Brad W. Stevens vs. Mogollon Airpark, Inc.

Posted on March 1, 2019 by [email protected]

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

Case Summary

Case ID	18F-H1818029-REL-RHG, 18F-H1818045-REL, 18F-H1818054-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2018-10-18
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	partial
Filing Fees Refunded	$1,500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Warren R. Brown	Counsel	—
Respondent	Mogollon Airpark, Inc.	Counsel	Gregory A. Stein, Esq.; Mark K. Sahl, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled partially in favor of Petitioner Warren R. Brown, finding that Mogollon Airpark, Inc. violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(A) by imposing a $25 late payment fee, and ordered the fee rescinded and the $500 filing fee refunded,,,. The ALJ ruled against both Petitioners (Brown and Stevens) regarding the challenge to the $325 assessment increase, dismissing those petitions because they failed to prove the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(A),,,.

Why this result: Petitioners Warren R. Brown and Brad W. Stevens failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the combined $325 assessment increase violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(A) because their definition of 'regular assessment' as encompassing all assessments enacted through proper procedures was not supported by statutory construction principles,.

Key Issues & Findings

Challenge to assessment increase exceeding 20% limit (Brown Docket 18F-H1818029-REL-RHG)

Petitioner Brown alleged the combined $325 increase, consisting of a $116 regular increase and a $209 special assessment, violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(A) because 'regular assessment' refers to the creation process, making the total increase subject to the 20% cap,,,,.

Orders: Petition dismissed. Respondent Mogollon Airpark, Inc. deemed the prevailing party in the 029 matter,,,.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Challenge to assessment increase exceeding 20% limit (Stevens Docket 18F-H1818054-REL)

Petitioner Stevens alleged the total $325 assessment increase violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(A) and raised accompanying allegations of deceptive accounting and lack of authority to impose special assessments,,.

Orders: Petition dismissed. Respondent deemed the prevailing party in the 054 matter,,,,.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Challenge to late payment charges (Brown Docket 18F-H1818045-REL)

Petitioner Brown alleged that the $25 late fee and 18% interest charged by Mogollon violated the statutory limits set forth in A.R.S. § 33-1803(A),,. The ALJ found the $25 late charge violated the statute because the limit applies to all 'assessments',.

Orders: Petitioner Warren R. Brown deemed the prevailing party. Mogollon Airpark Inc. must rescind the $25 late fee and pay Mr. Brown his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days,.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA assessment cap, Late fee violation, Statutory construction, Regular assessment definition, Special assessment, Filing fee refund

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
Deer Valley, v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 296, 152 P.3d 490, 493 (2007)
U.S. Parking Sys v. City of Phoenix, 160 Ariz. 210, 211, 772 P.2d 33, 34 (App. 1989)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818054-REL-RHG Decision – 692388.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:09 (102.8 KB)

18F-H1818054-REL-RHG Decision – ../18F-H1818054-REL/666285.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-20T13:48:01 (151.9 KB)

18F-H1818054-REL-RHG Decision – ../18F-H1818054-REL/672623.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-20T13:48:02 (144.6 KB)

Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818054-REL-RHG

Briefing Document: Brown and Stevens vs. Mogollon Airpark, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and conclusions from a consolidated administrative law case involving petitioners Warren R. Brown and Brad W. Stevens against their homeowners’ association (HOA), Mogollon Airpark, Inc. The central dispute concerned a 2018 assessment increase of $325, which represented a 39.4% increase over the previous year, and the imposition of a new $25 late fee.

The petitioners argued that the entire assessment increase violated Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1803(A), which limits annual regular assessment increases to 20%. They contended that the term “regular” describes the procedural enactment of an assessment, making the entire 325increaseasingleregularassessment.Conversely,theHOAassertedthatithadbifurcatedtheincreaseintoacompliant14.1116) regular assessment increase and a separate $209 special assessment, which is not subject to the 20% statutory cap.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately sided with Mogollon Airpark on the assessment increase, dismissing the petitions of both Mr. Brown and Mr. Stevens. The ALJ’s rationale, based on principles of statutory construction, was that “regular assessment” refers to a type of assessment, distinct from a “special assessment,” and that to rule otherwise would render the word “regular” meaningless in the statute. A subsequent rehearing requested by Mr. Stevens was also denied on the same grounds.

However, the ALJ ruled in favor of Mr. Brown on the matter of the late fee. The decision found that the statutory limit on late fees applies to all “assessments,” not just regular ones, making the HOA’s $25 fee a clear violation. Underlying the legal challenges were substantial allegations by the petitioners of deceptive accounting and financial mismanagement by the HOA to create a “fabricated shortfall,” though the ALJ noted these issues were outside the narrow scope of the administrative hearing and better suited for civil court.

Case Overview and Parties Involved

This matter consolidates three separate petitions filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, which were heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

• Petitioners:

◦ Warren R. Brown (Docket Nos. 18F-H1818029-REL-RHG & 18F-H1818045-REL)

◦ Brad W. Stevens (Docket No. 18F-H1818054-REL)

• Respondent:

◦ Mogollon Airpark, Inc.

• Venue and Adjudication:

◦ Tribunal: Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona

◦ Administrative Law Judge: Thomas Shedden

◦ Hearing Date (Consolidated Matters): September 28, 2018

◦ Rehearing Date (Stevens Matter): February 11, 2019

Key Financial Figures

Amount/Rate

Calculation/Note

Previous Year’s Assessment (2017)

The baseline for calculating the increase percentage.

Total 2018 Assessment Increase

The total amount disputed by the petitioners.

Total Increase Percentage

($325 / $825)

“Regular Assessment” Increase

As classified by Mogollon Airpark, Inc. (14.1% increase).

“Special Assessment”

As classified by Mogollon Airpark, Inc.

New Late Fee

Challenged as exceeding statutory limits.

New Interest Rate

For past-due accounts.

Statutory Late Fee Limit

Greater of $15 or 10%

Per ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(A).

Statutory Assessment Increase Limit

20% over prior year

Per ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(A), applies to regular assessments.

Analysis of Core Legal Disputes

The hearings focused on two primary violations of Arizona statute alleged by the petitioners.

The 2018 Assessment Increase (39.4%)

The crux of the case in dockets 029 and 054 was the interpretation of the term “regular assessment” within ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(A).

• Petitioners’ Position (Brown & Stevens):

◦ The total $325 increase, constituting a 39.4% hike, is a clear violation of the 20% statutory cap.

◦ The term “regular assessment” as used in the statute refers to the process by which an assessment is created (i.e., by motion, second, and vote). As the entire $325 was passed via this standard procedure, it constitutes a single regular assessment.

◦ They further argued that Mogollon Airpark, Inc.’s governing documents (Bylaws and CC&Rs) do not provide any explicit authority to impose “special assessments,” meaning any assessment levied must be a regular one.

• Respondent’s Position (Mogollon Airpark, Inc.):

◦ The assessment was properly bifurcated into two distinct parts: a $116 increase to the regular assessment (a 14.1% increase, well within the 20% limit) and a $209 special assessment.

◦ “Regular assessment” and “special assessment” are established terms of art in the HOA industry, denoting different types of assessments, not the process of their creation.

◦ The existence of both terms in other parts of Arizona law, such as § 33-1806, demonstrates the legislature’s intent to treat them as separate categories.

Late Fees and Interest Charges

In docket 045, Mr. Brown challenged the legality of the newly instituted penalties for late payments.

• Petitioner’s Position (Brown):

◦ The statute explicitly limits late fees to “the greater of fifteen dollars or ten percent of the amount of the unpaid assessment.”

◦ The HOA’s imposition of a flat $25 late fee is a direct violation of this provision. An invoice provided as evidence showed Mr. Brown was charged this $25 fee plus $1.57 in interest.

• Respondent’s Position (Mogollon Airpark, Inc.):

◦ The HOA argued that the statutory limitation on late fees applied only to regular assessments, not to special assessments. This argument was explicitly rejected by the ALJ.

Underlying Allegations of Financial Misconduct

While the administrative hearings were limited to the specific statutory violations, the petitions were motivated by deep-seated concerns over the HOA’s financial management. These allegations were not adjudicated but were noted by the ALJ.

• Core Allegation: The petitioners claimed the HOA treasurer and others engaged in “deceptive and nonstandard accounting methods” to manufacture a financial crisis and justify the assessment increase.

• Specific Claims:

◦ Mr. Brown alleged that the accounting was “deliberately misleading” to obscure the fact that the 2016 board left the treasury approximately “$200,000 better off.”

◦ Mr. Stevens submitted a 45-page petition with over 600 pages of exhibits detailing the alleged improprieties, including “keeping two sets of books,” to create a “fabricated shortfall.” He testified that he believed the HOA possessed over $1 million and did not need an increase.

• Judicial Comment: The ALJ noted that these complex financial allegations were not addressed in the hearing and suggested that “the civil courts may be better suited than an administrative tribunal to address the issues they raise.”

Judicial Decisions and Rationale

The ALJ issued separate findings and orders for each docket, culminating in a split decision. The rulings on the assessment increase were further solidified in a subsequent rehearing.

Summary of Outcomes

Docket No.

