Tag Archives: 4

Brad W. Stevens vs. Mogollon Airpark, Inc.

Posted on by
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 section 33-1803(A) by imposing a $25 late payment fee, and ordered the fee rescinded and the $500 filing fee refunded,,,.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:

  • 4
  • 6
  • 32
  • 33
  • 35
  • 36
  • 73
  • 74
  • 76
  • 77

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:

  • 7
  • 20
  • 32
  • 33
  • 35
  • 36
  • 38
  • 61
  • 73
  • 74
  • 76
  • 77
  • 79
  • 94
  • 99
  • 101

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:

  • 5
  • 7
  • 32
  • 34
  • 37
  • 46
  • 47
  • 59
  • 73
  • 75
  • 78

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

Posted on by

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:

  • 4
  • 17
  • 18

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:

  • 19
  • 20
  • 21

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

Walter Ward Griffith Jr. v. Alisanos Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 15F-H1516011-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2016-04-08
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $750.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Walter Ward Griffith, Jr. Counsel —
Respondent Alisanos Community Association Counsel Mark Sahl, Esq. and Greg Stein, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Section 7.7

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner. Although the Petitioner installed the tree ring without explicit written approval in 2009, the Respondent conducted routine inspections and had constructive notice of the improvement at that time but failed to object until 2014. Due to the delay and constructive notice, Respondent failed to meet its burden of proof to show a violation.

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized Exterior Alteration (Concrete Tree Ring)

Respondent alleged Petitioner violated CC&R Section 7.7 by installing a concrete ring around a jacaranda tree without Architectural Review Committee approval. Petitioner argued the ring was approved with the tree or that Respondent had constructive notice.

Orders: Respondent must repay to Petitioner his filing fee of $750.00.

Filing fee: $750.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 3
  • 4
  • 15
  • 16

Decision Documents

15F-H1516011-BFS Decision – 491042.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:40 (92.5 KB)

15F-H1516011-BFS Decision – 499790.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:40 (60.3 KB)

**Case Summary: Griffith v. Alisanos Community Association**
**Case No:** 15F-H1516011-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date:** April 8, 2016 (Certified Final June 3, 2016)

**Proceedings and Issue**
This hearing involved a dispute between Petitioner Walter Ward Griffith, Jr. and Respondent Alisanos Community Association regarding the community’s Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). While the Petitioner initiated the action, the parties agreed to amend the hearing issue to determine whether the Petitioner violated CC&R Section 7.7, which prohibits exterior property alterations without Architectural Review Committee approval. The specific object in dispute was a concrete ring installed around a jacaranda tree in the Petitioner's yard.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Position:** Griffith received approval to plant the jacaranda tree in December 2008. He argued that his submitted plan included a "squiggly line" intended to represent the concrete ring, meaning the structure was approved. He completed the installation in early 2009. He further argued that the Association conducted inspections of his property in 2009 regarding a separate issue (artificial grass) and did not object to the ring at that time.
* **Respondent’s Position:** The Association argued the ring was never approved by the Committee. They asserted that they did not notice the ring until 2012 or 2013, claiming it only became visible after tree roots lifted it. The Association first issued a written notice of the alleged violation in January 2014.

**Legal Analysis and Findings**
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden applied the preponderance of the evidence standard, noting that the Respondent bore the burden of proof to establish the violation.

1. **Approval Defense:** The ALJ found the Petitioner failed to prove the ring was explicitly approved in 2008. The judge noted that "squiggly lines" on landscape plans typically represent bushes or trees, not concrete structures.
2. **Constructive Notice:** Despite the lack of initial approval, the ALJ determined that the Respondent had **constructive notice** of the ring in 2009. This conclusion was based on evidence that the Association conducted routine inspections of the Petitioner's yard in 2009 and reserved the right to inspect completed improvements.
3. **Failure to Meet Burden:** Because the Association had constructive notice of the structure in 2009 but failed to inform the Petitioner of the alleged violation until 2014, the ALJ concluded the Respondent failed to meet its burden of proof that a violation of CC&R Section 7.7 existed at the time of the hearing.

