Case Summary
| Case ID |
08F-H088008-BFS |
| Agency |
DFBLS |
| Tribunal |
OAH |
| Decision Date |
2008-05-22 |
| Administrative Law Judge |
Michael G. Wales |
| Outcome |
no |
| Filing Fees Refunded |
$500.00 |
| Civil Penalties |
$0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner |
John F. and Patricia E. Monahan |
Counsel |
— |
| Respondent |
Sycamore Hills Homeowners Association, Inc. |
Counsel |
Carolyn Goldschmidt |
Alleged Violations
Design Guidelines Section II.I, II.M, II.N, II.B.2
CC&Rs Article IX, Section 5; Article III, Section 8a
CC&Rs Article IX, Section 6, Section 26; Design Guidelines II.C
Bylaws Articles V and IX
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Outcome Summary
The Petition was dismissed in its entirety. Claims regarding harassment, barking dogs, and committees were found to be moot, outside jurisdiction, or lacking standing. The Open Meeting Law claim was dismissed because the Board was entitled to meet in executive session to discuss threatened litigation.
Why this result: Petitioners' claims were either moot (compliance achieved/events passed), outside the tribunal's jurisdiction (harassment), lacked standing (enforcement against others), or unfounded (executive session was legal).
Key Issues & Findings
Count 1: Harassment regarding pool pump and utility trailer
Petitioners alleged the HOA harassed them by requiring screening of pool equipment and moving a trailer while not enforcing these rules against others.
Orders: Dismissed as moot because Petitioners complied prior to filing, and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction regarding harassment/selective enforcement claims.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Count 2: Barking Dogs
Petitioners alleged the HOA failed to enforce animal noise restrictions against a specific neighbor.
Orders: Dismissed as moot.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Count 3: RV Parking
Petitioners alleged the HOA was not imposing sufficient fines or action against two lot owners keeping RVs on their lots.
Orders: Dismissed for lack of standing.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Count 4: Nominating and Architectural Committees
Petitioners alleged the Board failed to appoint required committees prior to the annual meeting.
Orders: Dismissed as moot.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Count 5: Open Meeting Law
Petitioners alleged the Board violated open meeting laws by discussing and voting on construction requests in a closed session.
Orders: Dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Decision Documents
08F-H088008-BFS Decision – 191406.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:22:40 (153.4 KB)
Briefing Doc – 08F-H088008-BFS
Administrative Law Judge Decision: Monahan v. Sycamore Hills Homeowners Association, Inc.
Executive Summary
This briefing document analyzes the administrative law decision in Case No. 08F-H088008-BFS, involving John and Patricia Monahan (Petitioners) and the Sycamore Hills Homeowners Association, Inc. (Respondent). The Petitioners alleged multiple violations of the Association’s governing documents and Arizona state statutes, specifically concerning harassment, nuisance control, parking enforcement, committee formation, and open meeting laws.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Michael G. Wales dismissed the petition in its entirety. The ruling was primarily based on three factors:
1. Lack of Jurisdiction and Standing: The tribunal lacks authority to adjudicate claims of “harassment” or “selective enforcement” and cannot hear disputes between neighbors where the Association is not a primary party.
2. Mootness: Several issues were resolved or corrected prior to the hearing, leaving no active controversy for the court to remedy.
3. Legal Justification for Executive Sessions: The Association demonstrated that its closed-door meetings were legally permissible under Arizona law to discuss pending or contemplated litigation.
——————————————————————————–
Detailed Analysis of Claims and Evidence
Count 1: Harassment and Selective Enforcement
The Petitioners alleged that the Association targeted them regarding pool pump screening and a utility trailer while failing to enforce the same rules against other residents.
• Evidence and Testimony: The Petitioners received notices to screen pool equipment and move a utility trailer. They complied with these requests. However, Petitioner John Monahan testified that other homes continued to have exposed trash receptacles and mechanical equipment.
• Respondent Defense: Property manager Sandy Sandoval testified to conducting regular monthly inspections. Board President Paul Swan noted that some minor issues, like trash can placement, were left to the “honor system” as they were deemed trivial.
• Legal Conclusion: The ALJ dismissed this count on two grounds:
◦ Jurisdiction: The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) is limited to Title 33, Chapter 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. It does not have the authority to hear claims of harassment or selective enforcement; such matters belong in Superior Court.
◦ Mootness: Because the Petitioners complied with the Association’s requests before filing the complaint, no active dispute remained.
