The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Vacating Hearing after the Petitioner voluntarily withdrew his request for rehearing.
Key Issues & Findings
Request for Rehearing Withdrawal
Petitioner requested a rehearing based on actions taken by the Respondent after the initial decision. When informed that a rehearing could only address matters occurring prior to the initial petition filing, Petitioner chose to withdraw the request for rehearing and stated intent to file a new petition challenging Respondent’s denial of his submission to build an addition to his house.
Orders: The hearing in this matter is vacated from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings.
The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Vacating Hearing after the Petitioner voluntarily withdrew his request for rehearing.
Key Issues & Findings
Request for Rehearing Withdrawal
Petitioner requested a rehearing based on actions taken by the Respondent after the initial decision. When informed that a rehearing could only address matters occurring prior to the initial petition filing, Petitioner chose to withdraw the request for rehearing and stated intent to file a new petition challenging Respondent’s denial of his submission to build an addition to his house.
Orders: The hearing in this matter is vacated from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings.
The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Vacating Hearing after the Petitioner voluntarily withdrew his request for rehearing.
Key Issues & Findings
Request for Rehearing Withdrawal
Petitioner requested a rehearing based on actions taken by the Respondent after the initial decision. When informed that a rehearing could only address matters occurring prior to the initial petition filing, Petitioner chose to withdraw the request for rehearing and stated intent to file a new petition challenging Respondent’s denial of his submission to build an addition to his house.
Orders: The hearing in this matter is vacated from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.
Executive Summary
This briefing document outlines the key details and resolution of case number 20F-H2020063-REL-RHG, involving Petitioner Marc Archer and Respondent PMPE Community Association, Inc. On March 16, 2021, Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer issued an order vacating a scheduled rehearing. The core issue was procedural: the Petitioner’s request for rehearing was based on actions the Respondent took after the initial hearing’s decision, which falls outside the permissible scope of a rehearing. Upon being informed of this limitation, the Petitioner withdrew his request. He indicated his intent to file a new, separate petition to address the Respondent’s denial of his submission to build a house addition. The judge’s order is binding, with any appeal required to be filed in superior court within 35 days.
——————————————————————————–
Case Overview
I. Case Identification
Detail
Information
Case Name
Marc Archer, Petitioner, vs PMPE Community Association, Inc., Respondent
The scheduled hearing was a rehearing requested by the Petitioner, Marc Archer. The basis for his request centered on events that transpired after the conclusion of the initial hearing.
• Petitioner’s Grounds for Rehearing: The request was explicitly based on “actions taken by Respondent after the decision in the initial hearing had been issued.”
• Jurisdictional Limitation: The Petitioner was informed at the hearing that the scope of a rehearing is limited to matters that occurred before the original petition was filed. The document states: “When Petitioner was informed that the only issues that could be addressed in a rehearing on his petition were those matters that occurred prior to his petition being filed…”
• Subject of New Dispute: The specific post-decision action Archer sought to challenge was the “Respondent’s denial of his submission to build an addition to his house.”
B. Resolution and Outcome
Faced with the procedural limitations of a rehearing, the Petitioner altered his legal strategy, leading to the cancellation of the proceeding.
• Withdrawal of Request: The Petitioner “concluded that he wished to withdraw his request for a rehearing at that time.”
• Stated Intention: Archer “indicated that he would file a new petition to challenge Respondent’s denial of his submission to build an addition to his house.”
• Final Order: The judge issued a formal order vacating the hearing.
Legal Standing and Appeal Process
The order issued on March 16, 2021, carries legal weight and outlines specific requirements for any subsequent appeal.
• Binding Nature of the Order: The order is binding on the parties involved, as stipulated by Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-2199.02(B).
• Appeal Requirements: A party wishing to appeal the order must seek judicial review.
◦ Venue: The appeal must be filed with the superior court.
◦ Deadline: The filing must occur within thirty-five (35) days from the date the order was served upon the parties.
