Tag Archives: A.A.C. R2-19-119

John R Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust vs Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H057-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-11-24
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John R. Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust Counsel —
Respondent Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition because the unredacted March 2025 check register was made available to all members via the online portal before the Petitioner filed the complaint, rendering the issue of the initially mailed redacted copy moot. The ALJ also found insufficient evidence that the error was purposeful, personal, or part of a negligent pattern.

Why this result: Mootness, insufficient evidence of willful violation.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the association violated ARS 33-1805 by willfully withholding of association records.

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by mistakenly mailing a redacted March 2025 check register in response to a records request. Respondent contended the error was clerical and that the unredacted check register was uploaded to the community portal and available to all members within the statutory time frame or shortly thereafter. The ALJ found insufficient evidence of willful or purposeful withholding.

Orders: The petition was dismissed. Petitioner's request for subpoena with in camera review was denied. Petitioner's Motion to Order Exchange of Position Statements was denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA records, Check Register, Statutory Deadline, Mootness, Redaction, Clerical Error
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119




Briefing Doc – 25F-H057-REL


Briefing Document: Krahn Living Trust vs. Tonto Forest Estates HOA (Case No. 25F-H057-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings and final decision in case number 25F-H057-REL, a dispute between the John R. Krahn Living Trust (Petitioner) and the Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute was an allegation that the Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 by providing an improperly redacted version of the March 2025 check register in response to a formal records request.

The Petitioner argued that the redaction was unjustified, targeted, and part of a larger pattern of non-compliance and bad faith by the HOA’s board. The Respondent countered that mailing the redacted document was a clerical error and that it fulfilled its statutory duty by making the complete, unredacted check register available to all members on its online portal within the 10-day legal timeframe.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately dismissed the petition. The decision found that while the Respondent had mistakenly mailed a redacted document, the subsequent posting of the unredacted version on the community portal rendered the issue moot. The ALJ concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove the Respondent’s actions were purposeful, “personal,” or part of a negligent pattern of behavior.

Case Overview

Detail

Description

Case Number

25F-H057-REL

Petitioner

John R. Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust (represented by John Khran)

Respondent

Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (represented by President Dwight A. Jolivette)

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson

Core Statute

A.R.S. § 33-1805: Association financial and other records

Chronology of Key Events

• March 31, 2025: John Khran submits a written request to the HOA for the March 2025 check register and specific legal invoices from Maxwell & Morgan.

• c. April 10, 2025: The HOA responds via U.S. Mail, sending a packet that includes a partially redacted version of the March 2025 check register.

• April 14, 2025: The statutory 10-business-day deadline for the records request. The HOA asserts it uploaded the unredacted check register to its online portal on this date.

• April 14 – April 21, 2025: The ALJ’s final decision establishes that the unredacted check register was made available on the portal during this period.

• May 19, 2025: Mr. Khran files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.

• September 17, 2025: The ALJ denies the Petitioner’s request for a subpoena requiring an in camera review, deeming it unnecessary.

• September 26, 2025: The ALJ denies the Petitioner’s motion to order an exchange of position statements but allows parties to file prehearing memorandums.

• October 22, 2025: The evidentiary hearing is held. Both John Khran and Dwight Jolivette provide sworn testimony.

• November 3, 2025: The official record for the hearing closes after a period allowing for the submission of post-hearing exhibits and responses.

• November 24, 2025: ALJ Velva Moses-Thompson issues the final decision, dismissing the petition.

Petitioner’s Position and Arguments

The Petitioner, represented by John Khran, contended that the HOA willfully withheld records and acted in bad faith, violating both the letter and spirit of state law.

Core Allegation: Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805

The central claim was that the HOA failed to make records “reasonably available” by providing a version of the March 2025 check register with a blacked-out line item. Khran argued this act constituted a direct violation of the statute.

Argument 1: Improper and Targeted Redaction

• The redacted information consisted of routine financial metadata: general ledger code (5703), budget category (“Legal General”), and an invoice number (53189).

