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a longer, essay-format response. No answers are provided.

1. Analyze the concept of “waiver” of attorney-client privilege as it was argued in this case. Discuss the Petitioner’s claim that the President’s public comments constituted a waiver and contrast this with the Administrative Law Judge’s implicit and explicit findings on the matter.

2. Trace the procedural history of this case, beginning with the initial petition filing on December 26, 2018, and concluding with the final notice of appeal rights in the January 15, 2020 order. Identify the key legal proceedings, decisions, and dates that marked the progression of the dispute.

3. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the court documents. Explain how the Administrative Law Judge applied this standard to the evidence presented by the Petitioner and why the Petitioner ultimately failed to meet her burden of proof in both the initial hearing and the rehearing.

4. Examine the role and interpretation of Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1805 in this dispute. How did the two key subsections, (A) and (B), create the central legal conflict between the Petitioner’s right to access records and the HOA’s right to withhold privileged information?

5. Evaluate the Administrative Law Judge’s reasoning that the Petitioner’s November 29, 2018 request was “unreasonably broad.” How did this determination, combined with the Petitioner’s alleged failure to clarify her request, become the deciding factor in the rehearing?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Kay Abramsohn, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues legal decisions and orders.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (“the Department”)

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearings from members of homeowners’ associations in Arizona.

A.R.S. § 33-1805

The Arizona Revised Statute governing access to homeowners’ association records. Subsection (A) requires records be made “reasonably available” within ten business days, while subsection (B) allows for withholding of privileged attorney-client communications.

Attorney-Client Privilege

A legal concept that allows for certain communications between an attorney and their client (in this case, the HOA) to be kept confidential. The HOA cited this privilege as the reason for withholding “the Letter.”

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to prove their allegations. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated statutes or community documents.

Executive Session

A private meeting of a board of directors. “The Letter” had been discussed by the HOA Board in an executive session prior to the public meeting where it was mentioned.

An acronym for Homeowners Association. In this case, the Respondent is the Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

The office with the legal authority to hear and decide contested cases involving disputes between homeowners and planned community associations in Arizona.

Petition

The formal, single-issue complaint filed by the Petitioner with the Department of Real Estate on December 26, 2018, which initiated the legal proceedings.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, the Petitioner is Joan A. Tober.

Preponderance of the Evidence

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

Rehearing

A second hearing granted to re-examine a legal case after an initial decision has been made. A rehearing was granted in this case to address the Petitioner’s claim that the initial ruling did not consider the “timeliness aspect of the law.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent is the Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association.

The Letter

The specific document at the heart of the dispute: a privileged legal opinion letter from the HOA’s attorneys to the Board regarding the North Ridge wall, which was “disclosed and discussed” at the November 20, 2018, Board meeting.

She Recorded Every HOA Meeting for a Decade and Still Lost. Here’s What Every Homeowner Can Learn.

Introduction: The Fight for Information

Many homeowners have felt the frustration of seeking information from their Homeowners Association (HOA), only to feel that the board is being less than transparent. It’s a common story that often ends in resignation. But for one Arizona homeowner, it ended in a formal administrative hearing.

This is the story of Joan A. Tober, a remarkably dedicated resident who filed a petition against her HOA with the Arizona Department of Real Estate over access to documents related to a retaining wall. She was a former board member, sat on the finance committee, and, most astoundingly, had personally recorded and often transcribed every single HOA meeting for over a decade. Yet, despite her exhaustive personal record-keeping, her petition was denied. The surprising and counter-intuitive lessons from her story offer a masterclass for any homeowner navigating a dispute with their association.

1. Takeaway #1: The “Attorney-Client Privilege” Shield is Stronger Than You Think.

The central conflict revolved around a single document: a letter from the HOA’s attorney. During an open board meeting, the Board President mentioned the letter, which concerned the association’s responsibility for a retaining wall, and created an expectation of transparency, stating: “I believe we can … send it out … so people can have it.”

Ms. Tober argued that by openly discussing the letter and offering to distribute it, the board had waived its confidentiality, and she was therefore entitled to a copy. It seems like a logical assumption. However, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) disagreed, pointing directly to the law. Under Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)), “privileged communication between an attorney for the association and the association” can be legally withheld from members.

The tribunal found that the mere mention of the letter in a public meeting—even with the president’s comment—did not break that legal privilege. This is a critical point for homeowners to understand. The law protects the board’s ability to seek and receive candid legal advice to govern the association effectively. While it may feel like a lack of transparency, this shield is a fundamental and legally protected aspect of HOA operations.

2. Takeaway #2: Asking for “Everything” Can Get You Nothing.

Beyond the privileged letter, the evolution and wording of Ms. Tober’s request became a major factor in the denial of her petition. The timeline shows how a homeowner’s frustration can lead to a fatal strategic error. On November 26 and 27, 2018, she made two specific requests for the attorney’s letter. The HOA responded that it was seeking clarification from its attorney.

After this delay, Ms. Tober’s third request, dated November 29, escalated significantly. She now asked for: “any and all documentation to include the letter that was disclosed and discussed… and all background information.”

In response, the HOA asked for clarification, but according to the hearing record, Ms. Tober could not provide evidence that she ever replied to narrow her request. This failure proved fatal. The Administrative Law Judge found the request to be “unreasonably broad.” The judge’s decision on the matter was blunt and serves as a powerful warning:

An association is not required to guess what records are being requested.

The ultimate reason for the denial synthesized both issues: “Petitioner failed to respond to the HOA request for clarification of her unreasonably broad request, preventing the HOA from being able to reasonably make records available.” This demonstrates that the legal burden falls squarely on the homeowner to articulate a request the association can reasonably fulfill. As the ALJ noted, an association is not required to be a mind reader.

3. Takeaway #3: Diligence Alone Doesn’t Guarantee a Win.

What makes this story so compelling is the extraordinary diligence of the petitioner. Joan Tober was not a casual observer. The hearing records establish her deep involvement in the community: she was a former Board member, a member of the Finance Committee, and had even worked for the company that originally developed the community.

But one fact, noted in the ALJ’s decision, highlights her stunning level of dedication:

Since 2008, Petitioner has taped every meeting and she often creates a transcript of the meetings.

Despite this decade of meticulous personal record-keeping and her clear passion for the issue, her petition was denied—not just once, but twice, on the initial hearing and again on the rehearing. This presents a sobering reality for all homeowners. While passion, engagement, and even a mountain of personal documentation are valuable, they cannot overcome fundamental legal principles. The outcome of a formal hearing is determined by the strength of the legal argument, not the volume of personal effort expended.

Conclusion: Strategy Over Sheer Effort

The petition of Joan A. Tober is a powerful reminder that when dealing with an HOA, effectiveness is not always measured by effort. Her story provides three critical takeaways for every homeowner: attorney-client privilege provides HOAs with a strong legal shield, record requests must be specific and targeted to be enforceable, and meticulous personal diligence must be paired with a sound legal strategy to succeed in a formal dispute.

This case leaves every homeowner with a critical question: when you have a dispute, are you channeling your energy into the most effective strategy, or simply into the most effort?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Joan A. Tober (petitioner)
Former Board member; current Finance Committee member

Respondent Side

Diana J. Elston (HOA attorney)
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
Mr. Mastrosimone (Board President)
Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association
Testified at rehearing

Neutral Parties

Kay A. Abramsohn (ALJ)
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
c. serrano (Clerk)
Felicia Del Sol (Clerk)
LDettorre (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Addressed in transmittal
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Addressed in transmittal
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Addressed in transmittal
DGardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Addressed in transmittal
ncano (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Addressed in transmittal

Joyce H Monsanto vs. Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association

Posted on November 18, 2019 by [email protected]

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

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1919053-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-11-18
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the HOA's architectural guideline limiting homeowners to one flagpole per lot, while permitting the display of both the U.S. flag and a military flag (Marine Corps flag) on that single pole, constitutes a reasonable rule under A.R.S. § 33-1808(B). The ALJ also found the Board complied with the 45-day requirement for a written appeal decision under CC&R § 7.9 by memorializing the denial in the draft meeting minutes posted by December 4, 2018,,.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Joyce H Monsanto	Counsel	—
Respondent	Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association	Counsel	Mark K. Sahl, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1808; CC&R § 7.9

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the HOA's architectural guideline limiting homeowners to one flagpole per lot, while permitting the display of both the U.S. flag and a military flag (Marine Corps flag) on that single pole, constitutes a reasonable rule under A.R.S. § 33-1808(B). The ALJ also found the Board complied with the 45-day requirement for a written appeal decision under CC&R § 7.9 by memorializing the denial in the draft meeting minutes posted by December 4, 2018,,.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof on both statutory and CC&R violations,.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA's denial of application to install two flagpoles for US and military flags, and alleged failure to follow CC&R appeal process.

Petitioner challenged the HOA's denial of her request to install two flagpoles, arguing the restriction violated A.R.S. § 33-1808 (flag statute) and that the Board failed to provide a written decision on her appeal within 45 days as required by CC&R § 7.9, which she argued meant the request was deemed approved. The ALJ found the single flagpole restriction reasonable under A.R.S. § 33-1808(B) since both flags could be flown from one pole, and determined the Board satisfied the CC&R § 7.9 requirement by posting the decision in the meeting minutes within 45 days,.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied, as she failed to establish that the Respondent's Board should not have denied her application under A.R.S. § 33-1808 or CC&R § 7. The Board can properly find Petitioner in violation of Architectural Guidelines and order her to remove one of her two flagpoles.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1808
CC&R § 7.9
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Flag display, Architectural Guidelines, CC&Rs, Statutory compliance, Planned Communities Act, Rehearing

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1808
CC&R § 7.9
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
CC&R § 7

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919053-REL-RHG Decision – 749213.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:29:16 (163.6 KB)

19F-H1919053-REL-RHG Decision – 753595.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:29:19 (163.3 KB)

Briefing Document: Monsanto v. Four Seasons at the Manor HOA

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and legal reasoning from the Amended Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Joyce H. Monsanto versus the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association (HOA). The central conflict revolves around the HOA’s denial of Ms. Monsanto’s request to install two separate flagpoles on her home to display the United States flag and the United States Marine Corps flag. The petitioner alleged this denial violated Arizona state law and the HOA’s own governing documents.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately denied the petitioner’s claim, ruling in favor of the HOA. The decision established two critical points: first, that the HOA’s rule limiting homeowners to a single flagpole is a “reasonable” regulation on the “placement and manner of display” explicitly permitted under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1808(B), and does not constitute a prohibition of flag display. Second, the HOA was found to have complied with its own appeal process as outlined in its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The ALJ concluded that an oral denial at a board meeting, later documented in publicly posted meeting minutes, satisfied the CC&R’s requirement to “render its written decision” within a 45-day timeframe. The ruling affirms an HOA’s authority to enforce uniform aesthetic standards, provided they are reasonable and applied according to the association’s governing documents.

Case Background and Procedural History

The case was brought before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) following a petition filed by homeowner Joyce H. Monsanto (“Petitioner”) against her HOA, Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association (“Respondent”).

• Initial Petition: On March 6, 2019, the Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the HOA violated state law (A.R.S. § 33-1803) and its CC&Rs (§ 7.9) by refusing to approve her request for two flagpoles.

• First Hearing: An evidentiary hearing was held on May 30, 2019, after which the ALJ found that the Petitioner had not proven any violation by the HOA.

• Rehearing: The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted the Petitioner’s request for a rehearing on August 22, 2019. This rehearing took place on October 21, 2019.

• Amended Decision: On November 18, 2019, ALJ Diane Mihalsky issued an Amended Administrative Law Judge Decision, again denying the Petitioner’s petition and affirming the previous findings. The amendment was issued to correct a typographical error and clarify the parties’ appeal rights.

The Core Dispute: A Request for Two Flagpoles

The petitioner, whose husband and two sons have long careers in the U.S. Marines and Coast Guard, sought to display both the U.S. flag and the U.S. Marine Corps flag on her home.

• The Application: On August 31, 2018, she submitted a Design Review Application to install two 6-foot-long flagpoles on the exterior wall of her house, flanking her front door.

• The Rationale: The Petitioner stated her desire for two separate poles was for aesthetic reasons, believing the display would look better. She also expressed concern that a single, larger flagpole installed in her front yard would obstruct the view from her front window.

• The Denial: On September 22, 2018, the HOA’s Architectural Committee issued a written Notice of Disapproval, citing the Architectural Guidelines which permit only one flagpole per lot.

• The Appeal: On October 1, 2018, the Petitioner submitted a written appeal to the HOA Board, arguing the denial was unreasonable, that the guidelines were not uniformly enforced, and that the board could grant a waiver under CC&R § 7.6.

Governing Rules and Statutes

The case decision rested on the interpretation of Arizona state law and the HOA’s specific governing documents.

Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1808

This statute governs the right of homeowners to display certain flags.

• Protection of Display: Subsection A states that an association “shall not prohibit the outdoor… display” of the American flag or a military flag, among others.

• Right to Regulate: Subsection B grants associations the authority to “adopt reasonable rules and regulations regarding the placement and manner of display.” It explicitly allows rules that “regulate the location and size of flagpoles,” “limit the member to displaying no more than two flags at once,” and limit flagpole height, while not prohibiting their installation.

