Tag Archives: Statutory Violation

Tom Barrs vs Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-04-01
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge Decision granted the remanded petition based on the parties' stipulation that the Respondent Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to timely provide the membership roster. The ALJ ordered Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee and assessed a civil penalty of $25.00 against Respondent. All other respects of the previous ALJ Decision issued February 21, 2023, remain unchanged.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $25.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Tom Barrs Counsel Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq.
Respondent Desert Ranch Homeowners Association Counsel B. Austin Baillio, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge Decision granted the remanded petition based on the parties' stipulation that the Respondent Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to timely provide the membership roster. The ALJ ordered Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee and assessed a civil penalty of $25.00 against Respondent. All other respects of the previous ALJ Decision issued February 21, 2023, remain unchanged.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to timely provide full membership roster

The remanded issue concerned whether Respondent failed to timely fulfill records requests, specifically a full roster of Association Member names and corresponding property addresses, in violation of ARS § 33-1805. The parties stipulated that a violation of ARS § 33-1805 occurred.

Orders: Petitioner's remanded petition was granted. Respondent was ordered to reimburse Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee and pay a $25.00 civil penalty.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $25.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Records Request, Membership Roster, Records Disclosure, Statutory Violation, Stipulation, Remand
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-243
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09(A)(1)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1280942.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:56:28 (50.9 KB)

25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1285833.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:56:32 (107.0 KB)

25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1286292.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:56:36 (21.7 KB)

25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1288559.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:56:40 (149.2 KB)

Briefing Document: The Matter of Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the key events, legal arguments, and ultimate resolution of the administrative case Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (No. 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD). The dispute, which progressed through the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and the Maricopa County Superior Court, centered on a homeowner’s right to access association records, specifically the membership roster.

The case concluded on March 31, 2025, when the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA) stipulated to a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805. The HOA admitted it failed to timely fulfill a records request for the membership roster, which was submitted on October 21, 2021, and not fulfilled until May 2023—a delay of approximately 19 months.

The resolution required the HOA to pay petitioner Tom Barrs a total of $975.00, which included the reimbursement of a $500.00 filing fee. Citing the respondent’s “unconscionable conduct,” the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) also levied a nominal civil penalty of $25.00 against the association.

A critical turning point in the case was a landmark ruling by the Maricopa County Superior Court on April 4, 2024. The Court reversed an earlier OAH decision, establishing that HOA membership lists containing names and property addresses do not qualify as exempt personal records. The Court reasoned that access to such information is “essential to having a homeowners association” and necessary for members “to actively participate in HOA affairs.” This ruling, however, specified that more private data, such as email addresses and phone numbers, are not subject to mandatory disclosure. The matter was subsequently remanded to the OAH on this single issue, leading to the final stipulated resolution.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview and Parties Involved

This administrative action details a prolonged dispute between a homeowner and his planned community association regarding access to records.

• Case Name: In the Matter of: Tom Barrs, Petitioner, vs. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, Respondent.

• Docket Number: 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD

• Adjudicating Body: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark

• Petitioner: Tom Barrs (Appeared pro per initially, later represented by Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq.)

• Respondent: Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Represented by HOA President Michel Olley)

II. Procedural History: From Initial Petitions to Superior Court

The case originated from four separate petitions filed by Mr. Barrs with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, each incurring a $500 filing fee.

Petition Filing Date

Alleged Violation

Subject Matter

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Document requests from Apr 2021, Nov 2021, and Feb 2022.

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Alleged preclusion of audio recording at a meeting.

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Membership roster request from October 2021.

May 12, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Multiple document requests from Oct 2021 to Mar 2022.

• May 25, 2022: The Department of Real Estate consolidated the matters and referred them to the OAH for an evidentiary hearing.

• January 9-10, 2023: The consolidated hearing takes place before the OAH.

• February 21, 2023: The OAH issues an Administrative Law Judge Decision. It granted portions of the general document request petitions but denied the petitions regarding the audio recording and the membership roster in their entirety. The petitioner’s request for civil penalties was also denied.

• March 26, 2023: As the aggrieved party, Mr. Barrs files a timely Dispute Rehearing Petition with the Department of Real Estate.

• April 18, 2023: The Department of Real Estate issues an order denying the rehearing request.

• June 6, 2023: The Department is notified that Mr. Barrs has appealed its decision to the Maricopa County Superior Court.

III. The Superior Court Ruling: A Key Decision on HOA Record Transparency

On April 4, 2024, the Superior Court issued a pivotal order that reversed the Department of Real Estate’s decision in part, focusing squarely on the issue of membership lists.

The Court concluded that the ALJ had erred in treating the membership roster as exempt personal records. It ruled that such lists, containing names and property addresses, must be made available to all members unless they qualify for a specific statutory exception.

“In this case, Desert Ridge has kept membership lists as a part of their records undoubtedly for a variety of reasons. Unless those records qualify for an exception, they must be made available to all members… Those membership lists containing names and addresses, however, do not appear to fall within the exemption for personal records.”

The Court’s rationale was grounded in the principle of homeowner participation in association governance:

“In addition, in order to actively participate in HOA affairs, all members must have the ability to know who is in the Association and which home or land they own.”

The ruling drew a clear line between public-facing information and private contact details. It affirmed that while names and addresses are necessary for HOA functions, more personal data is not.

“The desire for additional personal information, including email addresses and phone numbers and the like, while understandable, is not necessary for active participation in the affairs of the Association… Email addresses and phone numbers, however, are more personal and less public in nature… While disclosure of names and property addresses… may be essential to having a homeowners association, the disclosure of email addresses and phone numbers is not.”

On August 2, 2024, the Court reaffirmed its ruling and remanded “only the reversed portion of the Department’s Decision” back to the OAH for “proceedings consistent” with its order. The petitioner’s request for attorneys’ fees for his pro per work was denied.

IV. The Remand Process and Clarification of Scope

Following the remand, the OAH scheduled a new hearing for March 31, 2025. A prehearing conference on March 18, 2025, revealed a significant disagreement between the parties on the scope of this new hearing.

• Petitioner’s Position: Mr. Barrs argued that the remand reopened all four of his original petitions for reconsideration.

• Respondent’s Position: Mr. Olley contended that the remand was narrowly focused on the single issue of the membership roster, as specified by the Superior Court.

ALJ Clark noted that the Department of Real Estate’s hearing notice was “deficient” because it failed to specify the issue for adjudication. To resolve the conflict, she issued a clarifying Minute Entry on March 24, 2025.

The Order explicitly narrowed the scope of the hearing:

“IT IS ORDERED that the issue to be addressed at the hearing… is whether Respondent failed to timely fulfill records requests submitted by Petitioner… by providing Petitioner with a full roster of Association Member names and corresponding property addresses per his request(s) in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”

The order further stated that in all other respects, the original ALJ Decision from February 21, 2023, “remains unchanged and in full force and effect,” thereby validating the respondent’s interpretation.

V. Final Hearing and Resolution

The remanded hearing convened on March 31, 2025. Before testimony could begin, the case moved swiftly to a resolution.

At the outset of the hearing, Mr. Olley, on behalf of the HOA, made a “motion for summary judgment,” conceding a violation of the statute regarding the withholding of the membership roster and offering to reimburse the petitioner’s $500 filing fee. The ALJ treated this as a settlement offer and allowed the parties to confer off the record.

The parties returned having reached a full agreement, which was entered into the record. The key stipulated facts were:

Stipulation

Details

Violation Admitted

The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide the membership roster.

Specific Request

The violation pertains to the request made by Mr. Barrs on October 21, 2021.

Untimeliness

The roster was not provided until May 2023, approximately 19 months after the request.

Monetary Settlement

The Association agreed to pay Mr. Barrs a total of $975.00.

Based on the parties’ stipulations, ALJ Clark issued a final decision on April 1, 2025, formalizing the outcome:

1. Petition Granted: The petitioner’s remanded petition was granted.

2. Civil Penalty: A civil penalty of $25.00 was assessed against the Respondent. In his closing argument, petitioner’s counsel argued this was warranted due to the HOA’s “unconscionable conduct” in delaying compliance for 19 months.

3. Filing Fee Reimbursement: Respondent was ordered to reimburse the petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee, as per the stipulation and statute.

4. Finality: The decision reaffirmed that all other elements of the original February 21, 2023, OAH decision remain in effect.

Questions

Question

Can my HOA refuse to give me a list of other homeowners' names and addresses?

Short Answer

No. Unless an exception applies, membership lists with names and addresses must be made available so members can participate in HOA affairs.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that membership lists containing names and addresses are not considered 'personal records' that can be withheld. Access to this information is deemed necessary for members to actively participate in the association, such as knowing who belongs to the association and which properties they own.

Alj Quote

Those membership lists containing names and addresses, however, do not appear to fall within the exemption for personal records. … In addition, in order to actively participate in HOA affairs, all members must have the ability to know who is in the Association and which home or land they own.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Membership List
  • Homeowner Rights

Question

Am I entitled to receive the email addresses and phone numbers of other homeowners?

Short Answer

No. Email addresses and phone numbers are considered personal and private, unlike physical addresses.

Detailed Answer

While names and physical addresses are necessary for HOA participation, the decision states that email addresses and phone numbers are more personal. Disclosure of this contact information is not essential for association business and could lead to harassment or marketing issues.

Alj Quote

The desire for additional personal information, including email addresses and phone numbers and the like, while understandable, is not necessary for active participation in the affairs of the Association. … Email addresses and phone numbers, however, are more personal and less public in nature.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)

Topic Tags

  • Privacy
  • Records Request
  • Personal Records

Question

How quickly must the HOA respond to my request to inspect records?

Short Answer

The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request.

Detailed Answer

Arizona law grants the association ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.

Alj Quote

The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies of records… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Timelines
  • Procedural Requirements

Question

Can the HOA charge me a fee for simply looking at the records?

Short Answer

No. The HOA cannot charge for making materials available for review.

Detailed Answer

The statute explicitly prohibits the association from charging a member for the act of making material available for review. Charges are only permitted for copies.

Alj Quote

The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Records Request

Question

How much can the HOA charge me for copies of records?

Short Answer

The HOA can charge a maximum of 15 cents per page.

Detailed Answer

If a member requests copies of records, the association is legally permitted to charge a fee, but it is capped at fifteen cents per page.

Alj Quote

An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Records Request

Question

What records is the HOA allowed to withhold from me?

Short Answer

The HOA can withhold privileged legal communications, pending litigation, closed meeting minutes, and specific personal or employee records.

Detailed Answer

The decision outlines specific statutory exceptions where records can be withheld, including attorney-client privilege, pending litigation, minutes from executive sessions, and personal/health/financial records of members or employees.

Alj Quote

Books and records… may be withheld… to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: 1. Privileged communication… 2. Pending litigation. 3. Meeting minutes… of a session… not required to be open… 4. Personal, health or financial records…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)

Topic Tags

  • Exceptions
  • Records Request
  • Privacy

Question

Can the HOA be penalized if they delay providing records for a long time?

Short Answer

Yes. Significant delays can result in a violation and civil penalties.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the HOA failed to provide a membership roster for approximately 19 months (from October 2021 to May 2023). This was deemed untimely and resulted in a civil penalty.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s response to Petitioner’s October 21, 2021, records request was untimely, as it was not fulfilled until May 2023. … Petitioner’s request to assess civil penalties totaling $25.00 against Respondent is granted.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • Penalties
  • Enforcement
  • Timelines

Question

If I win my hearing, will the HOA have to reimburse my filing fee?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The decision orders the Respondent (HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner's $500 filing fee as required by statute when the Petitioner prevails.

Alj Quote

Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01

Topic Tags

  • Costs
  • Remedies

Question

Who has to prove that the HOA broke the law?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the statute. This means showing that the contention is more probably 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

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Procedure

Case

Docket No
25F-H2222050-REL-RMD
Case Title
Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2025-04-01
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA refuse to give me a list of other homeowners' names and addresses?

Short Answer

No. Unless an exception applies, membership lists with names and addresses must be made available so members can participate in HOA affairs.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that membership lists containing names and addresses are not considered 'personal records' that can be withheld. Access to this information is deemed necessary for members to actively participate in the association, such as knowing who belongs to the association and which properties they own.

Alj Quote

Those membership lists containing names and addresses, however, do not appear to fall within the exemption for personal records. … In addition, in order to actively participate in HOA affairs, all members must have the ability to know who is in the Association and which home or land they own.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Membership List
  • Homeowner Rights

Question

Am I entitled to receive the email addresses and phone numbers of other homeowners?

Short Answer

No. Email addresses and phone numbers are considered personal and private, unlike physical addresses.

Detailed Answer

While names and physical addresses are necessary for HOA participation, the decision states that email addresses and phone numbers are more personal. Disclosure of this contact information is not essential for association business and could lead to harassment or marketing issues.

Alj Quote

The desire for additional personal information, including email addresses and phone numbers and the like, while understandable, is not necessary for active participation in the affairs of the Association. … Email addresses and phone numbers, however, are more personal and less public in nature.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)

Topic Tags

  • Privacy
  • Records Request
  • Personal Records

Question

How quickly must the HOA respond to my request to inspect records?

Short Answer

The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request.

Detailed Answer

Arizona law grants the association ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.

Alj Quote

The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies of records… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Timelines
  • Procedural Requirements

Question

Can the HOA charge me a fee for simply looking at the records?

Short Answer

No. The HOA cannot charge for making materials available for review.

Detailed Answer

The statute explicitly prohibits the association from charging a member for the act of making material available for review. Charges are only permitted for copies.

Alj Quote

The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Records Request

Question

How much can the HOA charge me for copies of records?

Short Answer

The HOA can charge a maximum of 15 cents per page.

Detailed Answer

If a member requests copies of records, the association is legally permitted to charge a fee, but it is capped at fifteen cents per page.

Alj Quote

An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Records Request

Question

What records is the HOA allowed to withhold from me?

Short Answer

The HOA can withhold privileged legal communications, pending litigation, closed meeting minutes, and specific personal or employee records.

Detailed Answer

The decision outlines specific statutory exceptions where records can be withheld, including attorney-client privilege, pending litigation, minutes from executive sessions, and personal/health/financial records of members or employees.

Alj Quote

Books and records… may be withheld… to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: 1. Privileged communication… 2. Pending litigation. 3. Meeting minutes… of a session… not required to be open… 4. Personal, health or financial records…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)

Topic Tags

  • Exceptions
  • Records Request
  • Privacy

Question

Can the HOA be penalized if they delay providing records for a long time?

Short Answer

Yes. Significant delays can result in a violation and civil penalties.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the HOA failed to provide a membership roster for approximately 19 months (from October 2021 to May 2023). This was deemed untimely and resulted in a civil penalty.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s response to Petitioner’s October 21, 2021, records request was untimely, as it was not fulfilled until May 2023. … Petitioner’s request to assess civil penalties totaling $25.00 against Respondent is granted.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • Penalties
  • Enforcement
  • Timelines

Question

If I win my hearing, will the HOA have to reimburse my filing fee?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The decision orders the Respondent (HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner's $500 filing fee as required by statute when the Petitioner prevails.