• Khran demonstrated that this information was not privileged by showing it was unredacted on other parts of the same document, in the prior month’s (February 2025) check register, and on the legal invoice itself.

• He argued the redaction served no lawful purpose and was applied specifically to his request, as evidenced by the HOA later publishing the full, unredacted version to the community portal.

• Key Quote: “This kind of inconsistent, personal and excessive reaction is not only justified, his violate the RS 331805A and respond statutory duty to treat all members fairly.”

Argument 2: Pattern of Non-Compliance and Bad Faith

• Khran asserted this was the HOA’s third violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805, citing cases 24F13 and 25FH11.

• He accused the board of adopting a “litigate every ing strategy,” escalating every complaint to the OAH rather than seeking resolution through mediation or negotiation, which he claimed caused “serious and lasting harm” to the 52-member community.

• He noted that the HOA ignored a subpoena’s explicit warning that “excessive or unjustified redactions” could be deemed bad faith.

Requested Relief

The Petitioner requested four specific orders from the court:

1. A finding that the Petitioner was the prevailing party.

2. Reimbursement of the $500 filing fee.

3. An order mandating the HOA’s future compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1805.

4. Imposition of a symbolic $1 civil penalty to deter future non-compliance and prevent the board from claiming vindication.

Respondent’s Position and Arguments

The Respondent, represented by its President Dwight Jolivette, maintained that it had complied with its statutory obligations and that the incident was an unintentional error.

Core Defense: Compliance via Portal Publication

• The HOA’s primary defense was that the unredacted March 2025 check register was made available for review by all members on the community portal on April 14, 2025, within the 10-day statutory deadline.

• Jolivette argued this action satisfied the requirement to make records “reasonably available for examination.”

• Key Quote: “Our sole question today is whether or not the board provided the March 2025 check register as requested by the petitioner under ARS 331805 for review within the 10day time frame specified by the law. Our position is we did.”

Argument 1: Clerical Error and Miscommunication

• Jolivette testified that sending the redacted check register was not intentional but was “simply a mistake caused by miscommunication.”

• He explained that both redacted and unredacted versions were prepared, and a clerk mistakenly included the redacted version in the mail packet sent to Khran. The board was unaware of the error until the complaint was filed.

Argument 2: Lack of Malicious Intent

• Jolivette argued that since the HOA publishes the check register unredacted for the entire community every month, there was no logical reason to single out Khran’s request for redaction.

• Key Quote: “Why? Why would we suddenly want to redact this stuff? We’re hoping for a little common sense here today to go along with the law.”

Argument 3: Petitioner’s Failure to Mitigate

• The Respondent pointed out that Khran, a former board member familiar with the process, did not contact the board to report the error. Had he done so, Jolivette stated, the issue would have been corrected immediately without the need for a formal hearing.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s final decision focused on the material facts and the legal concept of mootness, ultimately dismissing the Petitioner’s case.

Summary of Findings

1. Request and Response: The Petitioner submitted a records request on March 31, 2025. On or about April 10, 2025, the Respondent mailed copies of the requested items but “mistakenly gave Petitioner a redacted 2025 check register.”

2. Portal Publication: The Respondent uploaded an unredacted March 2025 check register to its online portal, making it available to all members, sometime between April 14, 2025, and April 21, 2025.

3. Lack of Evidence for Intent: The ALJ found “insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent purposefully neglected to mail Khran an unredacted March 2025 check register or that the failure to include the correct check register…was ‘personal.'”

4. No Pattern of Negligence: The decision also stated there was “insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent had a negligent pattern of responding to records requests in error or untimely.”

Central Legal Conclusion: Mootness

The core of the legal decision rested on the issue being moot. The ALJ determined that because the unredacted document was made available on the online portal before the Petitioner filed the complaint, the underlying issue was resolved.