HOA Architectural Guidelines

The community’s rules regarding flagpoles evolved but consistently maintained a key restriction.

• Original Guideline (May 24, 2016): “Poles must not exceed 12’ in height, and only one flagpole is permitted per Lot.”

• Amended Guideline (November 8, 2018): The board increased the maximum pole height to 20′ and added rules for nighttime illumination and inclement weather, but explicitly “did not change the limit of one flagpole per lot.”

HOA CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The procedural requirements for architectural review and appeals were central to the Petitioner’s claim.

• Section 7.8 (Board Approval): Pertaining to initial applications, this section requires the Board to provide the owner with a “written response within sixty (60) days,” otherwise the request is deemed approved.

• Section 7.9 (Appeal): Pertaining to appeals, this section requires the Board to consult with the Architectural Committee and “render its written decision” within 45 days. A failure by the Board to render a decision in this period “shall be deemed approval.” This section does not contain the same explicit language as § 7.8 requiring the response be provided to the owner.

Analysis of the Appeal Process and Conflicting Testimonies

A significant portion of the dispute centered on the events of the November 8, 2018, HOA Board meeting, where the Petitioner’s appeal was to be considered. The accounts of what transpired at this meeting were contradictory.

Petitioner’s Testimony (Joyce H. Monsanto)

Respondent’s Testimony (Anthony Nunziato, Board President)

Consultation

The board did not consult the Architectural Committee.

The board consulted with the Architectural Committee before the meeting.

Decision

The board did not consider or make any decision on her appeal.

The board considered the appeal and made a decision.

Notification

She was never told her appeal was denied at the meeting.

He was certain the board verbally informed the Petitioner that her appeal was denied at the meeting.

On December 4, 2018, draft minutes from the November 8 meeting were posted on the HOA’s website. The Petitioner acknowledged seeing them. These minutes included the following entry:

“[Petitioner’s] last request was for a waiver that would allow her to have two flagpoles on her property (one to fly the American flag and the other to fly the Marine flag). The Board rejected this request since our CC&Rs allow for the flying of both flags on a single flagpole.”

The Petitioner argued that these publicly posted draft minutes, which were not sent directly to her, did not constitute a valid written denial of her appeal under the CC&Rs.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s decision methodically rejected each of the Petitioner’s claims, relying on witness credibility, statutory interpretation, and contract construction principles.

Credibility Assessment

The ALJ made a clear determination on the conflicting testimonies regarding the November 8 meeting.

• Mr. Nunziato’s testimony that the board made a decision and informed the Petitioner was found to be “credible and supported by the minutes of the meeting.”

• The Petitioner’s testimony that the board made no decision on her appeal was deemed “incredible.”

Ruling on A.R.S. § 33-1808 (State Flag Law)

The ALJ concluded that the HOA’s one-flagpole rule did not violate state law.

• The rule was found to be a “reasonable rule or regulation under A.R.S. § 33-1808(B).”

• Because the Architectural Guidelines allow for flying two flags from a single flagpole up to 20′ long, the HOA was not prohibiting the display of flags, merely regulating the manner.

• The ALJ characterized the core issue as the “Petitioner’s petition is about her choice not to install a single flagpole for her own aesthetic reasons, not Respondent’s unreasonableness or lack of patriotism.”

Ruling on CC&R § 7.9 (Appeal Process)

The ALJ found that the HOA had followed the procedure required by its own CC&Rs.

• Consultation: Based on Mr. Nunziato’s credible testimony, the board fulfilled its duty to consult with the Architectural Committee.

• “Render a Decision”: The board “rendered a decision on her appeal at the November 8, 2018 board meeting” when it orally reached a decision.

• “Written Decision”: The board created a “writing memorializing its decision” by documenting it in the meeting minutes. Because the Petitioner saw these minutes on December 4, 2018, this action occurred within the 45-day window following her October 1, 2018 appeal.

• No Delivery Requirement: The ALJ applied the “negative implication cannon of contract construction.” By comparing CC&R § 7.9 (appeals) with § 7.8 (initial applications), the judge noted that § 7.9 lacks the explicit requirement to provide the written decision to the owner. Therefore, posting the minutes was sufficient, and the Petitioner’s request was not “deemed approved.”

Final Order

Based on these findings, the ALJ issued a final, binding order.

IT IS ORDERED that the Petitioners’ petition is denied because she has not established that the Respondent’s Board should not have denied her application to install two flagpoles on her property.

The decision concludes with a notice informing the parties that the order is binding and that any appeal must be filed with the superior court within 35 days from the date of service.

Study Guide: Monsanto v. Four Seasons at the Manor HOA

This study guide provides a detailed review of the legal case Joyce H. Monsanto v. Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association, Case No. 19F-H1919053-REL-RHG, as detailed in the Amended Administrative Law Judge Decision dated November 18, 2019. The guide includes a short-answer quiz, a corresponding answer key, suggested essay questions, and a comprehensive glossary of terms to facilitate a thorough understanding of the case’s facts, arguments, and legal conclusions.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based entirely on the information provided in the case document.

1. Who are the Petitioner and the Respondent in this case, and what is their relationship?

2. What specific action did the Petitioner request from the Respondent that initiated this dispute?

3. On what grounds did the Respondent’s Architectural Committee initially deny the Petitioner’s request on September 22, 2018?

4. Identify the key Arizona statute cited in the case and explain its two main provisions regarding flag displays.

5. What was the Petitioner’s primary argument regarding the Respondent’s handling of her appeal under CC&R § 7.9?

6. According to the testimony of Board President Tony Nunziato, how did the Board address the Petitioner’s appeal at the November 8, 2018 meeting?

7. What documentary evidence did the Respondent use to support the claim that a decision on the appeal was made and written down within the required timeframe?

8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) find the Respondent’s one-flagpole rule to be legally permissible?

9. What is the legal standard of proof required for the Petitioner in this case, and did she meet it according to the ALJ?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case and its practical consequence for the Petitioner?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner is Joyce H. Monsanto, a homeowner. The Respondent is the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association (HOA). Ms. Monsanto is a member of the Respondent HOA because she owns a house within its development in Sun City, Arizona.

2. The Petitioner submitted a Design Review Application to install two 6-foot-long flagpoles on the exterior wall of her house. She intended to fly the United States flag from one pole and the United States Marine Corps flag from the other.

3. The Architectural Committee denied the request because the community’s Architectural Guidelines only permitted one flagpole per lot. The written Notice of Disapproval explicitly stated this rule as the reason for the denial.

4. The key statute is A.R.S. § 33-1808. Its first provision, § 33-1808(A), prohibits an HOA from banning the display of the American flag and various military flags. The second provision, § 33-1808(B), allows an HOA to adopt reasonable rules regulating the placement, size, and number of flagpoles, explicitly permitting a limit of one flagpole per property.

5. The Petitioner argued that the Board violated CC&R § 7.9 because it failed to provide her with a formal written decision denying her appeal within the 45-day period. She contended that because she never received a dedicated letter, the request should have been “deemed approved” as stipulated in the CC&R for failure to render a timely decision.

6. Tony Nunziato testified that the Board did consult with the Architectural Committee regarding the appeal before the meeting. He stated with certainty that at the November 8, 2018 meeting, the Board considered the appeal and verbally informed Ms. Monsanto that her request for a waiver was denied.

7. The Respondent presented the draft minutes from the November 8, 2018 Board meeting, which were posted on the HOA’s website on December 4, 2018. These minutes explicitly stated that the Board rejected the Petitioner’s request for a waiver to have two flagpoles, fulfilling the requirement to have a written record of the decision within 45 days of her October 1 appeal.

8. The ALJ found the rule permissible because A.R.S. § 33-1808(B) explicitly grants HOAs the authority to “adopt reasonable rules and regulations” which may “regulate the location and size of flagpoles” and “shall not prohibit the installation of a flagpole.” Since the HOA’s guidelines allowed for one flagpole up to 20 feet long, capable of flying two flags, the judge concluded the rule was reasonable under the statute.

9. The required standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning the Petitioner had to convince the judge that her contention was more probably true than not. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner did not meet this burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated any statute or its own CC&Rs.

10. The final order denied the Petitioner’s petition. The practical consequence is that the HOA’s denial of her application for two flagpoles was upheld, and the Board could therefore properly find her in violation of the Architectural Guidelines and order her to remove one of her two flagpoles.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition in Context

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact, and issues legal decisions. In this case, Diane Mihalsky served as the ALJ for the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.R.S. § 33-1808

An Arizona Revised Statute that governs the display of flags in planned communities. It forbids HOAs from prohibiting certain flags (like the U.S. and military flags) but permits them to establish reasonable rules regarding the number, size, and location of flagpoles.

Architectural Committee

A committee established by the HOA’s CC&Rs responsible for reviewing and approving or disapproving homeowners’ applications for external modifications to their property, such as installing flagpoles.

Architectural Guidelines

The specific rules adopted by the HOA that set forth requirements for property modifications. In this case, the guidelines limited each lot to one flagpole, with a maximum height of 20 feet.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. The Petitioner, Joyce Monsanto, bore the burden of proof to show the HOA had violated the law or its own rules.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The governing legal documents that create the rules for a planned community. The Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated CC&R § 7.9, which outlines the appeal process for disapproved architectural applications.

Declarant

The original developer of a planned community who establishes the initial CC&Rs. In this case, K. Hovnanian was the Declarant for Four Seasons at the Manor.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

The governing organization in a planned community responsible for enforcing the CC&Rs and managing common areas. The Respondent, Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association, is an HOA.

Negative Implication

A principle of legal interpretation which holds that the explicit inclusion of one thing implies the intentional exclusion of another. The ALJ used this to argue that because CC&R § 7.9 (appeals) does not specify that a written decision must be sent to the owner, unlike CC&R § 7.8 (initial applications), that requirement should not be read into the appeal rule.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent Arizona state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, providing an impartial forum to resolve disputes.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Joyce H. Monsanto is the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required in this civil case. It is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact (the judge) that a contention is “more probably true than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association is the Respondent.

Restrictive Covenant

A legally enforceable rule within the CC&Rs that limits what a homeowner can do with their property. The rule limiting homes to one flagpole is an example of a restrictive covenant.

Waiver

The act of intentionally relinquishing a known right or claim. The Petitioner argued that the HOA board could, and should, have waived the one-flagpole rule for her under CC&R § 7.6.

HOA vs. Military Family: 4 Lessons from a Legal Battle Over a Flagpole

For Joyce Monsanto, a member of a dedicated military family, displaying her patriotism was a matter of pride. Her husband served 25 years in the Marines, and her two sons have spent decades in the Marines and the Coast Guard. Naturally, she wanted to fly both the flag of the United States and the flag of the U.S. Marine Corps at her Arizona home. But when she submitted her plan to her Homeowners Association (HOA), she was met with a firm “no.”

The conflict wasn’t about the flags themselves. The Four Seasons at the Manor HOA had no issue with her displaying both. The dispute centered on how she wanted to display them. It was a disagreement over her vision for a symmetrical, two-pole display versus the HOA’s “one flagpole per lot” rule. This architectural dispute escalated from a simple request into a formal administrative hearing.

Ms. Monsanto’s fight reveals several surprising truths about the power of HOA rules and the specific language written into state law. Her case ultimately failed on two fronts—a substantive challenge to the rule itself, and a procedural challenge to how the HOA handled her appeal. Here’s what every homeowner can learn from each.

1. Your Right to Fly the Flag Has Limits—And They’re Written into Law.

Many homeowners believe the right to fly the American flag is unconditional. However, the legal reality is more nuanced. While Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1808) prevents an HOA from outright prohibiting the display of U.S. or military flags, it explicitly allows the association to create “reasonable rules and regulations” for their placement and manner of display.

The statute is specific about what these rules can cover. An HOA can legally regulate the size and location of flagpoles and can limit a homeowner to displaying no more than two flags at once. In this case, the HOA’s architectural guidelines permitted two flags, but only on a single flagpole. The Administrative Law Judge found this “one flagpole per lot” rule was a “reasonable” regulation and therefore perfectly legal. To underscore that the HOA’s stance was not about a lack of patriotism, the judge noted testimony that the HOA president himself “placed 140 small flags on his property” for Memorial Day. The issue was about the uniform enforcement of an architectural rule, not the patriotic display itself.

2. Your Personal Taste Is No Match for the Community Rulebook.

During the hearing, Ms. Monsanto acknowledged that she could fly both of her flags from a single pole as the HOA rules allowed. Her reason for wanting two poles was a matter of personal preference. She testified that she “wanted to install two flagpoles for aesthetic reasons” and also felt that a single pole placed in the middle of her lot would block the view from her front window.

The judge was unmoved by this line of reasoning. In the final decision, the response was direct and unambiguous:

Petitioner’s petition is about her choice not to install a single flagpole for her own aesthetic reasons, not Respondent’s unreasonableness or lack of patriotism.

