Tag Archives: Statute Violation

Schafer, Kevin W. & Lawton, Patricia A. v. Sycamore Springs

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H019-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-01-01
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome Petitioners prevailed on both filed issues: the Respondent's conditional approval of the flagpole violated CC&Rs and statute, and the Violation Notice regarding the building envelope was improper as Petitioners were found to be in compliance (17,451 sq ft vs. 22,000 sq ft maximum). Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $1,000 filing fee. Request for civil penalties was denied.
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton Counsel Craig L. Cline
Respondent Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, INC. Counsel Edith I. Rudder & Eden G. Cohen

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808(B) & CC&Rs Design Guidelines Section II(O)
CC&Rs Design Guidelines Section III(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioners prevailed on both filed issues: the Respondent's conditional approval of the flagpole violated CC&Rs and statute, and the Violation Notice regarding the building envelope was improper as Petitioners were found to be in compliance (17,451 sq ft vs. 22,000 sq ft maximum). Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $1,000 filing fee. Request for civil penalties was denied.

Key Issues & Findings

Conditional approval of portable flagpole

Respondent conditionally approved Petitioners' DMR for a portable flagpole, but the conditions placed (limiting height, restricting mobility, and requiring placement on the side of the house) were outside the authority granted by the CC&Rs and violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808, which protects the display of the American flag in front or back yards. Petitioner sustained burden of proof.

Orders: Respondent must abide by the statute; civil penalty denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808(B)
  • CC&Rs Design Guidelines Section II(O)

Violation Notice regarding Building Envelope compliance

Respondent sent a Violation Notice claiming Petitioners' building envelope was 38,000 square feet, exceeding the 22,000 square foot maximum limit defined in DG § III(A). The evidence established Petitioners' actual building envelope was 17,451 square feet, based on a superior 'boots on the ground' survey, proving no violation occurred. Petitioner sustained burden of proof.

Orders: Petitioners' building envelope did not violate the CC&Rs maximum limit; civil penalty denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Design Guidelines Section III(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: homeowner dispute, flagpole, building envelope, selective enforcement allegation, CC&R violation, statute violation
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H019-REL Decision – 1117050.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-30T10:19:44 (47.1 KB)

24F-H019-REL Decision – 1121577.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-30T10:19:48 (52.0 KB)

24F-H019-REL Decision – 1122554.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-30T10:19:52 (46.1 KB)

24F-H019-REL Decision – 1128513.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-30T10:19:57 (40.1 KB)

24F-H019-REL Decision – 1128831.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-30T10:20:04 (149.8 KB)

24F-H019-REL Decision – 1117050.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:02:47 (47.1 KB)

24F-H019-REL Decision – 1121577.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:02:50 (52.0 KB)

24F-H019-REL Decision – 1122554.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:02:53 (46.1 KB)

24F-H019-REL Decision – 1128513.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:02:57 (40.1 KB)

24F-H019-REL Decision – 1128831.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:02 (149.8 KB)

This summary pertains to the administrative hearing in the matter of Schafer, Kevin W. & Lawton, Patricia A. v Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, INC. (Case No. 24F-H019-REL), held before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) on December 7 and December 12, 2023.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The Petitioners (Schafer and Lawton), who are property owners and members of the Association, challenged the Respondent HOA on two issues raised in a September 8, 2023, petition:

  1. Flagpole Conditional Approval: Petitioners challenged the conditional approval of their portable flagpole Design Modification Request (DMR), arguing the conditions violated the community documents (CC&Rs) and Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1808(B).
  2. Building Envelope Violation: Petitioners challenged the HOA's Notice of Violation, which alleged their building envelope exceeded the 22,000 square foot maximum limit by measuring approximately 38,000 square feet. Petitioners contended the enforcement action was retaliatory due to an ongoing Superior Court lawsuit they filed against the HOA.

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments

Building Envelope Dispute:

The core disagreement centered on the methodology and findings of two land surveyors regarding the 22,000 square foot building envelope maximum.

  • Petitioners' Evidence: Licensed land surveyor Stephen McLain, who conducted a "boots on the ground" survey in 2020, testified that the Petitioners' building envelope was 17,451 square feet, which is well below the maximum limit.
  • Respondent's Evidence: Licensed land surveyor J.O. Teague, hired by the HOA, calculated the area including the house and the "yard to the east" to be approximately 38,000 square feet, based primarily on aerial imagery.
  • Key Legal Point: During testimony, Mr. Teague admitted he did not make a determination as to whether the building envelope had been exceeded. He clarified his role was only to establish the area measurements, not to determine compliance, particularly given potential exemptions under the 4th Amendment to the Design Guidelines concerning maintenance (e.g., removing pack rat nests or excessive weeds). Both surveyors agreed that a "boots on the ground" assessment (like McLain’s) is superior to an aerial-only survey.

Flagpole Dispute:

Petitioners challenged conditional approval stipulations that limited the flag's height, restricted placement to the "side of the house," and prohibited moving it.

  • Key Legal Point: The HOA President, Kristen Rawlette, admitted that the Management Company erred in drafting the conditional approval letter. She conceded that the restrictions on height and mobility were inappropriate, as the CC&Rs did not grant the HOA authority for such limits. Crucially, she admitted that restricting the American flag's placement to the side yard violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808, which guarantees the right to display the flag in the outdoor front or back yard.

Final Decision and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision, issued January 1, 2024, affirmed Petitioners’ petition.