**Outcome**
The ALJ ruled that the Petitioner was the prevailing party. The Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner’s $750.00 filing fee. The decision became final on June 3, 2016, after the relevant state department declined to modify or reject the ALJ's decision.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Walter Ward Griffith, Jr. (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Mark Sahl (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen PLC
    Appeared for Respondent
  • Greg Stein (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen PLC
    Appeared for Respondent
  • Brian Moore (board member)
    Alisanos Community Association
    Testified at hearing
  • Greg Kotsakis (committee member)
    Alisanos Community Association
    Architectural Review Committee member
  • Augustus Shaw (board member)
    Alisanos Community Association
    Mentioned in video recording regarding board meeting

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Debra Blake (Interim Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of decision transmission
  • Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed Certification of Decision
  • Joni Cage (staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Care of recipient for Debra Blake
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed mailing certification

Robert A. White vs. Aspen Shadows Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 16F-H1616001-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2016-04-01
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Robert A. White Counsel —
Respondent Aspen Shadows Condominium Association Counsel Maria R. Kupillas

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1253
A.R.S. § 33-1247
CC&Rs 4.23
A.R.S. § 33-1260

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed all claims. The HOA was found to be in compliance with insurance and records statutes. The maintenance issue involved a Limited Common Element for which the owner was responsible. The noise issue was barred by CC&R waivers and timing.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof on all counts. The HOA demonstrated compliance with statutes (electronic records, reasonably available insurance) and the CC&Rs (Limited Common Element responsibility, noise waivers).

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to Maintain All-Risk Insurance

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to maintain required insurance coverage because the insurer denied a claim for a slow leak/construction defect.

Orders: Dismissed. Respondent maintained a policy; exclusions for slow leaks/defects are common and reasonably available.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 4
  • 14
  • 16
  • 54
  • 55

Failure to Maintain Common Elements (Grinder Pump)

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to repair a grinder pump damaged by storm runoff and improper installation.

Orders: Dismissed. Petitioner failed to prove the pump was defective. As a Limited Common Element, costs were assessable to Petitioner anyway.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 5
  • 28
  • 31
  • 56
  • 57

Failure to Enforce Floor Covering Restrictions

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to enforce prohibitions against hard floor coverings in the unit above him, causing noise.

Orders: Dismissed. The flooring was installed years prior to Petitioner's purchase. Petitioner assumed risk of noise under CC&Rs.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 6
  • 41
  • 44
  • 58
  • 59

Failure to Provide Records (Resale Disclosure)

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to provide paper copies of governing documents upon purchase, offering electronic versions instead.

Orders: Dismissed. The statute permits electronic delivery.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 7
  • 47
  • 59
  • 60

Decision Documents

16F-H1616001-BFS Decision – 488610.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:47 (203.0 KB)

16F-H1616001-BFS Decision – 495160.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:47 (59.8 KB)

Here is a concise summary of the hearing proceedings for Case No. 16F-H1616001-BFS.

**Case Overview**
**Petitioner:** Robert A. White (Owner of Unit 41)
**Respondent:** Aspen Shadows Condominium Association
**Hearing Date:** March 24, 2016
**Decision Date:** April 1, 2016 (Certified Final May 9, 2016)

The Petitioner filed a complaint alleging the Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding insurance coverage, common element maintenance, noise enforcement, and document delivery,.

**Key Issues and Arguments**

**1. Insurance Coverage (Water Damage)**
* **Issue:** The Petitioner alleged the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1253 and CC&R Article 8.1 by denying coverage for water damage caused by a leak from the unit above (Unit 42).
* **Arguments:** The Petitioner claimed the Association withdrew the claim, denying him protection. The Respondent argued it submitted the claim to Farmers Insurance, but the carrier denied it because the damage resulted from a "long-term" slow leak, a policy exclusion,.
* **Finding:** The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the Association maintained the required insurance. The insurer's denial based on standard exclusions for maintenance issues (like slow leaks) did not constitute a violation by the Association,.

**2. Grinder Pump Liability**
* **Issue:** The Petitioner sought reimbursement for a grinder pump ($1,697.50) serving his unit, alleging it was damaged by storm runoff due to an improper diversion wall (a common element).
* **Arguments:** The Respondent contended the pump is a "Limited Common Element" serving only Unit 41. Evidence suggested the pump was previously functional and damage resulted from a dislodged lid allowing debris inside.
* **Finding:** The pump is a Limited Common Element. Under the CC&Rs, the Association may assess repair costs for such elements to the specific unit owner benefiting from them. The Petitioner failed to prove the pump was defective or that the Association was liable for the replacement.

