Tag Archives: 5

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 section 33-1803(A) by imposing a $25 late payment fee, and ordered the fee rescinded and the $500 filing fee refunded,,,.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

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 $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to repair and maintain exterior walls

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

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

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs
  • 5
  • 17

Failure to provide requested association records

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818025-REL Decision – 630610.pdf

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





Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818025-REL


Administrative Hearing Brief: Duffett vs. Suntech Patio Homes HOA

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Case Numbers

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

Petitioner

Rex E. Duffett

Respondent

Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association

Hearing Date

April 4, 2018

Decision Date

April 24, 2018

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

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

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

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

Petition 1: Failure to Repair Exterior Walls (Denied)

Petitioner’s Allegations and Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

Respondent’s Position and Evidence

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

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

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

Conclusion of Law and Ruling

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

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

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

Petition 2: Failure to Provide Association Records (Upheld)

Petitioner’s Allegations and Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

Respondent’s Position and Evidence

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

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

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

Conclusion of Law and Ruling

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

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

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

Final Order and Implications

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

Case Number

Subject

Ruling

18F-H1818025-REL

Exterior Wall Repairs

Petition Denied

18F-H1818027-REL

Document Request

Petitioner Deemed Prevailing Party

Directives to the Respondent (Suntech Patio Homes HOA):

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

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

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


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

Posted on 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 $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to repair and maintain exterior walls

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

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

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs
  • 5
  • 17

Failure to provide requested association records

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818025-REL Decision – 630610.pdf

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





Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818025-REL


Administrative Hearing Brief: Duffett vs. Suntech Patio Homes HOA

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Case Numbers

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

Petitioner

Rex E. Duffett

Respondent

Suntech Patio Homes Homeowners Association

Hearing Date

April 4, 2018

Decision Date

April 24, 2018

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

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

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

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

Petition 1: Failure to Repair Exterior Walls (Denied)

Petitioner’s Allegations and Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

Respondent’s Position and Evidence

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

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

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

Conclusion of Law and Ruling

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

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

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

Petition 2: Failure to Provide Association Records (Upheld)

Petitioner’s Allegations and Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

Respondent’s Position and Evidence

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

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

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

Conclusion of Law and Ruling

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

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

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

Final Order and Implications

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

Case Number

Subject

Ruling

18F-H1818025-REL

Exterior Wall Repairs

Petition Denied

18F-H1818027-REL

Document Request

Petitioner Deemed Prevailing Party

Directives to the Respondent (Suntech Patio Homes HOA):

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

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

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






Study Guide – 18F-H1818025-REL


Study Guide: Duffett v. Suntech Patio Homes HOA

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

——————————————————————————–

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

Suggested Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate a response using only the information and evidence presented in the provided decision.

1. Analyze the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined and applied in this case. How did the quality of evidence submitted by the Petitioner lead to two different outcomes for his two petitions?

2. Discuss the role and responsibilities of a homeowners association’s management company, using the actions of The Management Trust and the subsequent challenges faced by Pride Community Management as primary examples. How did the transition between these two companies impact the case?

3. Evaluate the Respondent’s arguments and actions in both petitions. In the wall repair case, what was their stated plan, and why was it ultimately not considered by the judge? In the document request case, what was their defense, and why did it fail?

4. Based on the text of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), explain the specific obligations of an HOA regarding member requests for records. Detail how the Suntech Patio Homes HOA, through its management, failed to meet these obligations, leading to the ruling against them.

5. Examine the communication breakdown between the Petitioner and the Respondent. Citing specific examples from the “Findings of Fact” and “Hearing Evidence” sections, explain how miscommunication and lack of timely response exacerbated the conflict.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

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

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

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

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

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

Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

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

Consolidated for Hearing

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

Department

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

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

Petitioner

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

Preponderance of the Evidence

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

Prevailing Party

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

Respondent

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






Blog Post – 18F-H1818025-REL


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

Introduction: The David vs. Goliath Battle Against Your HOA

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

——————————————————————————–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Petition for Repairs: Denied. The homeowner lost.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: The Devil is in the Details

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

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


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Rex E. Duffett (petitioner)

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

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

Saxton, Nancy vs. The Lakes Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1314007-BFS
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2014-06-02
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome false
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Nancy Saxton Counsel Steven W. Cheifetz
Respondent The Lakes Community Association Counsel Charles E. Maxwell

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Respondent and dismissed the case. The Judge found that the Petitioner was contractually obligated to arbitrate disputes under the Association's bylaws, that the petition was filed after the one-year statute of limitations had expired, and that the Respondent had lawfully complied with A.R.S. § 33-1805 by offering inspection of unredacted records.