  • Building Envelope Ruling: The ALJ found Petitioners sustained their burden of proof. Based on the consistent expert testimony that Petitioners’ building envelope (17,451 square feet) was below the 22,000 square foot maximum, the ALJ concluded that Petitioners did not violate the CC&Rs.
  • Flagpole Ruling: The ALJ found Petitioners sustained their burden of proof, concluding that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808.
  • Civil Penalties: Petitioners' request to levy civil penalties against the Respondent was denied. The ALJ determined the flag pole issue was a "miscommunication" and the building envelope letter was sent for the purpose of defense in the Superior Court lawsuit, not intentional retaliation.
  • Reimbursement: Respondent was ordered to **reimburse

Questions

Question

Can my HOA prohibit me from displaying the American flag in my front or back yard?

Short Answer

No. Arizona law prevents HOAs from prohibiting the outdoor display of the American flag in front or back yards, regardless of what community documents say.

Detailed Answer

The decision affirms that notwithstanding community documents, an association cannot prohibit the display of the American flag in the front or backyard. In this case, the HOA's attempt to restrict the flag to the side of the house was found to violate state statute.

Alj Quote

Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents, an association shall not prohibit the outdoor front yard or backyard display of . . . [t]he American flag.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808(A)

Topic Tags

  • flags
  • federal/state rights
  • homeowner rights

Question

Can the HOA restrict the height or mobility of my flagpole if the CC&Rs don't specifically allow them to?

Short Answer

No. If the CC&Rs do not grant the authority to restrict flagpole height or mobility, the HOA cannot impose those conditions.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that the HOA violated the CC&Rs by placing conditions on a flagpole approval—specifically height limits and mobility restrictions—that were not authorized by the governing documents.

Alj Quote

Ms. Rawlette admitted the flag pole height and mobility restrictions were inappropriate because the CC&Rs do not grant Respondent authority to restrict flag poles in this manner.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • architectural control
  • CC&Rs
  • flags

Question

If I win my hearing against the HOA, do I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes. If the petitioner prevails in the hearing, the judge is required to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The decision explicitly states that if a petitioner prevails, the administrative law judge shall order the respondent (HOA) to pay the petitioner the filing fee required by statute.

Alj Quote

If the petitioner prevails, the administrative law judge shall order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • prevailing party

Question

Will the judge automatically fine the HOA (civil penalties) if they are found to have violated the rules?

Short Answer

No. Civil penalties may be denied if the violation was due to miscommunication or lack of malicious intent rather than ongoing harassment.

Detailed Answer

Even though the HOA violated the statute regarding flags, the judge denied civil penalties because the violation resulted from a miscommunication by the management company rather than a malicious harassment campaign.

Alj Quote

Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that Respondent’s actions warranted the issuance of civil penalties. The flag pole issue was not an ongoing repetitive harassment campaign, rather, it was miscommunication between the Management Company and Respondent.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • civil penalties
  • fines
  • harassment

Question

In a dispute over land measurements (like a building envelope), is an aerial survey or an in-person survey better?

Short Answer

An in-person ('boots on the ground') survey is considered superior to an aerial-only survey.

Detailed Answer

When determining if a homeowner exceeded a building envelope, the ALJ found that an in-person survey was more reliable than an analysis based solely on aerial imagery.

Alj Quote

Mr. McLain and Mr. Teague agreed Mr. McLain’s “boots on the ground” survey is superior to an aerial only survey.

Legal Basis

Evidentiary Standards

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • property disputes
  • surveys

Question

Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the HOA violated the statute or documents by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that the party bringing the case bears the burden of proof. This means the homeowner must show that their claims are more likely true than not.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal procedure

Question

What types of disputes can the Arizona Department of Real Estate hear?

Short Answer

Disputes between owners and associations concerning violations of community documents or statutes regulating planned communities.

Detailed Answer

The Department has jurisdiction to hear petitions from owners or associations regarding violations of CC&Rs or state statutes, provided the proper filing procedures are followed.

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • ADRE authority

Case

Docket No
24F-H019-REL
Case Title
Schafer, Kevin W. & Lawton, Patricia A. v Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, INC.
Decision Date
2024-01-01
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA prohibit me from displaying the American flag in my front or back yard?

Short Answer

No. Arizona law prevents HOAs from prohibiting the outdoor display of the American flag in front or back yards, regardless of what community documents say.

Detailed Answer

The decision affirms that notwithstanding community documents, an association cannot prohibit the display of the American flag in the front or backyard. In this case, the HOA's attempt to restrict the flag to the side of the house was found to violate state statute.

Alj Quote

Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents, an association shall not prohibit the outdoor front yard or backyard display of . . . [t]he American flag.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808(A)

Topic Tags

  • flags
  • federal/state rights
  • homeowner rights

Question

Can the HOA restrict the height or mobility of my flagpole if the CC&Rs don't specifically allow them to?

Short Answer

No. If the CC&Rs do not grant the authority to restrict flagpole height or mobility, the HOA cannot impose those conditions.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that the HOA violated the CC&Rs by placing conditions on a flagpole approval—specifically height limits and mobility restrictions—that were not authorized by the governing documents.

