Case Summary
| Case ID |
19F-H1918029-REL |
| Agency |
ADRE |
| Tribunal |
OAH |
| Decision Date |
2019-02-04 |
| Administrative Law Judge |
Thomas Shedden |
| Outcome |
loss |
| Filing Fees Refunded |
$0.00 |
| Civil Penalties |
$0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner |
Nathan Brown |
Counsel |
— |
| Respondent |
Val Vista Lakes Community Association |
Counsel |
Clint Goodman, Esq. |
Alleged Violations
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(E)
Outcome Summary
The Petitioner's claim that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(E) was dismissed, as the notice issued was determined to be a Notice of Non-Compliance (courtesy letter) and not a Notice of Violation required to carry the specific disclosure.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to show that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(E).
Key Issues & Findings
Whether the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(E) by failing to include notice of the option to petition for an administrative hearing in a Notice of Non-Compliance.
Petitioner alleged that the Respondent's Notice of Non-Compliance regarding dead vegetation was actually a Notice of Violation and lacked the statutory disclosure required by A.R.S. § 33-1803(E). The ALJ found the document was a courtesy letter and not a Notice of Violation, and even if it were, the statute did not require the disclosure in this context because the Petitioner filed the petition before Respondent took enforcement action or completed the statutory response exchange.
Orders: Petitioner Nathan Brown's petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(E)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.01
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(C)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(D)
- ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
Analytics Highlights
Topics: statutory interpretation, violation notice, non-compliance, courtesy letter, right to petition
Additional Citations:
- 33-1803(E)
- 32-2199.01
- 33-1803(C)
- 33-1803(D)
- R2-19-119
Decision Documents
19F-H1918029-REL Decision – 686796.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:27:46 (88.4 KB)
Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918029-REL
Brown v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association: Case Briefing
Executive Summary
This document provides a detailed analysis of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case No. 19F-H1918029-REL, wherein Petitioner Nathan Brown’s petition against the Val Vista Lakes Community Association was dismissed. The central issue was whether an initial “Notice of Non-Compliance” sent by the Association constituted a formal “Notice of Violation” under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 33-1803(E), thereby requiring immediate disclosure of the member’s right to an administrative hearing.
The ALJ ruled decisively in favor of the Respondent Association. The decision rested on two primary conclusions: First, a reasonable reading of the document in question showed it to be a preliminary “courtesy letter” and not a formal Notice of Violation, as it explicitly warned that a Notice of Violation would be issued later if the issue was not remedied. Second, the ALJ determined that even if the document were considered a Notice of Violation, a plain reading of the statute does not require the disclosure of hearing rights to be included in the initial notice itself. The statute allows for this information to be provided at a later stage in the process, specifically after the member has submitted a formal response. The Petitioner’s failure to follow the statutory response procedure was a key factor in the ruling that the Association had not yet been required to provide the disclosure. Ultimately, the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, and his petition was dismissed.
——————————————————————————–
Case Overview
Case Number
19F-H1918029-REL
Parties
Petitioner: Nathan Brown
Respondent: Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Adjudicator
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona
Hearing Date
January 16, 2019
Decision Date
February 4, 2019
Final Outcome
Petition Dismissed; Respondent deemed the prevailing party.
——————————————————————————–
Background and Timeline of Events
• October 18, 2018: The Val Vista Lakes Community Association mailed a “Notice of Non-Compliance” to Nathan Brown regarding dead vegetation in his yard. The notice requested that the situation be remedied by November 1, 2018, and warned that failure to do so would result in the issuance of a “Notice of Violation that may involve fines.”
• October 24, 2018 (approx.): Mr. Brown filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, initiating the legal matter.
• November 11, 2018: The Association issued a formal “Notice of Violation” to Mr. Brown concerning the same issue raised in the initial notice.
• November 27, 2018: The Arizona Department of Real Estate issued a Notice of Hearing.
• January 16, 2019: An administrative hearing was held, with Mr. Brown representing himself and Clint Goodman, Esq. representing the Association. Testimony was heard from Mr. Brown and Simone McGinnis, the Association’s general manager.
• February 4, 2019: ALJ Thomas Shedden issued a decision dismissing Mr. Brown’s petition.
——————————————————————————–
Core Legal Dispute and Arguments
The dispute centered on the interpretation and application of A.R.S. § 33-1803, which governs the process for notifying homeowners of violations of community documents.
Petitioner’s Position (Nathan Brown)
• Central Claim: The “Notice of Non-Compliance” received on October 18, 2018, was functionally and legally a “Notice of Violation.”
• Alleged Violation: The notice violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(E) because it failed to include “written notice of the member’s option to petition for an administrative hearing on the matter in the state real estate department.”