**3. Hard Floor Noise Violation**
* **Issue:** The Petitioner alleged the unit above (Unit 42) had prohibited hard flooring, violating CC&R Article 4.23, and the Association failed to enforce the rule.
* **Arguments:** The Respondent noted the flooring was installed in 2008 (six years prior to the Petitioner's purchase) and argued the Petitioner assumed the risk of noise,.
* **Finding:** The CC&Rs contain a specific provision (Section 13.20) where owners assume the risk of noise and vibrations from adjacent units,. The Petitioner failed to establish the Association was liable for the potential violation or the resulting noise.

**4. Document Delivery**
* **Issue:** The Petitioner claimed the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260 by failing to provide paper copies of the CC&Rs and Bylaws before escrow closed.
* **Arguments:** The Respondent argued compliance by providing documents in electronic format, which the Petitioner refused to accept.
* **Finding:** A.R.S. § 33-1260 permits delivery in "either paper or electronic format". The Respondent’s use of electronic delivery was legal, and the Petitioner’s refusal to accept that format did not make the Association's actions a violation.

**Final Decision**
The ALJ determined the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated any statutes or CC&Rs,. The petition was **dismissed**, and no action was required of the Respondent. The decision became the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on May 9, 2016.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Robert A. White (Petitioner)
    Owner of Unit 41

Respondent Side

  • Maria R. Kupillas (attorney)
    Choate & Seletos
    Represented Respondent
  • Melanie Lashlee (community manager)
    Testified for Respondent
  • Ty Hart (engineer)
    Flagstaff Ranch
    Facilities Engineer
  • Faith Johnson (escrow officer)
    Respondent's escrow officer, initials 'f.j.'

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Kenji Cassady (witness)
    Royal Plumbing, Inc.
    Plumber who repaired leak in Unit 42
  • Nicolas Boley (claims representative)
    Farmers Insurance
    Senior Field Claims Representative
  • Tyler (contractor)
    DC Restoration
    Mitigation contractor
  • Jacqueline Martinez (contractor)
    Damage Control AZ
    Sent email confirming leak duration
  • Dave Taylor (unit owner)
    Owner of Unit 42
  • Debra Blake (Interim Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Agency head
  • Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed Certification of Decision
  • Joni Cage (staff)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of decision copy
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (clerk)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Mailed/transmitted decision

Samuel G. Schechter vs Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 15F-H1515002-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date 2015-10-09
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Samuel G. Schechter Counsel —
Respondent Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One Counsel Steven D. Leach

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article VII(1); CC&Rs Section 11.g

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the HOA Board acted reasonably in investigating the Petitioner's complaint about junk vehicles. The Board found the initial complaint list contained inaccuracies and requested an update, which the Petitioner failed to provide. The Petitioner failed to satisfy the burden of proof.

Why this result: Petitioner refused to provide an updated list of violations after the Board found the initial list inaccurate; the ALJ determined the Board's response was reasonable.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to Enforce Junk Vehicle Restrictions

Petitioner alleged the HOA Board failed to enforce CC&R Section 11.g regarding junk vehicles and violated Bylaws Article VII(1) by not acting on a complaint list provided by Petitioner.

Orders: No action is required of Respondent; the petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 4
  • 6
  • 21
  • 22

Decision Documents

15F-H1515002-BFS Decision – 460938.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:25 (95.0 KB)

15F-H1515002-BFS Decision – 469830.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:25 (56.5 KB)

**Case Summary: Samuel G. Schechter v. Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One**
**Case No. 15F-H1515002-BFS**

**Proceedings Overview**
This administrative hearing was held on September 22, 2015, before Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas at the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The Petitioner, Samuel G. Schechter, appeared on his own behalf, alleging that the Respondent, Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One (the Association), violated its Bylaws and Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs),.

**Key Facts and Main Issues**
The central dispute involved the Association's alleged failure to enforce CC&R Section 11.g, which prohibits "stripped down, wrecked or junk motor vehicles" on lots,.

* **Petitioner’s Argument:** Schechter, a former Board member, submitted a complaint on September 8, 2014, listing violations regarding junk vehicles,. He argued that the Board failed to take enforcement action for over four months, violating Bylaw Article VII(1), which mandates the Board diligently perform its obligations. Schechter and witness Peter Dodge relied on photographs and observations made during their previous tenure on the Board,.
* **Respondent’s Defense:** The Association argued the delay was initially caused by the sudden death of the Environmental Control Committee Chairman. Furthermore, an investigation by Board President Roxanna McGinnis in October 2014 revealed that the Petitioner’s list contained incorrect addresses and outdated information,. The Board requested that the Petitioner resubmit an updated, accurate list, but the Petitioner refused,.