Why this result: Jurisdictional bar due to mandatory arbitration clause; statute of limitations expiration; finding of compliance by Respondent.

Key Issues & Findings

Request to Review Association Records

Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated statutes by providing heavily redacted financial records and failing to provide unredacted copies for review upon demand.

Orders: The matter was dismissed. The Tribunal found the Petitioner was required to arbitrate, the claim was barred by the statute of limitations, and the Respondent had complied with the statute by making records reasonably available.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 5
  • 37
  • 38
  • 41

Decision Documents

13F-H1314007-BFS Decision – 396509.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:41 (158.0 KB)

13F-H1314007-BFS Decision – 401319.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:41 (58.8 KB)

13F-H1314007-BFS Decision – 404479.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:41 (141.7 KB)

13F-H1314007-BFS Decision – 404483.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:42 (53.4 KB)

**Case Title:** *Nancy Saxton v. The Lakes Community Association*
**Case Number:** 13F-H1314007-BFS
**Forum:** Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Arizona

**Proceedings and Background**
The hearing was held on April 29, 2014, before Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas,. Petitioner Nancy Saxton, a homeowner, filed a petition alleging The Lakes Community Association (HOA) violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding the inspection of financial records,. The HOA filed motions to dismiss based on jurisdiction, the statute of limitations, and prior compliance.

**Key Facts**
* **Records Request:** Saxton submitted demands to inspect the HOA's financial records in November 2012,.
* **Production:** The HOA provided approximately 3,700 pages of documents,.
* **Redactions:** The documents contained numerous redactions. The HOA claimed these were necessary to protect personal and payroll information as permitted by statute,. Saxton argued the redactions precluded a proper evaluation of the HOA’s expenditures,.
* **Offer to Inspect:** Upon receiving complaints about the redactions, the HOA offered to allow Saxton to review un-redacted documents at the HOA attorney's office. Saxton declined this offer, feeling it would be "futile" or intimidating,.

**Key Legal Arguments and Issues**
1. **Arbitration:** The HOA argued that an "Alternative Dispute Resolution" amendment to its Bylaws required binding arbitration for governance disputes, precluding administrative action,.
2. **Statute of Limitations:** The HOA contended the claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations under A.R.S. § 12-541(5) for liabilities created by statute,.
3. **Compliance:** The HOA argued it satisfied its statutory obligation to make records "reasonably available" by providing copies and offering an in-person review of un-redacted files,.

**Administrative Law Judge Decision**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Respondent (the HOA) on all three major points:

1. **Arbitration Clause Enforced:** The ALJ concluded that under the HOA's Bylaws and Arizona common law, Saxton was required to submit her claims to arbitration. The arbitration clause was deemed valid and enforceable.
2. **Statute of Limitations Expired:** The ALJ determined the cause of action accrued ten business days after Saxton’s November 5, 2012 demand. Because the petition was filed on November 25, 2013, it fell outside the one-year limitation period prescribed by A.R.S. § 12-541(5).
3. **Substantive Compliance:** The ALJ found that the HOA had complied with A.R.S. § 33-1805. By providing redacted copies and subsequently making un-redacted versions available for review at their attorney's office, the HOA satisfied the requirement to make records "reasonably available".

