The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof that the Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association engaged in selective enforcement regarding the shed constructed without prior approval, which violated the CC&Rs and design guidelines.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence of selective enforcement. She admitted her shed was built without prior approval, was taller than the fence line, and was visible from the street, all of which violated the CC&Rs. The evidence presented by the Respondent showed consistent enforcement actions regarding similar violations.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged selective, arbitrary, and capricious enforcement of CC&Rs regarding shed construction and prior approval.
Petitioner alleged that the HOA selectively enforced its shed policy against her, claiming that her denial for a shed built without prior approval and exceeding the fence height should be excused because other, similar non-compliant sheds existed in the community and were not consistently cited.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was dismissed. Petitioner's request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent was denied.
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. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
CC&Rs Article 2 §§ 3.2, 3.3, and 3.11
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H055-REL Decision – 1062778.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:44 (44.1 KB)
23F-H055-REL Decision – 1086088.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:46 (110.9 KB)
Questions
Question
If I claim my HOA is engaging in 'selective enforcement', do I have to prove it, or do they have to prove they aren't?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proving selective enforcement by a preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the burden falls on the homeowner to provide sufficient evidence that the HOA violated its own CC&Rs or acted arbitrarily. Merely alleging selective enforcement without sufficient proof is not enough to win the case.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&Rs… Petitioner alleged but failed to provide sufficient evidence of Respondent’s supposed selective enforcement.
Legal Basis
Burden of Proof
Topic Tags
selective enforcement
burden of proof
legal procedure
Question
Can my HOA punish me for building a structure (like a shed) without prior approval, even if I apply for approval after building it?
Short Answer
Yes. Building without prior written approval violates standard CC&Rs, and a subsequent application denial is valid if the structure violates guidelines.
Detailed Answer
Most CC&Rs explicitly state that no construction or modification can occur without prior written approval. Admitting to building a structure without this approval constitutes a violation in itself. If the structure also violates design guidelines (e.g., height or visibility), the HOA can enforce the rules against it.
Alj Quote
Petitioner admitted she built her shed without prior approval from the Design Review Committee… all of which are violations of the CC&Rs.
Legal Basis
CC&R Violation
Topic Tags
architectural approval
unauthorized construction
violations
Question
If my HOA relaxed enforcement during a specific period (like the COVID-19 pandemic), does that mean they can never enforce those rules again?
Short Answer
No. A temporary reduction in enforcement during a crisis does not prevent the HOA from resuming enforcement later.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ decision accepted testimony that while enforcement might have been reduced during a specific event like the COVID-19 pandemic, the HOA is entitled to resume enforcement of rules (such as design guidelines) once normal operations return.
Alj Quote
Respondent’s witness testified during COVID enforcement was reduced, however, following the reopening of the economy post-COVID, enforcement was resumed.
Legal Basis
Enforcement Discretion
Topic Tags
waiver
enforcement history
COVID-19
Question
Can the HOA deny my shed if it is visible from the street or taller than the fence line?
Short Answer
Yes, if the CC&Rs or Design Guidelines prohibit structures that are taller than the fence or visible from the street.
Detailed Answer
Violating specific physical constraints listed in the community documents, such as height restrictions relative to a fence line or visibility from public streets, are valid grounds for the HOA to find a violation and deny approval.
Alj Quote
Here, Petitioner admitted… her shed is taller than the current fence line, and the shed can be seen from the street; all of which are violations of the CC&Rs.
Legal Basis
Design Guidelines
Topic Tags
architectural standards
sheds
visibility
Question
What is the 'standard of proof' used in these HOA hearings?
Short Answer
The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing something is more probably true than not.
Detailed Answer
To win an administrative hearing against an HOA, a homeowner does not need to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They must simply show that their claim is 'more probably true than not'—essentially carrying greater evidentiary weight than the opposing side.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Evidentiary Standard
Topic Tags
legal definitions
evidence
hearings
Question
Where can I file a legal dispute against my HOA without going to civil court?
Short Answer
Arizona homeowners can petition the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) for a hearing.