Respondent’s Position (Val Vista Lakes Community Association)
• Central Claim: The “Notice of Non-Compliance” was not a formal “Notice of Violation” but rather a “courtesy letter,” which is a common industry practice permitted by the Association’s governing documents.
• Defense: Because the initial letter was not a statutory Notice of Violation, the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1803 were not applicable to that specific communication.
——————————————————————————–
Administrative Law Judge’s Analysis and Decision
The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner, Mr. Brown, bore the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence and failed to meet that standard. The decision was based on a series of factual findings and legal conclusions drawn from a “fair and sensible” interpretation of the statute.
Key Findings of Fact
• The Association mailed Mr. Brown a Notice of Non-Compliance on October 18, 2018.
• This notice informed Mr. Brown of a CC&R violation (dead vegetation) and stated that a failure to remedy the issue would result in a subsequent “Notice of Violation” with potential fines.
• Mr. Brown did not send a written response to the Association regarding the Notice of Non-Compliance, a step outlined in A.R.S. § 33-1803(C).
• Mr. Brown was later issued a formal Notice of Violation on November 11, 2018.
Conclusions of Law (Legal Rationale)
The ALJ’s decision to dismiss the petition was founded on three distinct legal interpretations:
1. Distinction Between Notices: The judge ruled that the initial communication was not a statutory Notice of Violation.
◦ The ruling states, “a reasonable reading of the Notice of Non-Compliance shows that it is not a Notice of Violation, because it informs Mr. Brown that a Notice of Violation would be issued if he did not appropriately address the ‘situation.'”
◦ This established the letter as a preliminary courtesy notice, distinct from the formal enforcement action that triggers statutory requirements.
2. Statutory Interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1803: The judge concluded that even if the initial notice was a Notice of Violation, the Association still did not violate the statute.
◦ The decision notes, “a plain reading of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803 shows that a Notice of Violation is not required to include notice of the right to petition the Department of Real Estate because subsections D and E both show that any required notice can be given at other times.”
◦ The statute outlines a process where the member can respond via certified mail, and the Association’s duty to provide information about contesting the notice (including the right to a hearing) arises from that exchange.
3. Petitioner’s Procedural Failure: The judge found that the Association’s obligations under the statute were never triggered because Mr. Brown bypassed the prescribed process.
◦ The decision highlights that Mr. Brown did not file a written response with the Association but instead filed his petition with the Department just a few days after receiving the initial notice.
◦ The ruling concludes, “a sensible reading of the statute shows that the Respondent was not required to provide Mr. Brown with notice of a right to petition the Department at any time pertinent to this matter.”
——————————————————————————–
Final Order and Implications
• Order: The ALJ ordered that “Petitioner Nathan Brown’s petition is dismissed.”
• Prevailing Party: The Respondent, Val Vista Lakes Community Association, was deemed the prevailing party in the matter.
• Further Action: The decision is binding unless a party files for a rehearing with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order, as stipulated by A.R.S. §§ 32-2199.02(B), 32-2199.04, and 41-1092.09.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918029-REL
Study Guide: Brown v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association (No. 19F-H1918029-REL)
Short Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing all information from the provided case decision.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in case No. 19F-H1918029-REL, and what were their roles?
2. What specific statute did the Petitioner, Nathan Brown, allege that the Respondent violated?
3. What was the initial issue that prompted the Respondent to contact Mr. Brown on October 18, 2018?
4. What was Nathan Brown’s central legal argument concerning the “Notice of Non-Compliance”?
5. How did the Val Vista Lakes Community Association characterize the “Notice of Non-Compliance,” and why was this distinction critical to its defense?
6. According to the Findings of Fact, what procedural step did Mr. Brown fail to take after receiving the initial notice from the association?
7. What is the standard of proof required in this matter, and which party was responsible for meeting it?
8. What were the Administrative Law Judge’s two primary legal conclusions that led to the dismissal of the petition?
9. What was the final Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge on February 4, 2019?
10. What recourse was available to the parties following the judge’s Order, and what was the specified time limit for that action?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Nathan Brown, who served as the Petitioner, and the Val Vista Lakes Community Association, which was the Respondent. Mr. Brown brought the complaint against the association, which was defending its actions.
2. Nathan Brown alleged that the Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(E). This section concerns an association’s obligation to provide a member with written notice of their option to petition for an administrative hearing.
3. The Respondent contacted Mr. Brown regarding dead vegetation in his yard, which was considered a violation of the community’s CC&Rs. The “Notice of Non-Compliance” requested that he remedy the situation by November 1, 2018.
4. Mr. Brown’s central argument was that the “Notice of Non-Compliance” was, in fact, a “Notice of Violation.” Therefore, he contended it should have included written notice of his option to petition for an administrative hearing with the state real estate department, as required by statute.