**Outcome**
The matter was dismissed, and The Lakes Community Association was deemed the prevailing party. The decision was certified as the final administrative decision on July 10

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Nancy Saxton (petitioner)
    The Lakes Community Association (Member)
    Homeowner
  • Steven W. Cheifetz (attorney)
    Cheifetz, Iannitelli Marcolini, P.C.
    Listed as 'Heifetz' in mailing list

Respondent Side

  • Charles E. Maxwell (attorney)
    Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
  • Christine Green Baldanza (community manager)
    The Lakes Community Association
    Community Manager in 2012 and early 2013

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Cliff J. Vanell (director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed Certification of Decision
  • Gene Palma (director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Agency Director
  • Joni Cage (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Gene Palma
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (clerk)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Mailed/transmitted decision

Other Participants

  • Marsha Hill (witness)
    The Lakes Community Association
    CPA; Former chairman of budget and finance committee
  • Maureen Harrison (witness)
    The Lakes Community Association
    Former Board Member (1993-2000, 2011-2012)

Knight, Edmund R. vs. Springfield Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1213008-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2013-01-31
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Edmund R. Knight Counsel —
Respondent Springfield Community Association Counsel Chad Miesen

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1805 because the statute permits the redaction of individual employee compensation from association records.

Why this result: The requested record fell under a statutory exception (A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(5)) protecting employee compensation data.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide complete employment contract

Petitioner requested a copy of the manager's employment contract. Respondent provided a redacted copy with compensation details removed. Petitioner argued he was entitled to full financial records.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10
  • 11

Decision Documents

12F-H1213008-BFS Decision – 323297.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:28:18 (84.4 KB)

12F-H1213008-BFS Decision – 329618.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:28:18 (59.0 KB)

**Case Summary: *Edmund R. Knight v. Springfield Community Association***
**Case No.** 12F-H1213008-BFS

**Procedural History**
This matter was heard before Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer on January 15, 2013, at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona,. The Petitioner, Edmund R. Knight, appeared on his own behalf, while the Respondent, Springfield Community Association, was represented by legal counsel.

**Facts and Main Issues**
The dispute arose from a records request made by the Petitioner on May 14, 2012, seeking a copy of the employment contract for the Respondent's property manager. The Respondent provided a copy of the contract but redacted the sections detailing the manager’s compensation,.

The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition alleging that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide the complete, unredacted contract,. The Petitioner argued that as a homeowner, he was entitled to "all financial" records to understand the association's financial standing.

The central legal issue was whether the association was statutorily authorized to withhold specific compensation details regarding an employee under the exceptions provided in A.R.S. § 33-1805.

**Key Legal Arguments and Analysis**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) analyzed the relevant statute, A.R.S. § 33-1805. While subsection (A) generally mandates that financial and other records be made reasonably available to members, subsection (B) lists specific exceptions.

The ALJ highlighted A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(5), which explicitly states that records may be withheld if they relate to the "compensation of… an individual employee of the association". The Judge found that the property manager was an employee of the association. Consequently, the Respondent was legally entitled to redact the compensation information from the document provided to the Petitioner.

**Final Decision and Outcome**
The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish a violation of the statute,. The Judge recommended that the petition be dismissed, ruling that no action was required of the Respondent.

On March 13, 2013, the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings certified the ALJ's decision as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, as the Department had taken no action to reject or modify the decision within the statutory review period.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Edmund R. Knight (Petitioner)
    Homeowner
    Appeared on his own behalf
  • J. Roger Wood (attorney)
    Sent a request on behalf of Petitioner on June 8, 2012

Respondent Side

  • Chad Miesen (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Represented Springfield Community Association

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presided over the hearing and issued the decision
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Agency Director to whom the decision was transmitted
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ decision as final
  • Joni Cage (staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed in mailing address for Gene Palma

Monahan, John F. and Patricia E. -v- Sycamore Hills Homeowners Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 08F-H088008-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2008-05-22
Administrative Law Judge Michael G. Wales
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John F. and Patricia E. Monahan Counsel —
Respondent Sycamore Hills Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel Carolyn Goldschmidt

Alleged Violations

Design Guidelines Section II.I, II.M, II.N, II.B.2
CC&Rs Article IX, Section 5; Article III, Section 8a
CC&Rs Article IX, Section 6, Section 26; Design Guidelines II.C
Bylaws Articles V and IX
A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The Petition was dismissed in its entirety. Claims regarding harassment, barking dogs, and committees were found to be moot, outside jurisdiction, or lacking standing. The Open Meeting Law claim was dismissed because the Board was entitled to meet in executive session to discuss threatened litigation.