Petitioner

Core Issue

Ruling

Prevailing Party

18F-H1818029-REL-RHG

Warren R. Brown

Assessment Increase

Petition Dismissed

Mogollon Airpark, Inc.

18F-H1818054-REL

Brad W. Stevens

Assessment Increase

Petition Dismissed

Mogollon Airpark, Inc.

18F-H1818045-REL

Warren R. Brown

$25 Late Fee

Violation Found

Warren R. Brown

Rationale for Initial Decision (October 18, 2018)

• On the Assessment Increase: The ALJ found that the petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation occurred. The ruling rested on statutory interpretation:

◦ The petitioners’ definition of “regular assessment” as a process was rejected because it would render the word “regular” in the statute “trivial or void,” as all assessments are presumed to follow a regular process.

◦ The only “fair and sensible result” that gives meaning to every word in the statute is to interpret “regular” and “special” as distinct types of assessments.

• On the Late Fees: The ALJ found that Mr. Brown successfully proved a violation.

◦ The statutory text on late fees applies to “assessments” generally, without the qualifier “regular.”

◦ Mogollon’s argument required adding the word “regular” where the legislature did not use it, which violates principles of statutory construction.

◦ Order: Mogollon was ordered to rescind the $25 fee assessed against Mr. Brown and reimburse his $500 filing fee.

Rationale for Rehearing Decision (March 1, 2019)

Mr. Stevens’s request for a rehearing on his dismissed petition was granted but ultimately denied again.

• Mr. Stevens’s Rehearing Arguments: He argued the ALJ erred by not applying a definition of “special assessment” from the case Northwest Fire District v. U.S. Home of Arizona and reasserted that an assessment unauthorized by the HOA’s documents must logically be a regular one.

• ALJ’s Rejection:

◦ The reliance on Northwest Fire District was “misplaced” because that case applies to special taxing districts created under a different state title, not private HOAs.

◦ The argument that an unauthorized special assessment becomes a regular one was deemed “nonsensical.” The ALJ noted, “More reasonably, if Mogollon has no authority to issue a special assessment, any such assessment would be void.”

◦ The core statutory interpretation from the initial hearing was affirmed. The petition was dismissed a final time.

Study Guide – 18F-H1818054-REL-RHG

Study Guide: Brown and Stevens v. Mogollon Airpark, Inc.

Short Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the provided legal documents.

1. Identify the petitioners and the respondent in this consolidated legal matter and describe their relationship.

2. What specific financial changes did Mogollon Airpark, Inc. implement in 2018 that led to the legal dispute?

3. What was the central legal argument presented by petitioners Warren R. Brown and Brad W. Stevens regarding the assessment increase?

4. How did Mogollon Airpark, Inc. justify its total assessment increase of $325 in the face of the legal challenge?

5. Explain the Administrative Law Judge’s primary reason for dismissing the petitions concerning the assessment increase (the 029 and 054 matters).

6. What was the specific subject of the petition in the 045 matter, and what was the final ruling in that case?

7. What was the judge’s legal reasoning for finding Mogollon’s $25 late fee to be in violation of the statute?

8. Why did the hearing not address the petitioners’ underlying allegations of deceptive accounting and financial impropriety?

9. What is the standard of proof required in this matter, and which parties were responsible for meeting it?

10. In the rehearing for the 054 matter, what was Brad Stevens’s argument regarding the definition of “special assessment,” and why did the judge find his reliance on the Northwest Fire District case to be misplaced?

——————————————————————————–

Quiz Answer Key

1. The petitioners were Warren R. Brown and Brad W. Stevens, who were members of the homeowners’ association (HOA). The respondent was Mogollon Airpark, Inc., the HOA itself. The dispute arose from actions taken by the HOA board that the petitioners, as members, believed to be unlawful.

2. In 2018, Mogollon Airpark, Inc. raised its total annual assessment by $325 over the previous year’s $825. Additionally, the HOA instituted a new late payment fee of $25 and began charging 18% interest on past-due accounts.

3. The petitioners’ central argument was that the total $325 assessment increase, representing a 39.4% hike over the prior year, violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(A). This statute prohibits an HOA from imposing a “regular assessment” that is more than 20% greater than the previous year’s assessment without member approval.

4. Mogollon Airpark, Inc. argued that the $325 increase was composed of two separate parts: a $116 increase to the “regular assessment” (14.1%) and a $209 “special assessment.” They contended that the 20% statutory limit in section 33-1803(A) applies only to regular assessments, not special assessments, and therefore their actions were lawful.

5. The judge dismissed the petitions based on principles of statutory construction. He concluded that “regular assessment” is a specific type of assessment, distinct from a “special assessment,” and that if “regular” merely referred to the process of passing an assessment (motion, second, vote), the word would be redundant and meaningless in the statute. Since the regular assessment portion of the increase was below the 20% threshold, no violation occurred.

6. The 045 matter, filed by Warren R. Brown, specifically challenged Mogollon’s new $25 late fee and 18% interest charge. The judge ruled in favor of Mr. Brown, deeming him the prevailing party, and ordered Mogollon to rescind the $25 late fee and refund his $500 filing fee.

7. The judge found the $25 late fee violated the statute because the section of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(A) limiting late charges applies to “assessments” generally, not just “regular assessments.” Unlike the clause on assessment increases, the legislature did not use the limiting word “regular,” so applying that limitation would violate principles of statutory construction.

8. The hearing did not address the allegations of deceptive accounting because the petitions filed by Mr. Brown (029) and Mr. Stevens (054) were “single-issue petitions.” This limited the scope of the hearing strictly to the question of whether Mogollon violated the specific statute, section 33-1803(A). The judge noted that civil courts may be a more suitable venue for the financial allegations.

9. The standard of proof required was a “preponderance of the evidence.” The burden of proof was on the petitioners, Messrs. Brown and Stevens, to prove their respective allegations against the respondent, Mogollon Airpark, Inc.

10. Mr. Stevens argued that the definition of “special assessment” from the case Northwest Fire District v. U.S. Home of Arizona should be applied, which it failed to meet. The judge found this reliance misplaced because that case applies to special taxing districts created under ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 48, and Mogollon Airpark, Inc. is an HOA, not such a taxing district.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth, essay-format response. Do not provide answers.

1. Analyze the competing interpretations of the term “regular assessment” as presented by the petitioners and the respondent. Discuss the Administrative Law Judge’s final interpretation and the principles of statutory construction used to arrive at that conclusion.

2. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision distinguishes between the legality of the assessment increase and the legality of the late fee. Explain the legal reasoning behind this split decision, focusing on the specific wording of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(A) and the different statutory construction applied to each clause.

3. Discuss the procedural limitations of the hearings as described in the legal decision, specifically referencing the concept of a “single-issue petition.” How did this limitation affect the scope of the case and prevent the judge from ruling on certain serious allegations made by Brown and Stevens?

4. Based on the “Findings of Fact,” describe the background allegations of financial misconduct made by the petitioners against Mogollon’s treasurer and board. Although not ruled upon, explain how these allegations served as the primary motivation for their legal challenges regarding the assessment and fee increases.

5. Trace the procedural history of the “029 matter,” from its original petition and dismissal to the eventual rehearing and final order. What does this process reveal about the requirements for filing a successful petition with the Office of Administrative Hearings?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, weighs evidence, and makes legal rulings and decisions, in this case, Judge Thomas Shedden.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(A)

The specific Arizona statute at the heart of the dispute. It limits HOA regular assessment increases to 20% over the prior year and caps late payment charges to the greater of $15 or 10% of the unpaid assessment.

Assessment

A fee or charge levied by a homeowners’ association on its members to cover operating expenses, reserve funds, and other costs.

Bylaws

A set of rules adopted by an organization, like an HOA, to govern its internal management and operations. Part of the governing documents.

Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions. These are legal obligations recorded in the deed of a property, governing its use and maintenance. Part of the governing documents.

Consolidated Matter

A legal procedure where multiple separate cases or petitions involving common questions of law or fact are combined into a single hearing to promote efficiency.

Docket Number

A unique number assigned by a court or administrative office to identify a specific case. The matters in this case were identified as 029, 045, and 054.

Governing Documents

The collection of legal documents, including CC&Rs and Bylaws, that establish the rules and authority of a homeowners’ association.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action in an administrative or court proceeding. In this case, Warren R. Brown and Brad W. Stevens.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in this case. It means the greater weight of the evidence shows that a fact is more likely than not to be true.

Regular Assessment

As interpreted by the ALJ, a specific type of recurring annual assessment for an HOA’s general operating budget, subject to the 20% increase limit in section 33-1803(A).

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, Mogollon Airpark, Inc.

Single-Issue Petition

A petition that limits the scope of the administrative hearing to a single, specific legal question or alleged violation, as was the case for the 029 and 054 matters.

Special Assessment

As interpreted by the ALJ, a one-time or non-recurring assessment levied for a specific purpose (e.g., replenishing a reserve fund). The ALJ found it is not subject to the 20% annual increase cap that applies to regular assessments.

Statutory Construction

The process and principles used by judges to interpret and apply legislation. The judge used these principles to determine the meaning of “regular” and “assessment” in the statute.