Alj Quote

Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01

Topic Tags

  • Costs
  • Remedies

Question

Who has to prove that the HOA broke the law?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the statute. This means showing that the contention is more probably 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

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Procedure

Case

Docket No
25F-H2222050-REL-RMD
Case Title
Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2025-04-01
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Tom Barrs (petitioner)
  • Jonathan A. Dessaules (petitioner attorney)
    Dessaules Law Group

Respondent Side

  • Michael Olley (HOA President)
    Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent. Also referred to as Michael Ali and Michel Olley.
  • B. Austin Baillio (respondent attorney)
    Maxwell & Morgan P.C.
    Counsel for Respondent in official correspondence.

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Judge Mikitish (Superior Court Judge)
    Superior Court of Arizona – Maricopa County
    Issued minute entries in related Superior Court proceedings.
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official correspondence.
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official correspondence.
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official correspondence.
  • mneat (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official correspondence.
  • lrecchia (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official correspondence.
  • gosborn (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official correspondence.
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official correspondence.

Other Participants

  • Brian Schoeffler (observer)
    Observed the hearing.
  • Stephen Barrs (observer)
    Observed the hearing. Also referred to as Steven Bar and Steven Bars.

David Y. Samuels v. The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H025-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-04-18
Administrative Law Judge Amy M. Haley
Outcome The petition filed by David Y. Samuels against The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association was dismissed. The Tribunal found that Samuels lacked standing to bring the action as an individual, and the cited statute, A.R.S. § 33-1803 (Planned Community Act), was improper for this condominium dispute.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner David Y. Samuels Counsel —
Respondent The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association Counsel Ashley N. Turner

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1803

Outcome Summary

The petition filed by David Y. Samuels against The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association was dismissed. The Tribunal found that Samuels lacked standing to bring the action as an individual, and the cited statute, A.R.S. § 33-1803 (Planned Community Act), was improper for this condominium dispute.

Why this result: Petitioner lacked standing because the property was owned by Daso Properties, LLC, not by David Y. Samuels individually. Additionally, the Petitioner brought the action under the incorrect statute, A.R.S. § 33-1803, which governs planned communities, not condominiums.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation concerning late fees, collection fees, and attorney fees for delinquent assessment payments

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803 by charging unwarranted late fees, collection fees, and attorney fees for delinquent assessments.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed because Petitioner lacked standing as an individual owner, and the cause of action was brought under the improper statute (Planned Community Act) for a condominium property.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1801(A)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: standing, condominium, planned community act, statutory violation, late fees, collection fees, attorney fees, jurisdiction, dismissal
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1801(A)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.A.C. R2-19-106(D)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1124651.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:17:37 (48.4 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1133120.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:17:41 (39.9 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1134423.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:17:45 (48.2 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1139633.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:17:49 (55.7 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1139646.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:17:53 (7.6 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1157271.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:18:00 (47.1 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1168680.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:18:06 (86.1 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1124651.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:59 (48.4 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1133120.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:01 (39.9 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1134423.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:05 (48.2 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1139633.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:08 (55.7 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1139646.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:12 (7.6 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1157271.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:17 (47.1 KB)

24F-H025-REL Decision – 1168680.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:22 (86.1 KB)

This summary outlines the proceedings, arguments, and final decision in the matter of *David Y. Samuels vs The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association*, Case No. 24F-H025-REL, heard before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Amy M. Haley of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Key Facts and Background

The case concerned a dispute over fees, fines, and assessments related to a condominium unit located in Mesa, Arizona. The property owner is Daso Properties, LLC, and the Petitioner, David Y. Samuels, is the managing member who filed the petition on his own behalf. The Respondent is The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association (HOA). Samuels filed the petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department) around November 1, 2023, alleging the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1803 by charging late fees, collection fees, and attorney fees without documentation demonstrating they were warranted.

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments (April 3, 2024)

The hearing focused heavily on the status of the homeowner ledger and procedural issues.

Petitioner's Argument: Mr. Samuels argued that the HOA’s collection efforts were unethical or illegal. He contended that many of the late fees, collection fees, and attorney fees stemmed from a prior balance of $931.95 that was later forgiven or waived because the HOA or prior management companies could not provide documentation to support the charge. He argued that if the unsupported prior balance was removed, he was current (or even ahead) on assessments until 2024, rendering the substantial collection fees unreasonable. Additionally, fines totaling $1,645 were waved, which Samuels asserted was due to the charges being erroneous, not a "good faith gesture".

Respondent's Argument: The HOA, represented by counsel Ashley Turner, denied any statutory violation and asserted that the association was authorized to collect late fees and collection charges due to a delinquency that existed when the matter was referred for collections. More critically, the HOA raised two procedural arguments:

  1. Improper Statute: The HOA is a condominium association, governed by A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 9, yet the petition was brought under A.R.S. § 33-1803, which governs planned communities.
  2. Lack of Standing: Mr. Samuels, as an individual, was not the legal "owner" of the unit (Daso Properties, LLC), and therefore lacked standing to bring the petition under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A).

Legal Outcome and Final Decision

The ALJ issued a decision on April 18, 2024, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803.

The petition was dismissed based on two fundamental legal flaws:

  1. Lack of Standing: The Tribunal found that David Y. Samuels, as an individual and not the property owner (Daso Properties, LLC), did not have standing to bring the action under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A).
  2. Improper Cause of Action: The Tribunal found that the statute cited, A.R.S. § 33-1803, was improper because the property is a condominium, not a planned community, meaning the Respondent was not subject to that chapter. Consequently, Petitioner stated no claim upon which relief could be granted under the cited statute.

The petition was ordered dismissed.

Questions

Question

If my property is owned by an LLC, can I file a petition against the HOA in my own name as the managing member?

Short Answer

No. The petition must be filed by the legal owner (the LLC), not an individual member, or it will be dismissed for lack of standing.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that an individual managing member of an LLC does not have standing to bring an action on behalf of the property owned by the LLC. The dispute statute specifically applies to 'owners' and 'associations'.

Alj Quote

The Tribunal finds that, after taking testimony, Petitioner, as an individual, did not have standing to bring this action… The proper party to bring the action would have been Daso Properties, LLC.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)

Topic Tags

  • standing
  • LLC ownership
  • procedural requirements

Question

Can I use laws meant for Planned Communities (A.R.S. § 33-1803) to dispute charges if I live in a Condominium?

Short Answer

No. Condominiums are governed by a different set of statutes (Chapter 9) than Planned Communities (Chapter 16).

Detailed Answer

The ALJ dismissed the claim because the homeowner cited the Planned Community Act (A.R.S. § 33-1803) while the property was legally a condominium. Condominiums are not subject to the Planned Community Act.

Alj Quote

However, the Property is a condominium; therefore, Respondent is not subject to the Planned Community Act. … Chapter 9 governs condominiums.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1801(A)

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • condominium vs planned community
  • statutory application

Question

Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction to hear a dispute if I am not the legal owner of the property?

Short Answer

No. The Department's jurisdiction is limited to disputes specifically between an owner and an association.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that the administrative hearing process is strictly for disputes involving an 'owner' or 'association'. If the petitioner is not the legal owner (even if they manage the LLC that owns it), the Department lacks jurisdiction.

Alj Quote

The department does not have jurisdiction to hear a dispute that does not involve an owner or an association.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • standing
  • homeowner rights

Question

Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner claims an HOA violated state laws?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

In these administrative hearings, it is the responsibility of the person bringing the complaint to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803 as alleged in his petition.

Legal Basis

Preponderance of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • evidence
  • legal standards

Question

What happens if I base my entire petition on a statute that doesn't apply to my type of property?

Short Answer

The petition will be dismissed because you have stated no claim upon which relief can be granted.

Detailed Answer

Because the petitioner cited the wrong statute (Planned Community Act for a Condominium), the judge ruled that there was no valid legal claim to rule on, resulting in dismissal.

Alj Quote

As such, Petitioner has stated no claim upon which relief can be granted under A.R.S. § 33-1801.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1801

Topic Tags

  • dismissal
  • legal procedure
  • condominium act

Case

Docket No
24F-H025-REL
Case Title
David Y. Samuels vs The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association
Decision Date
2024-04-18
Alj Name
Amy M. Haley
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

If my property is owned by an LLC, can I file a petition against the HOA in my own name as the managing member?

Short Answer

No. The petition must be filed by the legal owner (the LLC), not an individual member, or it will be dismissed for lack of standing.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that an individual managing member of an LLC does not have standing to bring an action on behalf of the property owned by the LLC. The dispute statute specifically applies to 'owners' and 'associations'.

Alj Quote

The Tribunal finds that, after taking testimony, Petitioner, as an individual, did not have standing to bring this action… The proper party to bring the action would have been Daso Properties, LLC.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)

Topic Tags

  • standing
  • LLC ownership
  • procedural requirements

Question

Can I use laws meant for Planned Communities (A.R.S. § 33-1803) to dispute charges if I live in a Condominium?

Short Answer

No. Condominiums are governed by a different set of statutes (Chapter 9) than Planned Communities (Chapter 16).

Detailed Answer

The ALJ dismissed the claim because the homeowner cited the Planned Community Act (A.R.S. § 33-1803) while the property was legally a condominium. Condominiums are not subject to the Planned Community Act.

Alj Quote

However, the Property is a condominium; therefore, Respondent is not subject to the Planned Community Act. … Chapter 9 governs condominiums.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1801(A)

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • condominium vs planned community
  • statutory application

Question

Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction to hear a dispute if I am not the legal owner of the property?

Short Answer

No. The Department's jurisdiction is limited to disputes specifically between an owner and an association.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that the administrative hearing process is strictly for disputes involving an 'owner' or 'association'. If the petitioner is not the legal owner (even if they manage the LLC that owns it), the Department lacks jurisdiction.

Alj Quote

The department does not have jurisdiction to hear a dispute that does not involve an owner or an association.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • standing
  • homeowner rights

Question

Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner claims an HOA violated state laws?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

In these administrative hearings, it is the responsibility of the person bringing the complaint to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803 as alleged in his petition.

Legal Basis

Preponderance of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • evidence
  • legal standards

Question

What happens if I base my entire petition on a statute that doesn't apply to my type of property?

Short Answer

The petition will be dismissed because you have stated no claim upon which relief can be granted.

Detailed Answer

Because the petitioner cited the wrong statute (Planned Community Act for a Condominium), the judge ruled that there was no valid legal claim to rule on, resulting in dismissal.

Alj Quote

As such, Petitioner has stated no claim upon which relief can be granted under A.R.S. § 33-1801.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1801

Topic Tags

  • dismissal
  • legal procedure
  • condominium act

Case

Docket No
24F-H025-REL
Case Title
David Y. Samuels vs The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association
Decision Date
2024-04-18
Alj Name
Amy M. Haley
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • David Y. Samuels (petitioner)
    Daso Properties, LLC
    Managing member of the property owner (Daso Properties, LLC); Appeared on his own behalf.

Respondent Side

  • Ashley N. Turner (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Law Group
    Council for respondent; Also appeared as Ashley N. Moscarello in earlier filings.
  • Alyssa Butler (community manager)
    The Management Trust (TMT)
    Witness for the association.
  • Stephanie Beck (HOA staff)
    Involved in prior HOA correspondence regarding fines.
  • Catherine Green (HOA staff)
    Involved in prior HOA correspondence regarding fines.

Neutral Parties

  • Amy M. Haley (ALJ)
    OAH
    Conducted the hearing and issued the final decision.
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    OAH
    Issued an order on March 19, 2024.
  • A. Hansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission via email [email protected].
  • V. Nunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission via email [email protected].
  • D. Jones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission via email [email protected].
  • L. Abril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission via email [email protected].
  • M. Neat (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission via email [email protected].
  • A. Kowaleski (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission via email [email protected].
  • G. Osborn (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission via email [email protected].

Laura R. Braglia V. Palo Verde Estates Homeowners Association, INC.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H032-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-04-17
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The ALJ granted the petition after finding that the Respondent HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258 by failing to fulfill a records request within the statutory ten business days. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's $500 filing fee and comply with the statute, but was not assessed a civil penalty.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Laura R. Braglia Counsel —
Respondent Palo Verde Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel Jacqueline Zipprich

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted the petition after finding that the Respondent HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258 by failing to fulfill a records request within the statutory ten business days. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's $500 filing fee and comply with the statute, but was not assessed a civil penalty.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258 because the “HOA has not complied witha [sic] formal records request … regarding damage to homeowner's unit.”

Respondent received Petitioner's records request on November 28, 2023, but did not comply until February 13, 2024, nearly two months later. The Tribunal found no viable justification for the delay, establishing a violation of the statute.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is granted. Respondent must reimburse the $500 filing fee in certified funds and must henceforth comply with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258. No civil penalty was assessed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258

Analytics Highlights

Topics: records request, statutory violation, HOA transparency, filing fee reimbursement
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H032-REL Decision – 1162594.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:19:41 (51.3 KB)

24F-H032-REL Decision – 1167907.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:19:45 (184.7 KB)

24F-H032-REL Decision – 1162594.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:42 (51.3 KB)

24F-H032-REL Decision – 1167907.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:48 (184.7 KB)

The hearing summarized below concerns the administrative law matter of Laura R. Braglia, Petitioner, versus Palo Verde Estates Homeowners Association, Inc., Respondent (No. 24F-H032-REL), held before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Concise Summary of Legal Case Hearing

Key Facts and Underlying Dispute

The Petitioner, Laura R. Braglia, is a homeowner within the Palo Verde Estates Homeowners Association (HOA). The dispute arose after she discovered severe termite damage to interior beams of a common wall in her unit in October 2023. To determine whether the repairs were the HOA's responsibility under the CC&Rs (covenants and restrictions), Petitioner, advised by an attorney, sought records from the Respondent.

Main Issue and Applicable Statute

The sole issue for the hearing was to determine whether the Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1258 by failing to comply with a formal records request. This statute requires associations to provide records within ten business days of a request.

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments

  1. Petitioner’s Case: Petitioner Braglia testified that she submitted a formal written records request to the HOA and its management (Desert Realty Association Management, represented by Jacqueline Zipprich) on November 28, 2023. The request sought termite service records, the HOA termite warranty, and HOA Insurance Policy Information. The statutory deadline for compliance was December 12, 2023. Petitioner filed a complaint with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (DRE) around January 10, 2024, because she had not received the records. Partial records were finally provided on February 13, 2024, nearly two months late. Petitioner requested the remaining documents—the full insurance policy and termite warranty—on February 23, 2024, but received no reply.
  2. Respondent’s Case: Respondent, represented by Community Property Manager Jacqueline Zipprich, conceded providing the documents late. Ms. Zipprich explained that the Association does not have a "termite warranty," but rather a pest control treatment plan, which was explained to Petitioner. She also contended that the request for "HOA Insurance Policy Information" was ambiguous, leading them to provide only the Certificate of Insurance and exclusion pages. Ms. Zipprich cited communication issues and claimed DRE staff advised her against direct communication with the Petitioner after providing the initial response.
  3. Waiver: Both parties declined to provide closing arguments.

Legal Points and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Petitioner sustained her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The ALJ concluded that the Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258.