Detailed Answer
The ADRE has jurisdiction over disputes between owners and planned community associations regarding violations of community documents or statutes. The case is then typically heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Alj Quote
The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities as long as the petitioner has filed a petition with the department…
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
ADRE
dispute resolution
Case
Docket No
23F-H055-REL
Case Title
Rosalie Lynne Emmons vs Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2023-08-22
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
If I claim my HOA is engaging in 'selective enforcement', do I have to prove it, or do they have to prove they aren't?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proving selective enforcement by a preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the burden falls on the homeowner to provide sufficient evidence that the HOA violated its own CC&Rs or acted arbitrarily. Merely alleging selective enforcement without sufficient proof is not enough to win the case.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&Rs… Petitioner alleged but failed to provide sufficient evidence of Respondent’s supposed selective enforcement.
Legal Basis
Burden of Proof
Topic Tags
selective enforcement
burden of proof
legal procedure
Question
Can my HOA punish me for building a structure (like a shed) without prior approval, even if I apply for approval after building it?
Short Answer
Yes. Building without prior written approval violates standard CC&Rs, and a subsequent application denial is valid if the structure violates guidelines.
Detailed Answer
Most CC&Rs explicitly state that no construction or modification can occur without prior written approval. Admitting to building a structure without this approval constitutes a violation in itself. If the structure also violates design guidelines (e.g., height or visibility), the HOA can enforce the rules against it.
Alj Quote
Petitioner admitted she built her shed without prior approval from the Design Review Committee… all of which are violations of the CC&Rs.
Legal Basis
CC&R Violation
Topic Tags
architectural approval
unauthorized construction
violations
Question
If my HOA relaxed enforcement during a specific period (like the COVID-19 pandemic), does that mean they can never enforce those rules again?
Short Answer
No. A temporary reduction in enforcement during a crisis does not prevent the HOA from resuming enforcement later.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ decision accepted testimony that while enforcement might have been reduced during a specific event like the COVID-19 pandemic, the HOA is entitled to resume enforcement of rules (such as design guidelines) once normal operations return.
Alj Quote
Respondent’s witness testified during COVID enforcement was reduced, however, following the reopening of the economy post-COVID, enforcement was resumed.
Legal Basis
Enforcement Discretion
Topic Tags
waiver
enforcement history
COVID-19
Question
Can the HOA deny my shed if it is visible from the street or taller than the fence line?
Short Answer
Yes, if the CC&Rs or Design Guidelines prohibit structures that are taller than the fence or visible from the street.
Detailed Answer
Violating specific physical constraints listed in the community documents, such as height restrictions relative to a fence line or visibility from public streets, are valid grounds for the HOA to find a violation and deny approval.
Alj Quote
Here, Petitioner admitted… her shed is taller than the current fence line, and the shed can be seen from the street; all of which are violations of the CC&Rs.
Legal Basis
Design Guidelines
Topic Tags
architectural standards
sheds
visibility
Question
What is the 'standard of proof' used in these HOA hearings?
Short Answer
The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing something is more probably true than not.
Detailed Answer
To win an administrative hearing against an HOA, a homeowner does not need to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They must simply show that their claim is 'more probably true than not'—essentially carrying greater evidentiary weight than the opposing side.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Evidentiary Standard
Topic Tags
legal definitions
evidence
hearings
Question
Where can I file a legal dispute against my HOA without going to civil court?
Short Answer
Arizona homeowners can petition the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) for a hearing.