Blog Post – 18F-H1818054-REL-RHG

How One Word Let an HOA Raise Dues by 40%—And 4 Surprising Lessons for Every Homeowner

Imagine opening your annual bill from your Homeowner’s Association (HOA) and discovering your dues have skyrocketed by nearly 40% overnight. This isn’t a hypothetical scenario. It’s precisely what happened to homeowners in the Mogollon Airpark community in Arizona when their HOA board raised the annual assessment by $325, from $825 to $1,150—a staggering 39.4% increase.

But the homeowners weren’t just angry about the amount; they alleged the increase was justified by a “fabricated shortfall” created through “deceptive and nonstandard accounting methods.” At first glance, the hike also seemed legally impossible. Arizona state law, specifically ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(A), clearly states that an HOA cannot impose a regular assessment that is more than 20% greater than the previous year’s. So how did the Mogollon Airpark board legally circumvent this cap? The answer, found in the fine print of an administrative law judge’s decision, reveals critical lessons for every homeowner about the power of language, legal strategy, and reading the fine print.

1. The Power of a Name: The “Special Assessment” Loophole

The HOA’s strategy was deceptively simple. Instead of raising the annual assessment by the full $325, the Mogollon Airpark board split the increase into two distinct parts. First, it raised the “regular assessment” by $116. This amounted to a 14.1% increase over the previous year’s $825, keeping it well within the 20% legal limit. The remaining $209 was then levied as a separate fee, which the board classified as a “special assessment.”

When homeowners challenged this, the Administrative Law Judge sided with the HOA. The judge’s ruling was based on a strict reading of the statute: the 20% cap applies only to “regular assessments,” not “special assessments.” By simply calling a portion of the increase a “special assessment,” the HOA legally circumvented the very law designed to protect homeowners from massive, sudden fee hikes.

Lesson 1 for Homeowners: The name of a fee is everything. State-mandated caps on “regular” assessments offer zero protection if your HOA can simply reclassify an increase as a “special” assessment.

2. Every Word Is a Battlefield: “Regular” Doesn’t Mean What You Think

The homeowners, petitioners Warren Brown and Brad Stevens, built their case on a common-sense interpretation of the law. They argued that the term “regular assessment” in the statute referred to the process by which an assessment is created—that is, any fee approved through a regular motion, second, and vote by the board. By this logic, the entire $325 increase was a single “regular assessment” and therefore violated the 20% cap. They also argued that the HOA had no authority under its own governing documents to impose a special assessment in the first place.

The judge, however, rejected this definition. The judge reasoned that lawmakers don’t add words to statutes for no reason. If “regular” simply meant “voted on normally,” the word would be redundant, as all assessments are assumed to be passed this way. To give the word meaning, it must refer to a specific type of assessment. To support this interpretation, the judge pointed to another Arizona statute, 33-1806, which explicitly uses the distinct terms “regular assessments” and “special assessment[s].” This proved that the state legislature intended for them to be entirely different categories of fees, cementing the HOA’s victory on the main issue.

Lesson 2 for Homeowners: Every word in a statute has a purpose. Courts assume lawmakers don’t use words accidentally, and a layperson’s “common-sense” definition of a term can be easily defeated by established principles of legal interpretation.

3. A Small Victory on a Technicality: Why You Should Still Read the Fine Print

While the homeowners lost the battle over the 39.4% dues increase, one petitioner, Mr. Brown, secured a small but significant win on a separate issue: late fees. The Mogollon Airpark board had instituted a new $25 late fee, which Mr. Brown challenged.

Arizona law limits late fees to “the greater of fifteen dollars or ten percent of the amount of the unpaid assessment.” The HOA argued that this limit, like the 20% cap, only applied to regular assessments. This time, the judge disagreed. The judge’s logic was a textbook example of statutory interpretation: when lawmakers include a specific word in one part of a law but omit it from another, courts assume the omission was deliberate. In the section of the law governing late fees, the limit applies to “assessments” in general; the word “regular” is conspicuously absent.

Because the HOA’s $25 fee exceeded the legal limit, the judge ruled in favor of Mr. Brown. The court ordered the HOA to rescind the illegal late fee and, importantly, to reimburse Mr. Brown for his $500 filing fee.

Lesson 3 for Homeowners: The fine print cuts both ways. While one word can create a loophole for an HOA, the absence of that same word elsewhere can be your most powerful weapon.

4. Fighting the Right Battle in the Right Place: The Allegations a Judge Couldn’t Hear

Underlying the dispute over the 20% cap were much more serious allegations. The homeowners’ petitions claimed the HOA board used “deceptive and nonstandard accounting methods,” including keeping “two sets of books,” to create a “fabricated shortfall” and justify the massive fee increase.

Yet, none of these explosive claims were ever addressed during the hearing. The reason was a crucial matter of legal procedure. The homeowners had filed what are known as “single-issue petitions,” which focused narrowly and exclusively on the violation of the 20% assessment cap in statute 33-1803(A). This strategic choice legally prevented the judge from considering the broader allegations of financial mismanagement, regardless of their merit.

In a pointed footnote, the judge highlighted the procedural constraints and suggested the homeowners had chosen the wrong legal venue for their most serious claims:

Considering the nature of Messrs. Brown and Stevens’s allegations, the civil courts may be better suited than an administrative tribunal to address the issues they raise.

Lesson 4 for Homeowners: Your legal strategy is as important as your evidence. Choosing the right claims to file and the right venue to file them in can determine whether a judge is even allowed to hear your most compelling arguments.

Conclusion: Your Most Powerful Tool

The case of Mogollon Airpark is a powerful illustration of how legal battles are won and lost not on broad principles of fairness, but on the precise definitions of individual words. The presence of the word “regular” in one clause of the law cost the homeowners their central fight, allowing the HOA to circumvent the 20% cap. In a stunning contrast, the absence of that very same word in another clause handed them a clear victory on late fees.

This case is a stark reminder of the power hidden in legal definitions and fine print. It leaves every homeowner with a critical question: Do you really know what your governing documents—and the state laws that bind them—truly allow?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Warren R. Brown (petitioner)
Appeared pro se
Brad W. Stevens (petitioner)
Appeared pro se; presented testimony/evidence

Respondent Side

Gregory A. Stein (respondent attorney)
CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
Mark K. Sahl (respondent attorney)
CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
Spelled Mark K. Saul in some transmissions

Neutral Parties

Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
OAH
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Felicia Del Sol (clerk/staff)
Transmitting staff

Rex E. Duffett vs. Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association (ROOT)

Posted on April 27, 2018 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	18F-H1818025-REL / 18F-H1818027-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2018-04-24
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	partial
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Rex E. Duffett	Counsel	—
Respondent	Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association	Counsel	Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner won the statutory claim regarding access to association documents (A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)) and was refunded the $500 filing fee. Petitioner lost the claim regarding the failure to maintain exterior walls (CC&Rs) due to insufficient evidence.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the maintenance issue by a preponderance of the evidence (for case 18F-H1818025-REL).

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to repair and maintain exterior walls

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to repair damage (crack) to the exterior wall of his unit as required by the CC&Rs. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence (black and white photographs did not clearly show the damage) to establish a violation.

Orders: Petitioner's petition in Case Number 18F-H1818025-REL is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

CC&Rs
5
17

Failure to provide requested association records

Petitioner requested meeting notices and minutes in December 2017. Respondent's former management company failed to respond in a timely fashion. Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the statute.

Orders: Petitioner deemed the prevailing party in Case Number 18F-H1818027-REL. Respondent ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) in the future and pay Petitioner the filing fee of $500.00.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
19
20
21
22

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Document Request, Records Disclosure, Maintenance, CC&Rs, Filing Fee Refund

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.A.C. R2-19-119
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
CC&Rs

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818025-REL Decision – 630610.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:04:34 (114.0 KB)

Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818025-REL

Administrative Hearing Brief: Duffett vs. Suntech Patio Homes HOA

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in two consolidated cases filed by homeowner Rex E. Duffett against the Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association (HOA). The ruling presents a split decision, with the petitioner prevailing on one claim while failing to provide sufficient evidence for the other.

The first petition, concerning the HOA’s alleged failure to repair exterior walls, was denied. The petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, as the submitted photographic evidence was unclear and did not sufficiently establish the existence or severity of the damage requiring immediate repair.

The second petition, concerning the HOA’s failure to provide association records upon request, was upheld. The judge found that the HOA, through its former management company, violated state law (A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)) by not responding to a formal document request within the mandated ten-business-day window.

As a result, Mr. Duffett was deemed the prevailing party in the records-request case. The HOA was ordered to pay his $500 filing fee and to ensure future compliance with the relevant statutes. The case highlights critical issues of evidence quality in homeowner disputes and demonstrates the legal liability an HOA retains for the failures of its management agents, particularly during periods of transition.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Case Numbers

18F-H1818025-REL and 18F-H1818027-REL (Consolidated)

Petitioner

Rex E. Duffett

Respondent

Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association

Hearing Date

April 4, 2018

Decision Date

April 24, 2018

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

The hearing addressed two separate petitions filed by Rex E. Duffett with the Arizona Department of Real Estate:

1. Petition 1 (18F-H1818025-REL): Alleged the HOA violated community CC&Rs by failing to repair exterior walls of the petitioner’s unit.