Count 2: Barking Dogs (Nuisance Control)
Petitioners alleged the Association failed to take appropriate action against the owner of Lot 37 regarding constant barking dogs, in violation of the CC&Rs.
• Evidence and Testimony: Patricia Monahan testified that the Board failed to investigate her complaints. Board President Paul Swan testified that he personally monitored the location on six occasions and did not hear barking. A warning letter was drafted but withheld because the meeting where it was authorized had not been properly noticed.
• Resolution: Mrs. Monahan attended a Pima County Animal Noise Control hearing where the owners of Lot 37 were fined. She testified the barking had since stopped.
• Legal Conclusion: The issue was dismissed as moot. The nuisance had ceased, and the Petitioners found an alternative forum (Pima County) for resolution.
Count 3: RV Parking Enforcement
Petitioners argued that the Association was not imposing sufficient fines ($50 per month) against two lot owners who kept Recreational Vehicles (RVs) on their properties.
• Evidence and Testimony: A 2007 resolution prohibited RV parking for more than 48 hours. The Board had begun fining two owners $50 monthly. John Monahan argued this amount was lower than local storage fees, rendering the fine ineffective.
• Legal Conclusion: The ALJ ruled that Petitioners lacked standing. Under A.R.S. §41-2198.01(B), the department does not have jurisdiction over disputes between owners to which the Association is not a party. A claim regarding “lax enforcement” against a third party is legally considered a dispute between owners, not a direct dispute with the Association that the OAH can adjudicate.
Count 4: Committee Formation
Petitioners claimed the Association violated its Bylaws by failing to appoint a Nominating Committee and an Architectural Control Committee (ACC).
• Evidence and Testimony:
◦ ACC: The Board temporarily acted as the ACC after previous members resigned due to “upheaval” and “difficult personalities” in the community. By the time of the hearing, a new ACC had been appointed.
◦ Nominating Committee: The property manager testified that she sought volunteers via mail and email, but no one volunteered due to the toxic environment created by certain residents.
• Legal Conclusion: The ACC claim was dismissed as moot because a committee was currently in place. The Nominating Committee claim was dismissed because the election had already occurred, and evidence showed the Association made a good-faith effort to form the committee despite a lack of volunteers.
Count 5: Violation of Open Meeting Law
Petitioners alleged the Board held a private meeting to override an ACC decision regarding detached garages on Lots 36 and 56.
• Legal Standard (A.R.S. §33-1804): Board meetings must be open to members, but they may be closed (executive session) for specific reasons, including legal advice from an attorney or matters regarding pending/contemplated litigation.
• Evidence and Testimony: Paul Swan testified that the Board met in executive session because they had received letters from an attorney threatening litigation if the garage requests were not approved. He further testified that the final decision to approve was made by the ACC, not the Board in executive session.
• Legal Conclusion: The ALJ found the executive session was legal under A.R.S. §33-1804 as it pertained to contemplated litigation. No violation of the Open Meeting Law occurred.
——————————————————————————–
Final Legal Findings and Orders
Jurisdictional Limitations
The decision emphasizes the narrow scope of the Office of Administrative Hearings. The tribunal is only authorized to ensure compliance with specific statutes and the planned community’s documents as they apply to the Petitioner. It cannot:
• Rule on the reasonableness of an Association’s decisions regarding other owners.
• Share concurrent jurisdiction with the Superior Court on matters of harassment or arbitrary enforcement.
Attorney’s Fees and Filing Costs
• Attorney’s Fees: Although the Association prevailed, the ALJ denied their request for attorney’s fees. Under Arizona law (Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc.), an administrative proceeding is not considered an “action” that triggers fee-shifting statutes like A.R.S. §12-341.01.
• Filing Fees: As the Petitioners were not the prevailing party, they were not entitled to reimbursement for filing fees.
Final Order
The Administrative Law Judge ordered the dismissal of the petition in its entirety and denied the Respondent’s request for attorney’s fees. This order constitutes the final administrative decision.
Study Guide – 08F-H088008-BFS
Study Guide: Monahan v. Sycamore Hills Homeowners Association, Inc.
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case John F. and Patricia E. Monahan v. Sycamore Hills Homeowners Association, Inc. (No. 08F-H088008-BFS). It examines the legal disputes regarding planned community governance, jurisdictional boundaries of administrative hearings, and the application of Arizona Revised Statutes.
——————————————————————————–
Part I: Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2–3 sentences based on the source context.