The violation was based on the fact that the Respondent delayed compliance for nearly two months after the deadline (December 12, 2023, to February 13, 2024). The ALJ noted that while the HOA could not provide a termite warranty because one did not exist, and the insurance policy request was vague, these facts did not establish a viable justification or excuse for the HOA's overall inaction during the applicable statutory period.

The petition was granted. The OAH issued an ORDER requiring the Respondent to:

  1. Reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds.
  2. Henceforth comply with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258.

Crucially, the ALJ did not assess a civil penalty against the Respondent. The recommended decision was issued on April 17, 2024.

Questions

Question

How long does my HOA have to respond to a formal records request?

Short Answer

The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law, an association is strictly required to fulfill a request for examination or provide copies of requested records within ten business days. Failure to meet this deadline without a viable justification constitutes a violation of the statute.

Alj Quote

The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. On request for purchase of copies of records by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative, the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • deadlines
  • HOA obligations

Question

Can my HOA charge me a fee to simply review or inspect records?

Short Answer

No, the HOA cannot charge a fee for making material available for review.

Detailed Answer

The statute explicitly prohibits the association from charging a member for the act of making materials available for review. However, they may charge a specific fee for making actual copies.

Alj Quote

The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • records request
  • homeowner rights

Question

How much can the HOA charge if I ask for copies of records?

Short Answer

The HOA may charge a fee for copies, but it cannot exceed fifteen cents per page.

Detailed Answer

While review is free, if a homeowner requests physical copies of the records, the association is permitted by statute to charge a fee, capped at fifteen cents per page.

Alj Quote

An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • records request
  • copies

Question

What happens if my HOA responds to my records request weeks or months late?

Short Answer

Responding late without a valid excuse is a violation of the statute.

Detailed Answer

If the HOA fails to provide the records within the statutory 10-business-day window without a viable justification, they are in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258. In this case, a response provided nearly two months late was deemed a violation.

Alj Quote

The record also reflects that although Petitioner follow-up with Respondent on December 12, 2023, regarding her request, Respondent did not comply until February 13, 2024, nearly two (2) months late… Nothing in the record establishes a viable justification or excuse for Respondent’s inaction and/or lack of performance on Petitioner’s records request during the applicable time period.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258

Topic Tags

  • violations
  • delays
  • enforcement

Question

Can the HOA be penalized for failing to provide a document that doesn't exist?

Short Answer

No, an HOA cannot be held liable for failing to provide a record that simply does not exist.

Detailed Answer

If a homeowner requests a specific document (like a warranty) and the association does not possess such a document because it never existed, the association is not in violation for failing to provide it.

Alj Quote

Additionally, because the Association never had a “termite warranty,” Respondent was unable to provide Petitioner with something that did not exist.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • defense
  • HOA obligations

Question

Does it matter if my wording in a records request is vague?

Short Answer

Yes, vague requests may lead to incomplete information, and the HOA might not be faulted for misinterpreting ambiguous terms.

Detailed Answer

Homeowners should be specific. In this case, requesting 'Policy Information' rather than the 'entire policy' was considered vague and ambiguous, which explained why the HOA only provided declarations and exclusion pages rather than the full policy.

Alj Quote

While Petitioner contends that she only received some of the documents she requested, the record further reflects that she never asked for the Association’s entire insurance policy, only “HOA Insurance Policy Information,” which was vague and ambiguous.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • best practices
  • homeowner responsibilities

Question

If I win my case against the HOA at a hearing, will I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fee.

Detailed Answer

If the petition is granted and a violation is found, the ALJ has the authority to order the Respondent (HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee in certified funds.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall reimburse Petitioners’ filing fee (e.g. $500.00) in certified funds.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • fees
  • reimbursement

Question

Will the HOA automatically have to pay a civil penalty if they are found in violation?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. The judge may decide not to assess a civil penalty even if a violation is found.

Detailed Answer

Finding a violation does not automatically result in a fine. The ALJ has discretion regarding civil penalties. In this instance, despite finding a violation regarding records, the judge ordered compliance and fee reimbursement but explicitly chose not to assess a civil penalty.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a civil penalty shall not be assessed against Respondent in this matter.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • civil penalty
  • enforcement

Question

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

Short Answer

The Petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner filing the complaint must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the statute. This means they must show it is more probable than not that the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119(B)(2)

Topic Tags

  • procedure
  • burden of proof
  • evidence

Question

Can I designate someone else to inspect the HOA records for me?

Short Answer

Yes, a member can designate a representative in writing.

Detailed Answer

The statute allows records to be examined by the member or any person designated by the member in writing as their representative.

Alj Quote

[A]ll financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)

Topic Tags

  • representation
  • records request
  • access

Case

Docket No
24F-H032-REL
Case Title
Laura R. Braglia v. Palo Verde Estates Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2024-04-17
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

How long does my HOA have to respond to a formal records request?

Short Answer

The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law, an association is strictly required to fulfill a request for examination or provide copies of requested records within ten business days. Failure to meet this deadline without a viable justification constitutes a violation of the statute.

Alj Quote

The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. On request for purchase of copies of records by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative, the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • deadlines
  • HOA obligations

Question

Can my HOA charge me a fee to simply review or inspect records?

Short Answer

No, the HOA cannot charge a fee for making material available for review.

Detailed Answer

The statute explicitly prohibits the association from charging a member for the act of making materials available for review. However, they may charge a specific fee for making actual copies.

Alj Quote

The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • records request
  • homeowner rights

Question

How much can the HOA charge if I ask for copies of records?

Short Answer

The HOA may charge a fee for copies, but it cannot exceed fifteen cents per page.

Detailed Answer

While review is free, if a homeowner requests physical copies of the records, the association is permitted by statute to charge a fee, capped at fifteen cents per page.

Alj Quote

An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • records request
  • copies

Question

What happens if my HOA responds to my records request weeks or months late?

Short Answer

Responding late without a valid excuse is a violation of the statute.

Detailed Answer

If the HOA fails to provide the records within the statutory 10-business-day window without a viable justification, they are in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258. In this case, a response provided nearly two months late was deemed a violation.

Alj Quote

The record also reflects that although Petitioner follow-up with Respondent on December 12, 2023, regarding her request, Respondent did not comply until February 13, 2024, nearly two (2) months late… Nothing in the record establishes a viable justification or excuse for Respondent’s inaction and/or lack of performance on Petitioner’s records request during the applicable time period.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258

Topic Tags

  • violations
  • delays
  • enforcement

Question

Can the HOA be penalized for failing to provide a document that doesn't exist?

Short Answer

No, an HOA cannot be held liable for failing to provide a record that simply does not exist.

Detailed Answer

If a homeowner requests a specific document (like a warranty) and the association does not possess such a document because it never existed, the association is not in violation for failing to provide it.

Alj Quote

Additionally, because the Association never had a “termite warranty,” Respondent was unable to provide Petitioner with something that did not exist.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • defense
  • HOA obligations

Question

Does it matter if my wording in a records request is vague?

Short Answer

Yes, vague requests may lead to incomplete information, and the HOA might not be faulted for misinterpreting ambiguous terms.

Detailed Answer

Homeowners should be specific. In this case, requesting 'Policy Information' rather than the 'entire policy' was considered vague and ambiguous, which explained why the HOA only provided declarations and exclusion pages rather than the full policy.

Alj Quote

While Petitioner contends that she only received some of the documents she requested, the record further reflects that she never asked for the Association’s entire insurance policy, only “HOA Insurance Policy Information,” which was vague and ambiguous.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • best practices
  • homeowner responsibilities

Question

If I win my case against the HOA at a hearing, will I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fee.

Detailed Answer

If the petition is granted and a violation is found, the ALJ has the authority to order the Respondent (HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee in certified funds.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall reimburse Petitioners’ filing fee (e.g. $500.00) in certified funds.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • fees
  • reimbursement

Question

Will the HOA automatically have to pay a civil penalty if they are found in violation?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. The judge may decide not to assess a civil penalty even if a violation is found.

Detailed Answer

Finding a violation does not automatically result in a fine. The ALJ has discretion regarding civil penalties. In this instance, despite finding a violation regarding records, the judge ordered compliance and fee reimbursement but explicitly chose not to assess a civil penalty.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a civil penalty shall not be assessed against Respondent in this matter.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • civil penalty
  • enforcement

Question

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

Short Answer

The Petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner filing the complaint must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the statute. This means they must show it is more probable than not that the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119(B)(2)

Topic Tags

  • procedure
  • burden of proof
  • evidence

Question

Can I designate someone else to inspect the HOA records for me?

Short Answer

Yes, a member can designate a representative in writing.

Detailed Answer

The statute allows records to be examined by the member or any person designated by the member in writing as their representative.

Alj Quote

[A]ll financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)

Topic Tags

  • representation
  • records request
  • access

Case

Docket No
24F-H032-REL
Case Title
Laura R. Braglia v. Palo Verde Estates Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2024-04-17
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Laura R. Braglia (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf; testified as witness.

Respondent Side

  • Jacqueline Zipprich (property manager)
    Desert Realty Association Management
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent; testified as witness; also served as Statutory Agent for Respondent.
  • Joe Wolf (HOA president)
    Palo Verde Estates Homeowners Association, Inc.
    HOA Board President.

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presiding Administrative Law Judge.
  • Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of the recommended order.
  • Vivian Nunes (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of the recommended order ([email protected]).
  • D. Jones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as recipient of the recommended order ([email protected]).
  • L. Abril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as recipient of the recommended order ([email protected]).
  • M. Neat (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as recipient of the recommended order ([email protected]).
  • A. Kowaleski (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as recipient of the recommended order ([email protected]).
  • G. Osborn (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as recipient of the recommended order ([email protected]).

Daniel Mayer v. Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H020-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-02-17
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party after establishing that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1812 by improperly combining two separate expenditure proposals (roadway preservation and gate replacement) into a single vote on a ballot, failing to provide an opportunity to vote on each action separately. Respondent was ordered to refund the $500.00 filing fee and pay a $500.00 civil penalty.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Daniel Mayer Counsel —
Respondent Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1812

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party after establishing that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1812 by improperly combining two separate expenditure proposals (roadway preservation and gate replacement) into a single vote on a ballot, failing to provide an opportunity to vote on each action separately. Respondent was ordered to refund the $500.00 filing fee and pay a $500.00 civil penalty.

Key Issues & Findings

Combining two separate proposed actions into a single vote action on a ballot.

The Respondent HOA combined two separate proposed expenditures ($30,000 total for roadway asset preservation and common area gate replacement) into one vote on a ballot sent to homeowners, violating statutory requirements that each proposed action must be voted upon separately.

Orders: Respondent must abide by A.R.S. § 33-1812; Respondent must refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee; Respondent must pay a $500.00 civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1812
  • A.R.S. § 10-3708
  • A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Ballot, Combined Vote, Reserve Funds Access, Statutory Violation
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1812
  • A.R.S. § 10-3708
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H020-REL Decision – 1031122.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:59:44 (100.0 KB)

23F-H020-REL Decision – 1038504.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:59:48 (54.8 KB)

23F-H020-REL Decision – 1031122.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:58 (100.0 KB)

23F-H020-REL Decision – 1038504.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:01 (54.8 KB)

This administrative hearing, docket number 23F-H020-REL, addressed the petition filed by Daniel Mayor against Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc. (SNHA), concerning alleged violations of community documents and Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1812. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Adam D. Stone presided over the hearing on February 3, 2023.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The core issue centered on a ballot sent to homeowners on May 18, 2022, seeking approval to access $30,000 from the reserve fund for two distinct capital improvement projects: roadway asset preservation/resurfacing and common area gate replacement.

  1. Violation of Separate Voting Requirement: Petitioner Daniel Mayor argued that the ballot improperly combined these two separate "proposed actions" into a single yes/no vote, failing to provide members the opportunity to vote for or against each expenditure individually. Mayor requested that the vote be recalled and recast properly.
  2. Applicability of Statute: Respondent SNHA, represented by Board President Andrew Chambers, admitted the projects were combined but argued that A.R.S. § 33-1812 (which requires separate votes for separate actions) did not apply. SNHA contended the statute only governs votes taken at formal meetings, whereas this vote was conducted via mail, email, and fax prior to the meeting where results were announced. SNHA also noted that 91% (32 of 35) of responding homeowners approved the combined expenditure, and the projects were subsequently completed.

Legal Points and Decision

The ALJ determined that the cover letter and prior discussions clearly indicated that the roadway resurfacing and gate replacement were two separate projects for which SNHA was seeking approval.

The ALJ rejected the Association's defense, concluding that the ballot was improper because it failed to allow separate votes. The decision highlighted that A.R.S. § 33-1812, even when referring to votes taken outside of a meeting, directs attention to A.R.S. § 10-3708 (Arizona Nonprofit Corporation Act). This statute mandates that written ballots must set forth each proposed action and provide an opportunity to vote for or against each.

Outcome

The ALJ found that the Petitioner established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that SNHA acted in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1) and the community documents.

The ALJ noted that A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 did not grant the authority to order the projects rescinded or the vote nullified, but only permitted ordering parties to abide by the statute and levying civil penalties.

  • Prevailing Party: Daniel Mayor was deemed the prevailing party.
  • Filing Fee: SNHA was ordered to pay the Petitioner his $500.00 filing fee.
  • Civil Penalty: Due to concern that this type of improper ballot could be used in the future, the ALJ levied a $500.00 Civil Penalty. (A subsequent correction order specified that this civil penalty must be paid to the Department of Real Estate).

Questions

Question

Can my HOA combine multiple capital improvement projects into a single 'Yes' or 'No' vote?

Short Answer

No. The HOA must allow homeowners to vote for or against each proposed action separately.

Detailed Answer

Even if the projects are related or presented in the same letter, the ballot itself must provide an opportunity to vote on each specific expenditure or project individually. Combining them into one vote violates Arizona statutes.

Alj Quote

Thus, the tribunal finds the ballot improper because it did not contain the opportunity to vote on each separate proposal.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)-(2)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • ballots
  • assessments

Question

If the HOA conducts a vote by mail or email rather than at a live meeting, do they still have to list voting items separately?

Short Answer

Yes. The requirement to list each proposed action separately applies to absentee ballots and written ballots used without a meeting.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ rejected the argument that voting requirements only apply to in-person meetings. Statutes governing both planned communities and nonprofit corporations require that written ballots set forth each proposed action.

Alj Quote

According to that statute, the ballots still must set for each action and provide an opportunity to vote for or against each action. … Therefore, this ballot runs afoul of A.R.S. § 33-1812.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812; A.R.S. § 10-3708

Topic Tags

  • absentee ballots
  • voting
  • mail-in voting

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge force the HOA to undo a project (like a road repair) if the vote was illegal?

Short Answer

Generally, no. The ALJ lacks the statutory authority to order projects rescinded once completed.

Detailed Answer

While the ALJ can determine that a violation occurred and levy penalties, they cannot order the association to 'un-do' the physical work or rescind the project.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority under the A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 to order the projects rescinded…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • powers of ALJ
  • construction

Question

What is the standard of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove that their contention is 'more probably true than not.'

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • evidence

Question

Can the HOA claim that their specific bylaws or CC&Rs override state laws regarding ballot formats?