2. Petition 2 (18F-H1818027-REL): Alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide requested documents.

Petition 1: Failure to Repair Exterior Walls (Denied)

Petitioner’s Allegations and Evidence

• Core Claim: The petitioner alleged the HOA failed its duty, as defined by a March 1993 amendment to the CC&Rs, to maintain the exterior walls of his unit. The CC&Rs state, “The Suntech Patio Homeowners Association shall be responsible for the painting and maintenance of the following: A) Exterior walls of all units . . . .”

• Initial Request (July 14, 2017): Mr. Duffett faxed the HOA’s management company, The Management Trust, stating, “While inspecting the outside of my property I noticed a crack in the exterior wall. Please inspect, repair and paint the wall as soon as possible to prevent any damage which could result from rain water in the interior of the wall.”

• Follow-Up Request (August 21, 2017): In a certified letter, Mr. Duffett provided more detail, identifying a crack in the entryway wall allowing “rain water to seep into the interior wall,” a “bare concrete” area on the garage, and a previously cracked garage wall that had been repaired by a roofing company but not painted.

• Hearing Testimony: Mr. Duffett testified that a roofing company he hired to find a leak in his garage ceiling determined the source was not the roof but a crack in the exterior wall.

• Submitted Evidence: The petitioner submitted five black-and-white photographs of his home’s exterior across his two communications.

Respondent’s Position and Evidence

• Management Transition: Pride Community Management took over from The Management Trust on February 1, 2018. The new manager, Rebecca Stowers, and owner, Frank Peake, testified to a difficult transition where The Management Trust initially provided only one box of records, later discovering seven or eight more boxes in storage. Mr. Peake stated that Pride had not seen the petitioner’s communications regarding the damage until the hearing.

• Inspection: Ms. Stowers testified that she inspected the petitioner’s home on March 27, 2018. While she noted “a missing area of stucco on the front of the garage that needed to be repaired,” she “denied being able to identify a crack in the stucco anywhere else on the front of the house.”

• Community-Wide Repair Plan: Ms. Stowers stated that the HOA intended to repair the stucco and paint all exterior walls in the community during the 2018 calendar year at a projected cost of $46,000, to be funded potentially through a special assessment due to the HOA being underfunded.

Conclusion of Law and Ruling

• Burden of Proof: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the petitioner bore the burden of proving his claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

• Evidence Failure: The ALJ found the submitted evidence insufficient. The decision states: “The black and white photographs submitted at hearing did not clearly show the crack Petitioner alleged existed on the exterior wall of his unit… The Administrative Law Judge was unable to identify the location or severity of the alleged crack, and therefore, cannot conclude that such a crack exists and/or that it is necessary to be repaired immediately.”

• Final Ruling: The petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof. The petition in Case Number 18F-H1818025-REL was denied.

Petition 2: Failure to Provide Association Records (Upheld)

Petitioner’s Allegations and Evidence

• Core Claim: The petitioner alleged that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), which requires an association to fulfill a request for records within ten business days.

• The Request (December 22, 2017): Mr. Duffett faxed The Management Trust a request for specific documents, citing a statement made by the HOA in a separate case. He requested copies of:

◦ Meeting notices and minutes for all meetings where “rules and regulations were discussed” in August/September 2017.

◦ Meeting notices and minutes for meetings where the last HOA dues increase was discussed.

◦ A copy of the notice for the last association rate increase.

Respondent’s Position and Evidence

• Lack of Awareness: The HOA’s initial response on January 29, 2018, indicated it had only become aware of the request upon receiving notice of the petition. The current management company, Pride, testified they had not seen the original communication from the petitioner.

• Vagueness of Request: Frank Peake of Pride testified that the request for minutes of meetings “where the rules and regulations were discussed” was unclear “because rules and regulations are discussed in some form at virtually every meeting of the association.”

• Claim of Privilege: The initial response from The Management Trust on January 29, 2018, claimed that the requested minutes were for “closed executive meetings and were only available to Board members.”

Conclusion of Law and Ruling

• Statutory Violation: The ALJ concluded that the petitioner clearly made a request for documents and that the HOA, via its former management company, failed to act as required by law.

• Failure of Former Management: The decision explicitly faults the prior management company: “The Management Trust should have responded or requested additional clarification of what documents Petitioner was requesting as it was the management company during the ten day window Respondent had to respond pursuant to the statute.”

• Final Ruling: The petitioner successfully established by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). Mr. Duffett was deemed the prevailing party in Case Number 18F-H1818027-REL.

Final Order and Implications

The Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders based on the conclusions of law:

Case Number

Subject

Ruling

18F-H1818025-REL

Exterior Wall Repairs

Petition Denied

18F-H1818027-REL

Document Request

Petitioner Deemed Prevailing Party

Directives to the Respondent (Suntech Patio Homes HOA):

1. Future Compliance: The HOA must comply with the provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) going forward.

2. Payment of Filing Fee: The HOA must pay the petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days of the order.

This order is considered binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted.

Rex E. Duffett vs. Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association (ROOT)

Posted on April 27, 2018 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	18F-H1818025-REL / 18F-H1818027-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2018-04-24
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	partial
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Rex E. Duffett	Counsel	—
Respondent	Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association	Counsel	Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the maintenance issue by a preponderance of the evidence (for case 18F-H1818025-REL).

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to repair and maintain exterior walls

Orders: Petitioner's petition in Case Number 18F-H1818025-REL is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

CC&Rs
5
17

Failure to provide requested association records

Orders: Petitioner deemed the prevailing party in Case Number 18F-H1818027-REL. Respondent ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) in the future and pay Petitioner the filing fee of $500.00.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
19
20
21
22

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Document Request, Records Disclosure, Maintenance, CC&Rs, Filing Fee Refund

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.A.C. R2-19-119
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
CC&Rs

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818025-REL Decision – 630610.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:28 (114.0 KB)

Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818025-REL

Administrative Hearing Brief: Duffett vs. Suntech Patio Homes HOA

Executive Summary

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Case Numbers

18F-H1818025-REL and 18F-H1818027-REL (Consolidated)

Petitioner

Rex E. Duffett

Respondent

Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association

Hearing Date

April 4, 2018

Decision Date

April 24, 2018

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

The hearing addressed two separate petitions filed by Rex E. Duffett with the Arizona Department of Real Estate:

1. Petition 1 (18F-H1818025-REL): Alleged the HOA violated community CC&Rs by failing to repair exterior walls of the petitioner’s unit.

2. Petition 2 (18F-H1818027-REL): Alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide requested documents.

Petition 1: Failure to Repair Exterior Walls (Denied)

Petitioner’s Allegations and Evidence

• Hearing Testimony: Mr. Duffett testified that a roofing company he hired to find a leak in his garage ceiling determined the source was not the roof but a crack in the exterior wall.

• Submitted Evidence: The petitioner submitted five black-and-white photographs of his home’s exterior across his two communications.

Respondent’s Position and Evidence

Conclusion of Law and Ruling

• Burden of Proof: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the petitioner bore the burden of proving his claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

• Final Ruling: The petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof. The petition in Case Number 18F-H1818025-REL was denied.

Petition 2: Failure to Provide Association Records (Upheld)

Petitioner’s Allegations and Evidence

• Core Claim: The petitioner alleged that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), which requires an association to fulfill a request for records within ten business days.

• The Request (December 22, 2017): Mr. Duffett faxed The Management Trust a request for specific documents, citing a statement made by the HOA in a separate case. He requested copies of:

◦ Meeting notices and minutes for all meetings where “rules and regulations were discussed” in August/September 2017.

◦ Meeting notices and minutes for meetings where the last HOA dues increase was discussed.

◦ A copy of the notice for the last association rate increase.

Respondent’s Position and Evidence

Conclusion of Law and Ruling

• Statutory Violation: The ALJ concluded that the petitioner clearly made a request for documents and that the HOA, via its former management company, failed to act as required by law.

Final Order and Implications

The Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders based on the conclusions of law:

Case Number

Subject

Ruling

18F-H1818025-REL

Exterior Wall Repairs

Petition Denied

18F-H1818027-REL

Document Request

Petitioner Deemed Prevailing Party

Directives to the Respondent (Suntech Patio Homes HOA):

1. Future Compliance: The HOA must comply with the provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) going forward.

2. Payment of Filing Fee: The HOA must pay the petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days of the order.

This order is considered binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted.

Study Guide – 18F-H1818025-REL

Study Guide: Duffett v. Suntech Patio Homes HOA

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the consolidated cases of Rex E. Duffett v. Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association, Case Numbers 18F-H1818025-REL and 18F-H1818027-REL. The decision, issued by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, addresses two separate petitions filed by a homeowner against his Homeowners Association (HOA), one concerning property maintenance and the other concerning access to association records.

——————————————————————————–

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing all information directly from the case decision.

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

2. What were the two distinct allegations made by the Petitioner in the petitions that were consolidated for this hearing?

3. According to the community’s governing documents (CC&Rs), what specific responsibility did the HOA have regarding the exterior of residential units?

4. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge rule against the Petitioner in his claim for wall repairs (Case No. 18F-H1818025-REL)?

5. What specific Arizona statute did the Petitioner claim the HOA violated in his second petition regarding access to records (Case No. 18F-H1818027-REL)?

6. Describe the roles and performance of the two management companies, The Management Trust and Pride Community Management, as detailed in the hearing evidence.

7. What was the final outcome of the petition concerning the HOA’s failure to provide documents, and who was named the prevailing party?

8. What specific types of documents did the Petitioner request from the HOA in his fax dated December 22, 2017?

9. What was the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and for which petition did he successfully meet it?

10. What financial penalty was imposed upon the Respondent as part of the final Order?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was Rex E. Duffett, a homeowner who filed the petitions. The Respondent was the Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association, the entity Mr. Duffett alleged had violated community rules and state law.

2. The first petition alleged that the HOA violated the CC&Rs by failing to respond to repeated requests for repairs to the exterior walls of his unit. The second petition alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide requested association documents.

3. A March 1993 amendment to the CC&Rs states that the Suntech Patio Homeowners Association “shall be responsible for the painting and maintenance of the… Exterior walls of all units.”

4. The judge ruled against the Petitioner because he failed to establish his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. The black and white photographs submitted did not clearly show the alleged crack’s location or severity, so the judge could not conclude that a repair was immediately necessary.

5. The Petitioner claimed the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). This statute requires an association to make records reasonably available for examination and to provide copies of requested records within ten business days.

6. The Management Trust was the HOA’s management company when the incidents occurred and failed to properly respond to the Petitioner’s requests. Pride Community Management took over on February 1, 2018, and testified that the transition was difficult due to the sparse documentation initially provided by The Management Trust.

7. The judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner, deeming him the prevailing party in Case Number 18F-H1818027-REL. The judge ordered the HOA to comply with the applicable statute in the future.

8. The Petitioner requested copies of meeting notices and minutes for meetings where rules and regulations were discussed and where the last HOA dues increase was discussed. He also requested a copy of the notice of the last rate increase and any associated signed written consents.

9. The legal standard was “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as evidence with the most convincing force. The Petitioner failed to meet this standard for the wall repair petition but successfully met it for the document request petition.

10. The Respondent (HOA) was ordered to pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00. The payment was to be made directly to the Petitioner within thirty days of the Order.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, weighs evidence, and issues a legally binding decision. In this case, the ALJ was Tammy L. Eigenheer.

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

An Arizona Revised Statute that legally requires homeowners associations to make financial and other records available for member examination and to provide copies upon request within ten business days.

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

The section of the Arizona Revised Statutes that grants jurisdiction to the Arizona Department of Real Estate to hear disputes between homeowners and their associations.

Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The governing legal documents that establish the rules, obligations, and restrictions for a planned community and its homeowners association.

Consolidated for Hearing

A procedural step where two or more separate legal cases involving the same parties are combined into a single hearing for efficiency.

Department

Within the context of this case, refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency where the Petitioner initially filed his petitions.

The final, legally binding ruling issued by the Administrative Law Judge at the conclusion of the hearing.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, homeowner Rex E. Duffett.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this proceeding. It is met when the evidence presented has “the most convincing force” and is more likely true than not.

Prevailing Party

The party who is found to have won the legal dispute. The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party in the document request case.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who must respond to the allegations. In this case, the Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association.

Blog Post – 18F-H1818025-REL

A Homeowner Sued His HOA Over a Cracked Wall. He Lost Because of Bad Photocopies.

Introduction: The David vs. Goliath Battle Against Your HOA

For many homeowners, a dispute with their Homeowners Association (HOA) can feel like an uphill battle. It’s a common story of frustration, complex rules, and feeling unheard. The legal case of Rex E. Duffett versus the Suntech Patio Homes HOA is a perfect example, but with a twist. This isn’t just a story about winning or losing; it’s a fascinating cautionary tale filled with surprising lessons for any homeowner navigating a conflict with their association. This breakdown of the real-life administrative court decision reveals the unexpected details that can make or break a case.

——————————————————————————–

1. Takeaway #1: The Quality of Your Proof Matters More Than the Truth

The dispute began when Rex Duffett filed a petition alleging his HOA had failed to repair a crack in his exterior wall that he claimed was causing a water leak. According to the association’s own CC&Rs, maintaining exterior walls was the HOA’s responsibility. To document the problem, he diligently sent faxes and certified mail to the management company, including photographs of the damage.

Despite his efforts, the Administrative Law Judge denied his petition for repairs.

The reason was as surprising as it was simple: the evidence he submitted was not clear enough. The black and white copies of the photographs he provided at the hearing “did not clearly show any damage.” The judge’s finding was blunt and highlights a critical point for any legal dispute:

The Administrative Law Judge was unable to identify the location or severity of the alleged crack, and therefore, cannot conclude that such a crack exists and/or that it is necessary to be repaired immediately.

The lesson here is critical. In a legal dispute, having proof is not enough; the proof must be clear, convincing, and well-presented. Mr. Duffett’s primary case failed not because he was necessarily wrong, but because his evidence failed to persuade the judge. In an administrative hearing, a handful of high-resolution color photographs, or even a short video, would have provided irrefutable evidence and could have changed the entire outcome of his primary petition.

2. Takeaway #2: Your HOA is on the Hook for Its Management Company’s Failures

Mr. Duffett also filed a second petition against the HOA for failing to provide records he requested, such as meeting minutes. Under Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)), an association must fulfill such a request within ten business days. The HOA failed to do so.

The root of the problem was the HOA’s previous management company, “The Management Trust.” This company not only failed to respond to the homeowner’s request but also failed to notify the new management company about it. The relationship between the HOA and this vendor was so poor that the HOA had previously tried to terminate the contract, but the management company “refused to acknowledge the termination and held Respondent to the full two year contract.” The transition was chaotic; the old company initially provided only one box of information before later discovering “seven or eight more boxes” in storage.

Even though the management company was clearly at fault, the Judge ruled that the HOA violated the law. This provides a powerful insight for both boards and homeowners: an HOA cannot blame its vendors. Legally, the association is the responsible party. Hiring an incompetent or unresponsive management company creates significant legal and financial liability for the association and, by extension, every homeowner. This is not an abstract risk; in this case, the management company’s failure to forward a simple request directly led to a legal violation that cost the association—and thus, its members—the $500 filing fee ordered by the judge.

3. Takeaway #3: A “Win” Can Be More Complicated Than It Looks

When you look at the final outcome, Mr. Duffett’s case presents a nuanced picture of what a “win” really means in an HOA dispute. The judge issued a split decision:

• Petition for Repairs: Denied. The homeowner lost.

• Petition for Documents: The homeowner was deemed the “prevailing party.” He won.

As the prevailing party in the second petition, the homeowner received a clear victory. The judge ordered the HOA to comply with the document access law in the future and, crucially, to pay the homeowner back his $500 filing fee.

This highlights a common reality in legal disputes: a homeowner can secure a clear procedural victory (enforcing the right to documents and recovering fees) while simultaneously failing to achieve their core substantive goal (getting the wall repaired). The outcome shows that legal victories can be partial and may not address the real-world problem that initiated the dispute in the first place.

4. Takeaway #4: Vague Requests and Messy Records Create Chaos

This case is a masterclass in how poor communication from both sides can create a perfect storm of dysfunction.

First, the homeowner’s request for documents was “somewhat vague.” The new management company testified it was “unclear because rules and regulations are discussed in some form at virtually every meeting.” While the HOA still violated the law by failing to respond at all, this highlights a crucial lesson for homeowners: be as specific and clear as possible in all written communication to avoid ambiguity.

This vague request then ran headlong into the second problem: the HOA’s institutional chaos. The new Community Manager testified that the only relevant document they possessed was the minutes from a single meeting, and that “seven or eight more boxes” of records were missing after a disastrous transition between management companies. The homeowner’s ambiguous request met an organization that likely couldn’t have responded effectively even if it wanted to.

For both sides, meticulous documentation is a shield. For homeowners, a clear, specific, and undeniable paper trail strengthens their position. For HOA boards, organized records are essential for smooth operations, seamless transitions between management companies, and, most importantly, avoiding legal liability.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: The Devil is in the Details

The case of Duffett v. Suntech Patio Homes HOA is a powerful reminder that in legal disputes, the outcome often hinges on the small stuff. Small details—the quality of a photocopy, the precise wording of a request, the competence of a vendor, the location of a box of files—can have massive consequences. They can mean the difference between winning and losing, between getting a problem solved and walking away with only a partial victory.

This case shows how easily things can go wrong. The next time you’re in a dispute, what’s the one small detail you might be overlooking that could change everything?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Rex E. Duffett (petitioner)

Respondent Side

Nathan Tennyson (attorney)
BROWN/OLCOTT, PLLC
Rebecca Stowers (property manager)
Pride Community Management
Community Manager
Frank Peake (property manager)
Pride Community Management
Owner of Pride
Shawn Mason (property manager)
The Management Trust
Former management company staff

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
LDettorre (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
DGardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
ncano (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
F. Del Sol (staff)
Signed transmission document

Rex E. Duffett vs. Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association

Posted on April 24, 2018 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	18F-H1818025-REL, 18F-H1818027-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2018-04-24
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	partial
Filing Fees Refunded	$1,000.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Rex E. Duffett	Counsel	—
Respondent	Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association	Counsel	Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Amendment (March 1993)
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the maintenance claim because the Petitioner failed to prove the existence of the damage with unclear evidence. The ALJ granted the records request claim because the HOA failed to respond to the Petitioner's request within the required 10 days. The HOA was ordered to pay the Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00.