• Key Quote from Decision: “It is undisputed that the unredacted March 2025 check register was uploaded to Respondent’s online portal which is available to all members before the petition was filed… Even if the unredacted check register was made available on its website after the 10-day statutory period, the issue is now moot.”

Final Order

“IT IS ORDERED that John R Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust’s petition against Respondent Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association is dismissed.”


John R Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust vs Tonto Forest

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H057-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-11-24
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John R. Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust Counsel —
Respondent Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition because the unredacted March 2025 check register was made available to all members via the online portal before the Petitioner filed the complaint, rendering the issue of the initially mailed redacted copy moot. The ALJ also found insufficient evidence that the error was purposeful, personal, or part of a negligent pattern.

Why this result: Mootness, insufficient evidence of willful violation.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the association violated ARS 33-1805 by willfully withholding of association records.

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by mistakenly mailing a redacted March 2025 check register in response to a records request. Respondent contended the error was clerical and that the unredacted check register was uploaded to the community portal and available to all members within the statutory time frame or shortly thereafter. The ALJ found insufficient evidence of willful or purposeful withholding.

Orders: The petition was dismissed. Petitioner's request for subpoena with in camera review was denied. Petitioner's Motion to Order Exchange of Position Statements was denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA records, Check Register, Statutory Deadline, Mootness, Redaction, Clerical Error
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H057-REL Decision – 1345301.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:25:05 (64.7 KB)

25F-H057-REL Decision – 1348059.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:25:09 (49.0 KB)

25F-H057-REL Decision – 1351266.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:25:14 (56.2 KB)

25F-H057-REL Decision – 1354250.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:25:19 (50.6 KB)

25F-H057-REL Decision – 1354340.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:25:24 (46.2 KB)

25F-H057-REL Decision – 1364599.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:25:29 (45.9 KB)

25F-H057-REL Decision – 1364611.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:25:32 (6.2 KB)

25F-H057-REL Decision – 1372120.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:25:37 (117.0 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H057-REL


Briefing Document: Krahn Living Trust vs. Tonto Forest Estates HOA (Case No. 25F-H057-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings and final decision in case number 25F-H057-REL, a dispute between the John R. Krahn Living Trust (Petitioner) and the Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute was an allegation that the Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 by providing an improperly redacted version of the March 2025 check register in response to a formal records request.

The Petitioner argued that the redaction was unjustified, targeted, and part of a larger pattern of non-compliance and bad faith by the HOA’s board. The Respondent countered that mailing the redacted document was a clerical error and that it fulfilled its statutory duty by making the complete, unredacted check register available to all members on its online portal within the 10-day legal timeframe.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately dismissed the petition. The decision found that while the Respondent had mistakenly mailed a redacted document, the subsequent posting of the unredacted version on the community portal rendered the issue moot. The ALJ concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove the Respondent’s actions were purposeful, “personal,” or part of a negligent pattern of behavior.

Case Overview

Detail

Description

Case Number

25F-H057-REL

Petitioner

John R. Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust (represented by John Khran)

Respondent

Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (represented by President Dwight A. Jolivette)

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson

Core Statute

A.R.S. § 33-1805: Association financial and other records

Chronology of Key Events

• March 31, 2025: John Khran submits a written request to the HOA for the March 2025 check register and specific legal invoices from Maxwell & Morgan.

• c. April 10, 2025: The HOA responds via U.S. Mail, sending a packet that includes a partially redacted version of the March 2025 check register.

• April 14, 2025: The statutory 10-business-day deadline for the records request. The HOA asserts it uploaded the unredacted check register to its online portal on this date.

• April 14 – April 21, 2025: The ALJ’s final decision establishes that the unredacted check register was made available on the portal during this period.

• May 19, 2025: Mr. Khran files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.

• September 17, 2025: The ALJ denies the Petitioner’s request for a subpoena requiring an in camera review, deeming it unnecessary.

• September 26, 2025: The ALJ denies the Petitioner’s motion to order an exchange of position statements but allows parties to file prehearing memorandums.