This is a foundational principle of community association law: homeowners trade a degree of personal autonomy for the perceived benefits of uniform standards and predictable property values. The judge’s decision simply reaffirms that bargain. In the world of planned communities, the established rulebook will almost always outweigh an individual’s personal taste.

3. In HOA Law, the Appeal Isn’t a Re-do—It’s a Different Process.

One of Ms. Monsanto’s key arguments was procedural. She believed her appeal should have been automatically approved because the HOA failed to provide a written decision within the 45-day deadline stipulated in its own rules (CC&R § 7.9). This is where the judge identified a subtle but crucial legal distinction buried in the HOA’s governing documents.

The HOA’s CC&Rs had two different sections for architectural requests:

• CC&R § 7.8 (Initial Requests): This section explicitly required the Board to “inform the submitting party of the final decision” with a “written response.”

• CC&R § 7.9 (Appeals): This section, however, only required the Board to “render its written decision” within 45 days.

That small difference in wording—”written response” versus “written decision”—was the linchpin of her procedural case. The judge ruled that for an appeal, the HOA was not required to send a personal letter or direct notice to Ms. Monsanto. It only had to create a written record of its decision within the timeframe.

4. A Post on an HOA Website Can Count as an Official “Written Decision.”

The final surprise came down to what constitutes a “written decision” and how the deadline was met. Ms. Monsanto was waiting for a formal letter informing her that her appeal had been denied. She never received one. Her appeal was filed on October 1, 2018, starting a 45-day clock.

The judge found the HOA satisfied its obligation in a two-step process:

1. The Decision: The Board verbally denied her appeal during its public meeting on November 8, 2018. This action, which occurred 38 days after her appeal, fulfilled the requirement to “render its decision” within the 45-day period.

2. The Writing: That decision was then recorded in the draft meeting minutes, which were posted on the Board’s website on December 4, 2018. Ms. Monsanto acknowledged seeing the posted minutes.

The judge ruled that these online minutes satisfied the separate legal requirement for a “writing memorializing its decision.” Even though they weren’t sent directly to her, the publicly posted minutes served as the official record of the timely denial of her appeal, closing the final door on her argument for automatic approval.

Conclusion: Before You Plant Your Flag, Read the Fine Print

Joyce Monsanto’s case is a cautionary tale on two levels. First, it shows that even cherished rights like displaying the flag are subject to reasonable, neutrally-applied community rules. Second, and more critically, it demonstrates that procedural arguments live and die by the most precise definitions in the governing documents. A single word can be the difference between winning an appeal and being ordered to take your flagpole down.

This case came down to the difference between a “written response” and a “written decision”—do you know what the fine print says about your rights in your community?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Joyce H Monsanto (petitioner)
Appeared on her own behalf

Respondent Side

Mark K. Sahl (HOA attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
Anthony Nunziato (board member)
Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association
President of the Board of Directors; also referred to as 'Tony'
Annette McCraw (property manager)
Community Manager/Trestle Management (implied)
Sent Notice of Disapproval on behalf of Respondent
Marc Vasquez (HOA representative)
Addressed Petitioner's claim regarding violation letters at the Board meeting

Neutral Parties

Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Tom J Martin v. SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc.

Posted on April 26, 2019 by [email protected]

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

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1918022-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-05-10
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the dismissal of the petition on rehearing, ruling that the HOA's website and policy manual are not 'community documents' as defined by statute, and therefore the Department has no jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding them. Additionally, the requested financial relief was outside the ALJ's authority.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Tom J Martin	Counsel	—
Respondent	SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc.	Counsel	Carolyn B. Goldschmidt

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A); ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(2)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the dismissal of the petition on rehearing, ruling that the HOA's website and policy manual are not 'community documents' as defined by statute, and therefore the Department has no jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding them. Additionally, the requested financial relief was outside the ALJ's authority.

Why this result: Lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the alleged violations did not involve the declaration, bylaws, articles of incorporation, or rules of the planned community.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of HOA website and Policy Manual (Policy BC-3) regarding pickleball courts

Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated its website and policy manual by failing to provide pickleball courts as marketed. The Respondent moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing these documents are not community documents. The ALJ affirmed the dismissal, finding that policies and website statements do not fall under the statutory definition of community documents in A.R.S. § 33-1802(2), thus the Department lacked jurisdiction.

Orders: Petitioner Tom J. Martin’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: jurisdiction, community documents, policy manual, pickleball courts, dismissal, rehearing

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-213
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904
Walker v. Scottsdale, 163 Ariz. 206, 786 P.2d 1057 (App. 1989)
McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918022-REL-RHG Decision – 704322.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:27:17 (89.7 KB)

Briefing Document: Martin v. SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc. (Case No. 19F-H1918022-REL-RHG)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Tom J. Martin versus SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc., which resulted in the dismissal of the petitioner’s case. The decision, issued on May 10, 2019, centered on a critical jurisdictional question: whether an HOA’s website content and internal policy manual constitute “community documents” under Arizona state law.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded they do not. The petitioner’s claim, which alleged the HOA failed to provide pickleball courts as promised on its website and in its “Policy Number BC-3,” was dismissed because it did not allege a violation of a legally recognized “community document.” According to Arizona Revised Statutes, such documents are strictly defined as the declaration, bylaws, articles of incorporation, and formally adopted rules. As the petitioner’s initial filing cited only the website and a policy not adopted as a rule, the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked the statutory jurisdiction to hear the case. Furthermore, the ALJ determined that the petitioner’s requested relief—a financial award of $463,112 or the construction of eight new courts—was beyond the scope of the tribunal’s authority.

Case Overview

Case Name

Tom J. Martin v. SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc.

Case Number

19F-H1918022-REL-RHG

Tribunal

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Petitioner

Tom J. Martin

Respondent

SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc.

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden

Date of Decision

May 10, 2019

Petitioner’s Core Allegations and Requested Relief

The petition filed by Tom J. Martin on September 28, 2018, was founded on the central allegation that the SaddleBrooke HOA violated its own website content and its internal policy manual, specifically “Policy Number BC-3.”

• Primary Allegation: The HOA failed to fulfill its advertised and marketed promise to provide pickleball courts.

• Cited Violations: In the initial petition, Martin explicitly alleged violations of the HOA’s website and policy manual. While he checked boxes on the petition form indicating violations of the CC&Rs and Bylaws, he failed to identify any specific provisions from those documents.

• Requested Relief: The petitioner sought a significant remedy from the HOA, requesting one of the following:

1. Financial support in the amount of $463,112.00 for the expansion of pickleball courts in Bobcat Canyon.

2. The provision of eight new pickleball courts within a two-mile radius of the community within one year.

3. A commitment from the HOA to be financially responsible for the maintenance of pickleball courts in an amount equal to its spending on eight tennis courts.

Procedural History and Key Arguments

The case progressed through several key stages, culminating in a rehearing and a final dismissal.

1. Initial Petition (September 28, 2018): Mr. Martin filed his single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (November 30, 2018): The HOA argued that the Department of Real Estate lacked jurisdiction over the matter. Its core argument was that hearings under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01 are limited to violations of “community documents,” and that a website and an internal policy do not meet the legal definition of such documents. The HOA also contended the requested relief was outside the tribunal’s authority.

3. Petitioner’s Response (December 4, 2018): In his response, Mr. Martin argued that a “policy” should be interpreted as a “rule” under its ordinary meaning. He further asserted that another HOA policy (CE-3) defined “governing documents” to include “Rules and Regulations,” and therefore Policy BC-3 should be considered a governing document.

4. Initial Dismissal (December 12, 2018): The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding that it had not alleged a violation meeting the statutory requirements.

5. Request for Rehearing (December 31, 2018): Mr. Martin requested a rehearing, reasserting that a “policy” is a “rule.” In this request, he newly alleged that the HOA had violated specific provisions: Bylaws article 4, section 6(3) and Articles of Incorporation Article XII, by failing to implement policy BC-3.

6. Rehearing (April 16, 2019): A rehearing was conducted where both parties presented their cases. The respondent renewed its argument regarding lack of jurisdiction.

Central Legal Dispute: The Definition of “Community Documents”

The determinative issue of the case was the precise legal definition of “community documents” and whether the petitioner’s claims fell within that scope.

• Statutory Definition: The court’s decision was anchored in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(2), which defines community documents as:

◦ The declaration (CC&Rs)

◦ Bylaws

◦ Articles of incorporation, if any

◦ Rules, if any

• The Court’s Finding: The ALJ concluded that this legislative definition is exclusive and does not include “a planned community’s statements of policy, statements on its website, or advertising and marketing material.”

• Petitioner’s Argument Rejected: Mr. Martin’s argument that Policy BC-3 should be considered a rule was found to be “not persuasive.” A critical finding of fact was that the “Respondent has not adopted policy BC-3 as a rule” under the authority granted in its CC&Rs (section 4.5). The tribunal must follow the legislature’s explicit definition.

Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions and Final Order

The ALJ’s conclusions of law led directly to the dismissal of the petition on jurisdictional grounds.

• Lack of Jurisdiction: Because Mr. Martin’s original petition only alleged that the respondent violated its website and policy manual—neither of which are “community documents” under Arizona law—the petition failed to meet the foundational requirements for a hearing under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A).

• Improper Relief Requested: The ALJ also concluded that the relief Mr. Martin sought was not within the tribunal’s authority. Under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02, an ALJ may order a party to abide by statutes or community documents and may levy civil penalties. The statute does not grant the authority to order large financial payments for construction or to mandate specific capital improvement projects.

• Final Order: Based on these conclusions, the petition was dismissed.

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Tom J. Martin’s petition is dismissed.

The decision, having been issued as the result of a rehearing, is binding on the parties. Any appeal must be filed for judicial review with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date of the order’s service.

Study Guide: Martin v. SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc.

This guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Tom J. Martin vs. SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc. (No. 19F-H1918022-REL-RHG). It is designed to test and deepen understanding of the case’s facts, legal arguments, and final outcome.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based on the information provided in the source document.

1. Who were the Petitioner and Respondent in case No. 19F-H1918022-REL-RHG?

2. What was the central allegation made by the Petitioner in his initial petition filed on or about September 28, 2018?

3. Describe the two alternative forms of relief the Petitioner requested in his petition.

4. On what primary legal grounds did the Respondent file its Motion to Dismiss?

5. According to Arizona Revised Statute section 33-1802(2), what are the four types of documents that constitute “community documents”?

6. Explain the two main arguments the Petitioner made in his Response to the Motion to Dismiss for why Policy BC-3 should be considered a governing document.

7. What new violation did the Petitioner allege in his request for a rehearing on December 31, 2019?

8. According to the Administrative Law Judge’s findings, what was the final outcome of the Petitioner’s petition and the primary reason for this decision?

9. According to A.R.S. § 32-2199.02, what powers does an administrative law judge have if a violation of community documents is found?

10. What is the process and time frame for a party wishing to appeal this Administrative Law Judge order?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was Tom J. Martin, who appeared on his own behalf. The Respondent was SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc., which was represented by Carolyn B. Goldschmidt, Esq.

2. In his initial petition, Mr. Martin’s single-issue allegation was that the Respondent violated its website and its policy manual, specifically Policy Number BC-3. He included printouts from the website and a copy of the policy with his petition.

3. The Petitioner requested financial support in the sum of $463,112.00 for the expansion of pickleball courts in Bobcat Canyon. Alternatively, he requested that the Respondent provide eight pickleball courts within a two-mile radius of the community within one year, and be financially responsible for their maintenance at a level equal to its spending on eight tennis courts.

4. The Respondent argued that the Arizona Department of Real Estate lacked jurisdiction over the matter. This was because hearings are limited to disputes over “community documents,” and neither the website nor Policy BC-3 qualified as such under the definition provided in ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1802(2).

5. Arizona Revised Statute section 33-1802(2) defines “community documents” as “the declaration, bylaws, articles of incorporation, if any, and rules, if any.”

6. First, Mr. Martin argued that based on A.R.S. § 1-213, the word “policy” should be given its ordinary meaning, which is a rule. Second, he asserted that because the Respondent’s own policy CE-3 defines “governing documents” to include Rules and Regulations, then BC-3 must be a governing document.

7. In his request for a rehearing, Mr. Martin alleged for the first time that the Respondent had violated its bylaws, specifically article 4, section 6(3), by failing to implement policy BC-3. He also alleged a violation of Articles of Incorporation Article XII.

8. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that Mr. Martin’s petition be dismissed. The dismissal was based on the finding that the petition did not meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A) because it alleged violations of a website and a policy manual, which are not legally defined as “community documents.”

9. If a violation is found, an administrative law judge may order any party to abide by the statute or document at issue. The judge may also levy a civil penalty for each violation and, if the petitioner prevails, order the respondent to pay the petitioner’s filing fee.

10. A party wishing to appeal the order must seek judicial review by filing an appeal with the superior court. This appeal must be filed within thirty-five days from the date a copy of the order was served upon the parties, as prescribed by A.R.S. section 12-904(A).

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response for each question based on the facts and legal principles presented in the decision.

1. Analyze the concept of jurisdiction as it applies to this case. Why was the distinction between “community documents” and other materials like websites or policy manuals the central factor in the judge’s jurisdictional decision?