1. What were the specific allegations made by the Petitioners in Count 1 of their petition?
2. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conclude that the tribunal lacked the authority to hear claims of “selective enforcement”?
3. According to the Findings of Fact, how did the Association address the Petitioners’ violation regarding their utility trailer?
4. What was the Petitioners’ primary grievance in Count 3 regarding the Association’s handling of RV parking violations?
5. How did the Board of Directors justify its decision to temporarily act as the Architectural Control Committee (ACC)?
6. What was the outcome of the Pima County Animal Noise Control hearing mentioned in Count 2?
7. What evidence did the Association provide to explain why a nominating committee had not been formed prior to the 2007 annual meeting?
8. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804, what is the “Open Meeting Law” requirement for board deliberations?
9. Why did the ALJ determine that the October 30, 2007, executive session did not violate the Open Meeting Law?
10. On what legal basis did the ALJ deny the Respondent Association’s request for attorney’s fees?
——————————————————————————–
Part II: Answer Key
1. Count 1 Allegations: The Petitioners alleged harassment and selective enforcement, specifically that the Association required them to enclose their pool pump and move a utility trailer while failing to hold other lot owners to the same Design Guidelines. They argued the Association violated Section II.I, II.M/N, and II.B.2 of the Community’s governing documents.
2. Jurisdiction over Selective Enforcement: The ALJ ruled that the Office of Administrative Hearings is limited by A.R.S. § 41-2198 to adjudicating specific violations of Title 33 and community documents. Claims of selective enforcement or “disputes between owners” where the association is not a direct party are outside this jurisdiction and are reserved for the Superior Court.
3. Resolution of Utility Trailer Issue: The Petitioners received a written notice on August 3, 2007, to store their trailer in a garage or behind the home so it was not visible from the street. They complied with the request and faxed proof of compliance to the Association by August 12, 2007, which later rendered the claim moot.
4. RV Parking Fines: The Petitioners argued that the $50 monthly fine imposed on owners of lots 35 and 60 was insufficient to change behavior. They claimed the fine was lower than external RV storage fees, effectively allowing owners to ignore the Association’s 2007 resolution against long-term RV parking.
5. Board Acting as ACC: Board President Paul Swan testified that the Board was forced to step in as the ACC after all members except John Monahan resigned in September 2007. The ALJ found that no governing document prohibited the Board from temporarily fulfilling these duties until new members were appointed.
6. Animal Noise Control Outcome: Patricia Monahan attended a hearing on April 21, 2008, where Pima County Animal Noise Control fined the owners of Lot 37 and warned them of additional penalties for future violations. Following this hearing, she testified that the dogs had stopped barking.
7. Lack of Nominating Committee: The Property Manager testified that obtaining volunteers for committees was “difficult, if not impossible” due to “difficult personalities” creating upheaval within the community. The ALJ accepted that these challenges rendered the creation of a nominating committee implausible at that time.
8. Open Meeting Law Requirements: A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) mandates that all meetings of the association and board of directors must be open to all members or their designated representatives. Members must be allowed to attend and speak before the board takes formal action on an issue.
9. Legality of Executive Session: The ALJ found the closed session was legal because it was held to discuss “pending or contemplated litigation” after receiving threat letters from an attorney representing the owners of lots 36 and 56. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1) and (2), legal advice and litigation strategy are valid reasons to close a meeting.
10. Denial of Attorney’s Fees: The ALJ cited Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc., stating that an administrative proceeding is not considered an “action” under A.R.S. §§ 33-1807(H) or 12-341.01. Therefore, even though the Association prevailed, attorney’s fees could not be awarded in this forum.
——————————————————————————–
Part III: Essay Questions
1. The Limits of Administrative Jurisdiction: Analyze the distinction between the jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Arizona Superior Court as outlined in the decision. Why is the distinction between a “dispute between owners” and a “dispute with the Association” critical for standing?
2. Mootness in Administrative Adjudication: Evaluate how the concept of “mootness” applied to the various counts in this case (specifically Counts 1, 2, and 4). How does voluntary compliance by either party affect the ALJ’s ability to provide a remedy?
3. Governance Challenges in Planned Communities: Using the testimony regarding the Nominating and Architectural Committees, discuss the practical difficulties an HOA faces when community conflict discourages volunteerism. How should the law balance strict adherence to bylaws with the reality of limited community participation?