Detailed Answer
The ADRE has jurisdiction over disputes between owners and planned community associations regarding violations of community documents or statutes. The case is then typically heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Alj Quote
The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities as long as the petitioner has filed a petition with the department…
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
ADRE
dispute resolution
Case
Docket No
23F-H055-REL
Case Title
Rosalie Lynne Emmons vs Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2023-08-22
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Rosalie Lynne Emmons(petitioner) Rovey Farm Estates property owner; appeared on her own behalf
Respondent Side
Michael S. McLeran(HOA attorney) Childers Hanlon & Hudson, PLC Appeared on behalf of Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association
Matt Johnson(community manager/witness) Envision Community Management Community Manager for Rovey Farm Estate; Appeared as a witness for the Association
Mark Schmidt(HOA staff) Envision Community Management Completed exhibit list (Exhibit 7) used by Respondent
Carrie Schmidt(compliance officer) Envision Community Management Compliance inspector responsible for citing violations
Neutral Parties
Brian Del Vecchio(ALJ) OAH Administrative Law Judge
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) ADRE Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner
Other Participants
AHansen(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of decision transmission
vnunez(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of decision transmission
djones(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of decision transmission
labril(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of decision transmission
Jose Garcia(homeowner/applicant) Rovey Farm Estates Homeowner whose shed application was denied
The Petition was dismissed because the Petitioners failed to meet the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Section 11. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioners themselves violated Section 11 by constructing the shed without prior written approval.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated CC&R Section 11; the construction of the shed occurred prior to seeking or obtaining architectural approval, violating Section 11.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged unfair, arbitrary, and capricious rejection of Architectural Change Form based on a non-existent rule (shed must not be higher than patio wall).
Petitioners claimed the HOA violated CC&Rs Section 11 by arbitrarily denying their request to construct a shed based on an unwritten rule regarding shed height (must be 3 inches below the wall). Petitioners acknowledged they constructed the shed prior to obtaining approval.
Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required of Respondent.
These sources document a legal dispute between homeowners Dennis Anderson and Mary Scheller and the Tara Condominiums Association regarding the unauthorized installation of a backyard storage shed. The conflict began when the association denied a retrospective architectural application, citing that the structure was too high and improperly attached to the building. During an evidentiary hearing held in August 2022, the petitioners argued that the board was enforcing non-existent rules, while the association maintained that the homeowners failed to seek the mandatory prior approval required by their governing documents. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately ruled in favor of the association, determining that the petitioners had violated the community’s CC&Rs by building the shed before obtaining written consent. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and a subsequent attempt by the homeowners to submit further evidence via email was rejected.
How did the lack of written rules influence the case?
Why did the judge ultimately dismiss the petitioners’ claim?
How does CC&R Section 11 impact homeowner architectural changes?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 1:37 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 22F-H2222062-REL
Select all sources
986010.pdf
990077.aac
991586.pdf
991600.pdf
996350.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
22F-H2222062-REL
5 sources
These sources document a legal dispute between homeowners Dennis Anderson and Mary Scheller and the Tara Condominiums Association regarding the unauthorized installation of a backyard storage shed. The conflict began when the association denied a retrospective architectural application, citing that the structure was too high and improperly attached to the building. During an evidentiary hearing held in August 2022, the petitioners argued that the board was enforcing non-existent rules, while the association maintained that the homeowners failed to seek the mandatory prior approval required by their governing documents. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately ruled in favor of the association, determining that the petitioners had violated the community’s CC&Rs by building the shed before obtaining written consent. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and a subsequent attempt by the homeowners to submit further evidence via email was rejected.
How did the lack of written rules influence the case?
Why did the judge ultimately dismiss the petitioners’ claim?
How does CC&R Section 11 impact homeowner architectural changes?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 1:37 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Dennis Anderson(petitioner)
Mary Scheller(petitioner) Tara Condominiums Association (former board) Former President of the HOA Board; also referred to as Mary Shell
Kiara(Owner) Daughter and co-owner who received violation letter
Respondent Side
Lisa Marks(board member) Tara Condominiums Association Chairperson and Secretary of the Board; testified for Respondent
Renee Snow(board member) Tara Condominiums Association Treasurer and President of the Board; testified for Respondent
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) OAH
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) ADRE
AHansen(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of official transmission
vnunez(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of official transmission
djones(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of official transmission
labril(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of official transmission
c. serrano(Clerk/Staff) OAH/ADRE Transmitting staff member
Miranda Alvarez(Legal Secretary) OAH/ADRE Transmitting staff member
The Respondent's Motion to Dismiss was granted because the statute cited by Petitioners (A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(2)(b)) regarding mandatory design approval meetings applies only to the construction or rebuild of the 'main residential structure,' not to a shed.