2. Trace the procedural history of this case, from Mr. Martin’s initial petition to the final order of dismissal. Identify the key filings, arguments, and decisions at each stage of the process.

3. Evaluate the legal arguments presented by Mr. Martin. Explain his reasoning for equating a “policy” with a “rule” and why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found this argument unpersuasive, citing relevant statutes and case law mentioned in the decision.

4. Discuss the limitations on the relief an Administrative Law Judge can grant in disputes involving planned communities, as outlined in A.R.S. § 32-2199.02. How did Mr. Martin’s requested relief fall outside the scope of the judge’s authority?

5. Explain the legal principle that when a legislature defines a word or term, a tribunal must follow that definition. How did this principle, as cited in Walker v. Scottsdale, directly influence the outcome of Mr. Martin’s petition?

——————————————————————————–

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. In this case, the ALJ was Thomas Shedden.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. (A.R.S.)

The abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the State of Arizona.

Articles of Incorporation

A set of formal documents filed with a government body to legally document the creation of a corporation. Defined in A.R.S. § 33-1802(2) as one of the “community documents.”

Bylaws

A set of rules adopted by an organization, such as an HOA, to govern its internal management and operations. Defined in A.R.S. § 33-1802(2) as one of the “community documents.”

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

Rules governing the use of land within a particular planned community. Section 4.5 of the Respondent’s CC&Rs sets out its authority to adopt rules.

Community Documents

As defined by A.R.S. § 33-1802(2), these are “the declaration, bylaws, articles of incorporation, if any, and rules, if any.” The central legal issue of the case was whether the Respondent’s website and policy manual qualified as community documents.

Jurisdiction

The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The Respondent argued, and the ALJ agreed, that the Office of Administrative Hearings did not have jurisdiction because the alleged violations did not involve “community documents.”

Motion to Dismiss

A formal request by a party for a court or tribunal to dismiss a case. The Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on November 30, 2018, arguing a lack of jurisdiction.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal case. In this matter, the Petitioner was Tom J. Martin.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case to reconsider the issues and arguments, granted in this instance after the initial dismissal. The rehearing was conducted on April 16, 2019.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the Respondent was SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc.

Regulations adopted by a planned community association. The decision notes that while the Respondent has the authority to adopt rules, it had not adopted policy BC-3 as a rule.

4 Harsh Lessons from a Homeowner’s Failed Lawsuit Against His HOA

Introduction: The Promise vs. The Paperwork

Imagine finding the perfect community. Its website advertises fantastic amenities, including the pickleball courts you’ve been dreaming of. The association’s own policy manual seems to confirm this commitment. But what happens when the courts are never built and the homeowner association (HOA) doesn’t deliver on these perceived promises?

This isn’t a hypothetical scenario. It’s the central conflict in the case of Tom J. Martin versus the SaddleBrooke HOA in Arizona. Mr. Martin believed his HOA was legally obligated to provide pickleball courts based on its policies and marketing materials. His subsequent lawsuit, however, failed spectacularly, revealing some surprising truths about HOA disputes. This case provides several critical, counter-intuitive lessons for any current or future homeowner about the difference between a promise and a legally enforceable contract.

——————————————————————————–

1. A “Policy” Isn’t Always a Legally Binding “Rule”

Mr. Martin’s argument was straightforward: he believed the HOA violated its own “policy manual,” specifically a section referred to as Policy BC-3, by not providing pickleball courts. He contended that, in the ordinary sense of the word, a “policy” is a rule that must be followed.

The judge, however, dismissed the case based on a harsh legal reality. According to Arizona law, the court’s jurisdiction in this type of hearing is limited to violations of official “community documents.” The judge was bound by the statute’s specific definition of what constitutes these documents.

Based on Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1802(2), “community documents” are strictly defined as:

• The declaration (often called CC&Rs)

• Bylaws

• Articles of incorporation

• Rules

Crucially, the HOA’s own CC&Rs specified the exact procedure for how to adopt an enforceable rule, and the association had never subjected Policy BC-3 to that formal process. It wasn’t just a legal technicality; the HOA was following its own governing documents about how to create—or not create—a binding rule. Because the pickleball policy had not been formally adopted, it was legally unenforceable in this hearing.

Key Takeaway Analysis: In a legal dispute, the common-sense meaning of a word can be overruled by a specific statutory definition. It’s not enough to read an HOA’s policy manual. As a homeowner, you must cross-reference that policy with the CC&Rs or Bylaws to confirm the HOA has followed its own stated procedure for adopting it as a formal, legally binding rule.

——————————————————————————–

2. Marketing Materials Are Not Governing Documents

To support his case, Mr. Martin presented printouts from the HOA’s website. He felt these materials advertised and marketed the availability of pickleball courts, stating in a legal filing that “the Association is in violation for not providing pickleball courts as advertised and marketed….”

The judge’s conclusion was unequivocal: advertising and marketing materials, just like the internal policy manual, do not qualify as “community documents.” The legal definition is exclusive, and an HOA’s website is not on the list. Therefore, promises or suggestions made on a website carry no legal weight in a dispute over violations of governing documents.

Key Takeaway Analysis: There is a significant gap between marketing promises and legally enforceable obligations. For potential buyers, this is a critical warning. The glossy brochure, the community website, and the sales pitch might paint a picture of community life, but that picture is not guaranteed by the legally binding documents you sign at closing.

——————————————————————————–

3. You Must Allege a Violation of theRightDocument

The case also reveals a crucial lesson in legal procedure. In his initial petition, Mr. Martin only alleged violations of the HOA’s website and its policy manual. While his petition form indicated alleged violations of the “CC&Rs and Bylaws,” he failed to identify any specific provisions within those official documents that the HOA had actually violated.

It was only after his case was first dismissed that he attempted to specify violations of the Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation in his request for a rehearing. By then, it was too late. The initial petition failed to allege a violation of a legitimate community document.

Key Takeaway Analysis: Precision is paramount. To successfully challenge an HOA in an administrative hearing, a homeowner cannot just have a general grievance. You must be able to pinpoint the exact article, section, and provision of an official “community document” (like the CC&Rs or Bylaws) that was violated and state it clearly in your initial complaint.

——————————————————————————–

4. The Court May Not Have the Power to Grant Your Request

Mr. Martin was clear about what he wanted the court to do. He requested one of two specific forms of relief:

• Provide financial support of $463,112.00 for the expansion of pickleball courts in Bobcat Canyon.

• Alternatively, construct eight new pickleball courts within a two-mile radius of the community within one year, with the HOA being financially responsible for their maintenance.

The judge noted a final, critical problem with the case: the requested relief was “not within the scope of the Administrative Law Judge’s authority.” The law governing these hearings simply did not give the judge the power to order an HOA to undertake a massive, six-figure construction project.

Key Takeaway Analysis: Even if you have a valid case and prove the HOA violated a rule, the court or tribunal you are in has limits. An administrative hearing might only be empowered to levy a civil penalty or issue an order for the HOA to abide by an existing rule. It likely cannot force the HOA to build new facilities or make large capital expenditures. This highlights the need to research the legal venue before you file to ensure it has the authority to grant the specific outcome you are seeking.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Read Before You Litigate

The outcome of Mr. Martin’s lawsuit underscores the critical difference between a homeowner’s reasonable expectations and an HOA’s legally enforceable covenants. For homeowners, disputes are won or lost based on the precise wording of official governing documents—the CC&Rs, bylaws, and formal rules.

Before you challenge your HOA, have you read the fine print to see if their promise is written in the one place that truly matters?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Tom J. Martin (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Carolyn B. Goldschmidt (respondent attorney)
Goldschmidt, Shupe, PLLC
Michael S. Shupe (attorney)
Goldschmidt, Shupe, PLLC
Recipient of transmittal

Neutral Parties

Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmittal
LDettorre (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmittal (Identified by email handle portion)
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmittal (Identified by email handle portion)
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmittal (Identified by email handle portion)
DGardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmittal (Identified by email handle portion)
ncano (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmittal (Identified by email handle portion)

Other Participants

JS (Unknown staff)
Transmittal initials

Charles P Mandela vs. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association of

Posted on November 6, 2018 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1918006-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-02-28
Administrative Law Judge	Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome	none
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Charles P. Mandela	Counsel	—
Respondent	Blue Ridge Estates of Coconino County Homeowners' Association	Counsel	Paul K. Frame, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs § 3.1(a)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the homeowner's petition in its entirety, finding the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated CC&R § 3.1(a) when denying the construction of a cedar patio structure.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish that the HOA violated CC&R 3.1(a). The proposed structure was found to be a second detached structure and/or a temporary structure barred by the community documents, and the Petitioner had previously failed to submit sufficient information for an attached structure proposal.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&Rs § 3.1(a) by denying request for patio structure while allowing another member to erect a Tuff Shed.

Petitioner alleged the HOA improperly denied his request for a detached cedar patio structure (150 sq ft) based on CC&R § 3.1(A) which limits properties to one detached structure (Petitioner already had a tool shed). The ALJ found Petitioner failed to establish the violation, concluding the proposed structure was a second barred detached structure or a temporary structure (as concrete pavers were not equivalent to a required cement/block foundation). Petitioner also failed to provide sufficient architectural details for an attached structure request.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
CC&R § 3.1(a)
Architectural Committee Aligned Standard 3(D)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA rules enforcement, architectural review, detached structures, temporary structures, rehearing

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
CC&R § 3.1(a)
Architectural Committee Aligned Standard 3(D)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918006-REL Decision – 692294.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:15:26 (119.5 KB)

19F-H1918006-REL Decision – 669528.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:15:30 (91.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates HOA

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and conclusions from two administrative law hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner Charles P. Mandela and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association of Coconino County (“Blue Ridge”). The core of the dispute was Blue Ridge’s repeated denial of Mr. Mandela’s requests to construct a 150-square-foot cedar patio structure on his property.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately denied Mr. Mandela’s petition in both an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing, finding that the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish any violation of the association’s governing documents. The ALJ’s decisions affirmed that Blue Ridge acted within its authority and correctly applied its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and architectural regulations.

Key takeaways from the rulings include:

• Violation of Detached Structure Limit: Mr. Mandela’s request for a detached patio was denied because he already had a tool shed, and the HOA rules explicitly permit only one detached structure per property.

• Improper “Play Structure” Request: An initial request framing the patio as a “play structure” was correctly denied as its proposed 150 sq. ft. size exceeded the 80 sq. ft. limit for certain play structures.

• Insufficient Plans for Attached Structure: A separate request to attach the structure to his home was denied due to Mr. Mandela’s failure to provide the required detailed architectural plans and construction drawings, which the HOA deemed necessary for approval.

• Arguments Found Lacking: Mr. Mandela’s arguments—including claims of selective enforcement, discrimination against homeowners without children, and misinterpretation of the term “temporary structure”—were found to be unsubstantiated by evidence. The ALJ concluded the structure would be a prohibited temporary structure as the proposed concrete pavers do not constitute a permanent foundation under the HOA’s definition.

Case Overview

Parties Involved

Description

Petitioner

Charles P. Mandela

A homeowner and member of the Blue Ridge Estates HOA.

Respondent

Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association of Coconino County

The governing homeowners’ association for the Blue Ridge Estates development.

Adjudicator

Velva Moses-Thompson

Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings.

Timeline of Key Events

c. Feb 1, 2018

Mr. Mandela submits his first request for a 150 sq. ft. patio, using a “Play Structure Approval Request” form. Blue Ridge denies it for exceeding the size limit.

c. Mar 2, 2018

Mr. Mandela submits a second request, this time to attach a cedar patio shade to his home. Blue Ridge requests detailed plans and materials.

c. Mar 8, 2018

Blue Ridge denies the request for an attached structure due to “incomplete information,” instructing Mr. Mandela to provide formal drawings as per CC&R guidelines.

c. Mar 23, 2018

Mr. Mandela files an internal appeal with Blue Ridge, which is subsequently denied for the same reason of incomplete construction information.

Post-Mar 23, 2018

Mr. Mandela submits a third request for a detached 150 sq. ft. cedar patio structure. Blue Ridge denies it because he already has a detached tool shed.

c. Jul 31, 2018

Mr. Mandela files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging Blue Ridge violated CC&R § 3.1(a) by denying his request while allowing another member a Tuff Shed.

Oct 17, 2018

An evidentiary hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Nov 6, 2018

The ALJ issues the initial decision, denying Mr. Mandela’s petition.

Dec 12, 2018

The Arizona Department of Real Estate orders a rehearing of the matter.

Feb 8, 2019

The rehearing is held before the same ALJ.

Feb 28, 2019

The ALJ issues the final decision, again finding in favor of Blue Ridge and denying Mr. Mandela’s petition.

Analysis of Construction Requests and Denials

Mr. Mandela made three distinct applications to the Blue Ridge Architectural Committee for his proposed 150 sq. ft. cedar patio structure, each of which was denied for different reasons based on the HOA’s governing documents.

Request 1: Detached “Play Structure”

Mr. Mandela’s initial application on February 1, 2018, was submitted using a “Play Structure Approval Request” form.