Why this result: Petitioners' claims were either moot (compliance achieved/events passed), outside the tribunal's jurisdiction (harassment), lacked standing (enforcement against others), or unfounded (executive session was legal).

Key Issues & Findings

Count 1: Harassment regarding pool pump and utility trailer

Petitioners alleged the HOA harassed them by requiring screening of pool equipment and moving a trailer while not enforcing these rules against others.

Orders: Dismissed as moot because Petitioners complied prior to filing, and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction regarding harassment/selective enforcement claims.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 5
  • 26
  • 33
  • 34

Count 2: Barking Dogs

Petitioners alleged the HOA failed to enforce animal noise restrictions against a specific neighbor.

Orders: Dismissed as moot.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 5
  • 35
  • 36

Count 3: RV Parking

Petitioners alleged the HOA was not imposing sufficient fines or action against two lot owners keeping RVs on their lots.

Orders: Dismissed for lack of standing.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 6
  • 37

Count 4: Nominating and Architectural Committees

Petitioners alleged the Board failed to appoint required committees prior to the annual meeting.

Orders: Dismissed as moot.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 6
  • 39
  • 40

Count 5: Open Meeting Law

Petitioners alleged the Board violated open meeting laws by discussing and voting on construction requests in a closed session.

Orders: Dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 7
  • 44
  • 45

Decision Documents

08F-H088008-BFS Decision – 191406.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:22:40 (153.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 08F-H088008-BFS


Administrative Law Judge Decision: Monahan v. Sycamore Hills Homeowners Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative law decision in Case No. 08F-H088008-BFS, involving John and Patricia Monahan (Petitioners) and the Sycamore Hills Homeowners Association, Inc. (Respondent). The Petitioners alleged multiple violations of the Association’s governing documents and Arizona state statutes, specifically concerning harassment, nuisance control, parking enforcement, committee formation, and open meeting laws.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Michael G. Wales dismissed the petition in its entirety. The ruling was primarily based on three factors:

1. Lack of Jurisdiction and Standing: The tribunal lacks authority to adjudicate claims of “harassment” or “selective enforcement” and cannot hear disputes between neighbors where the Association is not a primary party.

2. Mootness: Several issues were resolved or corrected prior to the hearing, leaving no active controversy for the court to remedy.

3. Legal Justification for Executive Sessions: The Association demonstrated that its closed-door meetings were legally permissible under Arizona law to discuss pending or contemplated litigation.

——————————————————————————–

Detailed Analysis of Claims and Evidence

Count 1: Harassment and Selective Enforcement

The Petitioners alleged that the Association targeted them regarding pool pump screening and a utility trailer while failing to enforce the same rules against other residents.

• Evidence and Testimony: The Petitioners received notices to screen pool equipment and move a utility trailer. They complied with these requests. However, Petitioner John Monahan testified that other homes continued to have exposed trash receptacles and mechanical equipment.

• Respondent Defense: Property manager Sandy Sandoval testified to conducting regular monthly inspections. Board President Paul Swan noted that some minor issues, like trash can placement, were left to the “honor system” as they were deemed trivial.

• Legal Conclusion: The ALJ dismissed this count on two grounds:

◦ Jurisdiction: The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) is limited to Title 33, Chapter 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. It does not have the authority to hear claims of harassment or selective enforcement; such matters belong in Superior Court.

◦ Mootness: Because the Petitioners complied with the Association’s requests before filing the complaint, no active dispute remained.

Count 2: Barking Dogs (Nuisance Control)

Petitioners alleged the Association failed to take appropriate action against the owner of Lot 37 regarding constant barking dogs, in violation of the CC&Rs.

• Evidence and Testimony: Patricia Monahan testified that the Board failed to investigate her complaints. Board President Paul Swan testified that he personally monitored the location on six occasions and did not hear barking. A warning letter was drafted but withheld because the meeting where it was authorized had not been properly noticed.

• Resolution: Mrs. Monahan attended a Pima County Animal Noise Control hearing where the owners of Lot 37 were fined. She testified the barking had since stopped.

• Legal Conclusion: The issue was dismissed as moot. The nuisance had ceased, and the Petitioners found an alternative forum (Pima County) for resolution.