Why this result: The key statute relied upon by Petitioners was deemed inapplicable to the construction of a shed.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to provide opportunity to participate in design approval meeting for replacement shed
Petitioners alleged they were not given the opportunity to participate in a final design approval meeting for building a replacement shed on their property, pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(2)(b).
Orders: Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is granted and Petitioners’ Petition is dismissed.
Do I need HOA approval to replace an old structure (like a shed) that was approved years ago?
Short Answer
Yes. Prior approval of an original structure does not automatically apply to a replacement, especially if the location or condition changes.
Detailed Answer
Even if a structure was approved in the past, building a replacement is considered a new improvement or alteration. The ALJ found that despite having a shed approved in 2005, the homeowners were required to seek approval for the new shed, particularly because the governing documents stated that no improvements or alterations could be made without prior written approval.
Alj Quote
All subsequent additions to or changes or alterations in any building, fence, wall or other structure … shall be subject to the prior written approval of the Design Review Committee.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Article 4, Section 4.1(a)
Topic Tags
Architectural Review
Improvements
Grandfathering
Question
Is the HOA required to hold a 'final design approval meeting' for backyard projects like sheds?
Short Answer
No. The legal requirement for a design approval meeting applies only to the main residential structure.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ clarified that A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(2)(b), which mandates a design approval meeting, is specific to the new construction or rebuild of the 'main residential structure.' It does not apply to ancillary structures like sheds.
Alj Quote
The Administrative Law Judge concludes that A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(2)(b) contains a mandate for a “design approval” meeting in the circumstance of construction of a “main residential structure.” That was not the circumstance in this case.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(2)(b)
Topic Tags
Meetings
Statutory Interpretation
Homeowner Rights
Question
Can I move an approved structure to a different location on my lot without new approval?
Short Answer
No. Moving a structure is considered a change that must adhere to current guidelines and receive approval.
Detailed Answer
The HOA successfully argued that an approval from 2005 was for a specific location and condition. Moving the structure constitutes a change that requires adherence to current guidelines.
Alj Quote
Again, the shed that was approved in 2005 cannot move or change- it is not denied, it simply cannot be moved or change. Any changes must adhere to the guidelines and be approved.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs / Design Guidelines
Topic Tags
modifications
Architectural Review
Compliance
Question
Who bears the burden of proof when a homeowner challenges an HOA in a hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proving the HOA violated the law.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, it is up to the homeowner to provide evidence that carries more weight than the evidence offered by the HOA to prove a violation occurred.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, pursuant to Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R2-19-119, Petitioners bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. §§ 33-1803 and 33-1817(B)(2)(b).
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
Legal Procedure
Burden of Proof
Hearings
Question
Can the HOA restrict the height and placement of backyard sheds?
Short Answer
Yes. The HOA can enforce specific design guidelines regarding dimensions and location relative to neighbors and the street.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ upheld the validity of Design Guidelines that mandated maximum heights and specific lot placements to ensure conformity with city codes and minimize visibility.
Alj Quote
Sundance Design Guidelines regarding “sheds” mandates: (a) a maximum height, including the roof pitch, of no more than eight (8) feet, … [and] (c) lot placement has to conform to City codes and have approval from the Design Committee “based on neighboring properties and visibility from the street,”
Legal Basis
Design Guidelines
Topic Tags
Architectural Guidelines
Restrictions
Property Use
Question
What happens if I start construction without approval?
Short Answer
The HOA may issue violation notices, impose fines, and require the structure be returned to its original state.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ noted that the HOA acted within its rights to issue violation notices and fines when it discovered unapproved construction. They also warned the homeowner to return the property to its original state.
Alj Quote
If the work has been started or completed, you will have 30 days from the date of this letter to have the submitted items returned to the original state. Or fines will be imposed.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1803
Topic Tags
Violations
Fines
Enforcement
Case
Docket No
21F-H2120012-REL
Case Title
Anthony & Karen Negrete v. Sundance Ranch Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2020-12-13
Alj Name
Kay A. Abramsohn
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Do I need HOA approval to replace an old structure (like a shed) that was approved years ago?