• Governing Statutes: The appeal process is prescribed by the following state statutes:
◦ A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
◦ A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
◦ Title 12, Chapter 7, Article 6 of the Arizona Revised Statutes
Document Distribution
Copies of the “Order Vacating Hearing” were officially distributed via mail, email, or fax on March 16, 2021, to the following parties:
◦ Nicholas Nogami, Esq. (Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, LLP)
Study Guide – 20F-H2020063-REL
Study Guide: Case No. 20F-H2020063-REL-RHG
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer the following questions in two to three sentences each, based on the provided legal document.
1. Identify the primary parties involved in case No. 20F-H2020063-REL-RHG and state their respective roles.
2. What was the specific legal action taken by the Office of Administrative Hearings on March 16, 2021, and who was the presiding judge?
3. What was the original reason Marc Archer requested a rehearing?
4. Why was the Petitioner informed that his reason for a rehearing was invalid for the current proceedings?
5. What was the Petitioner’s final decision regarding his request for a rehearing, and what was the outcome for the scheduled hearing?
6. What future action did Marc Archer state he intended to take after withdrawing his request?
7. According to the document’s notice, what is the legal standing of the “Order Vacating Hearing” on the parties involved?
8. Describe the process and timeline an involved party must follow to appeal this order.
9. Who legally represented the Respondent, PMPE Community Association, Inc., in this matter?
10. To what primary state agency and specific official was a copy of this order distributed?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Marc Archer, who served as the Petitioner, and the PMPE Community Association, Inc., which was the Respondent. The Petitioner is the party who filed the petition, and the Respondent is the party against whom the petition was filed.
2. On March 16, 2021, an “Order Vacating Hearing” was issued, removing the matter from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings. The presiding judge who signed the order was Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer.
3. Marc Archer’s basis for requesting a rehearing was to address actions that the Respondent, PMPE Community Association, Inc., had taken after the decision in the initial hearing had already been issued.
4. The Petitioner was informed that his basis was invalid because a rehearing can only address matters that occurred prior to the filing of his original petition. The new actions he wished to contest would require a new, separate petition.
5. After being informed about the limitations of a rehearing, the Petitioner concluded that he wished to withdraw his request. As a result, the judge ordered that the hearing be vacated from the Office of Administrative Hearings’ calendar.
6. After withdrawing his request, Marc Archer indicated that he would file a new petition. This new petition would specifically challenge the Respondent’s denial of his submission to build an addition to his house.
7. The order is legally binding on the parties, as stated in the notice section referencing Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 32-2199.02(B). This means both the Petitioner and the Respondent must legally comply with the order.
8. To appeal the order, a party must seek judicial review in the superior court. This appeal must be filed within thirty-five days from the date the order was served upon the parties, as prescribed by A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H), title 12, chapter 7, article 6, and A.R.S. § 12-904(A).
9. The Respondent was represented by Nicholas Nogami, Esq. of the law firm Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, LLP.
10. A copy of the order was mailed or e-mailed to Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. Copies were also sent to several other email addresses associated with that department.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Develop a detailed essay answer for each of the following prompts, using only information found within the source document to support your analysis.
1. Analyze the procedural error made by the Petitioner that led to the hearing being vacated. Explain the critical distinction between the scope of a “rehearing” and a “new petition” as implied by the events in the order.
2. Based on the provided document, reconstruct the timeline of events. Begin with the implied initial hearing, describe the basis for the requested rehearing, detail the procedural clarification provided to the Petitioner, and outline the subsequent actions taken by both the Petitioner and the Administrative Law Judge.
3. Discuss the legal framework governing appeals for this type of administrative order. Cite the specific Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) mentioned in the document and explain the jurisdiction, requirements, and timeline for seeking judicial review.
4. Evaluate the communication process documented in the order. Identify all named recipients of the order, their titles or affiliations, and hypothesize why each party or entity would need to be formally notified of this decision.
5. Examine the role and authority of the Administrative Law Judge and the Office of Administrative Hearings in this specific dispute. How does the order demonstrate the limits of their jurisdiction and the procedural rules they enforce?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official, in this case Tammy L. Eigenheer, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and has the authority to issue legally binding orders.