• HOA Rule: The form, based on modified Rules and Regulations from April 6, 2016, states: “Cannot exceed 80 SF if it’s a Tree House, Tree Viewing Stand, Play House/Fort.”

• Denial Rationale: Blue Ridge denied the request because the proposed 150 sq. ft. size of the structure exceeded the 80 sq. ft. limit specified for this type of structure.

Request 2: Attached Cedar Patio Shade

On March 2, 2018, Mr. Mandela submitted a new request to attach the structure to his home.

• HOA Action: The committee chairman, John Hart, requested documents showing the structure would not be free-standing, such as plans and material specifications.

• Mandela’s Response: In a March 3 email, Mr. Mandela stated: “I am building this myself. I am not an Architect, I have not software to show (6) 2 by 4”s to attach from the single family roof lie to the roof lien of the same roof.” He asserted that photos of other attached structures were sufficient.

• Denial Rationale: The request was denied on March 8 due to “incomplete information.” The denial letter explicitly instructed Mr. Mandela to submit all required documents, including drawings that “match exactly what you are going to build,” per CC&R Section 10.3. His subsequent appeal was also denied, with Blue Ridge noting that a manufacturer’s representative stated they would not warranty the product if the design was altered and reiterating the need for detailed elevation drawings.

Request 3: Detached Cedar Patio Structure

Following the denial of his appeal, Mr. Mandela submitted a third request for a detached version of the patio.

• HOA Rule: According to CC&R § 3.1(A) and Architectural Committee Aligned Standard 3(D), “One detached structure may… be constructed on a property.”

• Denial Rationale: Blue Ridge denied this request because Mr. Mandela already had one detached structure—a tool shed—on his property. The rules permit only one such structure.

Key Arguments and Rulings from Administrative Hearings

At the initial hearing and subsequent rehearing, both parties presented arguments regarding the application of the HOA’s rules. The ALJ systematically addressed and ruled on each point, ultimately concluding that the petitioner failed to prove his case.

Petitioner’s Core Arguments (Charles P. Mandela)

• Definition of “Detached Structure”: He argued that his proposed patio was not a “detached structure” under the CC&Rs because, based on his misinterpretation of a prior administrative ruling, a detached structure is one that can be easily converted into a second residence.

• Selective Enforcement: He alleged that Blue Ridge approved a “Tuff Shed” for another member and was not enforcing the 80 sq. ft. play structure size limit against other homeowners, thus discriminating against him.

• Discriminatory Rules: He contended that the rule allowing a second detached structure if it is a “play structure” violates CC&R 3.1 because it discriminates against people without children. He stated he wanted the patio for his mother.

• Definition of “Temporary Structure”: He asserted the structure was not a prohibited temporary structure because he planned to use concrete pavers, which he claimed constituted a “cement foundation” under the rules, and the materials had a 5-year warranty.

Respondent’s Core Arguments (Blue Ridge Estates HOA)

• One Detached Structure Rule: The rules unambiguously limit homeowners to one detached structure, and Mr. Mandela already had one.

• Incomplete Submissions: The request for an attached structure lacked the necessary architectural details to ensure it was properly and safely constructed, as required by the CC&Rs. Joseph Hancock, Vice President of Blue Ridge and a former contractor, testified that Mr. Mandela failed to consider critical factors like height and width differentials.

• Temporary Structure Violation: Mr. Hancock testified that a concrete paver is not the equivalent of a “cement or slab foundation.” Therefore, the proposed structure would be a prohibited temporary structure under the CC&Rs.

• No Selective Enforcement: Mr. Hancock refuted Mr. Mandela’s claims of selective enforcement, testifying that the lots Mr. Mandela cited either had structures built before 2003 (predating certain rules) or had no detached structures at all.

Administrative Law Judge’s Final Conclusions

The ALJ found that Mr. Mandela failed to establish his claims by a preponderance of the evidence. The final order denied his petition based on the following conclusions of law:

• Burden of Proof: The petitioner did not meet his burden to prove that Blue Ridge violated CC&R Article III, Section 3.1(a).

• Second Detached Structure: It was undisputed that Mr. Mandela had a shed on his property. The proposed 150 sq. ft. patio therefore constituted a barred second detached structure.

• Prior Rulings Not Precedent: The ALJ noted that Mr. Mandela misinterpreted the prior administrative decision he cited and, furthermore, that “prior administrative law judge decisions are not precedent or binding on future administrative law decisions.”

• Temporary Structure: The preponderance of the evidence showed the proposed structure is a temporary structure under the CC&Rs because “concrete pavers are not the equivalent of cement or block foundation.”

• Denial of Attached Structure: The denial of the request to attach the structure was proper, as the “Petitioner failed to provide sufficient details to illustrate how he would attach the cedar patio structure to his home.”

• No Evidence of Discrimination: The petitioner failed to establish that Blue Ridge approved other oversized play structures or that the denial of his requests was discriminatory. The ALJ also noted the tribunal lacked jurisdiction over potential constitutional claims under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Relevant HOA Governing Documents

Document/Section

Key Provision / Definition

CC&R § 3.1

Permitted Uses and Restrictions – Single Family: “No building or structure shall be erected or maintained separate from the Single Family Residence located on any Lot, other than a garage…”

Architectural Committee Aligned Standard 3(D)

Detached Structures: “One detached structure may, with Architectural Committee approval, be constructed on a property.”

CC&R § 3.6 & Aligned Standard

Temporary Structures: Prohibits temporary structures. A temporary structure is defined as one “without a cement or block foundation to which the structure or building is permanently attached.”

Modified Rules and Regulations (April 6, 2016)

Play Structures: Allows up to two play structures but specifies they “Cannot exceed 80 SF if it’s a Tree House, Tree Viewing Stand, Play House/Fort.”

CC&R § 3.24

Architectural Approval: “No building, fence, wall, screen, residence or other structure shall be commenced, erected, maintained, improved or altered… without the prior written approval of the… Architectural Committee.”

CC&R § 10.3

Architectural Submission Guidelines: Specifies the format and information required for submittals to the architectural committee.

CC&R § 12.2

Declaration Amendments: Requires an affirmative vote or written consent of members owning at least 75% of all lots to amend the Declaration.

Study Guide: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates HOA

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between petitioner Charles P. Mandela and respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association of Coconino County. The case revolves around Mr. Mandela’s multiple attempts to gain approval for a patio structure on his property and the subsequent legal proceedings. The material is drawn from two Administrative Law Judge Decisions, dated November 6, 2018, and February 28, 2019.

——————————————————————————–

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing your information directly from the provided case documents.

1. What were the three distinct requests Mr. Mandela submitted to the Blue Ridge Estates HOA, and what was the outcome of each?

2. Explain the HOA’s rule regarding detached structures and why Mr. Mandela’s third request for a detached patio was denied under this rule.

3. On what grounds did the HOA deny Mr. Mandela’s second request to attach a cedar patio shade to his home?

4. What was Mr. Mandela’s primary allegation in his initial petition filed with the Department of Real Estate on July 31, 2018?

5. How do the Blue Ridge rules define a “temporary structure,” and why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude Mr. Mandela’s proposed patio fell into this category?

6. Describe Mr. Mandela’s discrimination argument regarding the HOA’s policy on play structures.

7. What is the legal standard of proof the petitioner was required to meet in this case, and what does this standard mean?

8. Mr. Mandela cited a prior administrative law judge decision to support his case. What was his interpretation of that decision, and how did the presiding judge respond to this line of argument?

9. Who is Joseph Hancock, and what key pieces of testimony did he provide on behalf of the HOA during the rehearing?

10. According to the CC&Rs, what is the procedural difference between amending the Declaration (the CC&Rs themselves) versus adopting new “Rules and Regulations”?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. Mr. Mandela first submitted a “Play Structure Approval Request” for a 150-square-foot patio, which was denied for exceeding the 80-square-foot size limit for such structures. His second request was to attach a cedar patio shade to his home, which was denied due to incomplete information and a lack of adequate plans. His third request was for a detached 150-square-foot patio structure, which was denied because he already had another detached structure on his property.

2. According to CC&Rs § 3.1(A) and Architectural Committee regulation 3(D), a property is permitted to have only one detached structure. Mr. Mandela’s third request was denied because it was undisputed that he already had a tool shed on his property. The proposed detached patio would have constituted a prohibited second detached structure.

3. The HOA denied the request to attach the patio shade because Mr. Mandela submitted incomplete information and failed to provide sufficient plans. The HOA requested detailed elevation drawings showing construction methods, dimensions, foundation details, and attachment methods, which Mr. Mandela did not provide.

4. In his petition of July 31, 2018, Mr. Mandela alleged that the Blue Ridge HOA had violated CC&Rs § 3.1(a). His specific claim was that the HOA discriminated against him by denying his request to place a patio structure in his backyard while allowing another member to erect a Tuff Shed.

5. The Architectural Committee rules define a temporary structure as one “without a cement or block foundation to which the structure or building is permanently attached.” The judge concluded the proposed patio was a temporary structure because Mr. Mandela planned to use concrete pavers, which, according to the credible testimony of Joseph Hancock, are not the equivalent of a permanent cement or block foundation.

6. Mr. Mandela argued that the modified rule allowing a second detached play structure (up to 80 sq ft) violates CC&R 3.1 because it discriminates against people who do not have children. He asserted the policy was unfair because he wanted to build the structure for his mother to rest outside, not for children’s play.

7. The petitioner, Mr. Mandela, had the burden of proof to establish his claim by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as evidence that has the most convincing force and is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of an issue rather than the other, meaning the contention is more probably true than not.

8. Mr. Mandela argued that a prior administrative law judge decision had found that a “detached structure” under Blue Ridge CC&Rs is a structure that can be easily converted into a second residence, which his patio could not. The presiding judge dismissed this by stating that Mr. Mandela misinterpreted the prior ruling and, more importantly, that prior administrative law judge decisions are not binding precedent for future decisions.

9. Joseph Hancock is the Vice President of the Blue Ridge HOA and a former general, electrical, and HVAC contractor. He testified that concrete pavers are not equivalent to a cement or block foundation, that Mr. Mandela’s plans for attaching the structure were insufficient, and that he had investigated lots Mr. Mandela cited for alleged violations and found none.

10. According to the CC&Rs, adopting, amending, or repealing “Rules and Regulations” can be done by a majority vote of the Board (§ 4.2). In contrast, amending the Declaration of CC&Rs themselves is a much more stringent process, requiring the affirmative vote or written consent of members owning at least seventy-five percent (75%) of all lots (§ 12.2).

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate your answers in a standard essay format, using specific evidence from the source documents to support your arguments.

1. Analyze the progression of Mr. Mandela’s three distinct requests to the HOA. How did the denial of his first request (as a “Play Structure”) appear to influence his subsequent applications and legal arguments?

2. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies in this case. Explain why Mr. Mandela ultimately failed to convince the Administrative Law Judge that the HOA violated its own rules, citing specific examples of his failed arguments (e.g., the temporary structure definition, claims of selective enforcement, and the adequacy of his submitted plans).

3. Examine the distinction made in the Blue Ridge Estates governing documents between the core CC&Rs and the “Rules and Regulations” adopted by the Board. How did this distinction allow the HOA to have a rule permitting a second “play structure” while the main CC&Rs seem to limit properties to a single residence and one other detached structure (a garage)?

4. The HOA denied Mr. Mandela’s request for an attached structure due to “incomplete information.” Based on the evidence presented in the decisions, evaluate the reasonableness of the HOA’s request for detailed plans versus Mr. Mandela’s assertion that he had provided sufficient information for approval.

5. Trace Mr. Mandela’s various claims of unfair treatment, including selective enforcement (the Tuff Shed), discrimination (the play structure rule), and his interpretation of key terms like “detached structure.” For each claim, explain the HOA’s counter-position or the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings for state agencies, such as the one between Mr. Mandela and the HOA. In this case, the ALJ was Velva Moses-Thompson.

Architectural Committee

A committee within the HOA granted authority by CC&R § 10.2 to approve or deny proposed construction and promulgate regulations aligned with the CC&Rs. It denied all of Mr. Mandela’s requests.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this case, the petitioner (Mr. Mandela) bore the burden of proof.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the primary governing documents for the Blue Ridge Estates community, outlining land use, permitted structures, and rules members must follow.

Detached Structure

A building or structure on a property that is separate from the main single-family residence. According to Architectural Committee regulation 3(D), only one such structure is permitted per lot.

Petitioner

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

Play Structure

A structure defined by the HOA’s modified rules to include items like Swing Sets, Jungle Gyms, Tree Houses, and Ground Placed Play Houses/Forts. Play Houses/Forts and Tree Houses are limited to 80 square feet.

Preponderance of the Evidence

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

Respondent

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

Rules and Regulations

Rules that can be adopted, amended, or repealed by a majority vote of the HOA Board, as distinct from the CC&Rs which require a 75% vote of all lot owners to amend. The “Play Structure” rules are an example.

Temporary Structure

As defined by the Architectural Committee regulations, a structure “without a cement or block foundation to which the structure or building is permanently attached.” Such structures are prohibited by CC&R § 3.6.