Short Answer

No. The relevant state statute explicitly overrides community documents regarding absentee ballot requirements.

Detailed Answer

The statute begins with 'Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents,' meaning the state law requirements for ballots take precedence over the HOA's internal rules.

Alj Quote

A.R.S. § 33-1812 provides… 'Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents… any action taken… shall comply with all of the following…'

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)

Topic Tags

  • governing documents
  • statutory interpretation
  • supremacy of law

Question

If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes. The ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the homeowner for the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, the HOA was ordered to pay the $500 filing fee directly to the Petitioner.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Order of the ALJ

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • fees
  • penalties

Question

Does a majority vote of the homeowners cure a defective ballot?

Short Answer

No. Even if the vast majority of homeowners approved the spending, the ballot can still be ruled a violation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that although most homeowners approved the proposal, the violation still stood because allowing such ballots would leave 'virtually no remedy' for future procedural violations.

Alj Quote

In this case, although the vast majority of homeowners approved the proposals, the Administrative Law Judge is concerned that this type of ballot could be used in the future, leaving virtually no remedy.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812

Topic Tags

  • voting results
  • procedural violations
  • compliance

Case

Docket No
23F-H020-REL
Case Title
Daniel Mayer vs Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-02-17
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA combine multiple capital improvement projects into a single 'Yes' or 'No' vote?

Short Answer

No. The HOA must allow homeowners to vote for or against each proposed action separately.

Detailed Answer

Even if the projects are related or presented in the same letter, the ballot itself must provide an opportunity to vote on each specific expenditure or project individually. Combining them into one vote violates Arizona statutes.

Alj Quote

Thus, the tribunal finds the ballot improper because it did not contain the opportunity to vote on each separate proposal.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)-(2)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • ballots
  • assessments

Question

If the HOA conducts a vote by mail or email rather than at a live meeting, do they still have to list voting items separately?

Short Answer

Yes. The requirement to list each proposed action separately applies to absentee ballots and written ballots used without a meeting.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ rejected the argument that voting requirements only apply to in-person meetings. Statutes governing both planned communities and nonprofit corporations require that written ballots set forth each proposed action.

Alj Quote

According to that statute, the ballots still must set for each action and provide an opportunity to vote for or against each action. … Therefore, this ballot runs afoul of A.R.S. § 33-1812.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812; A.R.S. § 10-3708

Topic Tags

  • absentee ballots
  • voting
  • mail-in voting

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge force the HOA to undo a project (like a road repair) if the vote was illegal?

Short Answer

Generally, no. The ALJ lacks the statutory authority to order projects rescinded once completed.

Detailed Answer

While the ALJ can determine that a violation occurred and levy penalties, they cannot order the association to 'un-do' the physical work or rescind the project.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority under the A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 to order the projects rescinded…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • powers of ALJ
  • construction

Question

What is the standard of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove that their contention is 'more probably true than not.'

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • evidence

Question

Can the HOA claim that their specific bylaws or CC&Rs override state laws regarding ballot formats?

Short Answer

No. The relevant state statute explicitly overrides community documents regarding absentee ballot requirements.

Detailed Answer

The statute begins with 'Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents,' meaning the state law requirements for ballots take precedence over the HOA's internal rules.

Alj Quote

A.R.S. § 33-1812 provides… 'Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents… any action taken… shall comply with all of the following…'

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)

Topic Tags

  • governing documents
  • statutory interpretation
  • supremacy of law

Question

If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes. The ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the homeowner for the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, the HOA was ordered to pay the $500 filing fee directly to the Petitioner.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Order of the ALJ

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • fees
  • penalties

Question

Does a majority vote of the homeowners cure a defective ballot?

Short Answer

No. Even if the vast majority of homeowners approved the spending, the ballot can still be ruled a violation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that although most homeowners approved the proposal, the violation still stood because allowing such ballots would leave 'virtually no remedy' for future procedural violations.

Alj Quote

In this case, although the vast majority of homeowners approved the proposals, the Administrative Law Judge is concerned that this type of ballot could be used in the future, leaving virtually no remedy.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812

Topic Tags

  • voting results
  • procedural violations
  • compliance

Case

Docket No
23F-H020-REL
Case Title
Daniel Mayer vs Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-02-17
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Daniel Mayer (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf
  • Mr. D'Angelo (witness)
    Petitioner's husband

Respondent Side

  • Sandy Chambers (board president)
    Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent; also referred to as 'Andrew Chambers' and 'Miss Chambers' in the transcript

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Miranda (OAH staff)
    OAH
    Front desk staff mentioned by ALJ
  • James Knupp (commissioner)
    ADRE
    Acting Commissioner listed on initial transmittal
  • Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
    ADRE
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Transmittal recipient
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Transmittal recipient
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Transmittal recipient
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Transmittal recipient

Other Participants

  • jzipprich (property manager)
    Desert Management
    Email contact for Respondent HOA

Katherine Belinsky v. Del Cerro Condos

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222046-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-07-14
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), finding that the HOA and its property managers had made records reasonably available for examination.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Katherine Belinsky Counsel —
Respondent Del Cerro Condos Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), finding that the HOA and its property managers had made records reasonably available for examination.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required by A.A.C. R2-19-119. The evidence showed Respondent responded timely to requests, provided some documents, and offered Petitioner appointments to review other sensitive or older records in the office, which she failed to schedule.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide books, records and accounts

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to provide required HOA records, including bank statements, invoices, and contracts, following requests made primarily in March 2022, thereby violating statute A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

Orders: Petitioner's petition denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Records Access, Statutory Violation, Burden of Proof, Special Assessment Dispute
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • State ex rel. Thomas v. Contes, 216 Ariz. 525, 527, 169 P.3d 115, 117 (App. 2007)
  • Marsoner v. Pima County, 166 Ariz. 486, 488, 803 P.2d 897, 899 (1991)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222046-REL Decision – 971256.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:58:54 (46.4 KB)

22F-H2222046-REL Decision – 983785.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:58:58 (114.6 KB)

22F-H2222046-REL Decision – 971256.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:58 (46.4 KB)

22F-H2222046-REL Decision – 983785.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:03 (114.6 KB)

This summary addresses the legal case hearing concerning the Petitioner, Katherine Belinsky, versus the Respondent, Del Cerro Condos, Case No. 22F-H2222046-REL, heard on July 1, 2022, before Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The dispute centered on the Petitioner's claim that the Del Cerro Condos Homeowners Association (HOA), a 14-unit association, failed to provide requested books, records, and accounts, constituting a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). This petition followed a period of instability within the HOA, which was described as neglected and dating back to 1969, with only $1,000.00 in the reserve account. The conflict intensified after the Board issued a $5,000.00 special assessment per unit in January 2022 to fund necessary maintenance, primarily walkway repairs. The Petitioner testified that she had been requesting documents for three to four years, specifically mentioning invoices, contracts, bank statements, and corporation records, and claimed any disclosures were "doctored".

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments

  1. Petitioner's Position: Katherine Belinsky (Petitioner) argued that she had received "not one thing" regarding contracts, bids, invoices, or bank statements, and was unaware of how HOA money was being spent. She cited Arizona law, including HB2158 and case law (e.g., *Callaway*), to assert that the special assessment and changes to governing documents were illegal due to lack of transparency and proper member voting.
  1. Respondent's Defense: Alessandra Wisniewski (Vice President) and Amanda Butcher (President) maintained that they, along with their property managers (PMI, and later Community Financials), were prompt in responding to Petitioner's written requests. They testified that documents such as financial statements for recent months (starting September 2021) and governing documents (CCNRs/Bylaws) were sent to the Petitioner via email. For other sensitive or older records (such as receipts, vendor bids, and individual member ledgers), Ms. Wisniewski stated that Petitioner was repeatedly instructed—in writing—to schedule an appointment to review these documents at the management office, which the Petitioner failed to do. The Board asserted they made accommodations for the Petitioner regarding her HOA payments and confirmed they were protecting sensitive information.

Legal Points and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 by a preponderance of the evidence. A.R.S. § 33-1805 mandates that records "shall be made reasonably available for examination".

The ALJ's decision found that the Petitioner failed to establish that she was denied access to the financial records. The evidence demonstrated that the Board and property manager provided documents timely and offered the opportunity for the Petitioner to make an appointment to review other requested records, an opportunity she did not utilize. The statute does not grant a unit owner the right to peruse all documents at will, as some may properly be withheld.

Final Decision: The Petitioner’s petition was denied.

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law during a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, it is up to the homeowner filing the complaint to prove that the Association violated the statute. The HOA does not initially have to prove its innocence; the homeowner must present evidence that carries more weight.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal procedure

Question

What level of evidence is required to win a dispute against an HOA?

Short Answer

A preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must provide evidence that is more convincing than the evidence offered by the HOA. It must show that the alleged violation is 'more probable than not' to have occurred.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is '[e]vidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.'

Legal Basis

Black's Law Dictionary (cited in decision)

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • legal standard

Question

Does a homeowner have the right to browse through every single document the HOA possesses?

Short Answer

No, the right to inspect records is not absolute or 'at will'.

Detailed Answer

While statutes require records to be reasonably available, this does not grant homeowners the right to peruse every document at will. The ALJ noted that certain documents may properly be withheld.

Alj Quote

Nothing in the statute however, grants a condominium unit owner the right to peruse all of the association’s documents at will as some documents may properly be withheld.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • privacy
  • limitations

Question

If I request records, does the HOA have to mail them to me, or can they require me to view them in person?

Short Answer

The HOA complies by making records available for examination, often by appointment.

Detailed Answer

The HOA meets its statutory obligation if it makes records reasonably available for examination. In this case, offering an appointment for the homeowner to visit the office and review the documents was considered sufficient compliance, even if the homeowner refused to attend.

Alj Quote

Further, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner was always granted an opportunity to make an appointment to review the other records and she failed to do so.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • compliance
  • in-person review

Question

How quickly must the HOA respond to a request to examine records?

Short Answer

Within ten business days.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law, an association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination of records or to provide copies if purchased.

Alj Quote

The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • deadlines
  • statutory requirements

Question

Can the HOA charge me a fee for looking at the records?

Short Answer

No fee is allowed for the review process itself.

Detailed Answer

The association is prohibited from charging a member for making material available for review. However, they may charge a fee specifically for making copies.

Alj Quote

The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • records access

Question

What is the maximum amount an HOA can charge for copies of records?

Short Answer

Fifteen cents per page.

Detailed Answer

If a homeowner requests to purchase copies of the records, the association is limited by statute to charging no more than fifteen cents per page.

Alj Quote

An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • copies

Question

Can I dispute an HOA violation if I simply refuse to cooperate with their attempts to provide records?

Short Answer

Likely not; failure to utilize offered opportunities undermines the claim.

Detailed Answer

If the HOA offers opportunities to review records (such as setting an appointment) and the homeowner fails to do so, the homeowner may fail to prove that they were denied access.

Alj Quote

Petitioner failed to establish that she was denied access to the financial records. … Petitioner was always granted an opportunity to make an appointment to review the other records and she failed to do so.

Legal Basis

Determined by ALJ Findings

Topic Tags

  • dispute resolution
  • homeowner responsibility

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222046-REL
Case Title
Katherine Belinsky vs Del Cerro Condos
Decision Date
2022-07-14
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law during a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, it is up to the homeowner filing the complaint to prove that the Association violated the statute. The HOA does not initially have to prove its innocence; the homeowner must present evidence that carries more weight.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal procedure

Question

What level of evidence is required to win a dispute against an HOA?

Short Answer

A preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must provide evidence that is more convincing than the evidence offered by the HOA. It must show that the alleged violation is 'more probable than not' to have occurred.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is '[e]vidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.'

Legal Basis

Black's Law Dictionary (cited in decision)

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • legal standard

Question

Does a homeowner have the right to browse through every single document the HOA possesses?

Short Answer

No, the right to inspect records is not absolute or 'at will'.

Detailed Answer

While statutes require records to be reasonably available, this does not grant homeowners the right to peruse every document at will. The ALJ noted that certain documents may properly be withheld.

Alj Quote

Nothing in the statute however, grants a condominium unit owner the right to peruse all of the association’s documents at will as some documents may properly be withheld.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • privacy
  • limitations

Question

If I request records, does the HOA have to mail them to me, or can they require me to view them in person?

Short Answer

The HOA complies by making records available for examination, often by appointment.

Detailed Answer

The HOA meets its statutory obligation if it makes records reasonably available for examination. In this case, offering an appointment for the homeowner to visit the office and review the documents was considered sufficient compliance, even if the homeowner refused to attend.

Alj Quote

Further, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner was always granted an opportunity to make an appointment to review the other records and she failed to do so.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • compliance
  • in-person review

Question

How quickly must the HOA respond to a request to examine records?

Short Answer

Within ten business days.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law, an association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination of records or to provide copies if purchased.

Alj Quote

The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • deadlines
  • statutory requirements

Question

Can the HOA charge me a fee for looking at the records?

Short Answer

No fee is allowed for the review process itself.

Detailed Answer

The association is prohibited from charging a member for making material available for review. However, they may charge a fee specifically for making copies.

Alj Quote

The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • records access

Question

What is the maximum amount an HOA can charge for copies of records?

Short Answer

Fifteen cents per page.

Detailed Answer

If a homeowner requests to purchase copies of the records, the association is limited by statute to charging no more than fifteen cents per page.

Alj Quote

An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • copies

Question

Can I dispute an HOA violation if I simply refuse to cooperate with their attempts to provide records?

Short Answer

Likely not; failure to utilize offered opportunities undermines the claim.

Detailed Answer

If the HOA offers opportunities to review records (such as setting an appointment) and the homeowner fails to do so, the homeowner may fail to prove that they were denied access.

Alj Quote

Petitioner failed to establish that she was denied access to the financial records. … Petitioner was always granted an opportunity to make an appointment to review the other records and she failed to do so.

Legal Basis

Determined by ALJ Findings

Topic Tags

  • dispute resolution
  • homeowner responsibility

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222046-REL
Case Title
Katherine Belinsky vs Del Cerro Condos
Decision Date
2022-07-14
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Katherine Belinsky (petitioner)
    Also referred to as Catherine Valinski, Bolinsky, or Katya/Katcha; unit owner.

Respondent Side

  • Alessandra Wisniewski (VP)
    Del Cerro Condos Board
    Also referred to as Alexandra; testified on behalf of Respondent.
  • Amanda Butcher (President)
    Del Cerro Condos Board
    Testified on behalf of Respondent.
  • Eddie B (property manager)
    PMI Lake Havasu
    President of PMI Lake Havasu; also referred to as Eddie Being.
  • Lisa Modler (property manager assistant)
    PMI Lake Havasu
    Also referred to as Lisa Miam; secretary assistance for PMI.
  • Brady Bowen (property manager)
    PMI Lake Havasu
    Business partner of Eddie B.
  • Fiser (maintenance supervisor)
    PMI Lake Havasu
    No first name provided.
  • Kathy Ein (property manager)
    Community Financials
    Manager for new management company.
  • Moses (board member)
    Del Cerro Condos Board
    Former Treasurer/Secretary on the board.