Count 3: RV Parking Enforcement

Petitioners argued that the Association was not imposing sufficient fines ($50 per month) against two lot owners who kept Recreational Vehicles (RVs) on their properties.

• Evidence and Testimony: A 2007 resolution prohibited RV parking for more than 48 hours. The Board had begun fining two owners $50 monthly. John Monahan argued this amount was lower than local storage fees, rendering the fine ineffective.

• Legal Conclusion: The ALJ ruled that Petitioners lacked standing. Under A.R.S. §41-2198.01(B), the department does not have jurisdiction over disputes between owners to which the Association is not a party. A claim regarding “lax enforcement” against a third party is legally considered a dispute between owners, not a direct dispute with the Association that the OAH can adjudicate.

Count 4: Committee Formation

Petitioners claimed the Association violated its Bylaws by failing to appoint a Nominating Committee and an Architectural Control Committee (ACC).

• Evidence and Testimony:

◦ ACC: The Board temporarily acted as the ACC after previous members resigned due to “upheaval” and “difficult personalities” in the community. By the time of the hearing, a new ACC had been appointed.

◦ Nominating Committee: The property manager testified that she sought volunteers via mail and email, but no one volunteered due to the toxic environment created by certain residents.

• Legal Conclusion: The ACC claim was dismissed as moot because a committee was currently in place. The Nominating Committee claim was dismissed because the election had already occurred, and evidence showed the Association made a good-faith effort to form the committee despite a lack of volunteers.

Count 5: Violation of Open Meeting Law

Petitioners alleged the Board held a private meeting to override an ACC decision regarding detached garages on Lots 36 and 56.

• Legal Standard (A.R.S. §33-1804): Board meetings must be open to members, but they may be closed (executive session) for specific reasons, including legal advice from an attorney or matters regarding pending/contemplated litigation.

• Evidence and Testimony: Paul Swan testified that the Board met in executive session because they had received letters from an attorney threatening litigation if the garage requests were not approved. He further testified that the final decision to approve was made by the ACC, not the Board in executive session.

• Legal Conclusion: The ALJ found the executive session was legal under A.R.S. §33-1804 as it pertained to contemplated litigation. No violation of the Open Meeting Law occurred.

——————————————————————————–

Final Legal Findings and Orders

Jurisdictional Limitations

The decision emphasizes the narrow scope of the Office of Administrative Hearings. The tribunal is only authorized to ensure compliance with specific statutes and the planned community’s documents as they apply to the Petitioner. It cannot:

• Rule on the reasonableness of an Association’s decisions regarding other owners.

• Share concurrent jurisdiction with the Superior Court on matters of harassment or arbitrary enforcement.

Attorney’s Fees and Filing Costs

• Attorney’s Fees: Although the Association prevailed, the ALJ denied their request for attorney’s fees. Under Arizona law (Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc.), an administrative proceeding is not considered an “action” that triggers fee-shifting statutes like A.R.S. §12-341.01.

• Filing Fees: As the Petitioners were not the prevailing party, they were not entitled to reimbursement for filing fees.

Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge ordered the dismissal of the petition in its entirety and denied the Respondent’s request for attorney’s fees. This order constitutes the final administrative decision.






Study Guide – 08F-H088008-BFS


Study Guide: Monahan v. Sycamore Hills Homeowners Association, Inc.

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case John F. and Patricia E. Monahan v. Sycamore Hills Homeowners Association, Inc. (No. 08F-H088008-BFS). It examines the legal disputes regarding planned community governance, jurisdictional boundaries of administrative hearings, and the application of Arizona Revised Statutes.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2–3 sentences based on the source context.

1. What were the specific allegations made by the Petitioners in Count 1 of their petition?

2. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conclude that the tribunal lacked the authority to hear claims of “selective enforcement”?

3. According to the Findings of Fact, how did the Association address the Petitioners’ violation regarding their utility trailer?

4. What was the Petitioners’ primary grievance in Count 3 regarding the Association’s handling of RV parking violations?

5. How did the Board of Directors justify its decision to temporarily act as the Architectural Control Committee (ACC)?

6. What was the outcome of the Pima County Animal Noise Control hearing mentioned in Count 2?

7. What evidence did the Association provide to explain why a nominating committee had not been formed prior to the 2007 annual meeting?

8. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804, what is the “Open Meeting Law” requirement for board deliberations?

9. Why did the ALJ determine that the October 30, 2007, executive session did not violate the Open Meeting Law?

10. On what legal basis did the ALJ deny the Respondent Association’s request for attorney’s fees?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. Count 1 Allegations: The Petitioners alleged harassment and selective enforcement, specifically that the Association required them to enclose their pool pump and move a utility trailer while failing to hold other lot owners to the same Design Guidelines. They argued the Association violated Section II.I, II.M/N, and II.B.2 of the Community’s governing documents.

2. Jurisdiction over Selective Enforcement: The ALJ ruled that the Office of Administrative Hearings is limited by A.R.S. § 41-2198 to adjudicating specific violations of Title 33 and community documents. Claims of selective enforcement or “disputes between owners” where the association is not a direct party are outside this jurisdiction and are reserved for the Superior Court.

3. Resolution of Utility Trailer Issue: The Petitioners received a written notice on August 3, 2007, to store their trailer in a garage or behind the home so it was not visible from the street. They complied with the request and faxed proof of compliance to the Association by August 12, 2007, which later rendered the claim moot.

4. RV Parking Fines: The Petitioners argued that the $50 monthly fine imposed on owners of lots 35 and 60 was insufficient to change behavior. They claimed the fine was lower than external RV storage fees, effectively allowing owners to ignore the Association’s 2007 resolution against long-term RV parking.

5. Board Acting as ACC: Board President Paul Swan testified that the Board was forced to step in as the ACC after all members except John Monahan resigned in September 2007. The ALJ found that no governing document prohibited the Board from temporarily fulfilling these duties until new members were appointed.

6. Animal Noise Control Outcome: Patricia Monahan attended a hearing on April 21, 2008, where Pima County Animal Noise Control fined the owners of Lot 37 and warned them of additional penalties for future violations. Following this hearing, she testified that the dogs had stopped barking.

7. Lack of Nominating Committee: The Property Manager testified that obtaining volunteers for committees was “difficult, if not impossible” due to “difficult personalities” creating upheaval within the community. The ALJ accepted that these challenges rendered the creation of a nominating committee implausible at that time.

8. Open Meeting Law Requirements: A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) mandates that all meetings of the association and board of directors must be open to all members or their designated representatives. Members must be allowed to attend and speak before the board takes formal action on an issue.

9. Legality of Executive Session: The ALJ found the closed session was legal because it was held to discuss “pending or contemplated litigation” after receiving threat letters from an attorney representing the owners of lots 36 and 56. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1) and (2), legal advice and litigation strategy are valid reasons to close a meeting.

10. Denial of Attorney’s Fees: The ALJ cited Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc., stating that an administrative proceeding is not considered an “action” under A.R.S. §§ 33-1807(H) or 12-341.01. Therefore, even though the Association prevailed, attorney’s fees could not be awarded in this forum.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

1. The Limits of Administrative Jurisdiction: Analyze the distinction between the jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Arizona Superior Court as outlined in the decision. Why is the distinction between a “dispute between owners” and a “dispute with the Association” critical for standing?

2. Mootness in Administrative Adjudication: Evaluate how the concept of “mootness” applied to the various counts in this case (specifically Counts 1, 2, and 4). How does voluntary compliance by either party affect the ALJ’s ability to provide a remedy?

3. Governance Challenges in Planned Communities: Using the testimony regarding the Nominating and Architectural Committees, discuss the practical difficulties an HOA faces when community conflict discourages volunteerism. How should the law balance strict adherence to bylaws with the reality of limited community participation?

4. Transparency vs. Confidentiality: Discuss the balance of the Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 33-1804). Under what circumstances does the need for a Board to seek legal counsel or discuss litigation outweigh the members’ right to observe deliberations?

5. The Preponderance of the Evidence: Explain the burden of proof required in this administrative hearing. How did the ALJ define “preponderance of the evidence,” and how did the Petitioners’ evidence fail to meet this standard in Count 5?