• October 22, 2025: The evidentiary hearing is held. Both John Khran and Dwight Jolivette provide sworn testimony.

• November 3, 2025: The official record for the hearing closes after a period allowing for the submission of post-hearing exhibits and responses.

• November 24, 2025: ALJ Velva Moses-Thompson issues the final decision, dismissing the petition.

Petitioner’s Position and Arguments

The Petitioner, represented by John Khran, contended that the HOA willfully withheld records and acted in bad faith, violating both the letter and spirit of state law.

Core Allegation: Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805

The central claim was that the HOA failed to make records “reasonably available” by providing a version of the March 2025 check register with a blacked-out line item. Khran argued this act constituted a direct violation of the statute.

Argument 1: Improper and Targeted Redaction

• The redacted information consisted of routine financial metadata: general ledger code (5703), budget category (“Legal General”), and an invoice number (53189).

• Khran demonstrated that this information was not privileged by showing it was unredacted on other parts of the same document, in the prior month’s (February 2025) check register, and on the legal invoice itself.

• He argued the redaction served no lawful purpose and was applied specifically to his request, as evidenced by the HOA later publishing the full, unredacted version to the community portal.

• Key Quote: “This kind of inconsistent, personal and excessive reaction is not only justified, his violate the RS 331805A and respond statutory duty to treat all members fairly.”

Argument 2: Pattern of Non-Compliance and Bad Faith

• Khran asserted this was the HOA’s third violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805, citing cases 24F13 and 25FH11.

• He accused the board of adopting a “litigate every ing strategy,” escalating every complaint to the OAH rather than seeking resolution through mediation or negotiation, which he claimed caused “serious and lasting harm” to the 52-member community.

• He noted that the HOA ignored a subpoena’s explicit warning that “excessive or unjustified redactions” could be deemed bad faith.

Requested Relief

The Petitioner requested four specific orders from the court:

1. A finding that the Petitioner was the prevailing party.

2. Reimbursement of the $500 filing fee.

3. An order mandating the HOA’s future compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1805.

4. Imposition of a symbolic $1 civil penalty to deter future non-compliance and prevent the board from claiming vindication.

Respondent’s Position and Arguments

The Respondent, represented by its President Dwight Jolivette, maintained that it had complied with its statutory obligations and that the incident was an unintentional error.

Core Defense: Compliance via Portal Publication

• The HOA’s primary defense was that the unredacted March 2025 check register was made available for review by all members on the community portal on April 14, 2025, within the 10-day statutory deadline.

• Jolivette argued this action satisfied the requirement to make records “reasonably available for examination.”

• Key Quote: “Our sole question today is whether or not the board provided the March 2025 check register as requested by the petitioner under ARS 331805 for review within the 10day time frame specified by the law. Our position is we did.”

Argument 1: Clerical Error and Miscommunication

• Jolivette testified that sending the redacted check register was not intentional but was “simply a mistake caused by miscommunication.”

• He explained that both redacted and unredacted versions were prepared, and a clerk mistakenly included the redacted version in the mail packet sent to Khran. The board was unaware of the error until the complaint was filed.

Argument 2: Lack of Malicious Intent

• Jolivette argued that since the HOA publishes the check register unredacted for the entire community every month, there was no logical reason to single out Khran’s request for redaction.

• Key Quote: “Why? Why would we suddenly want to redact this stuff? We’re hoping for a little common sense here today to go along with the law.”

Argument 3: Petitioner’s Failure to Mitigate

• The Respondent pointed out that Khran, a former board member familiar with the process, did not contact the board to report the error. Had he done so, Jolivette stated, the issue would have been corrected immediately without the need for a formal hearing.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s final decision focused on the material facts and the legal concept of mootness, ultimately dismissing the Petitioner’s case.

Summary of Findings

1. Request and Response: The Petitioner submitted a records request on March 31, 2025. On or about April 10, 2025, the Respondent mailed copies of the requested items but “mistakenly gave Petitioner a redacted 2025 check register.”