Appeal
The process by which a party requests that a higher court (in this case, the superior court) review the decision of a lower body (the Office of Administrative Hearings).
A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)
The collection of laws enacted by the Arizona state legislature. The document references A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B), § 41-1092.08(H), and § 12-904(A) to establish the legal basis for the order’s finality and the appeal process.
Judicial Review
A type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body, such as the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
A state agency that conducts hearings for other state agencies, providing a neutral forum for disputes. In this case, it presided over the matter between Marc Archer and the PMPE Community Association, Inc.
Order Vacating Hearing
A formal directive from a judge that cancels a previously scheduled hearing and removes it from the court’s or agency’s calendar.
Petition
A formal written request submitted to a court or administrative body, initiating a legal case or making a specific application.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition with a court or administrative body. In this case, Marc Archer.
Rehearing
A second hearing of a case to consider issues that were part of the original petition. As clarified in the order, it cannot be used to address new matters that arose after the initial decision.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed and who is required to respond to it. In this case, PMPE Community Association, Inc.
Superior Court
A state-level trial court of general jurisdiction. The document specifies that any appeal of the administrative order must be filed with the superior court.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020063-REL
Select all sources
864308.pdf
864361.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
20F-H2020063-REL
2 sources
The provided sources are two copies of an Order Vacating Hearing issued by the Office of Administrative Hearings in the matter of Marc Archer vs PMPE Community Association, Inc. The order, signed by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer on March 16, 2021, indicates that Petitioner Marc Archer requested a rehearing based on actions taken by the Respondent after the initial decision was issued. Because the rehearing was limited to matters that occurred before the original petition was filed, Mr. Archer chose to withdraw his request for a rehearing and announced his intention to file a new petition to challenge the community association’s denial of his proposal to build a house addition. Consequently, the hearing was vacated from the administrative calendar, and the order includes a notice regarding the process for judicial review if a party wished to appeal.
Why did Marc Archer withdraw his request for a rehearing on case 20F-H2020063-REL?
What were the specific procedural limitations governing the scope of the administrative rehearing?
How does this order relate to the Petitioner’s future challenge regarding his house addition?
Audio Overview
Video Overview Video Overview
Mind Map Mind Map
Reports Reports
Flashcards Flashcards
Quiz Quiz
00:00 / 00:00
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Marc Archer(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf; Homeowner and member of PMPE
Respondent Side
Nicholas Nogami(HOA attorney) Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen Represented Respondent PMPE Community Association, Inc.
Keith Kauffman(board member) PMPE Community Association, Inc. President, Treasurer, and AC member; testified at hearing
Neutral Parties
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Presided over the main hearing and issued the order vacating rehearing
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Ruled in a prior related evidentiary hearing
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Addressee for transmission of orders
DGardner(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of order via email
f. del sol(Staff) Signed transmittal of ALJ decision
c. serrano(Staff) Signed transmittal of Order Vacating Hearing
LDettorre(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of order via email
AHansen(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of order via email
djones(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of order via email
ncano(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of order via email
Other Participants
Carlotta L Turman(unknown) Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen Listed in transmission details associated with PMPE counsel
The case was resolved by settlement between the parties before adjudication, leading to the vacation of the scheduled hearing and remand to the ADRE.
Key Issues & Findings
Resolution by Settlement
The parties reached a settlement, resulting in a motion to vacate the hearing on the merits.
Orders: ORDER VACATING HEARING; matter remanded to the Director of the Arizona Department of Real Estate for further action.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: settlement
Cited:
A.A.C. R2-19-111(3)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Settlement, Vacated Hearing, HOA Dispute
Additional Citations:
A.A.C. R2-19-111(3)
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
18F-H1817002-REL Decision – 609956.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:02:56 (51.3 KB)
Briefing Doc – 18F-H1817002-REL
Briefing on Case No. 18F-H1817002-REL-RHG: Herbert v. Blackstone at Vistancia
Executive Summary
This briefing details the resolution of case number 18F-H1817002-REL-RHG, a dispute between Petitioner Brian C. Herbert and Respondent Blackstone at Vistancia Community Association. The central development is that the parties reached a settlement, leading their attorneys to jointly file a motion to vacate the scheduled hearing. On January 3, 2018, Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings granted this motion. The hearing scheduled for January 5, 2018, was officially vacated, and the case was remanded to the Director of the Arizona Department of Real Estate for subsequent action.