Alj Quote

Ms. Rawlette admitted the flag pole height and mobility restrictions were inappropriate because the CC&Rs do not grant Respondent authority to restrict flag poles in this manner.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • architectural control
  • CC&Rs
  • flags

Question

If I win my hearing against the HOA, do I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes. If the petitioner prevails in the hearing, the judge is required to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The decision explicitly states that if a petitioner prevails, the administrative law judge shall order the respondent (HOA) to pay the petitioner the filing fee required by statute.

Alj Quote

If the petitioner prevails, the administrative law judge shall order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • prevailing party

Question

Will the judge automatically fine the HOA (civil penalties) if they are found to have violated the rules?

Short Answer

No. Civil penalties may be denied if the violation was due to miscommunication or lack of malicious intent rather than ongoing harassment.

Detailed Answer

Even though the HOA violated the statute regarding flags, the judge denied civil penalties because the violation resulted from a miscommunication by the management company rather than a malicious harassment campaign.

Alj Quote

Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that Respondent’s actions warranted the issuance of civil penalties. The flag pole issue was not an ongoing repetitive harassment campaign, rather, it was miscommunication between the Management Company and Respondent.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • civil penalties
  • fines
  • harassment

Question

In a dispute over land measurements (like a building envelope), is an aerial survey or an in-person survey better?

Short Answer

An in-person ('boots on the ground') survey is considered superior to an aerial-only survey.

Detailed Answer

When determining if a homeowner exceeded a building envelope, the ALJ found that an in-person survey was more reliable than an analysis based solely on aerial imagery.

Alj Quote

Mr. McLain and Mr. Teague agreed Mr. McLain’s “boots on the ground” survey is superior to an aerial only survey.

Legal Basis

Evidentiary Standards

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • property disputes
  • surveys

Question

Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the HOA violated the statute or documents by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that the party bringing the case bears the burden of proof. This means the homeowner must show that their claims are more likely true than not.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal procedure

Question

What types of disputes can the Arizona Department of Real Estate hear?

Short Answer

Disputes between owners and associations concerning violations of community documents or statutes regulating planned communities.

Detailed Answer

The Department has jurisdiction to hear petitions from owners or associations regarding violations of CC&Rs or state statutes, provided the proper filing procedures are followed.

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • ADRE authority

Case

Docket No
24F-H019-REL
Case Title
Schafer, Kevin W. & Lawton, Patricia A. v Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, INC.
Decision Date
2024-01-01
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Schafer, Kevin W. (petitioner)
  • Lawton, Patricia A. (petitioner/witness)
  • Cline, Craig L. (petitioner attorney)
    Udall Law
  • Mlan, Steven Wallace (witness/surveyor)
    Tucson Surveying and Mapping
    Expert witness for Petitioners

Respondent Side

  • Rudder, Edith I. (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen
  • Cohen, Eden G. (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen
  • Rowlette, Kristen (board member/witness)
    Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, INC.
    HOA President
  • Leech, Herbert (board member/witness)
    Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, INC.
    HOA Vice President
  • Teague, J.O. (witness/surveyor)
    Southern Arizona Land Survey Associates
    Expert witness for Respondent
  • Jennifer (property manager)
    Mission Management
    Sent conditional flag approval letter

Neutral Parties

  • Del Vecchio, Brian (ALJ)
    OAH
    ALJ for December 7 & 12 hearings and final decision
  • Eigenheer, Tammy L. (ALJ)
    OAH
    Signed November 27, 2023 Order
  • Jacio (ALJ)
    OAH
    Identified as ALJ on December 7, 2023
  • Nicolson, Susan (ADRE commissioner)
    ADRE
  • Hansen, A. (ADRE official)
    ADRE
  • Nunez, V. (ADRE official)
    ADRE
  • Jones, D. (ADRE official)
    ADRE
  • Abril, L. (ADRE official)
    ADRE

Other Participants

  • Andrews, Tom (former board member)
    Mentioned in board minutes and testimony regarding past ACC actions
  • Tantis, Pam (former board member)
    Mentioned in board minutes
  • Bloodcot, GMA (resident)
    Recipient of email regarding flag rules

Ronald Borruso v. Sunland Village East Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121062-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-09-21
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition filed by Ronald Borruso, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence) regarding the alleged violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 concerning meeting procedures and unauthorized board actions.
Filing Fees Refunded $1,500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Ronald Borruso Counsel —
Respondent Sunland Village East Association Counsel Nicholas Nogami, Esq. and Nikolas Eicher, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition filed by Ronald Borruso, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence) regarding the alleged violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 concerning meeting procedures and unauthorized board actions.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to carry the burden of proof to show that the alleged violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 occurred.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violations regarding member speaking rights at May 27, 2021 meeting and unauthorized board meetings concerning Operations Manager job qualifications

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting laws by restricting member speaking rights during deliberations at a special meeting on May 27, 2021, and by holding improperly noticed meetings to approve job qualifications for an Operations Manager.

Orders: Ronald Borruso’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $1,500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)
  • State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Open Meetings, Right to Speak, Statute Violation, Burden of Proof, Dismissal, Filing Fee
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)
  • State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121062-REL Decision – 912276.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:38:53 (114.4 KB)

This summary details the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in the case of Ronald Borruso, Petitioner, vs. Sunland Village East Association, Respondent (No. 21F-H2121062-REL), heard on September 3, 2021. The Petitioner, Ronald Borruso, alleged that the Association violated its Bylaws and specific provisions of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804.