2. Portal Publication: The Respondent uploaded an unredacted March 2025 check register to its online portal, making it available to all members, sometime between April 14, 2025, and April 21, 2025.

3. Lack of Evidence for Intent: The ALJ found “insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent purposefully neglected to mail Khran an unredacted March 2025 check register or that the failure to include the correct check register…was ‘personal.'”

4. No Pattern of Negligence: The decision also stated there was “insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent had a negligent pattern of responding to records requests in error or untimely.”

Central Legal Conclusion: Mootness

The core of the legal decision rested on the issue being moot. The ALJ determined that because the unredacted document was made available on the online portal before the Petitioner filed the complaint, the underlying issue was resolved.

• Key Quote from Decision: “It is undisputed that the unredacted March 2025 check register was uploaded to Respondent’s online portal which is available to all members before the petition was filed… Even if the unredacted check register was made available on its website after the 10-day statutory period, the issue is now moot.”

Final Order

“IT IS ORDERED that John R Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust’s petition against Respondent Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association is dismissed.”


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John R. Krahn (petitioner)
    John R. Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust
    Appeared and testified on behalf of Petitioner
  • Janet Krahn (petitioner)
    John R. Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust

Respondent Side

  • Dwight A. Jolivette (HOA president)
    Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
    Appeared and testified on behalf of Respondent
  • Lori P. (HOA representative)
    Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
    Email contact for Respondent HOA
  • Barbara B. (HOA representative)
    Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
    Email contact for Respondent HOA

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • ALJ Stone (former ALJ)
    OAH
    Mentioned regarding prior consolidated cases

Other Participants

  • Judge Vanell (Judge)
    Cited regarding civil penalty guidelines

Carl-Mitchell Smoot v. Los Reyes Homeowners Association Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222063-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-04-13
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Smoot Carl-Mitchell Counsel Stewart F. Gross, Esq.
Respondent Los Reyes Homeowners Association Inc. Counsel Michael S. McLeran, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1819; CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8

Outcome Summary

The ALJ affirmed the Petitioner's position that the HOA's denial of artificial turf violated CC&Rs Section 8.8. The ALJ found that because maintenance was shared and the HOA's CC&Rs cannot contradict the superior McCormick Ranch rules (which allow artificial turf), the denial was improper and the HOA failed to meet the exemption requirements under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B).

Key Issues & Findings

Architectural disapproval of landscaping plans to install artificial turf

Petitioner alleged Respondent's disapproval of his landscaping plans to install artificial turf violated the CC&Rs and was unreasonable under Arizona law. The ALJ concluded the disapproval violated CC&Rs Section 8.8 because the maintenance responsibility was shared, not exclusive to the HOA, and the HOA's CC&Rs must not contradict McCormick Ranch's Rules, which permit artificial turf.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is affirmed. Respondent must reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee. Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of CC&Rs Section 8.8 going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1819
  • CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8
  • CC&Rs Article 9.4
  • CC&Rs Article 6.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: artificial turf, landscaping, CC&Rs, shared maintenance, architectural control, McCormick Ranch
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1819
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8
  • CC&Rs Article 9.4
  • CC&Rs Article 6.2

Video Overview

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/6rR1HVClA4Mzb6MK8wI7md

Decision Documents

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1005074.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:14 (54.0 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1005155.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:19 (6.9 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1023283.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:22 (54.3 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1029871.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:25 (52.1 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 1049042.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:29 (175.7 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 992691.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:30 (48.6 KB)

22F-H2222063-REL Decision – 992789.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:32 (5.9 KB)

Questions

Question

Can my HOA prohibit artificial turf if the CC&Rs don't specifically ban it?

Short Answer

Likely not. If the CC&Rs are silent regarding artificial turf and do not explicitly prohibit it, the HOA may not be able to enforce a ban, especially if a master association permits it.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that because the HOA's CC&Rs were silent regarding artificial turf and did not explicitly prohibit it, they could not ban it. This was further reinforced because the master association's rules, which the sub-association could not contradict, explicitly permitted artificial turf.