**Key Legal Points and Arguments**
* **Investigation and Accuracy:** Testimony established that the Board attempted to investigate the Petitioner's complaint but found the data flawed. Witness Peter Dodge admitted the Board requested a second survey but stated he and Schechter declined to provide it because they were no longer Board members, calling it a "fool's errand".
* **Burden of Proof:** The Administrative Law Judge noted that the burden of proof falls on the party asserting the claim (the Petitioner) by a "preponderance of the evidence".

**Final Decision and Outcome**
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling in favor of the Respondent.

* **Findings:** The Tribunal concluded that the Board’s actions were "reasonable and prudent under the circumstances". Specifically, the Board investigated the allegations, identified inaccuracies, and requested updated information from the complainant.
* **Conclusion:** Because the Petitioner and Mr. Dodge failed to respond to the Board’s request for updated information regarding the alleged violations, the Petitioner failed to satisfy the burden of proof,.
* **Order:** No action was required of the Respondent, and the matter was dismissed.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Samuel G. Schechter (petitioner)
    Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One
    Former Board member (2011-2014); appeared on his own behalf
  • Peter Dodge (witness)
    Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One
    Former Board member; assisted Petitioner in compiling complaints

Respondent Side

  • Steven D. Leach (attorney)
    Attorney for Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One
  • Ron Murray (committee member)
    Environmental Control Committee
    Former ECC Chairman; passed away between Sept and Oct 2014
  • Roxanna McGinnis (board member)
    Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One
    Board President in Oct 2014; investigated violations
  • Theodore Pahle (witness)
    Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One
    Board President as of July 1, 2015
  • Erescene Johnson-Stokes (witness)
    Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One
    Resident

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Debra Blake (agency director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Interim Director

Kenneth Nowell vs. Greenfield Village RV Resort

Posted on by

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

The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the CC&Rs or Bylaws regarding land acquisition, financial assessments, or construction projects.

Why this result: Burden of proof not met; Association actions were found to be within their authority and properly voted upon where required.

Key Issues & Findings

Land Purchase and Funding of Improvements

Petitioner alleged the Association violated governing documents by purchasing land and levying assessments/loans without a 2/3 vote. The ALJ found the Association had authority and the required majority votes were obtained.

Orders: Dismissed

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 3
  • 4
  • 12
  • 15
  • 16
  • 24

The $20,000 Option

Petitioner alleged the Board required a membership vote to purchase a $20,000 land option. The ALJ found the expenditure did not exceed the threshold requiring a vote.

Orders: Dismissed

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 18
  • 19
  • 20

The Beverage Serving Center

Petitioner alleged the Board constructed a serving center without a vote (changing common area nature) and improperly used reserve funds. The ALJ found it was a replacement (allowed) and did not change the nature of the area.

Orders: Dismissed

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 20
  • 21
  • 22

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

Legere, Dennis vs. Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 14F-H1414001-BFS-rhg
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date 2015-04-23
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $2,000.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Dennis J. Legere Counsel Tom Rawles
Respondent Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA Counsel Maria R. Kupillas

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by: 1) preventing members from speaking on agenda items before Board votes; 2) failing to provide notice for architectural committee meetings; and 3) conducting Board business and taking actions via unanimous written consent by email in lieu of open meetings. The ALJ rejected the HOA's defense that A.R.S. § 10-3821 allowed for email actions without meetings, stating that Title 33 open meeting requirements prevail. The HOA was ordered to comply with the statute and pay a $2,000 civil penalty and reimburse $2,000 in filing fees.

Key Issues & Findings

Speaking at Meetings

The Board prevented the petitioner from speaking on action items before the Board took formal action at meetings on November 26, 2013, January 14, 2014, and February 3, 2014.

Orders: HOA ordered to comply with speaking requirements.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 55
  • 127

Committee Meeting Notices

Pinnacle conducted regularly scheduled architectural committee meetings without providing notice to members of the association.

Orders: HOA ordered to comply with notice requirements.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 57
  • 129

Email Meetings / Action Without Meeting

The Board utilized an email process to take actions by unanimous written consent without holding a meeting, effectively deliberating and voting without member observation or participation.

Orders: HOA ordered to comply with open meeting statutes; corporate statute A.R.S. § 10-3821 does not override A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $2,000.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 131
  • 135

Closed Sessions

Petitioner alleged Board conducted non-privileged business in closed sessions. The Tribunal deemed Petitioner the prevailing party and awarded full filing fees.