Key Facts and Legal Standard

The Department of Real Estate had jurisdiction over the matter. The Petitioner bore the burden of proving the alleged violations occurred by a preponderance of the evidence. Borruso refined his allegations to two main issues, both centering on the violation of association meeting requirements under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A) and (C).

Main Issues and Arguments

Issue 1: Member Participation at the May 27, 2021 Special Meeting

  • Petitioner's Claim: Borruso alleged that during a special meeting concerning a recall petition, the Board denied members the right to speak at an appropriate time during proceedings, violating § 33-1804(A). He argued the meeting was improperly divided into a "closed" session where members could not offer substantive comments, followed by an "Open Session Q & A" after adjournment.
  • Association's Argument: The Association maintained there was only one meeting, and it was not a violation to restrict members’ comments until after the Board provided its statements. They argued they used the term "closed" inartfully, noting that members were allowed to attend the entire 3-hour meeting, and ample opportunity was provided for comments during the Q & A session (lasting about 90 minutes).
  • Legal Point: ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(A) permits members to attend and speak at an appropriate time during deliberations, and mandates they speak once after the Board discusses an agenda item but before formal action. The ALJ noted that legally, a "closed" meeting refers to an executive session, which the Board did not conduct.

Issue 2: Unnoticed Meeting to Approve Operations Manager Qualifications

  • Petitioner's Claim: Borruso alleged the Board held un-noticed meetings to write and approve job qualifications for an Operations Manager, violating sections 33-1804(A) and (C). His primary evidence was a former Board President, Ms. Haynie, confirming in a May 6, 2021 meeting that the Board had written and approved the job description.
  • Association's Argument: Current Board members testified credibly that Ms. Haynie was wrong and that the Board had never met or voted on the job description. The description posted was similar to a previous one, and Ms. Haynie had allegedly prepared and posted it without Board approval.

Outcome and Final Decision

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Mr. Borruso failed to meet the required standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence) on both issues.

  1. Regarding the May 27th Meeting: The Petitioner did not prove a violation of § 33-1804(A). Although the Board was not precise in its terminology, members were allowed to attend the entire meeting, and the evidence showed it was a single meeting where members spoke after the Board's presentation.
  2. Regarding the Job Qualifications: The Petitioner failed to prove that an un-noticed meeting occurred, as the credible testimony indicated that the former President had been mistaken about the Board’s approval. Therefore, there was no violation of sections 33-1804(A) and (C).

The petition was dismissed.

Questions

Question

Can the HOA Board restrict when homeowners are allowed to speak during a meeting?

Short Answer

Yes, the Board is allowed to place reasonable time restrictions on speakers and determine the appropriate time for comments.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ cited Arizona law stating that while members have a right to speak, the Board may impose reasonable time restrictions. In this case, requiring members to wait until after the Board's presentation to speak was not a violation.

Alj Quote

The board may place reasonable time restrictions on those persons speaking during the meeting but shall permit a member or member's designated representative to speak once after the board has discussed a specific agenda item but before the board takes formal action on that item

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • homeowner rights
  • speaking limits

Question

If the Board calls part of a meeting 'closed', is it automatically an illegal executive session?

Short Answer

No, not if members are still allowed to attend and observe.

Detailed Answer

Even if the Board uses the term 'closed' inartfully to mean 'no comments allowed yet,' it is not an illegal meeting if members are physically permitted to attend. A true 'closed' meeting (executive session) is one members cannot attend.

Alj Quote

Consequently, although the Board referred to the initial part of the meeting as being 'closed' because it would not take members’ comments in that portion of the meeting, it was using that word in a different sense than it is used in section 33-1804.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) and (C)

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • executive session
  • definitions

Question

What standard of proof do I need to meet to win a case against my HOA?

Short Answer

You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proof. This means showing that the allegations are more likely true than not—having the 'greater weight' of evidence.

Alj Quote

The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. § R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • procedure

Question

Is a Board President's verbal admission enough to prove an illegal meeting occurred?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, especially if other testimony contradicts it and there are no records.

Detailed Answer

In this case, a Board President said 'yes' when asked if the Board met to approve a job description. However, the ALJ found this insufficient because other Board members testified credibly that she was wrong and no such meeting took place.

Alj Quote

Although Ms. Haynie did answer 'yes' when asked, Messrs. Thurn and Fretwell provided credible testimony that she was wrong. … Consequently, the preponderance of the evidence shows that there is no violation

Legal Basis

Preponderance of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • board meetings
  • testimony

Question

Can I file a single petition for multiple different complaints against my HOA?

Short Answer

Yes, but you must pay the appropriate fee for a multi-issue hearing.

Detailed Answer

When filing a petition, you must either identify a single issue or pay the Department the fee required for a multi-issue hearing.

Alj Quote

Mr. Borruso that he was required either to identify a single issue for hearing or to pay to the Department the appropriate fee for a multi-issue hearing.

Legal Basis

Administrative Procedure

Topic Tags

  • filing fees
  • procedure
  • petitions

Question

Does the Board have to let me speak before they take a formal vote?

Short Answer

Yes, homeowners must be allowed to speak after discussion but before the vote.

Detailed Answer

The statute explicitly states that a member must be permitted to speak once after the board has discussed a specific item but before formal action is taken.

Alj Quote

[S]hall permit a member or member's designated representative to speak once after the board has discussed a specific agenda item but before the board takes formal action on that item

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • meetings
  • homeowner rights

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121062-REL
Case Title
Ronald Borruso vs. Sunland Village East Association
Decision Date
2021-09-21
Alj Name
Thomas Shedden
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can the HOA Board restrict when homeowners are allowed to speak during a meeting?