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

• A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Open Meeting Law): An Arizona statute requiring that meetings of a homeowners association board be open to all members, with specific, narrow exceptions for closed “executive” sessions.

• A.R.S. § 41-2198: The statute granting the Office of Administrative Hearings the authority to adjudicate disputes regarding planned community documents and Title 33, Chapter 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes.

• Architectural Control Committee (ACC): A committee appointed by the Association to oversee and approve or deny requests for exterior improvements or structures on lots within the community.

• CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements): The recorded legal documents that establish the rules and regulations for a planned community and are binding on all property owners.

• Executive Session: A portion of a board meeting that is closed to the general membership to discuss sensitive matters such as legal advice, litigation, or personal member information.

• Jurisdiction: The legal authority of a court or administrative tribunal to hear and decide a specific type of case or dispute.

• Moot: A legal status where a dispute is no longer active or relevant because the issues have been resolved or the circumstances have changed, leaving no remedy for the court to provide.

• Planned Community: A real estate development where individual lot owners are mandatory members of an association and are subject to specific governing documents and dues.

• Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases, meaning the evidence shows that a claim is “more probably true than not.”

• Standing: The legal right of a party to bring a claim, requiring that the party is directly affected by the issue and that the tribunal has the authority to hear that specific person’s grievance.






Blog Post – 08F-H088008-BFS


Study Guide: Monahan v. Sycamore Hills Homeowners Association, Inc.

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case John F. and Patricia E. Monahan v. Sycamore Hills Homeowners Association, Inc. (No. 08F-H088008-BFS). It examines the legal disputes regarding planned community governance, jurisdictional boundaries of administrative hearings, and the application of Arizona Revised Statutes.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2–3 sentences based on the source context.

1. What were the specific allegations made by the Petitioners in Count 1 of their petition?

2. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conclude that the tribunal lacked the authority to hear claims of “selective enforcement”?

3. According to the Findings of Fact, how did the Association address the Petitioners’ violation regarding their utility trailer?

4. What was the Petitioners’ primary grievance in Count 3 regarding the Association’s handling of RV parking violations?

5. How did the Board of Directors justify its decision to temporarily act as the Architectural Control Committee (ACC)?

6. What was the outcome of the Pima County Animal Noise Control hearing mentioned in Count 2?

7. What evidence did the Association provide to explain why a nominating committee had not been formed prior to the 2007 annual meeting?

8. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804, what is the “Open Meeting Law” requirement for board deliberations?

9. Why did the ALJ determine that the October 30, 2007, executive session did not violate the Open Meeting Law?

10. On what legal basis did the ALJ deny the Respondent Association’s request for attorney’s fees?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. Count 1 Allegations: The Petitioners alleged harassment and selective enforcement, specifically that the Association required them to enclose their pool pump and move a utility trailer while failing to hold other lot owners to the same Design Guidelines. They argued the Association violated Section II.I, II.M/N, and II.B.2 of the Community’s governing documents.

2. Jurisdiction over Selective Enforcement: The ALJ ruled that the Office of Administrative Hearings is limited by A.R.S. § 41-2198 to adjudicating specific violations of Title 33 and community documents. Claims of selective enforcement or “disputes between owners” where the association is not a direct party are outside this jurisdiction and are reserved for the Superior Court.

3. Resolution of Utility Trailer Issue: The Petitioners received a written notice on August 3, 2007, to store their trailer in a garage or behind the home so it was not visible from the street. They complied with the request and faxed proof of compliance to the Association by August 12, 2007, which later rendered the claim moot.

4. RV Parking Fines: The Petitioners argued that the $50 monthly fine imposed on owners of lots 35 and 60 was insufficient to change behavior. They claimed the fine was lower than external RV storage fees, effectively allowing owners to ignore the Association’s 2007 resolution against long-term RV parking.

5. Board Acting as ACC: Board President Paul Swan testified that the Board was forced to step in as the ACC after all members except John Monahan resigned in September 2007. The ALJ found that no governing document prohibited the Board from temporarily fulfilling these duties until new members were appointed.