4. Transparency vs. Confidentiality: Discuss the balance of the Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 33-1804). Under what circumstances does the need for a Board to seek legal counsel or discuss litigation outweigh the members’ right to observe deliberations?
5. The Preponderance of the Evidence: Explain the burden of proof required in this administrative hearing. How did the ALJ define “preponderance of the evidence,” and how did the Petitioners’ evidence fail to meet this standard in Count 5?
——————————————————————————–
Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms
• A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Open Meeting Law): An Arizona statute requiring that meetings of a homeowners association board be open to all members, with specific, narrow exceptions for closed “executive” sessions.
• A.R.S. § 41-2198: The statute granting the Office of Administrative Hearings the authority to adjudicate disputes regarding planned community documents and Title 33, Chapter 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes.
• Architectural Control Committee (ACC): A committee appointed by the Association to oversee and approve or deny requests for exterior improvements or structures on lots within the community.
• CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements): The recorded legal documents that establish the rules and regulations for a planned community and are binding on all property owners.
• Executive Session: A portion of a board meeting that is closed to the general membership to discuss sensitive matters such as legal advice, litigation, or personal member information.
• Jurisdiction: The legal authority of a court or administrative tribunal to hear and decide a specific type of case or dispute.
• Moot: A legal status where a dispute is no longer active or relevant because the issues have been resolved or the circumstances have changed, leaving no remedy for the court to provide.
• Planned Community: A real estate development where individual lot owners are mandatory members of an association and are subject to specific governing documents and dues.
• Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases, meaning the evidence shows that a claim is “more probably true than not.”
• Standing: The legal right of a party to bring a claim, requiring that the party is directly affected by the issue and that the tribunal has the authority to hear that specific person’s grievance.
Blog Post – 08F-H088008-BFS
Study Guide: Monahan v. Sycamore Hills Homeowners Association, Inc.
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case John F. and Patricia E. Monahan v. Sycamore Hills Homeowners Association, Inc. (No. 08F-H088008-BFS). It examines the legal disputes regarding planned community governance, jurisdictional boundaries of administrative hearings, and the application of Arizona Revised Statutes.
——————————————————————————–
Part I: Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2–3 sentences based on the source context.
1. What were the specific allegations made by the Petitioners in Count 1 of their petition?
2. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conclude that the tribunal lacked the authority to hear claims of “selective enforcement”?
3. According to the Findings of Fact, how did the Association address the Petitioners’ violation regarding their utility trailer?
4. What was the Petitioners’ primary grievance in Count 3 regarding the Association’s handling of RV parking violations?
5. How did the Board of Directors justify its decision to temporarily act as the Architectural Control Committee (ACC)?
6. What was the outcome of the Pima County Animal Noise Control hearing mentioned in Count 2?
7. What evidence did the Association provide to explain why a nominating committee had not been formed prior to the 2007 annual meeting?
8. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804, what is the “Open Meeting Law” requirement for board deliberations?
9. Why did the ALJ determine that the October 30, 2007, executive session did not violate the Open Meeting Law?
10. On what legal basis did the ALJ deny the Respondent Association’s request for attorney’s fees?
——————————————————————————–
Part II: Answer Key
1. Count 1 Allegations: The Petitioners alleged harassment and selective enforcement, specifically that the Association required them to enclose their pool pump and move a utility trailer while failing to hold other lot owners to the same Design Guidelines. They argued the Association violated Section II.I, II.M/N, and II.B.2 of the Community’s governing documents.
2. Jurisdiction over Selective Enforcement: The ALJ ruled that the Office of Administrative Hearings is limited by A.R.S. § 41-2198 to adjudicating specific violations of Title 33 and community documents. Claims of selective enforcement or “disputes between owners” where the association is not a direct party are outside this jurisdiction and are reserved for the Superior Court.
3. Resolution of Utility Trailer Issue: The Petitioners received a written notice on August 3, 2007, to store their trailer in a garage or behind the home so it was not visible from the street. They complied with the request and faxed proof of compliance to the Association by August 12, 2007, which later rendered the claim moot.
4. RV Parking Fines: The Petitioners argued that the $50 monthly fine imposed on owners of lots 35 and 60 was insufficient to change behavior. They claimed the fine was lower than external RV storage fees, effectively allowing owners to ignore the Association’s 2007 resolution against long-term RV parking.
5. Board Acting as ACC: Board President Paul Swan testified that the Board was forced to step in as the ACC after all members except John Monahan resigned in September 2007. The ALJ found that no governing document prohibited the Board from temporarily fulfilling these duties until new members were appointed.