Short Answer

Yes, the Board is allowed to place reasonable time restrictions on speakers and determine the appropriate time for comments.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ cited Arizona law stating that while members have a right to speak, the Board may impose reasonable time restrictions. In this case, requiring members to wait until after the Board's presentation to speak was not a violation.

Alj Quote

The board may place reasonable time restrictions on those persons speaking during the meeting but shall permit a member or member's designated representative to speak once after the board has discussed a specific agenda item but before the board takes formal action on that item

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • homeowner rights
  • speaking limits

Question

If the Board calls part of a meeting 'closed', is it automatically an illegal executive session?

Short Answer

No, not if members are still allowed to attend and observe.

Detailed Answer

Even if the Board uses the term 'closed' inartfully to mean 'no comments allowed yet,' it is not an illegal meeting if members are physically permitted to attend. A true 'closed' meeting (executive session) is one members cannot attend.

Alj Quote

Consequently, although the Board referred to the initial part of the meeting as being 'closed' because it would not take members’ comments in that portion of the meeting, it was using that word in a different sense than it is used in section 33-1804.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) and (C)

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • executive session
  • definitions

Question

What standard of proof do I need to meet to win a case against my HOA?

Short Answer

You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proof. This means showing that the allegations are more likely true than not—having the 'greater weight' of evidence.

Alj Quote

The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. § R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • procedure

Question

Is a Board President's verbal admission enough to prove an illegal meeting occurred?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, especially if other testimony contradicts it and there are no records.

Detailed Answer

In this case, a Board President said 'yes' when asked if the Board met to approve a job description. However, the ALJ found this insufficient because other Board members testified credibly that she was wrong and no such meeting took place.

Alj Quote

Although Ms. Haynie did answer 'yes' when asked, Messrs. Thurn and Fretwell provided credible testimony that she was wrong. … Consequently, the preponderance of the evidence shows that there is no violation

Legal Basis

Preponderance of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • board meetings
  • testimony

Question

Can I file a single petition for multiple different complaints against my HOA?

Short Answer

Yes, but you must pay the appropriate fee for a multi-issue hearing.

Detailed Answer

When filing a petition, you must either identify a single issue or pay the Department the fee required for a multi-issue hearing.

Alj Quote

Mr. Borruso that he was required either to identify a single issue for hearing or to pay to the Department the appropriate fee for a multi-issue hearing.

Legal Basis

Administrative Procedure

Topic Tags

  • filing fees
  • procedure
  • petitions

Question

Does the Board have to let me speak before they take a formal vote?

Short Answer

Yes, homeowners must be allowed to speak after discussion but before the vote.

Detailed Answer

The statute explicitly states that a member must be permitted to speak once after the board has discussed a specific item but before formal action is taken.

Alj Quote

[S]hall permit a member or member's designated representative to speak once after the board has discussed a specific agenda item but before the board takes formal action on that item

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • meetings
  • homeowner rights

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121062-REL
Case Title
Ronald Borruso vs. Sunland Village East Association
Decision Date
2021-09-21
Alj Name
Thomas Shedden
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Ronald Borruso (petitioner)
  • Thomas Huston (witness)
    Testified for Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas Nogami (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Nikolas Eicher (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Mark Thurn (board member)
    Sunland Village East Association
    Current Board President, testified for Respondent
  • Marvin Fretwell (board member)
    Sunland Village East Association
    Testified for Respondent
  • Joyce Haynie (board member)
    Sunland Village East Association
    Former President, subject of recall petition
  • Kim Shallue (board member)
    Sunland Village East Association
    Presided over May 27th meeting

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision transmission
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision transmission
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision transmission

Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes v. Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120020-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-02-02
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes Counsel Kristin Roebuck Bethell, Esq.
Respondent Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association Counsel Samantha Cote, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioners' petition, concluding they failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 regarding the availability of voting records.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the HOA violated the statute through its NDA request or its method of providing the records (redacted ballots and separate unredacted envelopes) and failed to prove the records were not made reasonably available within the required statutory time frame.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to comply with voting records request (regarding assessment and cumulative voting records)

Petitioners alleged the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by requiring an NDA and providing redacted ballots and separate unredacted envelopes, which prevented Petitioners from cross-referencing votes with voters. Respondent argued it timely provided the totality of the requested information and that the manner of delivery did not violate the statute.

Orders: Petitioners' petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, HOA Governance, Statute Violation, Voting Records, Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120020-REL Decision – 944169.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:31:09 (184.1 KB)

21F-H2120020-REL Decision – 944171.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:31:17 (184.1 KB)

21F-H2120020-REL Decision – 881665.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:31:20 (167.3 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Swanson & Barnes v. Circle G Ranches 4 HOA

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case number 21F-H2120020-REL-RHG, a dispute between homeowners Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes (“Petitioners”) and the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association (“Respondent”). The core issue was whether the Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1805 by its handling of the Petitioners’ request for voting records.

The final order, issued on February 2, 2022, denied the petition. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof that a statutory violation occurred. The decision found that the Association’s method of providing the requested documents—redacted ballots in one stack and unredacted envelopes in another—was a “reasonable” approach that balanced the Petitioners’ right to examination with the Association’s duty to protect member privacy. While acknowledging this methodology was “not ideal,” the ALJ determined it made the totality of the requested information “reasonably available” as required by law and was not a violation. The ruling also established that the Association’s initial request for the Petitioners to sign a non-disclosure agreement did not constitute a statutory violation.