Orders: Petitioner deemed prevailing party.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 4
  • 134

Decision Documents

14F-H1414001-BFS Decision – 406623.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:10:48 (172.9 KB)

14F-H1414001-BFS Decision – 437956.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:10:48 (228.9 KB)

14F-H1414001-BFS Decision – 443321.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:10:48 (62.7 KB)

**Case Summary: *Dennis J. Legere vs. Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA***
**Case No. 14F-H1414001-BFS**

**Overview**
This administrative case involves a dispute between Dennis J. Legere (Petitioner) and the Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA (Respondent) regarding violations of Arizona’s planned community open meeting laws. The matter was heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings for the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. The proceedings culminated in a decision on rehearing in April 2015, which was certified as final in June 2015,.

**Key Facts and Allegations**
The Petitioner, a homeowner and former board member, alleged that the HOA Board violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 on multiple counts,. The primary allegations included:
* **Closed Sessions via Email:** The Board routinely conducted business and voted on action items via email to avoid holding public meetings, citing efficiency and "unanimous consent" provisions in the Bylaws and corporate statutes,.
* **Denial of Right to Speak:** The Board refused to allow members to speak on agenda items during open meetings (specifically in November 2013, January 2014, and February 2014) prior to the Board taking a vote,.
* **Unnoticed Committee Meetings:** The Architectural Review Committee met regularly without providing notice to members or allowing them to attend,.

**Main Arguments and Legal Issues**
The central legal tension involved a conflict between general corporate statutes and specific HOA statutes.
* **Respondent’s Defense:** The HOA argued that under its Bylaws and A.R.S. § 10-3821 (non-profit corporation statutes), the Board could take action without a meeting if they obtained unanimous written consent from all directors,. They also argued that financial information and delinquency reports required closed sessions.
* **Petitioner’s Argument:** Legere argued that using email votes and unanimous consent provisions to conduct business in secret violated the specific open meeting mandates of A.R.S. § 33-1804, precluding member observation and participation,.
* **Rehearing on Jurisdiction:** The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially declined to rule on the validity of the "email meetings" under A.R.S. § 10-3821. Legere successfully petitioned for a rehearing to resolve whether corporate statutes could legally bypass HOA open meeting requirements.

**Findings and Conclusions of Law**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner, establishing several key legal points:

1. **Conflict of Laws:** The Tribunal ruled that A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Title 33) specifically governs planned communities and mandates open meetings. This specific statute overrides the general non-profit corporate statute (A.R.S. § 10-3821) found in Title 10. The HOA cannot use corporate laws or Bylaws to impliedly repeal the open meeting protections guaranteed to homeowners in Title 33. Therefore, the practice of taking action via email "unanimous consent" violated the law.
2. **Right to Speak:** The ALJ found the HOA violated the law by preventing the Petitioner from speaking *after* the Board discussed items but *before* a vote was taken. While reasonable time restrictions are permitted, members must be allowed to speak before formal action is taken.
3. **Committee Meetings:** The Tribunal ruled that all regularly scheduled committee meetings, such as the Architectural Review Committee, must be noticed and open to members.
4. **Statute of Limitations:** A one-year statute of limitations (A.R.S. § 12-541) applied, barring claims for violations occurring prior to March 9, 2013.

**Outcome and Order**
Dennis J. Legere was deemed the prevailing party. The ALJ ordered the following:
* **Compliance:** The HOA was ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) in the future, effectively ending the practice of secret email meetings.
* **Filing Fee:** The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $2,000 filing fee.
* **Civil Penalty:** The HOA was ordered to pay a $2,000 civil penalty to the Department (which the HOA paid during the rehearing process).

The decision was certified

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Dennis J. Legere (petitioner)
    Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA (Member)
    Appeared on his own behalf at rehearing; former board member
  • Tom Rawles (attorney)
    Represented Petitioner at the July 31, 2014 hearing

Respondent Side

  • Troy Stratman (attorney)
    Mack, Watson & Stratman, PLC
    Represented Respondent at the July 31, 2014 hearing; listed as 'Tony Stratman' in service list
  • Maria R. Kupillas (attorney)
    Farley, Seletos & Choate
    Represented Respondent at the March 31, 2015 rehearing
  • Michelle O’Robinson (witness)
    Vision Community Management
    Field operations supervisor/manager for HOA
  • James T. Foxworthy (witness)
    Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA (Board)
    Board President at time of first hearing
  • John Edgar Schuler (witness)
    Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA (Board)
    Board President as of March 10, 2015

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Agency Director
  • Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the decision
  • Joni Cage (administrative staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of transmitted decision
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (clerk)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed copy distribution