Alj Quote

Although Respondent’s CC&Rs are silent as to artificial turf, they do not prohibit artificial turf and they shall not contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Construction; A.R.S. § 33-1819

Topic Tags

  • artificial turf
  • CC&Rs interpretation
  • architectural requests

Question

Can a sub-association ban artificial turf if the master association allows it?

Short Answer

No, generally a sub-association cannot contradict the master association's rules if its own governing documents prohibit such contradictions.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the sub-association's CC&Rs incorporated the master association's rules and stated they could not contradict them. Since the master association allowed artificial turf, the sub-association could not prohibit it.

Alj Quote

McCormick Ranch allows artificial turf, and Respondent cannot contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations according to Respondent’s CC&Rs Section 9.4.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 9.4; Governing Documents Hierarchy

Topic Tags

  • master association
  • sub-association
  • conflicting rules

Question

Does the HOA mowing my front lawn give them the exclusive right to ban artificial turf under state law?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, if the maintenance is shared. If the homeowner is responsible for irrigation and replacing plants, the HOA does not have exclusive maintenance rights to prohibit turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B).

Detailed Answer

The HOA argued that because they mowed the lawn, they could prohibit artificial turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B). However, the judge found that because the homeowner paid for water and was responsible for keeping plants healthy (shared maintenance), the HOA could not use the maintenance statute to completely ban turf.

Alj Quote

In this case, it is undisputed that Petitioner pays for and can control the irrigation of his property. It is also undisputed that the maintenance of the front yards of the homes within Respondent is shared between the individual homeowners and Respondent.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1819(B); CC&Rs Section 8.8

Topic Tags

  • maintenance responsibility
  • artificial turf
  • state statute

Question

Can an HOA deny an architectural request claiming it disrupts the 'harmony' of the neighborhood?

Short Answer

They can claim it, but a judge may overrule them if the evidence shows the improvement (like artificial turf) wouldn't actually violate the goal of harmony.

Detailed Answer

The HOA denied the request based on the 'overall goal of harmony,' arguing that artificial turf would look different from the natural grass in the neighborhood. The judge reviewed the evidence and concluded that installing artificial turf would not actually be contrary to the goal of harmony.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge further concludes based on the evidence presented at hearing, that the installation of artificial turf would not be contrary to the “overall goal of harmony of external design” as asserted by Respondent.

Legal Basis

Subjective Standards; Harmony Provisions

Topic Tags

  • architectural control
  • harmony
  • aesthetics

Question

Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner challenges an HOA decision?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The decision explicitly states that in these administrative hearings, the Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proving that the HOA violated its governing documents.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal procedure

Question

If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

Upon ruling in favor of the homeowner, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee the homeowner paid to bring the case.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.

Legal Basis

Administrative Remedy

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • penalties

Question

Can the HOA deny my plans for being 'conceptual' if I provided specific details?

Short Answer

No. If the plans include specific information like plant types, numbers, and dimensions, the HOA cannot validly deny them as merely 'conceptual'.

Detailed Answer

The HOA denied the application claiming plans were 'conceptual.' The judge noted the plans contained specific types and numbers of plants, dimensions, and detailed renderings, and ultimately ruled the disapproval was a violation.

Alj Quote

Those plans contain the types and number of plants proposed, and the dimensions and shape of the area of artificial turf, and detailed renderings.

Legal Basis

Reasonableness of Approval Process

Topic Tags

  • architectural plans
  • application denial
  • reasonableness

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222063-REL
Case Title
Smoot Carl-Mitchell v. Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-04-13
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA prohibit artificial turf if the CC&Rs don't specifically ban it?