Case Overview

Entity

Details

Case Number

21F-H2120020-REL-RHG

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Administrative Law Judge

Jenna Clark

Petitioners

Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes

Respondent

Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association

Central Allegation

Respondent failed to comply with a January 16, 2020, voting records request, violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

Final Order Date

February 2, 2022

Outcome

Petition Denied.

Chronology of Key Events

• October 4, 2017: The Association’s Board of Directors adopts the “Rule Requiring Secret Ballots” for votes on special assessments.

• October 28, 2019 (approx.): A vote occurs regarding an increase in association dues.

• December 2019: A vote occurs regarding a proposed CC&R amendment to prohibit cumulative voting.

• January 6, 2020: Petitioners submit a written request to view the votes for the cumulative voting amendment.

• January 13, 2020: The Association’s Board votes 8:1 to require Petitioners to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) before viewing the ballots, citing member privacy concerns. Petitioners decline to sign the NDA.

• January 16, 2020: Counsel for Petitioners submits a formal written request for all ballots and related documents for both the dues increase vote and the cumulative voting amendment.

• January 30, 2020: The Association’s counsel responds, stating the Association must “balance your clients’ requests against the privacy and safety of all Owners” and that the records will be made available for inspection.

• February 7, 2020: Petitioners inspect documents at the office of the Association’s counsel. They are provided with two stacks of documents: redacted ballots and unredacted envelopes. They review the cumulative voting records for approximately 3.5 hours but cannot match specific ballots to specific voter envelopes.

• August 5, 2020: Petitioners issue a new demand for “unredacted ballots” and all related documents. No additional documentation is provided.

• September 22, 2020: Petitioners file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, initiating the formal dispute process.

• May 17, 2021: An initial ALJ Decision is issued.

• June 22, 2021: Petitioners file a request for a rehearing on the grounds that the decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”

• July 15, 2021: The rehearing request is granted.

• January 13, 2022: The evidentiary rehearing is held before the OAH.

• February 2, 2022: The final ALJ Decision is issued, again denying the Petitioners’ petition.

Central Legal Arguments

The rehearing focused on oral arguments from both parties regarding the interpretation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805, which mandates that association records be made “reasonably available” for member examination.

Petitioners’ Position

• Unredacted Records Required: The statute requires the production of unredacted copies of requested documents, and the Association’s failure to provide original, unaltered documents was a violation.

• Methodology Impeded Access: By providing redacted ballots and separate unredacted envelopes, the Respondent prevented the Petitioners from cross-referencing votes with voters. This action meant the documents were not made “reasonably available.”

• NDA Was an Unlawful Barrier: The Association’s demand for an NDA was not supported by any enumerated exception in the statute and constituted an unlawful barrier to accessing records.

• No Expectation of Privacy: Petitioners argued that the ballots were not truly “secret ballots” because some had names or signatures on them, meaning voters “could not have reasonably held an expectation of privacy.”

Respondent’s Position

• Statute is Silent on Method: The statute does not specify how records must be made available, only that they must be. Respondent argued it had complied by providing the “totality of records” requested in a timely fashion.

• Balancing of Duties: The Association devised a method to satisfy its dual obligations: complying with the records request and protecting its members’ privacy and safety. This concern was heightened by complaints from other homeowners about “harassing” behaviors by the Petitioners.

• Information Was Provided: The two sets of documents (redacted ballots, unredacted envelopes) amounted to one complete set of unredacted records, allowing Petitioners to “cross reference and discern the information they sought.”

• NDA Was Reasonable: The NDA was proposed to protect member privacy regarding their secret ballot votes. Respondent argued it was ultimately irrelevant to the case, as the records were provided even after Petitioners declined to sign it.

Administrative Law Judge’s Analysis and Final Order

The ALJ’s decision rested on a direct interpretation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 and a finding that the Petitioners did not meet their evidentiary burden.

Key Rulings and Conclusions of Law

1. Burden of Proof: The Petitioners bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association violated the statute. The ALJ concluded they failed to do so.

2. On the NDA: The Judge explicitly held that “Respondent’s request that Petitioners sign an NDA does not constitute a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”

3. On Timeliness: The Association’s response on January 30, 2020, to the January 16, 2020, request was within the 10-business-day statutory deadline (which ended January 31, 2020). The Petitioners did not establish that the documents were unavailable for review prior to the February 7 inspection date.

4. On the Method of Disclosure: This was the central finding. The decision states that the manner in which the documents were provided did not violate the statute. The ALJ found that the record reflected that “Petitioners timely received the totality of the documents from their records request(s).” Because there was no evidence that the documents were not made “reasonably available,” a violation could not be concluded.

5. Reasonableness of Association’s Actions: The ALJ offered a final assessment of the Association’s methodology: “While Respondent’s methodology of document delivery to Petitioners may have not been ideal, under the totality of underlying circumstances the decision reasonable and within the requirements of the applicable statute(s).”

Final Order

Based on the finding that the Petitioners did not sustain their burden of proof, the final order was unambiguous: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied.”

The order is binding on the parties, who were notified of their right to seek judicial review by filing an appeal with the Superior Court within 35 days from the date of service.