6. Animal Noise Control Outcome: Patricia Monahan attended a hearing on April 21, 2008, where Pima County Animal Noise Control fined the owners of Lot 37 and warned them of additional penalties for future violations. Following this hearing, she testified that the dogs had stopped barking.
7. Lack of Nominating Committee: The Property Manager testified that obtaining volunteers for committees was “difficult, if not impossible” due to “difficult personalities” creating upheaval within the community. The ALJ accepted that these challenges rendered the creation of a nominating committee implausible at that time.
8. Open Meeting Law Requirements: A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) mandates that all meetings of the association and board of directors must be open to all members or their designated representatives. Members must be allowed to attend and speak before the board takes formal action on an issue.
9. Legality of Executive Session: The ALJ found the closed session was legal because it was held to discuss “pending or contemplated litigation” after receiving threat letters from an attorney representing the owners of lots 36 and 56. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1) and (2), legal advice and litigation strategy are valid reasons to close a meeting.
10. Denial of Attorney’s Fees: The ALJ cited Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc., stating that an administrative proceeding is not considered an “action” under A.R.S. §§ 33-1807(H) or 12-341.01. Therefore, even though the Association prevailed, attorney’s fees could not be awarded in this forum.
——————————————————————————–
Part III: Essay Questions
1. The Limits of Administrative Jurisdiction: Analyze the distinction between the jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Arizona Superior Court as outlined in the decision. Why is the distinction between a “dispute between owners” and a “dispute with the Association” critical for standing?
2. Mootness in Administrative Adjudication: Evaluate how the concept of “mootness” applied to the various counts in this case (specifically Counts 1, 2, and 4). How does voluntary compliance by either party affect the ALJ’s ability to provide a remedy?
3. Governance Challenges in Planned Communities: Using the testimony regarding the Nominating and Architectural Committees, discuss the practical difficulties an HOA faces when community conflict discourages volunteerism. How should the law balance strict adherence to bylaws with the reality of limited community participation?
4. Transparency vs. Confidentiality: Discuss the balance of the Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 33-1804). Under what circumstances does the need for a Board to seek legal counsel or discuss litigation outweigh the members’ right to observe deliberations?
5. The Preponderance of the Evidence: Explain the burden of proof required in this administrative hearing. How did the ALJ define “preponderance of the evidence,” and how did the Petitioners’ evidence fail to meet this standard in Count 5?
——————————————————————————–
Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms
• A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Open Meeting Law): An Arizona statute requiring that meetings of a homeowners association board be open to all members, with specific, narrow exceptions for closed “executive” sessions.
• A.R.S. § 41-2198: The statute granting the Office of Administrative Hearings the authority to adjudicate disputes regarding planned community documents and Title 33, Chapter 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes.
• Architectural Control Committee (ACC): A committee appointed by the Association to oversee and approve or deny requests for exterior improvements or structures on lots within the community.
• CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements): The recorded legal documents that establish the rules and regulations for a planned community and are binding on all property owners.
• Executive Session: A portion of a board meeting that is closed to the general membership to discuss sensitive matters such as legal advice, litigation, or personal member information.
• Jurisdiction: The legal authority of a court or administrative tribunal to hear and decide a specific type of case or dispute.
• Moot: A legal status where a dispute is no longer active or relevant because the issues have been resolved or the circumstances have changed, leaving no remedy for the court to provide.
• Planned Community: A real estate development where individual lot owners are mandatory members of an association and are subject to specific governing documents and dues.
• Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases, meaning the evidence shows that a claim is “more probably true than not.”
• Standing: The legal right of a party to bring a claim, requiring that the party is directly affected by the issue and that the tribunal has the authority to hear that specific person’s grievance.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- John F. Monahan (Petitioner)
Lot owner
Appeared personally; former ACC member
- Patricia E. Monahan (Petitioner)
Lot owner
Appeared personally
Respondent Side
- Carolyn Goldschmidt (Respondent Attorney)
Goldschmidt Law Firm
- Sandy Sandoval (Property Manager)
Witness
- Paul Swan (Board President)
Sycamore Hills Homeowners Association, Inc.
Witness
Neutral Parties
- Michael G. Wales (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
- Robert Barger (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
On service list
- Debra Blake (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
On service list
Other Participants
- Steven Sandoval (Attorney)
Attorney for non-party owners of lots 36 and 56; threatened litigation