Case Overview
• Case Number: 18F-H1817002-REL-RHG
• Forum: The Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona
• Petitioner: Brian C. Herbert
• Respondent: Blackstone at Vistancia Community Association
• Presiding Judge: Diane Mihalsky, Administrative Law Judge
Key Development: Settlement and Hearing Vacation
The primary catalyst for the case’s disposition was a mutual agreement between the parties.
• Settlement Reached: The document explicitly states that the parties “have reached a settlement.”
• Joint Motion: Following the settlement, the attorneys for both the Petitioner and the Respondent filed a joint motion to vacate the hearing on the merits of the case.
• Hearing Canceled: The order formally vacates the “continued hearing that had been scheduled on January 5, 2018, at 8:30 a.m.”
Judicial Orders and Disposition
On January 3, 2018, Judge Diane Mihalsky issued two definitive orders that concluded the proceedings at the Office of Administrative Hearings:
1. Order to Vacate: The first order vacates the hearing scheduled for January 5, 2018. The document states: “IT IS ORDERED vacating the continued hearing that had been scheduled on January 5, 2018, at 8:30 a.m.”
2. Order to Remand: The second order remands, or sends back, the matter to a different state body for final processing. It specifies: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED remanding this matter under A.A.C. R2-19-111(3) to the Director of the Arizona Department of Real Estate for further action.”
Parties and Legal Representation
The following table details the key individuals and firms involved in the legal matter.
Name/Entity
Legal Counsel
Law Firm
Contact Information
Petitioner
Brian C. Herbert
Jeffrey D. Harris, Esq.
Titus Brueckner & Levine, PLC
[email protected] 8355 East Hartford Drive, Suite 200, Scottsdale, AZ 85255
Respondent
Blackstone at Vistancia Community Association
Stewart F. Salwin, Esq. Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier, Esq.
The case was resolved by settlement between the parties before adjudication, leading to the vacation of the scheduled hearing and remand to the ADRE.
Key Issues & Findings
Resolution by Settlement
The parties reached a settlement, resulting in a motion to vacate the hearing on the merits.
Orders: ORDER VACATING HEARING; matter remanded to the Director of the Arizona Department of Real Estate for further action.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: settlement
Cited:
A.A.C. R2-19-111(3)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Settlement, Vacated Hearing, HOA Dispute
Additional Citations:
A.A.C. R2-19-111(3)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
18F-H1817002-REL Decision – 584947.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-09T10:03:57 (56.6 KB)
18F-H1817002-REL Decision – 609956.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:57 (51.3 KB)
Briefing Doc – 18F-H1817002-REL
Briefing on Case No. 18F-H1817002-REL-RHG: Herbert v. Blackstone at Vistancia
Executive Summary
This briefing details the resolution of case number 18F-H1817002-REL-RHG, a dispute between Petitioner Brian C. Herbert and Respondent Blackstone at Vistancia Community Association. The central development is that the parties reached a settlement, leading their attorneys to jointly file a motion to vacate the scheduled hearing. On January 3, 2018, Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings granted this motion. The hearing scheduled for January 5, 2018, was officially vacated, and the case was remanded to the Director of the Arizona Department of Real Estate for subsequent action.
Case Overview
• Case Number: 18F-H1817002-REL-RHG
• Forum: The Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona
• Petitioner: Brian C. Herbert
• Respondent: Blackstone at Vistancia Community Association
• Presiding Judge: Diane Mihalsky, Administrative Law Judge
Key Development: Settlement and Hearing Vacation
The primary catalyst for the case’s disposition was a mutual agreement between the parties.