Study Guide: Swanson & Barnes v. Circle G Ranches 4 HOA

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 21F-H2120020-REL-RHG. It is designed to test and reinforce understanding of the key parties, events, arguments, and legal principles outlined in the case.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing exclusively from the information provided in the case documents.

1. Who are the primary parties involved in this legal dispute, and what are their respective roles?

2. What specific statute did the Petitioners allege the Respondent violated, and what is the core requirement of that statute?

3. What two specific sets of voting records did the Petitioners request from the Association in their January 16, 2020 letter?

4. What action did the Association’s Board of Directors take on January 13, 2020, in response to the Petitioners’ initial request, and what was their stated reason for doing so?

5. Describe the method the Association used to provide the requested voting records to the Petitioners on February 7, 2020.

6. What was the Petitioners’ main argument for why the Association’s method of providing the documents failed to comply with the law?

7. What was the Association’s primary defense for the way it provided the records and for its overall actions?

8. According to the “Conclusions of Law,” who bears the burden of proof in this proceeding, and what is the standard required to meet that burden?

9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding the Association’s request that the Petitioners sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA)?

10. What was the ultimate outcome of the case as determined by the Administrative Law Judge in the final order issued on February 2, 2022?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes, who are the “Petitioners,” and the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association, which is the “Respondent.” The Petitioners are property owners and members of the Association who filed a complaint against it. The Association is the governing body for the residential development, managed by Vision Community Management, LLC.

2. The Petitioners alleged a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1805. The core requirement of this statute is that all financial and other records of a homeowners’ association must be made “reasonably available” for examination by any member within ten business days of a request.

3. The January 16, 2020 letter requested all ballots and related documents from the vote regarding the increase in dues that occurred around October 28, 2019. It also requested all written consent forms and ballots for the Proposed Declaration Amendment regarding cumulative voting, which occurred in December 2019.

4. On January 13, 2020, the Board of Directors voted 8 to 1 to require the Petitioners to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) before viewing the ballots. Their stated reason was a concern for members’ expectation of privacy regarding non-public information and a fear that members could be harassed based on their votes.

5. The Association provided the Petitioners with two separate stacks of documents. One stack contained redacted ballots, and the other stack contained unredacted envelopes that the ballots had been mailed in. This method separated the vote from the identity of the voter.

6. The Petitioners argued that by providing redacted copies and separate envelopes, the Respondent had not made the documents “reasonably available” as required by statute. They contended this method created an unlawful barrier because they were unable to cross-reference the ballots with the purported voters to verify the vote.

7. The Association defended its actions by arguing that the statute does not specify the how records should be produced, only that they be made available. It contended that it provided the totality of the information requested in a timely manner while also fulfilling its duty to protect the privacy and safety of its members from potential harassment.

8. The Petitioners bear the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent violated the statute. A preponderance of the evidence is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.

9. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent’s request for the Petitioners to sign an NDA did not constitute a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. The judge also noted the NDA was ultimately irrelevant to the outcome because the Association provided the documents even though the Petitioners declined to sign it.

10. The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioners’ petition. The judge concluded that the Petitioners did not sustain their burden of proof to show that the Association had committed a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805, finding the Association’s actions to be reasonable under the circumstances.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response for each prompt, citing specific facts and arguments from the case documents.

1. Analyze the central legal conflict over the interpretation of the phrase “reasonably available” in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. Contrast the arguments made by the Petitioners and the Respondent, and explain how the Administrative Law Judge ultimately resolved this conflict in the decision.

2. Discuss the competing interests the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association attempted to balance in its response to the records request. Evaluate the measures it took, including the proposed NDA and the method of document delivery, in light of its duties to both the Petitioners and its general membership.

3. Trace the procedural history of the case from the initial petition filing on September 22, 2020, to the final order on February 2, 2022. What does this timeline reveal about the administrative hearing and appeals process for HOA disputes in Arizona?

4. The Petitioners argued that the ballots in question were not truly “secret ballots” and that voters could not have had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Based on the evidence presented, construct an argument supporting this position and a counter-argument defending the Association’s stance on member privacy.

5. Examine the legal reasoning employed by the Administrative Law Judge in the “Conclusions of Law.” How did principles of statutory construction and the “preponderance of the evidence” standard directly influence the final order denying the Petitioners’ petition?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition in the Context of the Document

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Jenna Clark, who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision based on findings of fact and conclusions of law.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

The specific Arizona statute at the heart of the dispute, which mandates that a homeowners’ association’s records be made “reasonably available” for member examination within ten business days of a request.

Association / Respondent

The Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association, the governing body for the residential development and the party against whom the petition was filed.

Board of Directors (the Board)

The group that oversees the Association and is responsible for its governance. The Board voted to require an NDA before releasing voting records.

Burden of Proof

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

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing documents for the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association.

Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide on petitions for hearings involving homeowners’ associations.

Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA)

A legal contract proposed by the Association’s Board that would have required the Petitioners to keep the voting information confidential. The Petitioners declined to sign it.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency to which the Department refers HOA dispute cases for an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

Petitioners

Sandra Swanson and Robert Barnes, members of the Association who filed the petition alleging a violation of state law by the Association.

Preponderance of the Evidence

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

Redacted

Edited to remove or black out confidential or private information. The Association provided redacted ballots to the Petitioners to protect member privacy.

Vision Community Management, LLC (Vision)

The management company hired by and acting on behalf of the Association.