Why this result: Insufficient evidence to substantiate the maintenance claim.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to repair and paint exterior walls

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to respond to repeated requests to repair cracks and paint the exterior walls of his unit.

Orders: Denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_lost

Cited:

Failure to provide records

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to provide requested meeting notices and minutes within the statutory 10-day timeframe following a request made on December 22, 2017.

Orders: Respondent ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) in the future.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Decision Documents

18F-H1818027-REL Decision – 630610.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:14:18 (114.0 KB)

**Case Overview**
The following is a summary of the administrative hearing for consolidated cases *Rex E. Duffett v. Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association* (Nos. 18F-H1818025-REL and 18F-H1818027-REL). The hearing took place on April 4, 2018, before Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer,. While the hearing addressed two petitions, the following summary focuses primarily on Case No. 18F-H1818027-REL as requested.

**Case No. 18F-H1818027-REL (Records Request)**

* **Key Facts and Main Issue:**
The Petitioner filed a complaint alleging the Respondent failed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) regarding a request for documents made on December 22, 2017. The Petitioner had faxed a request to the Respondent’s management company seeking meeting notices and minutes related to discussions of rules, regulations, and dues increases,. Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), an association must make financial and other records reasonably available for examination within ten business days of a request.

* **Hearing Arguments:**
The Respondent was represented by new management (Pride Community Management), which had taken over from the previous company (The Management Trust) on February 1, 2018. The Respondent argued that the previous management company left sparse records and failed to communicate the request,. Additionally, the Respondent argued that the Petitioner's request regarding meetings where "rules and regulations were discussed" was unclear because such topics are discussed at virtually every meeting.

* **Legal Findings:**
The Administrative Law Judge determined that while the Petitioner’s request was "somewhat vague," it was clearly a request for documents. The Judge ruled that the Respondent’s former management company failed to respond or request clarification within the ten-day statutory window. Consequently, the Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

* **Outcome:**
The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party in this matter.

**Consolidated Case Context (Case No. 18F-H1818025-REL)**
In the accompanying consolidated case, the Petitioner alleged the Respondent failed to repair cracks in the exterior walls of his unit. The Judge denied this petition, finding that the black-and-white photographs submitted by the Petitioner were insufficient to prove the existence or severity of the alleged damage by a preponderance of the evidence,.

**Final Decision and Order**
Based on the findings in Case No. 18F-H1818027-REL, the Administrative Law Judge ordered the following:

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Rex E. Duffett (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Nathan Tennyson (attorney)
Brown/Olcott, PLLC
Represented Respondent
Rebecca Stowers (witness)
Pride Community Management
Community Manager; testified at hearing
Shawn Mason (property manager)
The Management Trust
Provided initial responses to petitions; former management
Frank Peake (witness)
Pride Community Management
Owner of Pride; testified at hearing

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Judy Lowe (commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Listed on distribution list
F. Del Sol (administrative staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Transmitted the decision
L. Dettorre (agency staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Listed on distribution list
A. Hansen (agency staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Listed on distribution list
D. Jones (agency staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Listed on distribution list
D. Gardner (agency staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Listed on distribution list
N. Cano (agency staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Listed on distribution list

Kenneth Nowell vs. Greenfield Village RV Resort

Posted on May 11, 2015 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	14F-H1415011-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2015-05-11
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Kenneth Nowell	Counsel	—
Respondent	Greenfield Village RV Resort Association, Inc.	Counsel	Steven D. Leach

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs 6.4, 6.5; Bylaws 6.4, 10.2
Bylaws 6.4
CC&Rs 3.25, 6.4(b)

Outcome Summary

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Decision Documents

14F-H1415011-BFS Decision – 440536.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-28T11:12:09 (117.3 KB)

14F-H1415011-BFS Decision – 446583.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-28T11:12:09 (61.6 KB)

**Case Summary: Nowell v. Greenfield Village RV Resort**
**Case No.** 14F-H1415011-BFS

**Hearing Proceedings and Background**
The hearing was conducted on April 21, 2015, before Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona. Petitioner Kenneth Nowell, a resident, filed a petition alleging that Respondent Greenfield Village RV Resort Association, Inc. violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Bylaws.

The dispute centered on the Association’s authority and procedures regarding three specific actions: the purchase of land at 4711 East Main Street, the purchase of an option to buy that land, and the construction of a beverage serving center. The Petitioner bore the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

**Key Arguments and Legal Findings**

**1. Land Purchase and Assessment**
The Association held an election in February 2014 where the membership voted to purchase and improve specific land.
* **Petitioner’s Argument:** Nowell alleged the Association lacked the authority to acquire property and that the assessment used to fund the purchase required approval by two-thirds of the membership.
* **Legal Finding:** The ALJ found that the Articles of Incorporation expressly authorize the Association to acquire property. Regarding the vote, the evidence showed the land was funded by a general assessment, not a special assessment as alleged. Regardless, the CC&Rs and Bylaws require only a majority vote for ratification of assessments, not a two-thirds vote. The assessments were properly ratified .

**2. The $20,000 Land Option**
Prior to the 2014 election, the Board authorized a $20,000 expenditure from operating funds to secure an option on the land.
* **Petitioner’s Argument:** Nowell argued the Association was required to hold a membership vote to authorize this expenditure.
* **Legal Finding:** The Bylaws require a membership vote only for capital expenditures *in excess* of $20,000. Because the expenditure did not exceed this threshold, Nowell failed to prove a vote was required.

**3. The Beverage Serving Center**
The Board approved the construction of a new beverage serving center to replace an old facility located in a flood-prone retention basin

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Kenneth Nowell (Petitioner)
Resident appearing on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Steven D. Leach (attorney)
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
Attorney for Respondent
Ron Thorstad (witness)
Greenfield Village RV Resort Association, Inc.
Association President; testified at hearing

Neutral Parties

Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Gene Palma (Agency Director)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Director listed on transmission
Greg Hanchett (OAH Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Interim Director; signed Certification of Decision
Debra Blake (Agency Director)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Director; recipient of certified decision
Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
c/o for Debra Blake
Rosella J. Rodriguez (OAH Staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed mailing certificate

Sellers, John and Debborah -v- Crossings At Willow Creek Property Owners Association

Posted on October 22, 2012 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	11F-H1112003-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date	2012-11-02
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	partial
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$200.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John and Debborah Sellers	Counsel	—
Respondent	Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association	Counsel	Matthew G. Hayes

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1812(3)
Bylaws Article IV, Section 5

Outcome Summary

The Director accepted the ALJ's finding that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(3) by using absentee ballots from one meeting at a subsequent meeting. The Tribunal found no credible evidence regarding the alleged Bylaws violation concerning conflict of interest voting. Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party and awarded reimbursement of filing fees.

Key Issues & Findings

Validity of Absentee Ballots

Petitioners alleged that the HOA violated the statute by carrying over absentee ballots from one meeting to a subsequent meeting/extension instead of requiring new ballots for a new specific election.

Orders: Respondent shall comply with the applicable provision of A.R.S. § 33-1812 in the future; pay Petitioners their filing fee of $550.00; pay a civil penalty of $200.00 to the Department.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $200.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Conflict of Interest Voting

Petitioners alleged that the HOA failed to respect Bylaws by allowing members with conflicts to vote.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

Decision Documents

11F-H1112003-BFS Decision – 311265.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:31 (99.8 KB)

11F-H1112003-BFS Decision – 313156.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:32 (200.4 KB)

voting
deadlines
procedure

Case

Docket No: 11F-H1112003-BFS
Case Title: John and Debborah Sellers vs. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
Decision Date: 2012-10-22
Alj Name: M. Douglas
Tribunal: Office of Administrative Hearings
Agency: Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety

legal standards
hearing process
evidence

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

Topic Tags

homeowner rights
dispute resolution
statutes

Question

What information must be included on an absentee ballot?

Short Answer

The ballot must list each proposed action and provide a way to vote for or against each one.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

The absentee ballot shall set forth each proposed action… The absentee ballot shall provide an opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)-(2)

Topic Tags

voting
ballots
compliance

Question

Does the HOA have to specify a deadline for absentee ballots?

Short Answer

Yes, the ballot must specify a time and date for delivery.

Detailed Answer

Absentee ballots must specify exactly when they need to be delivered to the board to be counted. This deadline must be at least seven days after the board sends the ballot to the member.

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(4)

Topic Tags

voting
deadlines
procedure

Case

Docket No: 11F-H1112003-BFS
Case Title: John and Debborah Sellers vs. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
Decision Date: 2012-10-22
Alj Name: M. Douglas
Tribunal: Office of Administrative Hearings
Agency: Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety

legal standards
hearing process
evidence

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

Topic Tags

homeowner rights
dispute resolution
statutes

Question

What information must be included on an absentee ballot?