6. Animal Noise Control Outcome: Patricia Monahan attended a hearing on April 21, 2008, where Pima County Animal Noise Control fined the owners of Lot 37 and warned them of additional penalties for future violations. Following this hearing, she testified that the dogs had stopped barking.

7. Lack of Nominating Committee: The Property Manager testified that obtaining volunteers for committees was “difficult, if not impossible” due to “difficult personalities” creating upheaval within the community. The ALJ accepted that these challenges rendered the creation of a nominating committee implausible at that time.

8. Open Meeting Law Requirements: A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) mandates that all meetings of the association and board of directors must be open to all members or their designated representatives. Members must be allowed to attend and speak before the board takes formal action on an issue.

9. Legality of Executive Session: The ALJ found the closed session was legal because it was held to discuss “pending or contemplated litigation” after receiving threat letters from an attorney representing the owners of lots 36 and 56. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1) and (2), legal advice and litigation strategy are valid reasons to close a meeting.

10. Denial of Attorney’s Fees: The ALJ cited Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc., stating that an administrative proceeding is not considered an “action” under A.R.S. §§ 33-1807(H) or 12-341.01. Therefore, even though the Association prevailed, attorney’s fees could not be awarded in this forum.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

1. The Limits of Administrative Jurisdiction: Analyze the distinction between the jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Arizona Superior Court as outlined in the decision. Why is the distinction between a “dispute between owners” and a “dispute with the Association” critical for standing?

2. Mootness in Administrative Adjudication: Evaluate how the concept of “mootness” applied to the various counts in this case (specifically Counts 1, 2, and 4). How does voluntary compliance by either party affect the ALJ’s ability to provide a remedy?

3. Governance Challenges in Planned Communities: Using the testimony regarding the Nominating and Architectural Committees, discuss the practical difficulties an HOA faces when community conflict discourages volunteerism. How should the law balance strict adherence to bylaws with the reality of limited community participation?

4. Transparency vs. Confidentiality: Discuss the balance of the Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 33-1804). Under what circumstances does the need for a Board to seek legal counsel or discuss litigation outweigh the members’ right to observe deliberations?

5. The Preponderance of the Evidence: Explain the burden of proof required in this administrative hearing. How did the ALJ define “preponderance of the evidence,” and how did the Petitioners’ evidence fail to meet this standard in Count 5?

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

• A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Open Meeting Law): An Arizona statute requiring that meetings of a homeowners association board be open to all members, with specific, narrow exceptions for closed “executive” sessions.

• A.R.S. § 41-2198: The statute granting the Office of Administrative Hearings the authority to adjudicate disputes regarding planned community documents and Title 33, Chapter 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes.

• Architectural Control Committee (ACC): A committee appointed by the Association to oversee and approve or deny requests for exterior improvements or structures on lots within the community.

• CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements): The recorded legal documents that establish the rules and regulations for a planned community and are binding on all property owners.

• Executive Session: A portion of a board meeting that is closed to the general membership to discuss sensitive matters such as legal advice, litigation, or personal member information.

• Jurisdiction: The legal authority of a court or administrative tribunal to hear and decide a specific type of case or dispute.

• Moot: A legal status where a dispute is no longer active or relevant because the issues have been resolved or the circumstances have changed, leaving no remedy for the court to provide.

• Planned Community: A real estate development where individual lot owners are mandatory members of an association and are subject to specific governing documents and dues.

• Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases, meaning the evidence shows that a claim is “more probably true than not.”

• Standing: The legal right of a party to bring a claim, requiring that the party is directly affected by the issue and that the tribunal has the authority to hear that specific person’s grievance.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John F. Monahan (Petitioner)
    Lot owner
    Appeared personally; former ACC member
  • Patricia E. Monahan (Petitioner)
    Lot owner
    Appeared personally

Respondent Side

  • Carolyn Goldschmidt (Respondent Attorney)
    Goldschmidt Law Firm
  • Sandy Sandoval (Property Manager)
    Witness
  • Paul Swan (Board President)
    Sycamore Hills Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Witness

Neutral Parties

  • Michael G. Wales (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Robert Barger (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    On service list
  • Debra Blake (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    On service list

Other Participants

  • Steven Sandoval (Attorney)
    Attorney for non-party owners of lots 36 and 56; threatened litigation