• Settlement Reached: The document explicitly states that the parties “have reached a settlement.”
• Joint Motion: Following the settlement, the attorneys for both the Petitioner and the Respondent filed a joint motion to vacate the hearing on the merits of the case.
• Hearing Canceled: The order formally vacates the “continued hearing that had been scheduled on January 5, 2018, at 8:30 a.m.”
Judicial Orders and Disposition
On January 3, 2018, Judge Diane Mihalsky issued two definitive orders that concluded the proceedings at the Office of Administrative Hearings:
1. Order to Vacate: The first order vacates the hearing scheduled for January 5, 2018. The document states: “IT IS ORDERED vacating the continued hearing that had been scheduled on January 5, 2018, at 8:30 a.m.”
2. Order to Remand: The second order remands, or sends back, the matter to a different state body for final processing. It specifies: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED remanding this matter under A.A.C. R2-19-111(3) to the Director of the Arizona Department of Real Estate for further action.”
Parties and Legal Representation
The following table details the key individuals and firms involved in the legal matter.
Name/Entity
Legal Counsel
Law Firm
Contact Information
Petitioner
Brian C. Herbert
Jeffrey D. Harris, Esq.
Titus Brueckner & Levine, PLC
[email protected] 8355 East Hartford Drive, Suite 200, Scottsdale, AZ 85255
Respondent
Blackstone at Vistancia Community Association
Stewart F. Salwin, Esq. Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier, Esq.
◦ Legal Counsel: All attorneys listed in the table above.
Study Guide – 18F-H1817002-REL
Study Guide: Case No. 18F-H1817002-REL-RHG
This guide is designed to review the key facts, entities, and procedures detailed in the legal document concerning the case of Brian C. Herbert v. Blackstone at Vistancia Community Association.
——————————————————————————–
Quiz: Short Answer Questions
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, using only information found in the provided source document.
1. Who were the two primary parties involved in case number 18F-H1817002-REL-RHG?
2. What was the specific legal action taken by the Administrative Law Judge on January 3, 2018?
3. What was the stated reason for vacating the hearing?
4. On what date and at what time was the original hearing scheduled to take place before it was canceled?
5. Identify the Administrative Law Judge who signed the order and the administrative body she represents.
6. Following the order to vacate the hearing, to which government agency was the matter sent for further action?
7. Which attorney and law firm represented the Petitioner in this case?
8. Identify the attorneys and the law firm that represented the Respondent.
9. What is the full title of the legal document, and what is its case number?
10. Besides the legal representatives for the Petitioner and Respondent, to which organization were copies of the order transmitted?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The two primary parties were the Petitioner, Brian C. Herbert, and the Respondent, Blackstone at Vistancia Community Association.
2. The Administrative Law Judge issued an order vacating the continued hearing that had been scheduled. The order also remanded the matter to the Director of the Arizona Department of Real Estate for further action.
3. The hearing was vacated because the attorneys for both the Petitioner and the Respondent filed a motion to vacate, indicating that the two parties had reached a settlement.
4. The canceled hearing had been scheduled to take place on January 5, 2018, at 8:30 a.m.
5. The order was signed by Diane Mihalsky, an Administrative Law Judge. She represents the Office of Administrative Hearings, located at 1400 West Washington, Suite 101, Phoenix, Arizona.
6. The matter was remanded to the Director of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The order was transmitted to the department’s Commissioner, Judy Lowe, and several other individuals within the department.
7. The Petitioner, Brian C. Herbert, was represented by Jeffrey D. Harris, Esq. of the law firm Titus Brueckner & Levine, PLC.
8. The Respondent, Blackstone at Vistancia Community Association, was represented by Stewart F. Salwin, Esq. and Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier, Esq. from the law firm Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC.
9. The full title of the document is “ORDER VACATING HEARING.” The case number is No. 18F-H1817002-REL-RHG.
10. Copies of the order were transmitted to the Arizona Department of Real Estate. Specifically, they were sent to Commissioner Judy Lowe and six other email addresses associated with the department.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage a deeper synthesis of the information in the document. Formulate a comprehensive response to each prompt.