Select all sources

669528.pdf

692294.pdf

No emoji found

19F-H1918006-REL-RHG

2 sources

These sources document two decisions from the Office of Administrative Hearings concerning a dispute between Charles P. Mandela and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association (HOA). The first document presents the initial Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision which denied Mr. Mandela’s petition, finding he failed to prove the HOA violated its governing documents by denying his request to build a patio structure. The second document is the ALJ Decision following a rehearing, which reaffirms the initial denial, concluding that Mr. Mandela’s proposed structure was either a prohibited second detached structure or a temporary structure lacking a proper foundation, and that he failed to provide sufficient plans for an attached structure. Both sources establish that Mr. Mandela did not meet his burden of proof to show the HOA discriminated against him or otherwise violated the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

What were the specific reasons the HOA denied Charles Mandela’s requests?

How did the HOA Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions govern detached structures?

What was the ultimate outcome of Charles Mandela’s petition and subsequent rehearing?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Charles P. Mandela (petitioner)

Respondent Side

Paul Frame (HOA attorney)
FRAME LAW PLLC
John Hart (HOA Chairman)
Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association
Reviewed petitioner's requests
Joseph Hancock (HOA Vice President, witness)
Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association
Presented testimony

Neutral Parties

Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
OAH
Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmitted decision

Other Participants

Felicia Del Sol (administrative staff)
Transmitted decision electronically

Thomas P. Satterlee vs. Green Valley Country Club Vistas II Property

Posted on September 25, 2018 by [email protected]

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

Case Summary

Case ID	18F-H1817022-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2018-09-25
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	The petition was dismissed with prejudice upon rehearing because the Administrative Law Judge confirmed that the Respondent HOA did not meet the statutory definition of a 'planned community,' thereby depriving the OAH and ADRE of subject matter jurisdiction.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Thomas P. Satterlee	Counsel	—
Respondent	Green Valley Country Club Vistas II Property Owner's Association	Counsel	James A. Robles

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1802(4)

Outcome Summary

The petition was dismissed with prejudice upon rehearing because the Administrative Law Judge confirmed that the Respondent HOA did not meet the statutory definition of a 'planned community,' thereby depriving the OAH and ADRE of subject matter jurisdiction.

Why this result: The ALJ narrowly interpreted the statutory term 'roadway' to mean the part of the road intended for vehicles, excluding the landscaping maintenance performed by the HOA.

Key Issues & Findings

Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Planned Community Status

This issue was heard on rehearing. Petitioner argued that the maintenance of entrance landscaping constituted maintaining 'roadways' by interpreting the statutory term broadly, citing the 'Complete Streets' approach and Pima County right-of-way documents. The ALJ affirmed the original decision, holding that the plain meaning of 'roadway' is the part of the road intended for vehicles, not the entire right-of-way, and thus jurisdiction was lacking.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is dismissed with prejudice because the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Arizona Department of Real Estate lack subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1802
Ariz. Bd. of Regents for & on Behalf of Univ. of Ariz. v. State ex rel. State of Ariz. Pub. Safety Ret. Fund Manager Adm’r, 160 Ariz. 150, 156 (App. 1989)
Swichtenberg v. Jack Brimer, 171 Ariz. 77, 828 P.2d 1218 (App. 1991)
Villa De Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 227 Ariz. 91, 95 (App. 2011)
Callender v. Transpacific Hotel Corp., 179 Ariz. 557, 561 (App. 1993)
Sunrise Desert Vistas v. Salas, 1 CA-CV 14-052 (Ct. App. 2016)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Jurisdiction, Planned Community, A.R.S. 33-1802, Roadway Definition, Rehearing, HOA Dispute, Statutory Interpretation

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1802
Ariz. Bd. of Regents for & on Behalf of Univ. of Ariz. v. State ex rel. State of Ariz. Pub. Safety Ret. Fund Manager Adm’r, 160 Ariz. 150, 156 (App. 1989)
Swichtenberg v. Jack Brimer, 171 Ariz. 77, 828 P.2d 1218 (App. 1991)
Villa De Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 227 Ariz. 91, 95 (App. 2011)
Callender v. Transpacific Hotel Corp., 179 Ariz. 557, 561 (App. 1993)
Sunrise Desert Vistas v. Salas, 1 CA-CV 14-052 (Ct. App. 2016)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1817022-REL-RHG Decision – 661827.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:23:02 (130.3 KB)

Jurisdictional Analysis in Satterlee v. Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA

Executive Summary

This document outlines the legal analysis and final decision in case number 18F-H1817022-REL, wherein the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) dismissed a petition filed by Thomas P. Satterlee against the Green Valley Country Club Vistas II Property Owner’s Association. The dismissal was based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The central issue was whether the Respondent association qualified as a “planned community” under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1802(4). This determination hinged entirely on the interpretation of the phrase “covenant to maintain roadways.” The Petitioner argued that the association’s maintenance of landscaping at the community’s entrance constituted roadway maintenance, asserting a broad definition of “roadway” that encompassed the entire right-of-way, supported by the modern civil engineering concept of “Complete Streets.”

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rejected this argument, concluding that the plain meaning of “roadway” refers specifically to the portion of a road used by vehicles. The ALJ noted that the state legislature used the specific term “roadway” in a 2014 statutory amendment, even though the broader “Complete Streets” concept was already well-established, indicating a deliberate choice of the narrower term. Ultimately, because the association’s activities did not include maintaining roadways, it was not deemed a “planned community,” and therefore, the OAH and the Arizona Department of Real Estate lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The petition was dismissed with prejudice.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview and Procedural History

The matter of Thomas P. Satterlee v. Green Valley Country Club Vistas II Property Owner’s Association (Case No. 18F-H1817022-REL) was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute was a dispositive motion concerning the OAH’s subject matter jurisdiction over the Respondent association.

• January 26, 2018: The Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing the OAH lacked jurisdiction because the association was not a “planned community” as defined by A.R.S. § 33-1802(4).

• March 15, 2018: Following oral arguments, the ALJ issued an initial decision finding that the OAH lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the petition.

• April 10, 2018: The Petitioner filed a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) Dispute Rehearing Request with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• May 3, 2018: The Commissioner granted the Petitioner’s request for a rehearing.

• September 5, 2018: A new round of oral arguments was held, focusing again on the dispositive jurisdictional issue.

• September 25, 2018: The ALJ issued a final decision, once again dismissing the petition with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Central Jurisdictional Question

The jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Arizona Department of Real Estate in this matter was entirely dependent on whether the Respondent association met the statutory definition of a “planned community.” A lack of subject matter jurisdiction is a non-waivable issue that voids any administrative decisions made without it.

The pivotal question was whether the association’s maintenance of landscaping around the walls and sign at the community entrance constituted a “covenant to maintain roadways,” which is a key criterion in the statute.

Statutory Framework: A.R.S. § 33-1802(4)

The relevant statute, A.R.S. § 33-1802(4), defines a “planned community” as:

“…a real estate development that includes real estate owned and operated by or real estate on which an easement to maintain roadways or a covenant to maintain roadways is held by a nonprofit corporation or unincorporated association of owners…”

A 2014 amendment to this statute added the language regarding an “easement to maintain roadways or a covenant to maintain roadways.” Before this amendment, an association had to own real property to be considered a planned community.

Arguments of the Parties

The dispute centered on the interpretation of the single word “roadways” within the statute.

Petitioner’s Position (Thomas P. Satterlee)

The Petitioner argued for a broad and expansive interpretation of “roadway,” asserting that it should include the entire right-of-way.

• Core Argument: The developer built walls and an entrance sign, and the Respondent’s subsequent maintenance of the surrounding landscaping constitutes a “covenant to maintain roadways.”

• “Complete Streets” Concept: The Petitioner presented extensive documentation to argue that the modern civil engineering approach of “Complete Streets” supports his interpretation. This concept treats the entire transportation corridor—including sidewalks, bicycle lanes, transit stops, and landscaping—as an integrated system for all users.

• Equivalency of Terms: The Petitioner claimed that “roadway” is the “new word for ‘street'” and that the “roadway” encompasses the entire width of the “right-of-way.”

• Evidence Presented: The Petitioner submitted numerous documents to support his claim, including:

◦ A letter from the Pima County Director of Transportation confirming the association’s maintenance of landscaping.

◦ Excerpts from the Pima County Roadway Design Manual (RDM).

◦ Pima County Board of Supervisors policies on landscaping in the right-of-way.

◦ Website printouts from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and other entities defining “Complete Streets.”

◦ Pima County Code of Ordinances related to roadway projects.

Respondent’s Position (Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA)

The Respondent advocated for a strict, plain-meaning interpretation of the statute.

• Core Argument: The maintenance of landscaping does not constitute the maintenance of a “roadway.”

• Legislative Intent: The Respondent argued that the Arizona legislature deliberately chose the specific term “roadway” when it amended the statute in 2014. By that time, the “Complete Streets” concept was well-known. Had the legislature intended a broader scope, it could have used terms like “right-of-way” or “Complete Streets,” but it did not.

• Conclusion: Because the association does not have a covenant to maintain roadways, it does not meet the statutory definition of a “planned community,” and therefore the state agencies lack jurisdiction.

Administrative Law Judge’s Analysis and Decision

The ALJ’s decision was grounded in principles of statutory construction, focusing on the plain meaning of the legislative language.

The ALJ began with the legal principle that when construing statutes, a court must first look to the language of the statute and give the words their plain meaning, presuming the legislature expressed its meaning as clearly as possible.

To determine the plain meaning, the ALJ consulted numerous dictionary definitions of “roadway” and “street.”

Source

Definition of “Roadway”

English Oxford Living Dict.

“The part of a road intended for vehicles, in contrast to the pavement or verge.”

Merriam-Webster

“the part of a street reserved for vehicles.”

Dictionary.com

“The part of a road over which vehicles travel; road.”

Cambridge Dictionary

“the part of the road on which vehicles drive.”

American Heritage Dictionary

“A road, especially the part over which vehicles travel.”

Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries

“a road or the part of a road used by vehicles.”

The ALJ concluded that the consistent, plain meaning of “roadway” is the portion of a road upon which vehicles travel, distinct from adjacent areas like sidewalks or landscaping.

The ALJ found the Petitioner’s evidence regarding the “Complete Streets” concept to be irrelevant to the statutory interpretation. The decision noted that because the legislature amended the statute after this concept was widely adopted but chose to use the narrower term “roadway,” it signaled a clear intent not to encompass the entire right-of-way. The ALJ stated:

“Had the legislature intended to include associations such as Respondent in the definition of ‘planned community’ in A.R.S. § 33-1802(4), it could have used the term ‘right-of-way’ or ‘Complete Streets’.”

The ALJ highlighted that several documents submitted by the Petitioner actually undermined his argument by explicitly distinguishing between “roadway” and “right-of-way.”

• Pima County Code 10.56.020: This ordinance defines minor projects to include “[c]hanges or improvements to the right-of-way area outside the shoulder of an existing roadway.”

• Pima County RDM: The design manual specified different drawing scales for “Roadway Plans” (1” = 40’) and “Landscape Plans” (1” = 20’).

• Pima County RDM Statement: Another document stated that the “[i]nstallation of landscaping shall begin not later than six months after the formal completion date of the roadway project.”

These examples demonstrated that, even within the Petitioner’s own evidence, “roadway” and “landscaping” within the “right-of-way” are treated as distinct elements.

Final Order and Implications

Based on the analysis, the ALJ reached a definitive conclusion on the jurisdictional question.

• Finding: The association’s maintenance of the area around the entrance walls and sign does not render it a “planned community” because this activity is not maintenance of “roadways” as understood by the statute’s plain meaning.

• Order: The petition was dismissed with prejudice on September 25, 2018.

• Legal Consequence: The Office of Administrative Hearings and the Arizona Department of Real Estate lack subject matter jurisdiction over the petition.

• Further Recourse: The decision explicitly states that the Petitioner remains free to file an action in a court of competent jurisdiction as specified by the Respondent’s community documents.

Study Guide: Satterlee v. Green Valley Country Club Vistas II Property Owner’s Association

This guide reviews the administrative law case Thomas P. Satterlee v. Green Valley Country Club Vistas II Property Owner’s Association (No. 18F-H1817022-REL-RHG). The central issue is whether the Respondent association qualifies as a “planned community” under Arizona law, which would grant jurisdiction to the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings. The case hinges on the statutory definition of “roadway” and whether the association’s maintenance of landscaping falls under a “covenant to maintain roadways.”

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences based on the provided source document.

1. What was the Respondent’s primary argument for filing a Motion to Dismiss?

2. How did the Petitioner, Thomas P. Satterlee, initially argue that the Respondent qualified as a “planned community”?

3. What was the key piece of evidence presented by the Petitioner from the Pima County Director of Transportation during the rehearing?

4. What is the “Complete Streets” concept, and how did the Petitioner attempt to use it in his argument?

5. According to the Respondent, how did the Arizona legislature’s choice of words in the 2014 statutory amendment undermine the Petitioner’s argument?