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • Miranda Alvarez (legal secretary)
    OAH
    Transmitted Decision electronically.
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official documents.
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official documents.
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official documents.
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official documents.

Other Participants

  • Eric Needles (former property manager)
    London Dairy
    Former property management/statutory agent.
  • Elizabeth (statutory agent)
    Former statutory agent; last name not provided.
  • Betty Sergeant (former property manager)
    Petitioner took her to court.
  • Todd Sullivan (association manager)
    Viking New Association
    New association manager effective June 1st.
  • c. serrano (unknown)
    Transmittal initial on Del Cerro Condo contact document.

Asmaa Kadhum v. Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1256

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

Requesting to Waive/or Adjust Unreasonable Collection Fees.

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

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1256
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 1005275.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:43:34 (101.7 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 1009064.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:43:38 (37.4 KB)

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

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:43:41 (21.1 KB)

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

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:43:44 (457.3 KB)

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

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:43:48 (983.8 KB)

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

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:43:51 (96.5 KB)

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

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:43:55 (138.0 KB)

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

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:43:59 (25.0 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 975165.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:44:04 (104.8 KB)

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

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:44:07 (93.3 KB)

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

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:44:14 (122.6 KB)

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

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:44:19 (129.6 KB)

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

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:44:23 (132.2 KB)

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

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:44:27 (133.2 KB)

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

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:44:30 (1101.1 KB)

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

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:44:36 (3755.5 KB)

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

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:44:40 (221.2 KB)

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

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:44:48 (5499.9 KB)

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

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:44:57 (5828.4 KB)

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

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:45:00 (125.4 KB)

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

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

Parties Involved

Name/Entity

Key Representative(s)

Petitioner

Asmaa Kadhum

Asmaa Kadhum, Mazin Ahmed Al-Salih

Respondent

Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association

Jerry Latschar (Vice President), Cammy Bowring

Chronology of Key Events

Prior to May 1, 2019

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

April 21, 2020

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

April 30, 2020

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

June 15, 2020

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

August 7, 2020

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

September 10, 2020

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

November 13, 2020

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

December 10, 2020

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

Post-Release

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

December 2021

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

January 12, 2022

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

April 4, 2022

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

October 11, 2022

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

October 27, 2022

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

Analysis of the Core Dispute

The Disputed Legal Fees

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

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

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

The Improper Lien

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

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

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

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

◦ $1,435.00 in the April 2020 notice.

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

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

Petitioner’s Position and Arguments

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

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

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

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

Respondent’s Position and Arguments

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

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

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

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

Administrative Hearing and Legal Rulings

Case Details and Petition

• OAH Docket: 22F-H2222028-REL

• ADRE Case: HO22-22/028

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

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

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Salient Quotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Short-Answer Quiz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

Suggested Essay Questions

1. Trace the complete timeline of the dispute, starting from the initial delinquency prior to May 2019 through the final OAH decision in October 2022. Detail the key financial figures, legal actions, and communications from both parties at each significant stage.

2. Analyze the central legal arguments presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent. Discuss the merits of the Petitioner’s claim regarding A.R.S. § 33-1256 and explain in detail the jurisdictional reasoning used by the Administrative Law Judge to dismiss the petition.

3. Examine the various financial discrepancies present throughout the source documents, including the differing amounts cited in notices, the lien filing, attorney letters, and account ledgers. How did these inconsistencies contribute to the escalation of the conflict and the accumulation of legal fees?

4. Discuss the role of the Respondent’s law firm, Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C., in this dispute. Based on the provided emails and legal documents, evaluate their advice to the Association and their actions regarding the lien and collection process.

5. Critically evaluate the communication and resolution attempts between the Petitioner and the Respondent’s board outside of the formal legal proceedings. What do the emails and hearing testimony reveal about their efforts to resolve the dispute directly?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

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

A.R.S. § 33-1256

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

Assessment

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

Declaratory Judgment

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

Department of Real Estate (ADRE)

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

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

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

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

Petitioner

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

Preponderance of the evidence

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

Rehearing

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

Release of Lien

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

Respondent

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

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

Introduction: The Notice on the Door

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

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

——————————————————————————–

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

2. A Legal Technicality Can Get a Valid Complaint Dismissed

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

4. A Disputed Debt Can Haunt a Property Sale

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

5. Small Communication Failures Lead to Big Legal Bills

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: A Pyrrhic Victory?

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

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Asmaa Kadhum (petitioner)
    Filed the petition and appeared on her own behalf,
  • Mazin Ahmed (co-owner)
    Referenced as part of 'Petitioner' definition; much of the correspondence was from/to him

Respondent Side

  • Jerry Latschar (board member)
    Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association
    Vice President of the Board of Directors, appeared on behalf of Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    OAH
    Also referred to as Tammy Aganeer,,,
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner ADRE)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Miranda Alvarez (legal secretary)
    Transmitted decision
  • c. serrano (administrative staff)
    Transmitted minute entry

James Iannuzo v. Moonrise at Starr Pass Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221014-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-12-30
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome The Petitioner prevailed by showing the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1243. The Association was ordered to refund the $500.00 filing fee. Petitioner's requests for voiding election results, assessing a civil penalty, and appointing an administrator were denied.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner James Iannuzo Counsel —
Respondent Moonrise at Starr Pass Community Association Counsel Jason E. Smith

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1243(H)(4)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner prevailed by showing the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1243. The Association was ordered to refund the $500.00 filing fee. Petitioner's requests for voiding election results, assessing a civil penalty, and appointing an administrator were denied.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of statutory procedure for board member removal concerning ballot tabulation after deadline.

The Association violated the statute by tabulating ballots for a recall election at the August 19, 2021 meeting, as those ballots were only valid for the canceled June 30, 2021 special meeting.

Orders: Respondent must pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order. Other requested remedies (voiding results, assessing civil penalty, appointing administrator) were denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250(C)(3)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA board recall, Ballot tabulation, Quorum dispute, Statutory violation, Filing fee refund
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Homeowners Ass'n
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
  • State v. McFall

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221014-REL Decision – 935534.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:41:19 (128.9 KB)

22F-H2221014-REL Decision – 945764.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:41:24 (48.2 KB)

22F-H2221014-REL Decision – 949683.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:41:26 (49.4 KB)

This is a summary of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision regarding the Petitioner, James Iannuzo, versus the Respondent, Moonrise at Starr Pass Community Association. The hearing took place on December 13, 2021.

Key Facts and Procedural History

The case centered on the Association's handling of a petition to recall and remove two board members, specifically addressing violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1243.

The Association received the recall petitions and scheduled a Special Meeting for June 30, 2021. This meeting was required to be "called, noticed and held within thirty days after receipt of the petition" pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1243(H)(4)(c). A quorum required 20% of eligible voters (45 ballots).

The Association required ballots to be received by June 29, 2021. On the morning of June 30, 2021, the Association canceled the meeting, announcing that it had failed to achieve a quorum. Subsequently, on or about July 14, 2021, the Association announced that late-received ballots provided a quorum and scheduled a new meeting for August 19, 2021, solely to count the ballots originally issued for the June 30th meeting.

The single issue pursued by Petitioner Iannuzo was that the tabulation of Special Meeting ballots received after the statutory deadline violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1243(H)(4).

Key Arguments

Petitioner's Argument: Iannuzo argued that the August 19, 2021, recount results should be voided because the ballots, notice, and voting instructions specifically stated the ballots were valid only for the June 30, 2021, Special Meeting.

Respondent's Argument: The Association argued that it could not hold the June 30th meeting due to lack of a quorum. They contended that merely setting the meeting was sufficient to satisfy the 30-day requirement of A.R.S. § 33-1243(H)(4)(c), and the statute does not specify when votes must be tallied.

Legal Findings and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1243.

  1. Statutory Violation: The Association acknowledged it did not conduct the June 30th special meeting, meaning no meeting was conducted within 30 days of receiving the recall petitions, a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1243(H)(4)(c).
  2. Invalid Ballot Counting: The decision to count the votes at the August 19th meeting was a violation because, under statute (A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(3)) and by the Association’s own documentation, the ballot was valid only for the specified June 30th election or meeting. The use of these ballots at the August 19th meeting was non-compliant.

Final Decision and Order:

  • James Iannuzo was declared the prevailing party.
  • The Association was ordered to pay Mr. Iannuzo his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.
  • The ALJ declined Iannuzo’s requests to void the election results, assess a civil penalty, or appoint an oversight administrator, concluding these remedies were outside the scope of the tribunal’s authority under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).

Subsequent Advisement: Following the Order, the Office of Administrative Hearings later advised the parties that OAH's enabling statutes do not provide authority for it to compel the Respondent to comply with the Order (the fee refund).

Questions

Question

What is the deadline for an HOA to hold a special meeting after receiving a petition to recall board members?

Short Answer

The meeting must be held within 30 days of receiving the petition.

Detailed Answer

According to Arizona statute, once an HOA receives a petition for the removal of a board member, it is legally required to call, notice, and actually hold the special meeting within a 30-day timeframe.

Alj Quote

The special meeting shall be called, noticed and held within thirty days after receipt of the petition.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)(c)

Topic Tags

  • recall election
  • deadlines
  • board removal

Question

Can an HOA count ballots collected for a specific meeting date at a later, rescheduled meeting?

Short Answer

No, ballots are only valid for the specific meeting they were issued for.

Detailed Answer

An HOA cannot use ballots collected for a canceled meeting at a subsequent meeting held on a different date. The decision clarified that counting such ballots violates the statute because the ballots are strictly limited to the meeting for which they were originally valid.

Alj Quote

The Association’s decision to count the ballots at the August 19th meeting does not comply with section 33-1243 because those ballots were valid only for the June 30th meeting as evidenced by the ballots, the Notice, and the voting instructions.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250(C)(3)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • ballots
  • meetings

Question

Can an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) void an HOA election or remove board members?

Short Answer

No, the ALJ does not have the authority to void election results or appoint administrators.

Detailed Answer

While an ALJ can determine if a violation occurred and levy penalties, they cannot order an election to be voided or appoint an independent administrator to oversee the HOA. These remedies are outside the tribunal's statutory scope.

Alj Quote

Mr. Iannuzo’s requests that the tribunal void the election results and that an oversight administrator be appointed have not been shown to be within the scope of the tribunal’s authority.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • legal remedies
  • ALJ authority
  • elections

Question

Is an HOA allowed to determine a quorum based solely on mail-in ballots before the meeting starts?

Short Answer

Likely no; the quorum should be determined based on eligible voters present at the time of the meeting.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that the statute calls for a quorum to be determined based on the number of eligible voters at the time of the meeting, implying that canceling a meeting beforehand based solely on returned ballots is not supported by persuasive legal argument.

Alj Quote

The Association presented no persuasive legal argument or authority showing that in determining whether a quorum existed it was appropriate for the Association to use only the ballots returned by June 29th, rather than using the ballots and the members present at the meeting on June 30th.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)(d)

Topic Tags

  • quorum
  • meetings
  • voting

Question

If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee refunded?

Short Answer

Yes, if the homeowner prevails, the HOA must be ordered to pay the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

If the Administrative Law Judge determines that the homeowner has prevailed in proving a violation, the law mandates that the Judge order the HOA to reimburse the petitioner for the filing fee.

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
  • penalties
  • reimbursement

Question

Can an HOA fix a violation for missing the 30-day recall meeting deadline by holding the meeting later?

Short Answer

No, this specific violation cannot be cured after the fact.

Detailed Answer

Once the 30-day window for holding a recall meeting has passed, the violation is established and cannot be retroactively fixed by holding the meeting late.

Alj Quote

And although the Association did not conduct the required meeting within 30 days of receiving the recall petitions, this violation cannot be cured.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243

Topic Tags

  • violations
  • compliance
  • deadlines

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221014-REL
Case Title
James Iannuzo vs. Moonrise at Starr Pass Community Association
Decision Date
2021-12-30
Alj Name
Thomas Shedden
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

What is the deadline for an HOA to hold a special meeting after receiving a petition to recall board members?

Short Answer

The meeting must be held within 30 days of receiving the petition.

Detailed Answer

According to Arizona statute, once an HOA receives a petition for the removal of a board member, it is legally required to call, notice, and actually hold the special meeting within a 30-day timeframe.

Alj Quote

The special meeting shall be called, noticed and held within thirty days after receipt of the petition.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)(c)

Topic Tags

  • recall election
  • deadlines
  • board removal

Question

Can an HOA count ballots collected for a specific meeting date at a later, rescheduled meeting?

Short Answer

No, ballots are only valid for the specific meeting they were issued for.

Detailed Answer

An HOA cannot use ballots collected for a canceled meeting at a subsequent meeting held on a different date. The decision clarified that counting such ballots violates the statute because the ballots are strictly limited to the meeting for which they were originally valid.

Alj Quote

The Association’s decision to count the ballots at the August 19th meeting does not comply with section 33-1243 because those ballots were valid only for the June 30th meeting as evidenced by the ballots, the Notice, and the voting instructions.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250(C)(3)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • ballots
  • meetings

Question

Can an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) void an HOA election or remove board members?

Short Answer

No, the ALJ does not have the authority to void election results or appoint administrators.

Detailed Answer

While an ALJ can determine if a violation occurred and levy penalties, they cannot order an election to be voided or appoint an independent administrator to oversee the HOA. These remedies are outside the tribunal's statutory scope.

Alj Quote

Mr. Iannuzo’s requests that the tribunal void the election results and that an oversight administrator be appointed have not been shown to be within the scope of the tribunal’s authority.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • legal remedies
  • ALJ authority
  • elections

Question

Is an HOA allowed to determine a quorum based solely on mail-in ballots before the meeting starts?

Short Answer

Likely no; the quorum should be determined based on eligible voters present at the time of the meeting.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that the statute calls for a quorum to be determined based on the number of eligible voters at the time of the meeting, implying that canceling a meeting beforehand based solely on returned ballots is not supported by persuasive legal argument.

Alj Quote

The Association presented no persuasive legal argument or authority showing that in determining whether a quorum existed it was appropriate for the Association to use only the ballots returned by June 29th, rather than using the ballots and the members present at the meeting on June 30th.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)(d)

Topic Tags

  • quorum
  • meetings
  • voting

Question

If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee refunded?

Short Answer

Yes, if the homeowner prevails, the HOA must be ordered to pay the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

If the Administrative Law Judge determines that the homeowner has prevailed in proving a violation, the law mandates that the Judge order the HOA to reimburse the petitioner for the filing fee.

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
  • penalties
  • reimbursement

Question

Can an HOA fix a violation for missing the 30-day recall meeting deadline by holding the meeting later?

Short Answer

No, this specific violation cannot be cured after the fact.

Detailed Answer

Once the 30-day window for holding a recall meeting has passed, the violation is established and cannot be retroactively fixed by holding the meeting late.