1. Describe the procedural history of this case as presented in the order. Detail the sequence of events that led to the issuance of this order and explain the mandated next step for the case.
2. Analyze the roles and relationships of all named individuals and entities in the document. Discuss the functions of the Petitioner, Respondent, their respective legal counsel, the Administrative Law Judge, the Office of Administrative Hearings, and the Arizona Department of Real Estate within the context of this legal matter.
3. Explain the legal significance of a “settlement” in the context of this case. How did the settlement between Brian C. Herbert and the Blackstone at Vistancia Community Association directly influence the actions taken by the Office of Administrative Hearings?
4. Detail the formal communication process for this legal order. Identify who issued the order, the date of issuance, the methods of transmission, and the complete list of recipients, including their professional titles and affiliations where provided.
5. Based on the order’s text, discuss the legal authority under which the case was remanded. What does the citation of A.A.C. R2-19-111(3) and the subsequent remand to the Department of Real Estate suggest about the jurisdiction and procedural relationship between the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Arizona Department of Real Estate?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
A.A.C.
An abbreviation for the Arizona Administrative Code, a set of state regulations. In this document, it is cited as A.A.C. R2-19-111(3) as the legal basis for remanding the case.
Administrative Law Judge
An official, in this case Diane Mihalsky, who presides over hearings at an administrative agency (the Office of Administrative Hearings) and makes legal rulings.
Attorney
A legal professional representing a client. The document lists Stewart F. Salwin, Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier, and Jeffrey D. Harris as attorneys for the parties.
An abbreviation for “Esquire,” a courtesy title commonly used for practicing attorneys in the United States.
Hearing
A formal proceeding before a judge or administrative body to resolve a legal dispute. In this case, the hearing scheduled for January 5, 2018, was vacated.
Matter
A legal case or issue being considered by a court or administrative body.
Motion
A formal request made by a party to a judge or administrative body for an order or ruling. Here, the parties filed a “motion to vacate the hearing.”
Office of Administrative Hearings
The state agency in Phoenix, Arizona, responsible for conducting hearings for other state agencies. It is the body that issued this order.
A formal written direction from a judge or administrative body. This document is titled an “ORDER VACATING HEARING.”
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action or files a petition seeking a legal remedy. In this case, the Petitioner is Brian C. Herbert.
Remand
To send a case back to a lower court or another body for further action. This matter was remanded to the Director of the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed; the party who responds to the legal action. In this case, the Respondent is the Blackstone at Vistancia Community Association.
Settlement
An agreement reached between opposing parties in a legal dispute, resolving the issue without a full hearing or trial. The parties in this case reached a settlement, leading to the motion to vacate.
Vacate
To cancel or make void a scheduled legal proceeding. The order explicitly vacates the hearing that was scheduled for January 5, 2018.
Blog Post – 18F-H1817002-REL
What a Single Page of Legalese Reveals About How ConflictsReallyEnd
We’ve all seen it on screen: the dramatic courtroom showdown. A lawyer points an accusatory finger, a witness breaks down on the stand, and a judge slams a gavel to seal a dramatic verdict. It’s compelling television, but it bears little resemblance to how most conflicts in our society actually end. The real story is often much quieter, hidden in plain sight within documents that most of us would dismiss as bureaucratic fine print.
This single page, an “Order Vacating Hearing” filed away in a public record, is more than just paper. This seemingly inert document upends the Hollywood version of justice and reveals three powerful truths about how our society actually functions. It’s a window into the hidden world of negotiation, procedure, and resolution that keeps our civil society from grinding to a halt.
By closely examining this order, we can uncover a story not of courtroom battles, but of quiet compromise and the powerful machinery of resolution.
——————————————————————————–
1. The Real Drama Happens Off-Screen
The most pivotal moment in this legal dispute wasn’t a climactic courtroom argument; it was an event that happened entirely behind the scenes, just before the curtain was set to rise.