6. How did the Administrative Law Judge use dictionary definitions to analyze the term “roadway”?

7. What piece of Pima County code did the judge cite to show that “roadway” and “right-of-way” are distinct terms?

8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately find the “Complete Streets” argument to be irrelevant to the case?

9. What is the legal principle regarding subject matter jurisdiction as stated in the Conclusions of Law?

10. What was the final order in this case, and what option did it leave available to the Petitioner?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Respondent argued that the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the petition. This was because the Respondent was not a “planned community” as defined by A.R.S. § 33-1802(4), since it did not own real estate or have a covenant to maintain roadways.

2. The Petitioner initially argued that the Respondent had a “covenant to maintain roadways” because the developer built walls and a sign at the community entrance, and the Respondent had maintained the landscaping around the sign. He contended that the term “roadway” in the statute included “roadway systems,” which would encompass the landscaped entrance land.

3. During the rehearing, the Petitioner presented a letter from Ana M. Olivares, PE, Director of Pima County Transportation. The letter stated that the Respondent had been maintaining the landscaping at the corners of La Canada Drive and La Canoa since its installation and would continue to do so until the county found funds to take over maintenance.

4. The “Complete Streets” concept is an approach to designing roadways and rights-of-way to be safe and accessible for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. The Petitioner argued that this modern engineering approach effectively equates the term “roadway” with the entire “right-of-way,” which would include the landscaped areas maintained by the Respondent.

5. The Respondent argued that the “Complete Streets” concept was well-known by 2014 when the statute was amended. However, the Arizona legislature specifically chose to use the term “roadway,” not “right-of-way” or “Complete Streets,” implying a narrower, more specific meaning was intended.

6. The Administrative Law Judge consulted multiple dictionaries (English Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, etc.) to establish the plain meaning of “roadway.” These definitions consistently described a “roadway” as the part of a road intended for vehicle travel, distinct from adjacent areas like sidewalks or landscaping.

7. The judge cited Pima County Code of Ordinances 10.56.020, which defined minor projects to include “[c]hanges or improvements to the right-of-way area outside the shoulder of an existing roadway.” This language explicitly treats the “right-of-way” and “roadway” as separate and distinct areas, contradicting the Petitioner’s claim.

8. The judge found the “Complete Streets” argument irrelevant because the statute in question was amended after the widespread adoption of the concept, yet the legislature chose to use the term “roadway.” The judge reasoned that if the legislature had intended to include the broader scope of a “right-of-way,” it would have used that specific term or referenced “Complete Streets.”

9. The Conclusions of Law state that a lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived by the parties and must be addressed. Administrative decisions that go beyond an agency’s statutory power are considered void, as jurisdiction is defined by statutes, not by the parties involved.

10. The final order was that the Petitioner’s petition be dismissed with prejudice because the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The Petitioner remained free to file an action in a court of competent jurisdiction as specified by the Respondent’s community documents.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Answer the following questions in a detailed essay format. No answers are provided.

1. Analyze the Petitioner’s legal strategy, focusing on the evolution of his arguments from the initial hearing to the rehearing. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of using the “Complete Streets” concept as the central pillar of his case for establishing jurisdiction.

2. Examine the Administrative Law Judge’s method of statutory interpretation in this case. How did the judge apply the principles of “plain meaning” and legislative intent when analyzing the definition of “planned community” in A.R.S. § 33-1802(4)?

3. Discuss the legal and practical distinction between “roadway” and “right-of-way” as presented in the case documents. Explain how this distinction was pivotal to the judge’s final decision on subject matter jurisdiction.

4. Evaluate the significance of the 2014 amendment to A.R.S. § 33-1802(4). How did this change in statutory language, which added “easement to maintain roadways or a covenant to maintain roadways,” create the central point of contention in this dispute?

5. Based on the judge’s Conclusions of Law, explain the legal concept of subject matter jurisdiction and why it cannot be waived or conferred by the parties involved. How does this principle protect the integrity of the administrative and judicial process?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition from Source Context

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions and orders, such as the dismissal of a petition.

A.R.S. § 33-1802(4)

The Arizona Revised Statute that defines a “planned community.” The statute specifies that a planned community includes real estate development where a nonprofit association owns/operates real estate or holds an easement or covenant to maintain roadways for the purpose of managing, maintaining, or improving the property.

Complete Streets

An approach to planning, designing, and operating roadways and rights-of-way with all users in mind (pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, etc.) to make the transportation network safer and more efficient. The concept includes elements like sidewalks, bike lanes, and transit stops.

Covenant

A formal agreement or promise. In this case, a “covenant to maintain roadways” is a condition that, if met by a homeowner’s association, could classify it as a “planned community” under Arizona law.

Jurisdiction

The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. In this case, the central issue was whether the Office of Administrative Hearings had jurisdiction over the dispute.

Petitioner

The party who brings a petition or action before a court or administrative body. In this case, the Petitioner is Thomas P. Satterlee.

Planned Community

As defined by A.R.S. § 33-1802(4), a real estate development with real estate owned/operated by, or having an easement/covenant to maintain roadways held by, an association of owners who are mandatory members and pay assessments.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed or an appeal is brought. In this case, the Respondent is Green Valley Country Club Vistas II Property Owner’s Association.

Right-of-Way

The strip of land over which a public road is built. As shown in Pima County policy diagrams, this can include travel lanes, medians, shoulders, bike lanes, sidewalks, and landscaping areas. The court found this to be a broader term than “roadway.”

Roadway

Based on multiple dictionary definitions cited by the judge, the part of a road intended for vehicles, in contrast to the pavement, verge, or sidewalk. The judge concluded its “plain meaning” is the portion of a road upon which vehicles travel.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The authority of a court or administrative body to hear cases of a particular type or cases relating to a specific subject matter. The decision states this type of jurisdiction cannot be waived and is determined by statute, not the parties.

don't play in the street

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Thomas P. Satterlee (petitioner)

Respondent Side

James A. Robles (attorney)
Perry, Childers, Hanlon & Hudson, PLC

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Felicia Del sol (staff)
Clerk/Distribution staff

Other Participants

Ana M. Olivares (Director)
Pima County Transportation
Provided documentation/letter regarding landscaping maintenance

John Shields vs. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch

Posted on October 11, 2017 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	17F-H1717034-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2018-02-26
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John L. Shields	Counsel	—
Respondent	Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch	Counsel	Maria R. Kupillas

Alleged Violations

CC&R § 6.2(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated its CC&Rs by approving the wall extension, as the HOA’s approval duties were limited to aesthetic considerations under CC&R § 7.2 and did not extend to enforcing or ensuring adjoining owner approval required by CC&R § 6.2(A).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent erroneously approved the proposal, as Respondent's duties under CC&R § 7.2 did not require considering adjoining neighbor approval specified in CC&R § 6.2(A).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&Rs by HOA improperly approving a neighbor's block wall extension without adjoining owner's approval.

Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R § 6.2(A) by approving a neighbor's block wall extension that served as a party wall because Petitioner, the adjoining owner, had not approved the wall. Respondent argued their approval duties under CC&R § 7.2 only concerned aesthetics, not ensuring neighbor approval.

Orders: The petition is dismissed and no action is required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
CC&R § 6.2(A)
CC&R § 7.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Architectural Control Committee, Fence, Party Wall, Rehearing, Burden of Proof

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717034-REL Decision – 619560.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:05:20 (90.8 KB)

17F-H1717034-REL Decision – 592935.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:05:24 (115.2 KB)

Briefing Document: Analysis of Administrative Law Judge Decision in Shields v. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from the Administrative Law Judge Decision in Case No. 17F-H1717034-REL-RHG, dated February 26, 2018. The central issue was a petition filed by homeowner John L. Shields against the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch Homeowners’ Association (HOA), alleging the HOA improperly approved a wall extension built by his neighbor, Joe Johnson, without Mr. Shields’ required consent.

The petition was ultimately dismissed. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the petitioner, Mr. Shields, failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA had violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The decision rests on a critical distinction between the responsibilities of a homeowner and the responsibilities of the HOA under separate articles of the CC&Rs. The ALJ determined that the obligation to secure an adjoining neighbor’s approval for a wall alteration (under CC&R § 6.2) falls exclusively on the homeowner undertaking the project. In contrast, the HOA’s duty (under CC&R § 7.2) is limited to an aesthetic review of the proposed alteration, which it conducted appropriately. The HOA had no legal obligation to enforce or verify neighbor-to-neighbor approval.

I. Case Overview

Case Name

John L. Shields (Petitioner) vs. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch (Respondent)

Case Number

17F-H1717034-REL-RHG

Jurisdiction

Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

Date of Decision

February 26, 2018

Core Dispute

The petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&R § 6.2(A) by approving a neighbor’s approximately 5’ x 6’ block wall extension without the petitioner’s consent.

Final Outcome

The petition was dismissed, with no action required of the respondent HOA.

II. Petitioner’s Claim and Arguments

John L. Shields, a homeowner at 20431 E. Bronco Drive within the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch development, filed a petition against the HOA concerning a wall extension built by his next-door neighbor, Joe Johnson.

• Core Allegation: After vacillating on the specifics of his complaint during the hearing, Mr. Shields firmly asserted that his single issue was that the HOA improperly approved Mr. Johnson’s proposal to build a block wall extension and move his gate forward.

• Basis of Claim: The petitioner argued that under CC&R § 6.2, the HOA should have withheld its approval because Mr. Johnson had not demonstrated that he had first obtained Mr. Shields’ approval for the wall extension between their properties.

• Evidence and Testimony: Mr. Shields denied ever having approved the wall. He submitted a photograph he had taken from his front porch and testified that the block wall extension “was an eyesore.”

III. Respondent’s Position and Evidence

The Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch HOA, represented by board president Kristi Hancock, denied all complaint items and argued its actions were consistent with the governing CC&Rs.

• Basis of Approval: The HOA contended that its approval was based solely on the criteria outlined in CC&R § 7.2. The board, acting as the Architectural Control Committee, reviewed Mr. Johnson’s proposal for its aesthetic qualities and consistency with other properties in the development.

• Aesthetic Review: Ms. Hancock testified that the board inspected other wall extensions and gates and found Mr. Johnson’s proposal to be “aesthetically pleasing and consistent with the other properties.”

• Neighbor Consent Issue: The HOA acknowledged its awareness of Mr. Shields’ objection to the wall after it was built. However, Ms. Hancock testified that the board’s understanding of whether Mr. Shields had approved the wall before construction was unclear. She stated that “at least four witnesses had stated that they heard Petitioner either actually approve of or fail to state an objection to the block wall extension while, in Petitioner’s presence, Mr. Johnson discussed having the block wall extension built.”

• Separation of Duties: The HOA’s position was that its duty under § 7.2 was distinct from the homeowner’s duty under § 6.2. The HOA was not responsible for obtaining or verifying neighbor approval.

IV. Chronology of Key Events

1. October 13, 2016 (approx.): Mr. Johnson has the block wall extension built without first obtaining approval from the HOA’s board or committee.

2. October 16, 2016 (approx.): Mr. Shields expresses his disapproval of the newly built wall to Mr. and Mrs. Johnson.

3. November 2, 2016 (approx.): Mr. Johnson retroactively submits his proposal for the wall extension and a plan to move his gate forward to the Architectural Control Committee for approval.

4. November 2016: The HOA’s newly elected board meets as the Committee and verbally approves Mr. Johnson’s wall but advises him that “he will need to seek neighboring property owner’s approval.”

5. January 2017: The board formally approves Mr. Johnson’s proposal for the wall extension and gate move.

6. May 3, 2017 (approx.): Mr. Shields files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

7. September 27, 2017: An initial hearing is held, and Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky dismisses the petition.

8. December 5, 2017: The Real Estate Commissioner grants Mr. Shields’ request for a rehearing based on his claims of legal errors and judicial misconduct.

9. February 5, 2018: A rehearing is held before Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer.

V. Analysis of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The judge’s decision hinged on the distinct and separate functions of two key CC&R sections.

This section governs alterations to shared fences and walls.

Such Party Walls and Fences shall not be altered, or changed in design, color, material or construction from the original installation made by the Developer without [the] approval of the adjoining Owner(s), if any, and the [Architectural Control] Committee.

• Interpretation: The ALJ interpreted this section as creating two separate approval requirements for the homeowner making the alteration: one from the adjoining owner and one from the Committee. It does not obligate the Committee to enforce the adjoining owner’s approval.

This section defines the scope and limits of the Architectural Control Committee’s power.

No . . . fences . . . shall be commenced [or] erected . . . until the plans and specifications showing the same shall have been submitted to and approved by the Committee. Approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. However, the Committee shall have the right to refuse to approve any Alteration which is not suitable or desirable in their opinion for aesthetic or other reasons…

• Interpretation: The ALJ found that this section limits the Committee’s review to specific criteria, including aesthetics, harmony with surroundings, and effect on neighboring property. It explicitly states that approval “shall not be unreasonably withheld” and does not require the Committee to verify compliance with other CC&Rs or city ordinances.