Your HOA Can Legally Keep Secrets From You. Here’s How.

Introduction: The Fight for Transparency

As a homeowner in an association, you assume a right to see the records. Transparency, after all, is the bedrock of accountability. But a recent legal dispute in Arizona offers a masterclass in how the gap between a right to information and the reality of obtaining it can be vast. The case demonstrates how a determined HOA, armed with a nuanced legal strategy and a literal interpretation of the law, can fulfill its obligation to provide records while ensuring they reveal almost nothing. It’s a story of escalation that began not with redacted documents, but with a demand for a nondisclosure agreement, setting the stage for a battle over what it truly means for records to be “available.”

1. The Two-Pile Shuffle: How “Access” Doesn’t Always Mean “Answers”

The conflict began with a standard request from a group of homeowners (the Petitioners) to examine their HOA’s voting records. The Board’s response, however, was anything but standard. Citing privacy concerns, the Board voted 8-to-1 on a crucial first move: it would require the homeowners to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) before they could view the ballots. The homeowners refused, creating a standoff.

Forced to provide access but unwilling to yield on its privacy stance, the HOA (the Respondent) devised a clever workaround. When the homeowners arrived to inspect the approximately 122 pages of records, they weren’t handed a coherent set of documents. Instead, after spending roughly three and a half hours sifting through the materials, they discovered they had been given two separate stacks: one containing redacted ballots with the votes visible but the names blacked out, and another containing the unredacted envelopes they arrived in.

This “two-pile shuffle” made it impossible to match a ballot to a voter, effectively neutralizing the homeowners’ ability to verify the vote. They argued that this method failed to make the documents “reasonably available” as required by Arizona statute. The HOA’s strategy proved legally astute, leading to a court case that hinged on the very definition of access.

2. The Privacy Shield: A Proactive Defense

The HOA’s justification for its actions was a proactive and layered defense rooted in protecting its members. The Board’s initial demand for an NDA was not a retroactive excuse, but its opening move, signaling a deep-seated concern that releasing the voting information could lead to conflict within the community.

This concern was not merely abstract. Faced with multiple homeowner complaints labeling the Petitioners’ behavior as “harassing,” the Board first attempted to manage the information release by requiring the nondisclosure agreement. When that failed, it developed the two-pile system. The HOA’s legal position was that it had a duty to balance the homeowners’ request against the “privacy and safety of all Owners.” In a letter, the association’s counsel articulated this position clearly:

The Association’s position is that it has to balance your clients’ requests against the privacy and safety of all Owners within the Association. The Board is concerned with the personal information contained on the written consent forms or other documents and fears that individual members will be retaliated against or harassed based on a member’s decision to support, or not support, the matters up for a decision.

This defense, framed as a duty to protect the community from internal strife, became the cornerstone of the HOA’s successful legal argument.

3. The “Reasonably Available” Loophole

The entire legal battle was ultimately decided by the interpretation of a single phrase in Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805, which requires an association to make its records “reasonably available.” The case exposed a critical ambiguity in the law.

• The Homeowners’ View: They argued that “reasonably available” implies usability. To be meaningful, the records had to be provided in a way that allowed them to cross-reference votes with voters. A deliberately disorganized release, they contended, was not reasonable.

• The HOA’s View: The association countered with a brilliant legal distinction: the statute dictates what records must be produced, not how they must be presented. By providing all the components—the ballots and the envelopes—they had fulfilled their duty, even if they were separated.

In a decision that highlights the judiciary’s deference to the literal text of a statute, the Administrative Law Judge sided with the HOA. The judge’s ruling found no violation because, in the end, the homeowners had received everything they asked for. The legal linchpin of the decision was the finding that “the record reflects that Petitioners timely received the totality of the documents from their records request(s).” This interpretation effectively created a loophole, allowing the HOA to comply with the letter of the law while completely withholding the context the homeowners sought.

Conclusion: When “Legal” Isn’t the Whole Story

This case is a stark reminder that a legally defensible action can still feel like an affront to the spirit of community governance. The HOA’s victory demonstrates that in a dispute over transparency, the side with the more precise reading of the law, rather than the more open approach, may prevail. It reveals the profound tension between a homeowner’s right to know, an association’s duty to protect its members from potential harassment, and the powerful ambiguities hidden in legal statutes. An HOA can, with careful legal maneuvering, use privacy as a shield to deliver information in a way that obscures more than it reveals—and do so without breaking the law.

In a community governed by rules, what’s more important: absolute transparency, or the protection of every member’s privacy?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Sandra Swanson (petitioner)
  • Robert Barnes (petitioner)
  • Kristin Roebuck Bethell (petitioner attorney)
    Horne Siaton, PLLC
    Also listed as Kristin Roebuck, Esq.,

Respondent Side

  • Jeremy Johnson (respondent attorney)
    Joes, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
  • Samantha Cote (respondent attorney)
    Joes, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
    Also listed as Sam Cote, Esq.,
  • Patricia Ahler (witness)
    Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
  • Amanda Stewart (witness)
    Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
  • Jennifer Amundson (witness)
    Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
  • Regis Salazar (witness)
    Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
  • Clint Goodman (HOA attorney)
    Vision Community Management, LLC
    Attorney for Vision, the HOA's property manager,

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Commissioner during initial decision phase
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Commissioner during final/rehearing decision phase,
  • Dan Gardner (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    ADRE contact c/o Commissioner,,