An order signed by Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky shows that a formal hearing was scheduled for January 5, 2018. But the order canceling that hearing was issued on January 3, 2018—a mere two days before the parties were due in court. This two-day window is where the real lawyering happens. Imagine the flurry of phone calls, the redlined settlement drafts exchanged via email, and the strategic calculations of risk versus reward that led both sides to step back from the brink. This underscores a fundamental reality of the legal system: the primary goal is often resolution, not a zero-sum victory, in order to avoid the high cost of litigation, the uncertainty of a judge’s ruling, and the immense investment of time and emotional energy.
——————————————————————————–
2. Every Dispute is a Cog in a Larger Machine
While this case involved a dispute between an individual and a community association, the document reveals a surprisingly large cast of characters. Resolving the matter required the involvement of a complex network of official entities and professionals.
A quick scan of the order shows just how many parties are plugged into this single conflict:
• The Petitioner: Brian C. Herbert
• The Respondent: Blackstone at Vistancia Community Association
• The Adjudicating Body: The Office of Administrative Hearings
• The Law Firms: Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC, and Titus Brueckner & Levine, PLC
• The Regulatory Body: The Arizona Department of Real Estate
But the story doesn’t end with a simple settlement between two parties. The order states the matter is being “remanded… to the Director of the Arizona Department of Real Estate for further action.” From a procedural standpoint, this is significant. Remanding means sending the case back to the original agency that handled it. What this signals is that a private agreement doesn’t necessarily end the state’s interest. The regulatory body still has a role to play, ensuring the settlement aligns with public rules or addressing any remaining compliance issues.
The document’s final page reinforces this, showing it was formally transmitted not just to the lawyers, but to a list of at least six different officials at the Arizona Department of Real Estate, ensuring the entire regulatory apparatus was kept in the loop. This machinery, while complex, ensures that even a local conflict is handled within a structured, accountable system of oversight.
——————————————————————————–
3. The Most Powerful Words Aren’t in the Verdict
We often search for resolution in a judge’s lengthy, detailed ruling, full of complex legal reasoning and citations. But in this case, the single phrase that resolves the entire matter is disarmingly simple. It’s a quiet declaration of fact, not a thundering judgment.
The order states that the hearing is being vacated for one direct reason:
…because they have reached a settlement.
This short clause is far more than procedural boilerplate; it represents a fundamental shift in power. A verdict is an imposed resolution, where a third party dictates the ending. A settlement, however, is an act of agency and control. It signifies that the parties have chosen to take the outcome out of a judge’s hands and write their own ending. These six words represent the power of negotiated resolution over imposed confrontation—a conclusion built by the parties themselves, who chose compromise to avoid the risks and costs of continued conflict.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: The Story in the Silence
A single, seemingly mundane administrative order tells a profound story about how our society manages conflict. It reveals that the real work often happens not in a noisy courtroom, but in a quiet agreement. It shows that even small disputes are handled by a vast, interconnected system designed to ensure fairness and order. And it reminds us that the most powerful outcome is often the one achieved through mutual consent.
This perceived lack of drama is not a bug in the system; it is the core feature of a stable civil society. The quiet, predictable processes and behind-the-scenes compromises are what we value over chaotic and uncertain public battles. The next time you encounter a piece of official jargon or a formal notice, what hidden story of conflict and resolution might be waiting to be discovered?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Paul Herbert(petitioner) Original petitioner in the related docket (18F-H1817002-REL); conceded he is the beneficiary, not the owner/trustee.
Brian C. Herbert(petitioner) Petitioner in docket 18F-H1817002-REL-RHG; identified as the trustee of the trust that owns the property.
Neutral Parties
Suzanne Marwil(ALJ) OAH Administrative Law Judge who issued the Recommended Order of Dismissal.
Diane Mihalsky(ALJ) OAH Administrative Law Judge who issued the Order Vacating Hearing due to settlement.
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) ADRE
M. Aguirre(staff) Listed in electronic transmission.