VI. Judge’s Conclusions of Law and Rationale for Dismissal

The ALJ’s decision to dismiss the petition was based on a clear legal interpretation of the CC&Rs and the petitioner’s failure to meet the burden of proof.

• Distinct and Separate Obligations: The core of the ruling is that the CC&Rs create parallel but separate responsibilities.

1. Homeowner’s Responsibility: The duty to obtain an adjoining neighbor’s approval for a shared wall alteration under § 6.2(A) rests solely with the homeowner performing the work (Mr. Johnson).

2. HOA’s Responsibility: The HOA’s duty under § 7.2 is limited to reviewing the project on its aesthetic merits and consistency within the community.

• Key Legal Finding: The decision explicitly states the separation of these duties:

• Scope of HOA Review: The ALJ affirmed that the HOA’s scope of review was properly limited.

• Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: Because the HOA acted within the authority and limitations defined by CC&R § 7.2, the petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA had violated its governing documents.

• Other Responsibilities: The decision also noted that the responsibility for ensuring compliance with City of Queen Creek ordinances (related to the gate move) ultimately rested with Mr. Johnson, not the HOA.

VII. Final Order

Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge ordered that the petition be dismissed.

• No action is required of the Respondent, Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch HOA.

• The decision, issued as a result of a rehearing, is binding on the parties.

• Any appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served.

Study Guide: Shields v. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 17F-H1717034-REL-RHG, involving John L. Shields and the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch homeowners’ association. It includes a short-answer quiz to test factual recall, an answer key for verification, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms as defined and used within the context of the legal decision.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing all information directly from the provided legal decision.

1. Who are the Petitioner and the Respondent in this case, and what is their relationship?

2. What was the specific, single-issue claim that the Petitioner, John L. Shields, filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on May 3, 2017?

3. What is a “party wall” according to CC&R § 6.2(A), and what specific approval is required to alter one?

4. What was the timeline of the wall extension’s construction and Mr. Johnson’s subsequent submission for approval to the Committee?

5. On what grounds did the Respondent’s board, acting as the Architectural Control Committee, approve Mr. Johnson’s proposal?

6. What was the Petitioner’s central argument for why the Respondent should not have approved Mr. Johnson’s proposal?

7. Why was a rehearing granted after the initial hearing on September 27, 2017?

8. What contradictory evidence did the Respondent’s board consider regarding whether the Petitioner had approved the wall extension before it was built?

9. What is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, and who bore the burden of proof in this case?

10. What was the final recommended order from Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer, and what was the core legal reasoning for this decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner is John L. Shields, who owns a home at 20431 E. Bronco Drive. The Respondent is the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch, a homeowners’ association in Queen Creek, Arizona. Mr. Shields is a member of the Respondent association.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated § 6.2(A) of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The violation claim was based on the Respondent approving a common block wall extension built by his neighbor, Joe Johnson, without the Petitioner’s required approval.

3. According to CC&R § 6.2(A), a “party wall” is a fence constructed upon the back of a lot. To alter or change the design, color, material, or construction of such a wall, approval is required from both the adjoining owner(s) and the Architectural Control Committee.

4. Mr. Johnson had the wall extension built on or about October 13, 2016, without prior approval. He subsequently submitted his proposal to the Committee for approval on or about November 2, 2016.

5. The board approved the proposal based on the criteria in CC&R § 7.2, which required it to consider if the alteration was aesthetically pleasing and harmonious with its surroundings. The board inspected other extensions in the development and found Mr. Johnson’s proposal to be consistent with them.

6. The Petitioner argued that the Respondent’s approval was improper because Mr. Johnson had not demonstrated that he had first obtained the Petitioner’s approval for the block wall extension, which is a stated requirement in CC&R § 6.2.

7. A rehearing was granted by Commissioner Judy Lowe on December 5, 2017. The Petitioner requested it based on claims of errors in the admission or rejection of evidence, other errors of law, and alleged misconduct by the initial Administrative Law Judge that deprived him of a fair hearing.

8. The board knew the Petitioner objected to the wall after it was built. However, the board was also aware of at least four witnesses who stated they heard the Petitioner either actually approve of the extension or fail to object while Mr. Johnson discussed building it in his presence.

9. “Preponderance of the evidence” is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. In this case, the Petitioner, John L. Shields, bore the burden of proof to establish his claim by this standard.

10. The judge ordered that the petition be dismissed and that no action was required of the Respondent. The reasoning was that under CC&R § 6.2(A), the responsibility to get an adjoining neighbor’s approval lies with the property owner (Mr. Johnson), not the Respondent, and CC&R § 7.2 only required the Respondent to consider aesthetic factors, which it did.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to provoke deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, structuring your answer in a standard essay format.

1. Analyze the distinct responsibilities assigned to the homeowner (Mr. Johnson) and the homeowners’ association (Respondent) by CC&R § 6.2(A) and § 7.2. How did the separation of these duties form the crux of the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision?

2. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined in the decision. Explain why the evidence presented by the Petitioner, including his testimony and photograph of the wall, failed to meet this burden of proof against the Respondent.

3. Examine the role and limitations of the Architectural Control Committee as described in CC&R § 7.2. In your analysis, consider what the committee is required to evaluate, what it is explicitly not responsible for, and the provision that its approval “shall not be unreasonably withheld.”

4. Trace the procedural history of this case, from the initial petition filing to the final order after the rehearing. What does this progression reveal about the administrative hearing process and the grounds upon which a rehearing can be granted?

5. Although the petition was dismissed, the facts indicate that Mr. Johnson built the wall extension before receiving any approval and that the City of Queen Creek later found his plan to move the gate violated city codes. Argue whether the Respondent (the HOA) bears any ethical, if not legal, responsibility in a situation where its approval process is disconnected from neighbor consent and municipal law compliance.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition in Context

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official, in this case Tammy L. Eigenheer, from the Office of Administrative Hearings who presides over evidentiary hearings and issues decisions on matters referred by state agencies like the Department of Real Estate.

Architectural Control Committee (“the Committee”)

A body within the homeowners’ association, in this case comprised of the board members, responsible for reviewing and approving or denying proposed alterations to properties, such as fences, based on aesthetic and other specified criteria.

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01

The Arizona Revised Statute that permits an owner in a planned community to file a petition with the Department of Real Estate concerning violations of community documents.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal case to provide evidence that proves its claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden to prove his claim by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The governing legal documents that set forth the rules for a planned community. This case centers on the interpretation of § 6.2(A) and § 7.2 of the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch CC&Rs.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. The Respondent, Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch, is an HOA.

Party Wall

As defined in CC&R § 6.2(A), a fence constructed upon the back of any lot that is shared between adjoining properties. Alterations require approval from the adjoining owner and the Committee.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or petition. In this case, John L. Shields, a homeowner and member of the Respondent association.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this civil administrative hearing. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and has superior weight, making it more probable that a contention is true than not.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case, granted in this instance because the Petitioner claimed there were errors of law and misconduct by the judge in the first proceeding that deprived him of a fair hearing.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch homeowners’ association.

4 Surprising Lessons From a Homeowner’s Lawsuit Against His HOA

It’s a scenario many homeowners can imagine: a neighbor erects a new wall along the property line without your consent. Your first instinct is to escalate the issue to your Homeowners’ Association (HOA), assuming it’s their job to enforce the community’s rules. This common assumption—that the HOA is the ultimate authority responsible for mediating all disputes between neighbors—is powerful, but is it always correct?

A real-life administrative court case, Shields v. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch, provides a valuable case study in the delineation of duties within a planned community, revealing that the answer can be a surprising “no.” This case offers critical insights into the true roles and responsibilities of an HOA. Here are the top four counter-intuitive takeaways from this legal decision that every homeowner should understand.

——————————————————————————–

1. Your HOA Isn’t a Referee for Neighbor-to-Neighbor Agreements

Mr. Shields sued his HOA because it approved a neighbor’s wall extension that he, the adjoining owner, had not approved. He believed this violated the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), specifically § 6.2(A), which requires approval from the adjoining owner for such changes.

The Administrative Law Judge, however, found the HOA had no legal duty to enforce this particular rule. The responsibility to secure the neighbor’s approval fell solely on the property owner making the change, not the HOA. The judge’s finding on this point was direct and unambiguous:

CC&R § 6.2(A) required that the property owner, Mr. Johnson, obtain the adjoining property owner’s, Petitioner’s, approval before he built the block wall extension. Respondent [the HOA] had no obligation under CC&R § 6.2(A) to obtain or ensure Petitioner approved the block wall extension.

This ruling clarifies that an HOA’s role is not that of a quasi-judicial body for resolving all private disputes; its enforcement powers are limited to the specific duties enumerated in its governing documents. CC&R § 6.2(A) effectively creates a private right of action between neighbors, which the HOA is not a party to. The HOA’s role is to enforce rules that obligate the homeowner to the association, not necessarily to other homeowners.

2. The Architectural Committee’s Job Is Narrower Than You Think

In its defense, the HOA’s board, acting as the Architectural Control Committee, argued that its review was based on a different rule entirely: CC&R § 7.2. The judge agreed, highlighting the Committee’s very narrow scope of responsibility.

According to the case findings, the Committee’s only legal obligation was to determine if the proposed wall was “aesthetically pleasing and consistent” with other properties in the development. Its review under § 7.2 did not require it to confirm whether the neighbor had obtained Mr. Shields’ approval as mandated by the separate rule. This legal structure isolates the two duties, and the homeowner’s error was conflating them. The HOA’s limited aesthetic review reinforces the conclusion from our first lesson: it is not responsible for policing the separate neighbor-approval requirement. An architectural green light is often purely about community harmony, not a verification of compliance with every other covenant.

3. Building First and Asking Permission Later Creates Confusion

The sequence of events in this case was disorderly, which ultimately clouded the legal issues. From the outset, the petitioner himself “vacillated on whether his issue with Respondent was that it improperly approved Mr. Johnson’s proposal… or that it failed to enforce the requirement that Mr. Johnson had to obtain Petitioner’s approval,” foreshadowing the difficulty in proving a specific violation.

The timeline further illustrates the breakdown in process:

• October 13, 2016: The neighbor, Mr. Johnson, built the wall extension before seeking any approval.

• October 16, 2016: Mr. Shields expressed his disapproval directly to the neighbor.

• November 2, 2016: The neighbor submitted his proposal to the HOA for approval—weeks after the wall was already built.

• November 2016: The HOA Board verbally approved the wall but astutely “advised him that ‘he will need to seek neighboring property owner’s approval.’”

This retroactive process, combined with a dispute clouded by conflicting testimony—four witnesses claimed they heard Mr. Shields either approve of the wall or fail to object—muddied the waters, making it impossible for the petitioner to meet his burden of proof regarding the HOA’s actions. The messiness of the facts directly contributed to the legal failure.

4. The Burden of Proof Rests Entirely on You

In a legal dispute with an HOA, the “burden of proof” falls on the petitioner. Mr. Shields had to establish his case by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which the court defines simply as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Crucially, he had to prove that the HOA specifically violated a statute or a rule within the CC&Rs. It wasn’t enough to demonstrate that his neighbor violated a rule or that the situation felt unjust. He had to prove the HOA failed to perform a duty for which it was explicitly responsible.

The judge ultimately dismissed the petition because Mr. Shields could not meet this burden. He failed to prove the HOA had a duty to deny the application based on his lack of approval. A subjective sense of unfairness is insufficient to meet the legal standard; a petitioner must prove a direct breach of a specified duty by the association.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Know Your Rules, Not Just Your Rights

The overarching lesson from the Shields case is that CC&Rs are a legal contract with a precise, and sometimes non-obvious, allocation of responsibilities among the homeowner, their neighbors, and the association itself. The HOA is not an all-powerful enforcer but an organization with a defined, and sometimes surprisingly limited, set of duties. Homeowners, in turn, have their own responsibilities—including, at times, enforcing certain rights directly with their neighbors.

Before escalating your next neighborhood issue, have you read the fine print to see who is truly responsible for what?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

John Shields (petitioner)

Respondent Side

Maria R. Kupillas (HOA attorney)
Law Offices of Farley Choate & Bergin
Represented Respondent Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch
Joe Johnson (neighbor/member)
Lot owner who built the wall extension; Husband of Sandy Johnson
Sandy Johnson (neighbor/witness)
Wife of Joe Johnson; next-door neighbor to Petitioner; testified in initial hearing
Dean Kabanuk (board member/witness)
Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch Board
Respondent’s board president; testified in initial hearing
Kristi Hancock (board member/witness)
Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch Board
Attorney; served as VP (Nov 2016-Nov 2017) and President (since Nov 2017); testified in both hearings
Brenda Campbell (property manager/witness)
Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch
Respondent’s community manager; testified in initial hearing
A.J. Denardo (witness)
Lives near Petitioner; testified in initial hearing regarding Petitioner's tacit approval

Neutral Parties

Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Issued the initial Administrative Law Judge Decision (October 11, 2017)
Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Issued the Administrative Law Judge Decision following rehearing (February 26, 2018)
Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Granted Petitioner's request for rehearing; decision transmitted to Commissioner
Felicia Del Sol (OAH staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Transmitted the rehearing decision