Alj Quote

And although the Association did not conduct the required meeting within 30 days of receiving the recall petitions, this violation cannot be cured.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243

Topic Tags

  • violations
  • compliance
  • deadlines

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221014-REL
Case Title
James Iannuzo vs. Moonrise at Starr Pass Community Association
Decision Date
2021-12-30
Alj Name
Thomas Shedden
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • James Iannuzo (petitioner)
    Appeared and testified on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Jason E. Smith (respondent attorney)
    Smith & Wamsley, PLLC
    Counsel for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Miranda Alvarez (clerk)
    Transmitted Decision
  • c. serrano (clerk)
    Transmitted Advisements
  • AHansen (staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission (Attn)
  • djones (staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission (Attn)
  • DGardner (staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission (Attn)
  • vnunez (staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission (Attn)

Thomas A & Jade Bossert v. Silverbell West Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120011-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-04-16
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party after Respondent was found in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) for failing to provide specific financial records (bank statements, check copies) and A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) for failing to complete the 2019 financial compilation. The ALJ declined to impose a civil penalty but ordered Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fees of $1,000.00.
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Thomas A & Jade Bossert Counsel Anthony Tsontakis
Respondent Silverbell West Association, Inc. Counsel Nicholas C Nogami & Timothy D Butterfield

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A) & ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(J)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party after Respondent was found in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) for failing to provide specific financial records (bank statements, check copies) and A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) for failing to complete the 2019 financial compilation. The ALJ declined to impose a civil penalty but ordered Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fees of $1,000.00.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to disclose records and complete annual financial compilation

Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) by failing to provide bank account statements and check copies, and violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) by failing to complete the 2019 financial compilation. Petitioner did not meet the burden regarding the 2018 financial report.

Orders: Respondent was ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fees of $1,000.00 within 30 days.

Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(J)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Homeowners Association, Records Access, Financial Compilation, Statutory Violation, Condominium Association
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(J)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120011-REL Decision – 865401.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-27T09:41:32 (42.0 KB)

21F-H2120011-REL Decision – 872606.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-27T09:41:35 (153.6 KB)

21F-H2120011-REL Decision – 865401.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:35:06 (42.0 KB)

21F-H2120011-REL Decision – 872606.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:35:09 (153.6 KB)

This summary details the administrative hearing proceedings in the matter of *Thomas A & Jade Bossert vs. Silverbell West Association, Inc.*

Case Summary: Bossert v. Silverbell West Association, Inc.

Key Facts and Parties

The Petitioner, Thomas A. and Jade Bossert, are owners of a condominium unit and members of the Silverbell West Association, Inc. (Respondent). The dispute was heard by Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone in the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The evidentiary hearing took place on March 18, 2021.

Main Issues

The Petitioner filed a two-issue petition alleging the Association committed statutory violations:

  1. Failure to Disclose Records: Violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A) by failing to make financial and other records reasonably available for examination.
  2. Failure to Complete Financials: Violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(J) by failing to complete an annual financial audit, review, or compilation within 180 days after the end of the 2018 and 2019 fiscal years.

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments

Petitioner testified that initial documents received following a June 2020 request were disorganized and incomplete. A subsequent request in July 2020 for specific missing items, including bank statements and cash journals, was never fulfilled. A bookkeeping expert testified that the records presented were disorganized, likely missing documents, and insufficient for making accurate 2018 and 2019 reports.

The Board President testified that they believed the initial request was met based on records held by the former Treasurer, Mr. Molley, but admitted the follow-up request was likely ignored. The tribunal found that Mr. Molley was "largely the one to blame" for unacceptable record-keeping, but also criticized the current Board President for failing to take a more active role in obtaining easily available bank statements.

Legal Conclusions and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge found that the Petitioner had sustained the burden of proving that the Association committed two specific violations:

  1. Violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A) (Records Disclosure): The Respondent violated the statute insofar as they failed to produce bank account statements and check copies. The fact that these records had still not been turned over was deemed "inexcusable".
  2. Violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(J) (Financial Compilation): The Respondent violated the statute by failing to complete the 2019 financial compilation.
  • *Note:* The tribunal found Petitioner did *not* meet the burden of proof regarding the 2018 financial report, as Petitioner (who was Board President at the time) could have taken more aggressive measures to secure the necessary documentation.

Final Decision

The Administrative Law Judge declined to impose a civil penalty, noting that the Board had subsequently taken steps to ensure better future record keeping.

The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party and the Association (Respondent) was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fees of $1,000.00 within 30 days.

Questions

Question

Can my HOA refuse to provide bank statements by claiming the Treasurer kept poor records?

Short Answer

No. The Board has a duty to obtain readily available records like bank statements directly from the bank if necessary.

Detailed Answer

The Board cannot excuse a failure to provide records by blaming a specific officer's poor record-keeping. If records like bank statements are missing from the files, the Board President or other officers should go to the bank to obtain copies.

Alj Quote

Mr. Warnix, as President of the Board, should have taken a more active role in at least obtaining all bank account records and copies of checks given his knowledge of Mr. Molley’s actions… he could have requested copies of the same in person at the bank. The fact that these records still have not been turned over is inexcusable.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • board duties
  • bank statements

Question

What is the deadline for the HOA to complete its annual financial compilation?

Short Answer

The compilation must be completed within 180 days after the fiscal year ends.

Detailed Answer

Unless the governing documents require an audit, the Board must provide for an annual financial audit, review, or compilation to be finished no later than 180 days after the fiscal year ends. It must be made available to owners within 30 days of completion.

Alj Quote

The audit, review or compilation shall be completed no later than one hundred eighty days after the end of the association's fiscal year and shall be made available on request to the unit owners within thirty days after its completion.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(J)

Topic Tags

  • financials
  • deadlines
  • compilation

Question

Will the judge always fine the HOA if they violate record-keeping laws?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. If the HOA fixes the issue and ensures future compliance, the judge may decline to issue a civil penalty.

Detailed Answer

Even if violations are found, the ALJ has discretion regarding civil penalties. If the HOA has hired a professional manager or taken steps to ensure better record-keeping moving forward, the judge might decide a penalty is not required.

Alj Quote

That being said, the tribunal believes that Board took the appropriate steps to ensure better record keeping in the future… Thus, the Administrative Law Judge declines to impose a civil penalty.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • civil penalty
  • fines
  • enforcement

Question

What happens if I request specific accounting records (like ledgers) that the HOA simply never created?

Short Answer

The HOA cannot produce what doesn't exist, so they may not be penalized for failing to produce them, though the lack of records is a governance issue.

Detailed Answer

If there is no evidence that specific documents (like check registers or dues reports) were ever created due to poor management, the judge may find it impossible to rule that the HOA failed to provide existing records.

Alj Quote

With regards to the other records (check registers, cash receipt journals, dues reports, etc.), it is unclear from Mr. Bossert’s testimony, if those even existed… Thus, it is impossible to know if they even exist, as there was no evidence from Mr. Bossert that they do in fact exist.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)

Topic Tags

  • missing records
  • record keeping

Question

If I win my case against the HOA regarding records, can I get my filing fees back?

Short Answer

Yes, the prevailing party is typically entitled to reimbursement of filing fees.

Detailed Answer

If the homeowner sustains their burden of proof and is deemed the prevailing party, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fees.

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner is deemed the prevailing party and is entitled to his filing fees of $1,000.00, and Respondent must reimburse this within 30 days.

Legal Basis

Order based on prevailing party status

Topic Tags

  • reimbursement
  • fees
  • prevailing party

Question

Does a former Board President have a claim regarding missing financials from their own term?

Short Answer

It may be difficult to prove if the President had the authority to fix the issue at the time but didn't.

Detailed Answer

If a petitioner was the Board President during the time the violation occurred and had the power to remedy the situation (e.g., by taking over responsibility from a non-compliant Treasurer) but failed to do so, the tribunal may find they did not meet their burden of proof for that specific violation.

Alj Quote

Mr. Bossert, while acting as President, could have taken more aggressive measures with Mr. Molley to get him to provide the same… Therefore, Petitioner has not met his burden as to the 2018 financial report.

Legal Basis

Burden of proof standard

Topic Tags

  • board member rights
  • fiduciary duty

Case

Docket No
21F-H2120011-REL
Case Title
Thomas A & Jade Bossert vs. Silverbell West Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-04-16
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA refuse to provide bank statements by claiming the Treasurer kept poor records?

Short Answer

No. The Board has a duty to obtain readily available records like bank statements directly from the bank if necessary.

Detailed Answer

The Board cannot excuse a failure to provide records by blaming a specific officer's poor record-keeping. If records like bank statements are missing from the files, the Board President or other officers should go to the bank to obtain copies.

Alj Quote

Mr. Warnix, as President of the Board, should have taken a more active role in at least obtaining all bank account records and copies of checks given his knowledge of Mr. Molley’s actions… he could have requested copies of the same in person at the bank. The fact that these records still have not been turned over is inexcusable.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • board duties
  • bank statements

Question

What is the deadline for the HOA to complete its annual financial compilation?

Short Answer

The compilation must be completed within 180 days after the fiscal year ends.

Detailed Answer

Unless the governing documents require an audit, the Board must provide for an annual financial audit, review, or compilation to be finished no later than 180 days after the fiscal year ends. It must be made available to owners within 30 days of completion.

Alj Quote

The audit, review or compilation shall be completed no later than one hundred eighty days after the end of the association's fiscal year and shall be made available on request to the unit owners within thirty days after its completion.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(J)

Topic Tags

  • financials
  • deadlines
  • compilation

Question

Will the judge always fine the HOA if they violate record-keeping laws?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. If the HOA fixes the issue and ensures future compliance, the judge may decline to issue a civil penalty.

Detailed Answer

Even if violations are found, the ALJ has discretion regarding civil penalties. If the HOA has hired a professional manager or taken steps to ensure better record-keeping moving forward, the judge might decide a penalty is not required.

Alj Quote

That being said, the tribunal believes that Board took the appropriate steps to ensure better record keeping in the future… Thus, the Administrative Law Judge declines to impose a civil penalty.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • civil penalty
  • fines
  • enforcement

Question

What happens if I request specific accounting records (like ledgers) that the HOA simply never created?

Short Answer

The HOA cannot produce what doesn't exist, so they may not be penalized for failing to produce them, though the lack of records is a governance issue.

Detailed Answer

If there is no evidence that specific documents (like check registers or dues reports) were ever created due to poor management, the judge may find it impossible to rule that the HOA failed to provide existing records.

Alj Quote

With regards to the other records (check registers, cash receipt journals, dues reports, etc.), it is unclear from Mr. Bossert’s testimony, if those even existed… Thus, it is impossible to know if they even exist, as there was no evidence from Mr. Bossert that they do in fact exist.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)

Topic Tags

  • missing records
  • record keeping

Question

If I win my case against the HOA regarding records, can I get my filing fees back?

Short Answer

Yes, the prevailing party is typically entitled to reimbursement of filing fees.

Detailed Answer

If the homeowner sustains their burden of proof and is deemed the prevailing party, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fees.

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner is deemed the prevailing party and is entitled to his filing fees of $1,000.00, and Respondent must reimburse this within 30 days.

Legal Basis

Order based on prevailing party status

Topic Tags

  • reimbursement
  • fees
  • prevailing party

Question

Does a former Board President have a claim regarding missing financials from their own term?

Short Answer

It may be difficult to prove if the President had the authority to fix the issue at the time but didn't.

Detailed Answer

If a petitioner was the Board President during the time the violation occurred and had the power to remedy the situation (e.g., by taking over responsibility from a non-compliant Treasurer) but failed to do so, the tribunal may find they did not meet their burden of proof for that specific violation.

Alj Quote

Mr. Bossert, while acting as President, could have taken more aggressive measures with Mr. Molley to get him to provide the same… Therefore, Petitioner has not met his burden as to the 2018 financial report.

Legal Basis

Burden of proof standard

Topic Tags

  • board member rights
  • fiduciary duty

Case

Docket No
21F-H2120011-REL
Case Title
Thomas A & Jade Bossert vs. Silverbell West Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-04-16
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Thomas A Bossert (petitioner)
    Former Board President; testified on own behalf
  • Jade Bossert (petitioner)
  • Anthony Tsontakis (petitioner attorney)
    Tsontakis Law
  • Barbara Schoneck (witness)
    Digit & Docs LLC
    Called by Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas C Nogami (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
  • Timothy D Butterfield (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
  • Rex Warnix, III (board member; witness)
    Silverbell West Association, Inc.
    Current Board President; testified for Respondent/Association
  • Linda Garner (property manager; witness)
    Adam LLC
    Property manager for the Association
  • Donald Molley (board member; treasurer)
    Silverbell West Association, Inc.
    Board Treasurer responsible for financial records

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Lynda Meadows (accountant)
    Prepared 2018 financial compilation
  • LDettorre (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient
  • ncano (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient

Other Participants

  • c. serrano (ADRE staff)
    Individual listed on transmission details

Donna M Bischoff v. Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019033-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-03-30
Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera
Outcome The Petition was upheld on all issues asserted by the Petitioner. The Respondent was found in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1250(C) (failure to provide election documents), A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) (failure to hold an annual meeting in 2019), and Article 3, Section 2 of the Bylaws (improperly prohibiting write-in ballots). Respondent was ordered to supply Petitioner with relevant documents and refund the Petitioner's filing fee of $1,500.00. No Civil Penalty was found appropriate.
Filing Fees Refunded $1,500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Donna M Bischoff Counsel —
Respondent Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)
A.R.S. § 33-1248(B)
Bylaws Article 3, Section 2

Outcome Summary

The Petition was upheld on all issues asserted by the Petitioner. The Respondent was found in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1250(C) (failure to provide election documents), A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) (failure to hold an annual meeting in 2019), and Article 3, Section 2 of the Bylaws (improperly prohibiting write-in ballots). Respondent was ordered to supply Petitioner with relevant documents and refund the Petitioner's filing fee of $1,500.00. No Civil Penalty was found appropriate.

Key Issues & Findings

Voting; proxies; absentee ballots; applicability; definition

Respondent failed to provide Petitioner with the required election materials and documentation from the October 2018 elections, violating statutory requirements for retention and availability of these materials for owner inspection.

Orders: Respondent ordered to supply Petitioner with the relevant documents, pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1250(C), within ten (10) days of the Order.

Filing fee: $1,500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)

Open meetings; exceptions

Respondent postponed its required yearly 2019 meeting until January 2020, resulting in a failure to hold a unit owners' association meeting in 2019 as required by statute.

Orders: Petition upheld on this issue.

Filing fee: $1,500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(B)

Selection

Respondent's board of directors declared write-in ballots invalid for the November 20, 2019, election. Since the Bylaws were silent on prohibiting write-in ballots, Respondent failed to show how the ballots were invalid.

Orders: Petition upheld on this issue.

Filing fee: $1,500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • Article 3, Section 2 of the Bylaws

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Condominium Association, Election Procedures, Annual Meeting, Statutory Violation, Bylaw Interpretation
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • 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)
  • Bylaws Article 3, Section 2
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019033-REL Decision – 778923.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:24:42 (108.5 KB)

20F-H2019033-REL Decision – 778923.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:31:15 (108.5 KB)

Briefing Document: Bischoff v. Country Hills West Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and decision in the case of Donna M. Bischoff v. Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc. (No. 20F-H2019033-REL), heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The Administrative Law Judge found entirely in favor of the Petitioner, Donna M. Bischoff, concluding that the Respondent, Country Hills West Condominium Association (“the Association”), committed multiple violations of Arizona state statutes and its own governing documents.

