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 | 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 section 33-1803(A) by imposing a $25 late payment fee, and ordered the fee rescinded and the $500 filing fee refunded,,,.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),,,. |
| 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 section 33-1803(A) by imposing a $25 late payment fee, and ordered the fee rescinded and the $500 filing fee refunded,,,.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
- 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
- 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
- 5
- 7
- 32
- 34
- 37
- 46
- 47
- 59
- 73
- 75
- 78
Analytics Highlights
- 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
18F-H1818054-REL-RHG Decision – 666285.pdf
18F-H1818054-REL-RHG Decision – 672623.pdf
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: 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.
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