Short Answer

The ballot must list each proposed action and provide a way to vote for or against each one.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

The absentee ballot shall set forth each proposed action… The absentee ballot shall provide an opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)-(2)

Topic Tags

voting
ballots
compliance

Question

Does the HOA have to specify a deadline for absentee ballots?

Short Answer

Yes, the ballot must specify a time and date for delivery.

Detailed Answer

Absentee ballots must specify exactly when they need to be delivered to the board to be counted. This deadline must be at least seven days after the board sends the ballot to the member.

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(4)

Topic Tags

voting
deadlines
procedure

Case

Docket No: 11F-H1112003-BFS
Case Title: John and Debborah Sellers vs. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
Decision Date: 2012-10-22
Alj Name: M. Douglas
Tribunal: Office of Administrative Hearings
Agency: Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

John Sellers (petitioner)
Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
Homeowner; appeared for Petitioners; witness
Debborah Sellers (petitioner)
Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
Homeowner; also referred to as Debra Sellers in testimony

Respondent Side

Matthew G. Hayes (HOA attorney)
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli PLC
Janice Dow (board member)
Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
Secretary; witness; owns four lots
Robert Balzano (property manager)
Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
Former managing agent (2010); witness

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Gene Palma (agency director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Signed Final Order
Joni Cage (agency staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Complaint Program Manager
Debra Blake (agency staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Signed on behalf of Joni Cage

Grossman, Jerry A. -v- Gainey ranch Community Association

Posted on May 13, 2008 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	08F-H078011-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date	2008-05-13
Administrative Law Judge	Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome	false
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Jerry A. Grossman	Counsel	—
Respondent	Gainey Ranch Community Association	Counsel	Burton C. Cohen

Alleged Violations

Guideline Section 4, Article 1, Section 2
Article IV, Section 2(a)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Association. The homeowner failed to prove the Association violated guidelines. The Association proved the homeowner violated CC&Rs by painting his home and door unapproved colors without prior approval. Homeowner ordered to repaint/restore and reimburse Association's filing fee.

Why this result: Homeowner did not obtain required Architectural Committee approval before painting. The color used was not approved for home exteriors.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of Architectural Guidelines by Association regarding paint requirements

Homeowner alleged Association violated guidelines by attempting to force him to repaint. Homeowner argued 'Sterling Place' color was approved for stucco and thus should be allowed for home exterior.

Orders: No action required of the Association.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Unapproved exterior alteration (paint color and front door)

Association alleged homeowner painted home and front door unapproved colors without submitting application to Architectural Committee.

Orders: Homeowner must paint exterior with approved color and restore front door to stained light or medium oak within 60 days.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Decision Documents

08F-H078012-BFS Decision – 190735.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:21:27 (86.9 KB)

Briefing Doc – 08F-H078012-BFS

Briefing Document: Grossman v. Gainey Ranch Community Association (Administrative Decision)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive briefing on the consolidated matter of Jerry A. Grossman v. Gainey Ranch Community Association (Nos. 08F-H078011-BFS and 08F-H078012-BFS). The dispute centers on whether a homeowner, Jerry Grossman, violated community CC&Rs by repainting his residence and front door without obtaining prior approval from the Association’s Architectural Committee.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the Gainey Ranch Community Association (GRCA) successfully demonstrated that Mr. Grossman violated the Master Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Consequently, Mr. Grossman was ordered to repaint his home in an approved color, restore his front door to its original stained state, and reimburse the Association for filing fees.

——————————————————————————–

Procedural and Hierarchical Background

The matter involves two primary entities: the Gainey Ranch Community Association (the master association) and “The Greens,” a sub-community within Gainey Ranch.

Level of Authority

Entity

Governance Scope

Superior

Gainey Ranch Community Association (GRCA)

Has superior authority over sub-communities regarding CC&R enforcement and architectural standards.

Subordinate

The Greens

Local Board of Directors and Architectural Committee for Lot 142.

Nature of the Petitions:

• Mr. Grossman’s Petition: Alleged the Association was improperly attempting to force him to repaint his home and door.

• Association’s Petition: Alleged Mr. Grossman violated governing documents by failing to seek approval and using unapproved colors for exterior alterations.

——————————————————————————–

Core Findings of Fact

1. The Exterior Alterations

In September or October 2007, Mr. Grossman performed two significant exterior changes to his residence at Lot 142 of The Greens:

• House Repainting: The home, previously pink, was repainted using a color called “Sterling Place.”

• Front Door Repainting: The front door, which was originally a stained light or medium oak, was painted dark brown.

2. Violations of Approval Processes

The ALJ identified several failures regarding the Association’s established approval protocols:

• Lack of Application: Mr. Grossman did not submit any application to the Association’s Architectural Committee for the home or the front door alterations.

• Improper Color Usage: “Sterling Place” was not an approved color for home exteriors. While it was approved for interior walls and entryways to The Greens, the GRCA Board had specifically denied a previous request by The Greens’ Board to use this color for buildings.

• Superiority of Master CC&Rs: Although The Greens’ Board of Directors expressed support for Mr. Grossman and had internally approved “Sterling Place” for buildings, they also admonished Mr. Grossman for failing to seek the necessary superior approval from the GRCA Architectural Committee.

3. Evidentiary Standards and Testimony

• CC&R Requirements: Article IV, Section (2)(a) explicitly states that no changes altering the exterior appearance of a property (including color schemes) shall be made without the prior approval of the GRCA Architectural Committee.

• Property History: Testimony from Fred Thielen (Executive Director of the Association) established that homes were originally built with stained oak doors. CC&Rs require homes to remain as they existed when built unless a change is approved.

• Grossman’s Defense: Mr. Grossman argued that he believed “Sterling Place” was acceptable because it was approved for stucco walls and claimed ignorance regarding regulations governing front doors. He also raised allegations of selective enforcement and harassment, which the ALJ determined were outside the scope of the hearing.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusions of Law

The ALJ applied the “preponderance of the evidence” standard—meaning the evidence must show the facts are more probable than not.

1. Authority: The Association possesses the legal authority to approve exterior colors (including walls, fences, and doors) and to seek homeowner compliance.

2. Petitioner Failure: Mr. Grossman failed to prove that the Association violated its own guidelines (Section 4, Article 1, Section 2).

3. Association Success: The Association proved that Mr. Grossman violated Article IV, Section 2(a) of the CC&Rs by failing to obtain prior approval for changes to the exterior appearance and color scheme of his home.

4. Rejection of Defense: The argument that approval for stucco usage automatically applied to building exteriors was found “not persuasive” by the court.

——————————————————————————–

Final Administrative Order

The Administrative Law Judge issued the following mandates:

• Grossman’s Petition: Dismissed; no action required by the Association.

• Remediation (House): Within 60 days, Mr. Grossman must repaint the exterior of his home with a color officially approved by the GRCA Architectural Committee.

• Remediation (Door): Within 60 days, Mr. Grossman must restore his front door to a light or medium oak stain.

• Financial Reimbursement: Within 40 days, Mr. Grossman must pay the Association $550.00 to reimburse their filing fee.

Note: This order constitutes the final administrative decision and is enforceable through contempt of court proceedings under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(B).

Study Guide – 08F-H078012-BFS

Study Guide: Grossman v. Gainey Ranch Community Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case involving Jerry A. Grossman and the Gainey Ranch Community Association (No. 08F-H078011-BFS and No. 08F-H078012-BFS). The materials focus on the enforcement of community covenants, the hierarchy of community governance, and the legal standards applied in administrative hearings regarding property alterations.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2–3 sentences based on the facts and legal conclusions provided in the source context.

1. What was the central conflict that led to the consolidated petitions between Mr. Grossman and the Gainey Ranch Community Association?

2. What does Article IV, Section (2)(a) of the Association’s CC&Rs specifically require regarding exterior alterations?

3. How is the organizational hierarchy structured between “The Greens” community and the Gainey Ranch Community Association?

4. Why was Mr. Grossman’s use of the color “Sterling Place” for his home’s exterior considered a violation?

5. What was the original state of the front doors in the Greens community, and how did Mr. Grossman alter his?

6. What was the stance of the Greens’ Board of Directors regarding Mr. Grossman’s actions?

7. How did the testimony of Patrick Collins clarify the limitations of the color “Sterling Place”?

8. Define the “preponderance of the evidence” standard as applied by the Administrative Law Judge in this case.

9. What was the judge’s final ruling regarding the front door of the property?

10. What financial penalty and timeline were imposed on Mr. Grossman following the decision?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. Central Conflict: The dispute arose because Mr. Grossman repainted the exterior of his home and his front door without obtaining prior approval from the Association’s Architectural Committee. The Association sought to enforce its governing documents, while Mr. Grossman petitioned against being forced to repaint his property.

2. CC&R Requirements: This section mandates that no changes or alterations to the exterior appearance of any property may be made without prior approval from the Architectural Committee. This explicitly includes building walls, residences, and the exterior color scheme of any structure.

3. Organizational Hierarchy: The Greens is a sub-community with its own Board of Directors and Architectural Committee; however, the Gainey Ranch Community Association holds superior authority. The Association’s Board and Architectural Committee oversee and overrule the decisions and guidelines of the Greens’ localized leadership.