The core violations upheld by the court are:

1. Failure to Hold a Required Annual Meeting: The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) by failing to hold its required annual meeting within the 2019 calendar year, repeatedly postponing it until January 2020.

2. Failure to Provide Election Records: The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1250(C) by failing to provide the Petitioner with complete election materials for inspection, including ballots, envelopes, and sign-in sheets from the October 2018 election.

3. Improper Prohibition of Write-In Ballots: The Association violated Article 3, Section 2 of its Bylaws by unilaterally prohibiting write-in ballots for the 2019 election, despite its governing documents being silent on the issue.

As a result, the Association was ordered to provide the requested documents to the Petitioner within ten days and to reimburse her $1,500 filing fee within thirty days. The decision underscores the legal obligation of homeowners’ associations to adhere strictly to statutory requirements for meetings, elections, and record transparency.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview

The dispute was adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings following a petition filed by homeowner Donna M. Bischoff with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on December 11, 2019.

Case Detail

Information

Case Name

Donna M Bischoff, Petitioner, v. Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc., Respondent

Case Number

20F-H2019033-REL

Adjudicator

Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera

Hearing Date

March 10, 2020

Decision Date

March 30, 2020

Petitioner Representative

Donna M. Bischoff (on her own behalf)

Respondent Representative

Doug Meyer, President and Director

II. Petitioner’s Allegations

The Petitioner, Donna M. Bischoff, asserted that the Country Hills West Condominium Association committed violations of state law and its own governing documents. The specific allegations were:

• Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248(B): Failure to hold the mandatory annual unit owners’ association meeting within the 2019 calendar year.

• Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1250(C): Failure to make election materials, including ballots and related items, available for inspection by a unit owner.

• Violation of Bylaws Article 3, Section 2: Improperly invalidating election ballots by prohibiting write-in candidates without any authority from the governing documents.

The Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish these violations by a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

III. Core Issues and Factual Findings

The hearing established several key facts that formed the basis of the Judge’s decision. The testimony from both Ms. Bischoff and the Association’s President, Doug Meyer, was central to these findings.

A. Failure to Hold the 2019 Annual Meeting

• Timeline of Events: The Association’s required annual meeting for 2019 was initially scheduled for November 20, 2019. It was subsequently postponed three times: first to December 19, 2019; then to December 30, 2019; and ultimately held on January 24, 2020.

• Respondent’s Justification: Mr. Meyer testified that the postponements were necessary because write-in candidates appeared on the ballot, which the board had prohibited. He stated that the board “needed time to reprint the ballot and mail them out.”

• Conclusion of Law: The evidence was undisputed that no annual meeting took place during the 2019 calendar year. The Judge concluded that by postponing the meeting into the following year, the Association was in direct violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248(B), which mandates that “A meeting of the unit owners’ association shall be held at least once each year.”

B. Denial of Access to Election Records

• Petitioner’s Request: In October 2018, Ms. Bischoff requested to see the election results from the October 2018 meeting, specifically seeking to know which units had voted.

• Respondent’s Response: The Association initially did not provide the results. A few weeks prior to the March 2020 hearing, it supplied Ms. Bischoff with vote tallies and a list of unit members who voted. However, it failed to provide the full scope of required materials.

• Missing Documentation: The Association did not provide the “ballots, envelopes, related materials, and sign-in sheets” as mandated by statute for inspection.

• Respondent’s Justification: Mr. Meyer argued that no election actually occurred at the October 18, 2018, meeting because there was no quorum. He further made the admission that the Association had not achieved a quorum for any meeting in the preceding 20 years. He claimed that without an election, there was no obligation to publish ballots.

• Conclusion of Law: The Judge found that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1250(C). The statute requires that “Ballots, envelopes and related materials… shall be retained… and made available for unit owner inspection for at least one year.” The partial and delayed provision of records was insufficient to meet this legal requirement.

C. Improper Prohibition of Write-In Ballots

• The Dispute: The November 20, 2019, meeting was cancelled because some ballots contained write-in candidates. The board of directors informed members that write-in ballots were prohibited and would be “thrown out.”

• Petitioner’s Argument: Ms. Bischoff argued that the board could not “choose how to interpret a silent document.” She pointed out that the Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation do not prohibit write-in ballots and that the same board had allowed them in a 2017 election.

• Respondent’s Position: Mr. Meyer acknowledged that the Bylaws were silent on the issue but stated the Association needed to “figure out how to handle” them. A membership meeting to discuss the issue was held on December 30, 2019, but failed to achieve a quorum.

• Conclusion of Law: The Judge determined that the Association violated its own Bylaws. The decision states, “absent any clear language in the A.R.S. or the Bylaws prohibiting write in ballots, Respondent failed to show how the ballots were invalid.” The board’s unilateral prohibition was therefore found to be improper.

IV. Legal Conclusions and Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge upheld the petition on all issues, finding that the Petitioner had successfully proven her case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Final Order:

Based on the foregoing conclusions, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Petition filed by Donna M. Bischoff is upheld on all issues.

2. The Petitioner is deemed the prevailing party in the matter.

3. The Respondent must supply the Petitioner with the relevant election documents pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1250(C) within ten (10) days of the Order.

4. The Respondent must pay the Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,500.00 directly to the Petitioner within thirty (30) days of the Order.

5. No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.

The Order is binding on the parties unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.

Study Guide: Bischoff v. Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc.

This study guide provides a review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 20F-H2019033-REL, concerning a dispute between a homeowner and a condominium association. It includes a quiz with an answer key, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found in the source document.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the provided source document.

1. Who were the primary parties in the legal dispute, and what were their roles?

2. What specific violations did the Petitioner, Donna M. Bischoff, allege against the Respondent?

3. Why was the 2019 yearly meeting for the Country Hills West Condominium Association repeatedly rescheduled?

4. What was the Respondent’s position on the validity of write-in ballots for the November 20, 2019, election?

5. What information did the Petitioner request from the October 2018 election, and what was the initial response?

6. What is the definition of “quorum” according to the association’s Bylaws, and why was it significant in this case?

7. What is the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet in this hearing?

8. According to the decision, how did the Respondent violate A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) regarding association meetings?

9. According to the decision, how did the Respondent violate A.R.S. § 33-1250(C) regarding election materials?

10. What were the key components of the final Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Donna M. Bischoff, the Petitioner, and the Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc., the Respondent. The Petitioner is the homeowner who filed the complaint, and the Respondent is the homeowners association accused of violations.

2. The Petitioner alleged violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1250(C) and § 33-1248(B), as well as Article 3, Section 2 of the association’s Bylaws. These allegations related to the handling of yearly meetings and elections.

3. The 2019 yearly meeting was initially scheduled for November 20, 2019, but was rescheduled three times, ultimately taking place in January 2020. The first cancellation was because some ballots contained write-in candidates, which the board deemed prohibited.

4. The Respondent’s representative, Doug Meyer, testified that members were informed that write-in ballots were not valid for the November 20, 2019, election. He stated that any ballots with write-in candidates would have been thrown out.

5. The Petitioner requested to see the election results from the October 2018 election, specifically wanting to know which units voted. While she was eventually given the voting tallies, the Respondent did not initially provide the requested results.

6. Quorum is defined in Article 4, Section 3 of the Bylaws. It was significant because the Respondent’s president, Mr. Meyer, acknowledged that the association had not achieved a quorum for its meetings in the last 20 years, and thus no election occurred at the October 18, 2018, meeting.

7. The Petitioner had the burden of proof to establish the alleged violations by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.

8. The Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) by failing to hold a required yearly meeting within the calendar year of 2019. The evidence showed that the meeting scheduled for 2019 was postponed until January 2020.

9. The Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1250(C) by failing to provide the Petitioner with all required election materials from the 2018 election. While vote tallies were eventually provided, the statute requires that ballots, envelopes, and related materials be retained and made available for inspection for at least one year.

10. The Administrative Law Judge’s Order upheld the Petition on all issues, deemed the Petitioner the prevailing party, and required the Respondent to supply the relevant documents within 10 days. The Order also mandated that the Respondent reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,500.00 within 30 days.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, more analytical responses. Use the information presented in the source document to construct a comprehensive argument for each prompt.

1. Analyze the Respondent’s handling of the write-in ballot issue for the 2019 election. Discuss the legal basis (or lack thereof) for their actions as presented in the hearing, and explain why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately ruled that their prohibition of these ballots was a violation of the Bylaws.

2. Explain the concept of “quorum” as it relates to this case. How did the association’s failure to achieve a quorum for 20 years impact its governance, specifically regarding the 2018 meeting and the Respondent’s obligation to produce election records?

3. Describe in detail the specific violations of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) that the Country Hills West Condominium Association was found to have committed. For each statute (A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) and A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)), detail the legal requirement and explain how the Respondent’s actions failed to meet that standard.

4. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence.” Using testimony and evidence presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent, explain how the Petitioner successfully met this burden of proof for her allegations.

5. Outline the final Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge. Beyond the simple outcome, explain the significance of each component of the order, including the validation of the petition, the designation of a “prevailing party,” the directive to supply documents, and the financial remedy awarded.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge

An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions and orders. In this case, Antara Nath Rivera.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)

The state agency with which a homeowner or planned community organization can file a petition for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or statutes.

Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.)

The collection of laws enacted by the Arizona state legislature. The specific statutes cited were A.R.S. §§ 33-1250(C) and 33-1248(B).

Bylaws

The rules and regulations that govern the internal operations of an organization, such as a homeowners association. In this case, the Bylaws of Country Hills West Association, Inc. were a key document.

Homeowners Association (HOA)

An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents.

Office of Administrative Hearings

The state agency where petitions filed with the Department of Real Estate are heard before an Administrative Law Judge.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or brings a legal action against another party. In this case, Donna M. Bischoff.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof in this civil administrative case. It is met when the evidence presented is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Quorum

The minimum number of members of an assembly or society that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid. The Respondent had not achieved quorum for 20 years.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed or a legal action is brought. In this case, Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc.

Select all sources
778923.pdf

No emoji found

Loading

20F-H2019033-REL

1 source

This source is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute between Donna M. Bischoff, the Petitioner, and Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc., the Respondent. The document details the hearing held on March 10, 2020, where the Petitioner alleged the Condominium Association violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the association’s Bylaws. Specifically, the Petitioner claimed violations related to the failure to hold a required yearly meeting in 2019, the failure to provide election materials for inspection, and the improper prohibition of write-in ballots where the Bylaws were silent. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately upheld the Petition on all issues, finding the Respondent in violation, and ordered the Association to provide the requested documents and pay the Petitioner’s $1,500.00 filing fee.

1 source

What were the specific legal violations found against the Condominium Association regarding meetings and documents?
How did the lack of clarity in the Bylaws regarding write-in ballots impact the association’s actions?
What was the ultimate outcome of this administrative hearing, including the ordered remedies for the petitioner?

Based on 1 source

00:00
00:00

NotebookLM can be inaccurate; please double check its responses.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Donna M Bischoff (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Doug Meyer (president, director, witness)
    Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc.
    Appeared and testified on behalf of Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Antara Nath Rivera (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Decision transmitted electronically to Commissioner

Robert L Greco v. Bellasera Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019018-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-01-29
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Bellasera Community Association, Inc. did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) because the homeowner received constructive notice of the violation and fine structure, satisfying statutory requirements. The petition was dismissed.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Robert L Greco Counsel —
Respondent Bellasera Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Bellasera Community Association, Inc. did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) because the homeowner received constructive notice of the violation and fine structure, satisfying statutory requirements. The petition was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(B), as the evidence showed Petitioner received sufficient constructive notice of the alleged violation and had an opportunity to be heard or appeal.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the HOA violated statutory requirements regarding notice and imposition of monetary penalties/late fees, resulting in suspension of privileges.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) by imposing fines and suspending gate/clubhouse access without providing adequate (actual) notice of the violation and hearing opportunity, and by improperly imposing late fees. The ALJ found the HOA provided constructive notice, satisfying the statute, and was entitled to impose cumulative fines for the ongoing violation.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1220
  • BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1090

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA fines, Constructive notice, Statutory violation, Access suspension, Maintenance violation
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019018-REL Decision – 766844.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:30:37 (133.7 KB)

Briefing Document: Greco v. Bellasera Community Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and decision in the case of Robert L. Greco (Petitioner) versus the Bellasera Community Association, Inc. (Respondent), heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling in favor of the Homeowners Association (HOA).

The core dispute originated from a 2013 violation notice regarding a faded garage door. The Petitioner claimed he did not receive the initial notices and only became aware of the issue upon receiving a letter from the HOA’s attorney. Despite subsequently painting the door, an outstanding balance of $750 in fines remained on his account. For six years, the Petitioner paid his quarterly dues but ignored the outstanding fine balance. In June 2019, after failed settlement negotiations, the HOA deactivated the Petitioner’s security gate fob and clubhouse access, prompting him to file the formal dispute.

The judge’s decision rested on two key legal conclusions. First, the court rejected the Petitioner’s argument that “actual notice” was required for the fines to be valid. It ruled that the multiple notices mailed to the Petitioner’s residence constituted sufficient “constructive notice” under Arizona law, providing both notification of the violation and an opportunity to be heard. Second, the court determined that the $750 charge was not an improper late fee but rather three separate, legitimate fines of $250 each, levied for an ongoing, uncorrected violation as per the HOA’s enforcement policy.

Case Overview

Case Name

Robert L Greco, Petitioner, vs. Bellasera Community Association, Inc., Respondent

Case Number

20F-H2019018-REL

Jurisdiction

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

Hearing Date

January 9, 2020

Decision Date

January 29, 2020

Petitioner’s Core Allegation

Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) by imposing penalties and revoking privileges without providing proper notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Core Factual Issue

The denial of automatic gate and clubhouse access to the Petitioner on July 1, 2019, due to unpaid fines from 2013.

Chronology of the Dispute

The conflict between Mr. Greco and the Bellasera Community Association unfolded over six years, escalating from a minor maintenance issue to a formal legal dispute and revocation of privileges.

Initial Violation and Fines (2013)

Details

Feb. 5, 2013

Courtesy Notice

Respondent sent a notice to Petitioner’s address stating his garage door was faded and needed to be repainted, in violation of the Design Guidelines.

Mar. 14, 2013

Final Notice & First Fine

A follow-up notice was sent, stating a $250 fine was posted to Petitioner’s account. It warned that an additional $250 fine would be assessed automatically every 14 days if the violation remained uncorrected.

Apr. 2, 2013

Notice of Remedy & Second Fine

A third notice was sent, posting another $250 fine. This letter explicitly warned that the HOA had the “ability to suspend privileges for use of the Recreational Facilities” and informed the Petitioner of his right to appeal within 14 days.

May 7, 2013

Fourth Notice & Third Fine

A fourth notice was sent, posting another $250 fine to the account. It again noted the right to appeal the fine.

Jun. 5, 2013

Letter from HOA Counsel

Attorney Kelly Oetinger sent a letter demanding the garage door be repainted within 15 days. The letter explicitly stated, “If you do not repaint… the Association may disable the transponder you use to enter the community and may disable the fobs you use for the clubhouse.”

Petitioner’s Response and Aftermath (2013)

• July 4, 2013: Petitioner repainted the garage door.