Short Answer
Yes. Prior approval of an original structure does not automatically apply to a replacement, especially if the location or condition changes.
Detailed Answer
Even if a structure was approved in the past, building a replacement is considered a new improvement or alteration. The ALJ found that despite having a shed approved in 2005, the homeowners were required to seek approval for the new shed, particularly because the governing documents stated that no improvements or alterations could be made without prior written approval.
Alj Quote
All subsequent additions to or changes or alterations in any building, fence, wall or other structure … shall be subject to the prior written approval of the Design Review Committee.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Article 4, Section 4.1(a)
Topic Tags
Architectural Review
Improvements
Grandfathering
Question
Is the HOA required to hold a 'final design approval meeting' for backyard projects like sheds?
Short Answer
No. The legal requirement for a design approval meeting applies only to the main residential structure.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ clarified that A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(2)(b), which mandates a design approval meeting, is specific to the new construction or rebuild of the 'main residential structure.' It does not apply to ancillary structures like sheds.
Alj Quote
The Administrative Law Judge concludes that A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(2)(b) contains a mandate for a “design approval” meeting in the circumstance of construction of a “main residential structure.” That was not the circumstance in this case.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(2)(b)
Topic Tags
Meetings
Statutory Interpretation
Homeowner Rights
Question
Can I move an approved structure to a different location on my lot without new approval?
Short Answer
No. Moving a structure is considered a change that must adhere to current guidelines and receive approval.
Detailed Answer
The HOA successfully argued that an approval from 2005 was for a specific location and condition. Moving the structure constitutes a change that requires adherence to current guidelines.
Alj Quote
Again, the shed that was approved in 2005 cannot move or change- it is not denied, it simply cannot be moved or change. Any changes must adhere to the guidelines and be approved.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs / Design Guidelines
Topic Tags
modifications
Architectural Review
Compliance
Question
Who bears the burden of proof when a homeowner challenges an HOA in a hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proving the HOA violated the law.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, it is up to the homeowner to provide evidence that carries more weight than the evidence offered by the HOA to prove a violation occurred.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, pursuant to Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R2-19-119, Petitioners bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. §§ 33-1803 and 33-1817(B)(2)(b).
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
Legal Procedure
Burden of Proof
Hearings
Question
Can the HOA restrict the height and placement of backyard sheds?
Short Answer
Yes. The HOA can enforce specific design guidelines regarding dimensions and location relative to neighbors and the street.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ upheld the validity of Design Guidelines that mandated maximum heights and specific lot placements to ensure conformity with city codes and minimize visibility.
Alj Quote
Sundance Design Guidelines regarding “sheds” mandates: (a) a maximum height, including the roof pitch, of no more than eight (8) feet, … [and] (c) lot placement has to conform to City codes and have approval from the Design Committee “based on neighboring properties and visibility from the street,”
Legal Basis
Design Guidelines
Topic Tags
Architectural Guidelines
Restrictions
Property Use
Question
What happens if I start construction without approval?
Short Answer
The HOA may issue violation notices, impose fines, and require the structure be returned to its original state.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ noted that the HOA acted within its rights to issue violation notices and fines when it discovered unapproved construction. They also warned the homeowner to return the property to its original state.
Alj Quote
If the work has been started or completed, you will have 30 days from the date of this letter to have the submitted items returned to the original state. Or fines will be imposed.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1803
Topic Tags
Violations
Fines
Enforcement
Case
Docket No
21F-H2120012-REL
Case Title
Anthony & Karen Negrete v. Sundance Ranch Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2020-12-13
Alj Name
Kay A. Abramsohn
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Anthony Negrete(petitioner)
Karen Negrete(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Quinten Cupps(HOA attorney) Sundance Ranch Homeowners Association
Neutral Parties
Kay A. Abramsohn(ALJ) OAH
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