4. Sterling Place Violation: While “Sterling Place” was an approved color for interior walls and specific entryway stucco, it was not approved for the exterior of residences. Mr. Grossman failed to submit an application for this color, which differed from the home’s previous pink color and the Association’s approved exterior palette.

5. Front Door Alterations: The front doors in the Greens community were originally constructed as stained light or medium oak. Mr. Grossman changed this exterior feature by painting his door dark brown without seeking the necessary committee approval.

6. Greens’ Board Stance: The Greens’ Board of Directors noted that the color “Sterling Place” was within the community’s general color scheme and agreed to support Mr. Grossman. However, they also admonished him for failing to follow the required protocol of seeking approval from the superior Gainey Ranch Architectural Committee.

7. Patrick Collins’ Testimony: Collins clarified that while “Sterling Place” was an approved stucco color for certain areas, the Greens’ Board had previously tried and failed to get the Master Association to approve it for building exteriors. He confirmed the color was only permitted for interior stucco and the entryway to the Greens.

8. Preponderance of the Evidence: As defined by Black’s Law Dictionary in the ruling, this is evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than the opposing evidence. It demonstrates that the fact sought to be proved is “more probable than not.”

9. Front Door Ruling: The judge concluded that the front door is part of the exterior appearance governed by the CC&Rs. Consequently, Mr. Grossman was ordered to restore the front door to its original state of stained light or medium oak within 60 days.

10. Financial Penalty and Timeline: Mr. Grossman was ordered to reimburse the Association for its $550.00 filing fee within 40 days of the order. Additionally, he was given 60 days to repaint his home in an approved color and restore his front door.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the provided case details to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. The Importance of Procedural Compliance: Discuss how Mr. Grossman’s failure to submit an application to the Architectural Committee served as the primary catalyst for the legal ruling, regardless of whether the color “Sterling Place” was aesthetically compatible with the neighborhood.

2. Jurisdictional Hierarchy in Managed Communities: Analyze the relationship between the Greens’ local board and the Gainey Ranch Community Association. How does this case illustrate the limitations of a sub-association’s power when its guidelines conflict with a master association’s CC&Rs?

3. Interpreting “Exterior Appearance”: Evaluate the Association’s argument that a front door is subject to the same approval process as the color of the house walls. How did the CC&Rs and the testimony of Mr. Thielen support this interpretation?

4. The Burden of Proof in Administrative Hearings: Explain the different burdens of proof placed on the Petitioner and the Respondent in this consolidated matter. How did each party fail or succeed in meeting the “preponderance of the evidence” standard?

5. Good Faith vs. Legal Obligation: Mr. Grossman testified that he believed he was in compliance because the color was approved for stucco. Analyze the legal weight of a homeowner’s “belief” or “intent” versus the explicit requirements found in recorded governing documents.

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A judge who trios and decides cases involving federal or state agencies; in this case, Lewis D. Kowal of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Architectural Committee

A designated group within a community association responsible for reviewing and approving or denying changes to the exterior of properties to ensure conformity with community standards.

Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, Assessments, Charges, Servitudes, Liens, Reservations, and Easements; the legal documents that govern what a homeowner can and cannot do with their property.

Consolidated Matter

Two or more separate legal cases that are joined together because they involve the same parties or common questions of law or fact.

Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety

The state department with which the original petitions in this property dispute were filed.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases, meaning the evidence on one side outweighs the evidence on the other; making a fact more likely true than not.

Petitioner

The party who presents a petition to a court or administrative body to initiate a legal action.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed, or the party responding to an appeal.

Selective Enforcement

A defense (though not permitted in this specific hearing) where a party argues they are being unfairly targeted for a violation that others are allowed to commit.

Stucco

A type of plaster used as a coating for exterior walls; a central point of confusion in the case regarding color approval.

Tract Declaration

A legal document recorded to establish specific conditions and descriptions for a particular piece of land or subdivision.

Blog Post – 08F-H078012-BFS

The $550 Paint Job: Lessons in HOA Law from the Gainey Ranch Dispute

For many homeowners, the dream of property ownership is synonymous with the freedom to personalize—to swap a “builder-beige” exterior for a shade that reflects personal style. However, in the high-stakes world of master-planned communities, Jerry Grossman learned the hard way that a paintbrush can quickly become a liability. What began as a simple home improvement project escalated into a “consolidated matter” before the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, ultimately proving that in an HOA, your “logical” choices are no match for a Master Declaration.

The case of Jerry Grossman vs. Gainey Ranch Community Association offers a masterclass in the legal traps of architectural control. It serves as a stark warning: when individual expression meets community governance, the court-ordered “un-doing” is always more expensive than the doing.

1. The “Sub-HOA” is Not Always the Final Authority

One of the most dangerous misconceptions in residential law is the belief that your immediate neighborhood board has the final word. Mr. Grossman lived in “The Greens,” a community within the larger Gainey Ranch development. When he decided to repaint, he found an ally in The Greens’ Board of Directors, who actually supported his color choice and noted it fit the neighborhood’s palette.

However, the administrative ruling clarified a definitive hierarchy of power. Under Finding of Fact #2, the Gainey Ranch Community Association (the Master Association) maintains “superior authority” over the local Greens Board. Think of it as a “federal” versus “local” government structure; while your local neighbors might give you a “green light,” that permission is void if it conflicts with the superior Master Association’s standards. Homeowners often miscalculate by ignoring the master level of governance until a cease-and-desist order arrives.

2. An “Approved Color” Depends on Location, Not Just Hue

The dispute centered largely on a color titled “Sterling Place.” Mr. Grossman argued that because the color was already used and approved within Gainey Ranch, his application of it was legally compliant. This is a common pitfall: the assumption that if a color exists in a community, it is “fair game” for any surface.

The court found that approval is site-specific, not universal. “Sterling Place” was an approved color for interior walls and specific entrance stucco, but it was explicitly forbidden for home exteriors. As the judge noted in Conclusion of Law #5:

3. The “Original State” Catch-22 for Front Doors

The conflict extended to Mr. Grossman’s front door, which he painted dark brown. His defense was simple: he testified he was “unaware” of any specific rule regarding door colors (Finding #11) and noted that other homes featured metal or cherry wood finishes.

The Association countered with a powerful “catch-all” provision found in Article IV, Section 2(a) of the CC&Rs. This rule mandates that no changes can be made that alter the exterior appearance of a property from its “natural or improved state” as it existed when the tract declaration was first recorded. The Executive Director testified that the builder originally installed stained doors of “light or medium oak.” Even without a specific “door rule” in the handbook, the “original state” rule acts as a default; if you haven’t received written approval to change it, you are legally required to keep it exactly as the builder left it.

4. Assumptions of “Stucco Approval” are Legally Precarious

Mr. Grossman’s primary defense rested on a material-based logic: his house is made of stucco, and “Sterling Place” is an approved color for stucco walls in the neighborhood; therefore, the two must be compatible.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found this logic legally insufficient, distinguishing the what (the material) from the where (the specific structure). An HOA board has the legal right to maintain a specific aesthetic by approving a color for a perimeter wall while banning that same color for a primary residence. This highlights a vital lesson: never assume a material’s presence elsewhere in the community grants you a right to use it. In the eyes of the law, the Board’s right to curate the “clean aesthetic” of the community outweighs a homeowner’s logical deduction.

5. The “Un-Doing” is More Expensive Than the Doing

The finality of an ALJ order carries significant financial and logistical pressure. The ruling in the Gainey Ranch dispute didn’t just find Mr. Grossman in violation; it issued a strict, time-sensitive mandate to restore the property to its original state.

The court order included the following requirements:

• 40-Day Deadline: Mr. Grossman was ordered to reimburse the Association $550.00 for its filing fee.

• 60-Day Deadline: The entire home exterior must be repainted in a color specifically approved by the Master Association.

• Restoration of the Door: The front door must be stripped of the dark brown paint and restored to a light or medium oak stain.

Conclusion: Individual Expression vs. Master Declarations

The Gainey Ranch dispute illustrates that personal logic and claims of “selective enforcement” are rarely a match for the “preponderance of evidence” regarding CC&R violations. When a homeowner signs the closing papers in a governed community, they are effectively trading a degree of individual expression for the preservation of a collective aesthetic and property value.

Is the “clean aesthetic” of a community like Gainey Ranch worth the loss of personal choice? For some, the answer is yes, but for those who wish to pick up a paintbrush, the lesson is clear: your first move should never be to the hardware store. It must be to the Master Declaration to secure written approval from the superior authority.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Jerry A. Grossman (petitioner)
Homeowner (The Greens within Gainey Ranch)
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Burton C. Cohen (attorney)
Gainey Ranch Community Association
Burton C. Cohen, P.C.
Fred Thielen (witness)
Gainey Ranch Community Association
Executive Director; Member of Architectural Committee
Patrick Collins (witness)
Gainey Ranch Community Association
Board Member; former member of Greens' Board/Architectural Committee

Neutral Parties

Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Robert Barger (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed in distribution
Debra Blake (agency staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed in distribution