• July 5, 2013: Petitioner sent a letter to the HOA stating the attorney’s letter was his “initial alert of the garage door condition.” He explained his delay by stating, “To effectively manage my workload, I dispose of unsolicited mail… In the future, I will exercise greater caution in disposing of unsolicited mail.”

• July 5, 2013: The HOA sent a letter acknowledging the repainting and offered to settle the $900 in fines for a payment of $500. The letter reiterated the threat to deactivate gate openers and fobs.

• July 17, 2013: The HOA sent a follow-up letter correcting an internal accounting error. The total fines were $750, not $900. A new settlement offer was made: pay $375, and the remaining $375 would be waived.

Period of Inaction (2013 – 2019)

From 2013 to 2019, the Petitioner received quarterly statements from the HOA indicating a $750 balance in addition to current assessments. Each quarter, the Petitioner would physically cross out the $750 balance and pay only the current assessment amount.

Escalation and Revocation of Privileges (2019)

• June 2019: Dennis Carson, a friend of the Petitioner serving on the HOA Board of Directors, informed him that his name was on a penalty list and the Board planned to deactivate his security gate and clubhouse access.

• June 2019: Settlement negotiations failed. The Petitioner offered $100; the Board countered with $250. The Petitioner then offered $251 ($250 for the fine and $1 to rent the clubhouse), which the Board declined.

• July 1, 2019: The Respondent deactivated the Petitioner’s security gate fob and access to the clubhouse.

• October 11, 2019: The Petitioner filed the Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition, initiating the legal proceedings.

Key Arguments and Legal Findings

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision centered on the interpretation of “notice” as required by state law and the legitimacy of the fines imposed by the HOA.

Petitioner’s Position

1. Lack of Proper Notice: The Petitioner argued that he had not received “actual notice” of the violation or the impending fines until the letter from the HOA’s counsel on June 5, 2013. He asserted that because he acted promptly after receiving that letter, the fines were unjust. His argument implied that warnings in mail he did not personally read could not be held against him.

2. Improper Fines: The Petitioner alleged that the additional $500 in charges on the original $250 fine constituted improper late fees.

Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions of Law

The Judge systematically refuted the Petitioner’s arguments, concluding that the HOA acted within its rights and in accordance with the law.

1. On the Matter of Notice:

• The governing statute, A.R.S. § 33-1803(B), requires “notice and an opportunity to be heard” before imposing penalties.

• The Judge found no legal authority requiring this to be “actual notice.” To accept this argument would create an unworkable standard where a homeowner could “avoid receiving ‘actual notice’ by simply refusing to sign for a certified mailing.”

• The decision established that the Petitioner received constructive notice through the “multiple mailings that were presumably delivered to his residential address.”

• The notices also informed the Petitioner how to appeal the matter, thereby satisfying the requirement for an “opportunity to be heard.”

• Conclusion: “Accordingly, Petitioner was provided notice and an opportunity to be heard in accordance with A.R.S. § 33-1803(B).”

2. On the Matter of Fines:

• The Judge differentiated between late fees and fines for an ongoing violation.

• The notices sent by the Respondent “clearly stated that an ongoing failure to remedy the violation would result in additional fines every 14 days.”

• The violation persisted from before March 14, 2013 (first fine) until July 5, 2013 (when the door was confirmed painted).

• Conclusion: The Respondent was entitled to impose three separate fines for the “ongoing condition of the garage door,” making the total of $750 legitimate.

Final Order and Implications

Based on the analysis of the evidence and law, the Administrative Law Judge reached a definitive conclusion.

• Final Ruling: “This Tribunal concludes that Respondent did not violate the provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1803(B).”

• Order: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is dismissed.”

• Binding Nature: The order, dated January 29, 2020, is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is requested with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.

Study Guide: Greco v. Bellasera Community Association, Inc.

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Robert L. Greco (Petitioner) versus Bellasera Community Association, Inc. (Respondent), Case No. 20F-H2019018-REL. It includes a short-answer quiz to test your knowledge, an answer key for review, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.

Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. Who were the Petitioner and Respondent in this case, and what was the Petitioner’s central complaint that initiated the legal action?

2. What specific violation of the community’s rules was the Petitioner initially accused of, and which governing documents were cited as being violated?

3. Describe the timeline of notices and fines issued by the Respondent between February and May 2013.

4. What was the Petitioner’s explanation for not responding to the initial violation notices from the Respondent before receiving a letter from the association’s attorney?

5. What actions did the Respondent take in or around June 2019 that led the Petitioner to file his petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?

6. What was the Petitioner’s primary legal argument regarding the “notice” required by the Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)?

7. How did the Administrative Law Judge differentiate between “actual notice” and “constructive notice” in her decision?

8. Why did the judge ultimately conclude that the Respondent had provided the Petitioner with adequate “notice and an opportunity to be heard”?

9. Explain the Petitioner’s allegation about improper late fees and the reason the judge rejected this argument.

10. What was the final order of the Administrative Law Judge in this case, and what recourse was available to the parties?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was homeowner Robert L. Greco, and the Respondent was the Bellasera Community Association, Inc. (the HOA). Greco’s central complaint, filed on October 11, 2019, was that the HOA had denied him automatic gate access and use of clubhouse facilities on July 1, 2019, despite his being a long-term resident with timely payment of all quarterly dues.

2. The Petitioner was accused of having a faded garage door that needed to be repainted. The violation was cited as being contrary to the CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions), specifically Article V, Section 5.2, and the community’s Design Guidelines, specifically Article III, Section J.

3. The Respondent sent an initial “Courtesy Notice” on February 5, 2013. This was followed by a “Final Notice” with a $250 fine on March 14, a “Notice of Remedy” with another $250 fine on April 2, and a “Fourth Notice of Non-Compliance” with another $250 fine on May 7, 2013.

4. The Petitioner claimed that the attorney’s letter, received around June 5, 2013, was his “initial alert” regarding the garage door condition. He stated that he routinely disposes of unsolicited mail without reading it and had inadvertently discarded the previous notices sent by the Respondent.

5. In June 2019, after failed settlement negotiations over the outstanding $750 in fines from 2013, the Respondent deactivated the Petitioner’s security gate fob and his access to the clubhouse. This action prompted the Petitioner to file his dispute petition.

6. The Petitioner’s primary argument was that he did not receive “actual notice” of the violation until the attorney’s letter. He contended that because he acted promptly to correct the violation after receiving actual notice, he should not have been fined.

7. The judge used definitions from Black’s Law Dictionary. “Actual notice” was defined as notice given directly to, or personally received by, a party. “Constructive notice” was defined as notice arising by presumption of law from facts and circumstances that a party had a duty to take notice of.

8. The judge concluded that the multiple notices mailed to the Petitioner’s residential address constituted “constructive notice” of the violation. Because the relevant statute, A.R.S. § 33-1803(B), does not explicitly require “actual notice,” and the mailings also advised him of his right to appeal, the judge found the Respondent had fulfilled its obligation to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard.

9. The Petitioner alleged that the additional $500 in fines were improper late fees on the original $250 fine. The judge rejected this, clarifying that the Respondent’s notices stated that additional fines would be assessed every 14 days for an ongoing failure to remedy the violation. Therefore, the additional charges were three separate fines for the “ongoing condition of the garage door,” not late fees.

10. The final order was that the Petitioner’s petition be dismissed. The parties were notified that this order was binding unless a request for rehearing was filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for deeper analysis and discussion. No answers are provided.

1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s reasoning for favoring “constructive notice” over “actual notice” in the context of A.R.S. § 33-1803(B). Discuss the potential consequences for homeowners and HOAs if the ruling had required “actual notice.”

2. Trace the negotiation attempts between the Petitioner and the Respondent in 2013 and 2019. Evaluate the effectiveness of these attempts and discuss whether the dispute could have been resolved without formal legal proceedings.

3. The Petitioner argued that the fines imposed after the initial $250 were improper late fees. The judge, however, characterized them as new fines for an “ongoing condition.” Based on the evidence presented in the notices, construct an argument supporting both the Petitioner’s and the judge’s interpretation.

4. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” in this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means and identify the key pieces of evidence that allowed the judge to conclude the Respondent did not violate the statute.

5. Examine the roles of the various community governing documents cited in this case (CC&Rs, Design Guidelines, Violation Enforcement policy). Explain how these documents worked together to grant the Respondent the authority to take action against the Petitioner.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

The Arizona Revised Statute central to this case, which permits an HOA board to impose reasonable monetary penalties for violations after providing “notice and an opportunity to be heard.”

Actual Notice

As defined in the decision, it is “[n]otice given directly to, or received personally by, a party.”

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues a decision. In this case, it was Tammy L. Eigenheer.

Bellasera Community Association, Inc.

The Respondent in the case; the homeowners association (HOA) for the Bellasera Community in Arizona.

An acronym for Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents for the community, which the Petitioner was found to have violated (specifically Article V, Section 5.2).

Constructive Notice

As defined in the decision, it is “[n]otice arising by presumption of law from the existence of facts and circumstances that a party had a duty to take notice of.” The judge ruled that mail sent to a residence constitutes this form of notice.

Design Guidelines

A set of rules established by the HOA governing the aesthetic appearance of properties. The Petitioner was found in violation of Article III, Section J of these guidelines.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or petition seeking a ruling. In this case, it was the homeowner, Robert L. Greco.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof required in this hearing. It is defined as “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who must respond to the allegations. In this case, it was the HOA.

He Threw Away His Mail for Years. His HOA’s Response Is a Warning to Every Homeowner.

That official-looking envelope from your Homeowners Association sits on the counter, a silent challenge. It’s easy to dismiss it as a newsletter or a bland reminder, just another piece of paper to be sorted later. But what if it isn’t? What if that envelope is a legal summons in disguise, the first shot in a battle you don’t even know you’re fighting?

For Robert L. Greco, a resident in his community for 17 years, this hypothetical became a harsh reality. He learned that ignoring HOA correspondence can ignite a conflict that smolders for years before erupting into severe consequences. Originating from a maintenance issue as simple as a faded garage door, his case offers a masterclass in the powerful lessons every homeowner should heed.

——————————————————————————–

1. The “I Didn’t Read It” Defense Doesn’t Work

The central pillar of the homeowner’s defense was disarmingly simple: he claimed he never received the first four violation notices because he habitually throws away what he considers “unsolicited mail.” He argued that without having read the warnings, he couldn’t be held responsible for the fines.

The judge’s ruling, however, invoked a foundational legal concept that extends far beyond HOA disputes into areas like property deeds and public records: the difference between “actual notice” and “constructive notice.” While actual notice means you personally saw the information, constructive notice presumes you have knowledge of something because it was delivered properly—in this case, mailed to the correct address. Whether you open the envelope is irrelevant.

In a July 5, 2013 letter, the homeowner unwittingly sealed his own fate by describing his mail-handling routine:

Routinely, Saturdays are my mail-pick-up days, and invariably, I walk straight to the re-cyclable container, and deposit the mail in the receptacle… I was astonished to learn that my garage door failed inspection. This is my initial alert of the garage door condition.

For homeowners, the takeaway is a stark one: in the eyes of the law, your recycling bin is not a valid legal defense. The burden doesn’t fall on an HOA to ensure you read your mail, only to send it. The responsibility to open and review all official correspondence rests squarely on the homeowner.

2. A Tiny Issue Can Snowball into a Years-Long Standoff

The timeline of this dispute reveals a classic case of conflict avoidance, where a minor, fixable problem was allowed to spiral into a major legal battle. The cost of a can of paint and a Saturday afternoon of work was ultimately dwarfed by a six-year, $750 dispute that cost the homeowner his access to his own community.

• February 5, 2013: The HOA sends its first “Courtesy Notice” regarding a faded garage door in need of repainting.

• March – May 2013: After no response, the HOA issues three more notices, levying escalating fines that total $750.

• 2013 to 2019: For six years, the homeowner receives quarterly statements showing the $750 balance. Each time, he would “cross out the $750.00 balance and pay the current assessment.”

• June/July 2019: The HOA finally forces the issue by deactivating his security gate fob and his access to the clubhouse.

This progression shows how a simple lack of communication transformed a weekend chore into a years-long standoff. By ignoring the notices and the subsequent fines, the homeowner allowed a molehill to grow into a mountain of conflict.

3. “Continuing Violation” Fines Are Not Late Fees

The homeowner contended that the HOA was improperly stacking late fees on top of an initial $250 penalty. However, the administrative law judge highlighted a critical distinction embedded in the association’s rules.

The HOA wasn’t charging late fees on a single, past-due penalty. It was levying new fines for a “continuing violation.” The notice sent on March 14, 2013, explicitly warned that “an additional fine of $250 will be assessed automatically every 14 days… if the violation remains uncorrected.”

This is a crucial detail found in many HOA bylaws. An unpainted garage door is not a one-time offense; it is an ongoing breach of community standards. A homeowner who thinks they are simply letting a single fine sit unpaid may actually be incurring entirely new violations over time, dramatically increasing their financial liability.

4. Failed Negotiations Can Cost More Than Money

Twice, this dispute could have been resolved. The breakdown in negotiations, however, reveals how ego and principle can prove more costly than the fines themselves.

The first attempt came in 2013, after the homeowner had finally painted the garage. The HOA initially offered to settle a supposed $900 balance for $500. This, however, was based on an “internal accounting error.” In a subsequent letter, the HOA apologized, corrected the record to show the true balance was $750, and made a formal offer: pay half—just $375—and the matter would be closed. The offer was not accepted. Including this error shows the HOA was not infallible, making the subsequent stalemate more complex.

The second negotiation occurred in 2019, prompted by a friend on the Board who urged a settlement. The homeowner offered $100. The Board countered with $250. The homeowner’s final offer was exquisitely specific: “$251.00, $250.00 to settle the outstanding fines and $1.00 to rent the clubhouse on a specific date.”

This offer was a tactical and psychological blunder. That extra dollar wasn’t about money; it was a message. Whether intended as a sarcastic jab or a principled stand to assert his rights as a member, it transformed a financial negotiation into a battle of wills. For a Board of Directors, accepting such an offer could be seen as capitulating to a petty gesture, setting a precedent that defiance works. They declined. Shortly after, the homeowner’s access to community facilities was cut off, leading to the legal petition he ultimately lost.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: A Lesson in Communication

This case serves as a powerful warning. The legal force of “constructive notice” makes you responsible for the mail you receive, not just the mail you read. The six-year standoff over a can of paint shows how inaction can have disproportionate consequences. And the failed $251 offer demonstrates that good-faith negotiation is paramount.

Ultimately, the homeowner was left still owing the money and locked out of his own amenities—a casualty of a battle he prolonged at every turn. It leaves every homeowner with a critical question to consider: in a dispute with your HOA, where is the line between standing on principle and causing yourself unnecessary harm?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Robert L Greco (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Nathan Tennyson (attorney)
    Brown|Olcott, PLLC
  • David Reid (board member)
    Testified for Respondent
  • Annette McCarthy (manager)
    Acting Manager; Testified for Respondent
  • Kelly Oetinger (attorney)
    Counsel for Respondent in 2013
  • Dennis Carson (board member)

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    ADRE