5. The Association characterized the notice as a “courtesy letter,” which is a common practice for providing an initial warning before formal action. This distinction was critical because the Association argued that as a mere courtesy letter and not a formal “Notice of Violation,” it was not subject to the statutory disclosure requirements of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803.
6. Mr. Brown did not send a written response to the Respondent via certified mail within 21 calendar days of the notice. This response is an option provided to members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(C).
7. The standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence.” The burden of proof was on the Petitioner, Nathan Brown, to show that the Respondent had violated the statute.
8. First, the judge concluded that a reasonable reading of the document shows it was not a “Notice of Violation” because it explicitly threatened that one would be issued later. Second, the judge concluded that even if it were a “Notice of Violation,” the statute does not require the hearing disclosure to be in the initial notice, and since Mr. Brown did not follow the response procedure, the Respondent’s obligation to provide that disclosure had not yet been triggered.
9. The final Order was that Petitioner Nathan Brown’s petition be dismissed. The judge also deemed the Respondent to be the prevailing party in the matter.
10. A party could file a request for a rehearing with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate. Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09, this request had to be filed within 30 days of the service of the Order.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: Consider the following questions. Formulate comprehensive, evidence-based answers using only the information and legal reasoning presented in the case decision.
1. Analyze the distinction between a “Notice of Non-Compliance” (or “courtesy letter”) and a “Notice of Violation” as presented in this case. Discuss why this distinction was the central point of contention and how the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of the document’s plain language resolved the issue.
2. Explain the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the decision. Discuss how Nathan Brown’s failure to meet this standard, as the party with the burden of proof, was fundamental to the dismissal of his petition.
3. Examine the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of the procedural requirements outlined in ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(C), (D), and (E). How does the judge’s “sensible reading” of the statute’s timeline and reciprocal obligations undermine the Petitioner’s claim, even setting aside the debate over the notice’s title?
4. Describe the complete procedural timeline of this case, from the initial notice sent by the association to the final order from the Administrative Law Judge. Identify the key dates and actions taken by each party and by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
5. Discuss the role of statutory interpretation in this legal decision. How did the judge apply established legal principles, such as aiming for a “fair and sensible result” and avoiding “absurd and unreasonable construction,” to support the final ruling against the Petitioner?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official, in this case Thomas Shedden, who presides over administrative hearings and makes legal decisions.
ARIZ. REV. STAT.
Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona. The specific statute at the center of this case is section 33-1803.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this matter, the burden of proof was on the Petitioner, Nathan Brown.
An acronym for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. The decision implies these are the governing community documents that Mr. Brown was accused of violating due to dead vegetation.
Courtesy Letter
A term used by the Respondent to describe the “Notice of Non-Compliance.” It is characterized as a common industry practice to inform a resident of an issue before issuing a formal Notice of Violation.
Notice of Non-Compliance
The specific document dated October 18, 2018, sent to Mr. Brown. It informed him of dead vegetation, requested a remedy, and warned that a “Notice of Violation” could follow.
Notice of Violation
A formal notification that a violation has occurred. The decision establishes this as a distinct and more serious step than a “Notice of Non-Compliance,” and one was issued to Mr. Brown on November 11, 2018.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Nathan Brown was the Petitioner.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this hearing. It is defined as “The greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Prevailing Party
The party who wins the legal case. The Administrative Law Judge deemed the Respondent to be the prevailing party.
Rehearing
A legal process to have a case heard again. The parties were notified of their right to request a rehearing with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Val Vista Lakes Community Association was the Respondent.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918029-REL
📔
19F-H1918029-REL
1 source
This source is the Administrative Law Judge Decision for a case titled Nathan Brown vs. Val Vista Lakes Community Association, heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The dispute centers on whether a Notice of Non-Compliance sent to Mr. Brown regarding dead vegetation in his yard constitutes a Notice of Violation under ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(E). Mr. Brown argued that the Association violated this statute by failing to include written notice of his option to petition for an administrative hearing in the initial notice. However, the Administrative Law Judge found that the initial document was merely a courtesy letter and not a formal Notice of Violation, and further concluded that the statute does not require the disclosure of the right to petition the Department of Real Estate within the initial violation notice. Ultimately, the judge determined that the Association was not required to provide Mr. Brown with the notice of his right to petition at any relevant time and dismissed Mr. Brown’s petition.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Nathan Brown (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
- Clint Goodman (HOA attorney)
Goodman Law Group
Appeared for the Respondent
- Simone McGinnis (general manager)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Presented testimony
- Ashley N. Moscarello (HOA attorney)
Goodman Law Group
Recipient of transmission
- Clint Brown (HOA attorney)
Goodman Law Group
Recipient of transmission (listed separately from Clint Goodman)
Neutral Parties
- Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
- Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
- F Del Sol (admin staff)
Transmitted document