Short Answer

Likely not. If the CC&Rs are silent regarding artificial turf and do not explicitly prohibit it, the HOA may not be able to enforce a ban, especially if a master association permits it.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that because the HOA's CC&Rs were silent regarding artificial turf and did not explicitly prohibit it, they could not ban it. This was further reinforced because the master association's rules, which the sub-association could not contradict, explicitly permitted artificial turf.

Alj Quote

Although Respondent’s CC&Rs are silent as to artificial turf, they do not prohibit artificial turf and they shall not contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Construction; A.R.S. § 33-1819

Topic Tags

  • artificial turf
  • CC&Rs interpretation
  • architectural requests

Question

Can a sub-association ban artificial turf if the master association allows it?

Short Answer

No, generally a sub-association cannot contradict the master association's rules if its own governing documents prohibit such contradictions.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the sub-association's CC&Rs incorporated the master association's rules and stated they could not contradict them. Since the master association allowed artificial turf, the sub-association could not prohibit it.

Alj Quote

McCormick Ranch allows artificial turf, and Respondent cannot contradict McCormick Ranch’s Rules and Regulations according to Respondent’s CC&Rs Section 9.4.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 9.4; Governing Documents Hierarchy

Topic Tags

  • master association
  • sub-association
  • conflicting rules

Question

Does the HOA mowing my front lawn give them the exclusive right to ban artificial turf under state law?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, if the maintenance is shared. If the homeowner is responsible for irrigation and replacing plants, the HOA does not have exclusive maintenance rights to prohibit turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B).

Detailed Answer

The HOA argued that because they mowed the lawn, they could prohibit artificial turf under A.R.S. § 33-1819(B). However, the judge found that because the homeowner paid for water and was responsible for keeping plants healthy (shared maintenance), the HOA could not use the maintenance statute to completely ban turf.

Alj Quote

In this case, it is undisputed that Petitioner pays for and can control the irrigation of his property. It is also undisputed that the maintenance of the front yards of the homes within Respondent is shared between the individual homeowners and Respondent.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1819(B); CC&Rs Section 8.8

Topic Tags

  • maintenance responsibility
  • artificial turf
  • state statute

Question

Can an HOA deny an architectural request claiming it disrupts the 'harmony' of the neighborhood?

Short Answer

They can claim it, but a judge may overrule them if the evidence shows the improvement (like artificial turf) wouldn't actually violate the goal of harmony.

Detailed Answer

The HOA denied the request based on the 'overall goal of harmony,' arguing that artificial turf would look different from the natural grass in the neighborhood. The judge reviewed the evidence and concluded that installing artificial turf would not actually be contrary to the goal of harmony.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge further concludes based on the evidence presented at hearing, that the installation of artificial turf would not be contrary to the “overall goal of harmony of external design” as asserted by Respondent.

Legal Basis

Subjective Standards; Harmony Provisions

Topic Tags

  • architectural control
  • harmony
  • aesthetics

Question

Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner challenges an HOA decision?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The decision explicitly states that in these administrative hearings, the Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proving that the HOA violated its governing documents.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.8.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal procedure

Question

If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

Upon ruling in favor of the homeowner, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee the homeowner paid to bring the case.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.

Legal Basis

Administrative Remedy

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • penalties

Question

Can the HOA deny my plans for being 'conceptual' if I provided specific details?

Short Answer

No. If the plans include specific information like plant types, numbers, and dimensions, the HOA cannot validly deny them as merely 'conceptual'.

Detailed Answer

The HOA denied the application claiming plans were 'conceptual.' The judge noted the plans contained specific types and numbers of plants, dimensions, and detailed renderings, and ultimately ruled the disapproval was a violation.

Alj Quote

Those plans contain the types and number of plants proposed, and the dimensions and shape of the area of artificial turf, and detailed renderings.

Legal Basis

Reasonableness of Approval Process

Topic Tags

  • architectural plans
  • application denial
  • reasonableness

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222063-REL
Case Title
Smoot Carl-Mitchell v. Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-04-13
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Carl-Mitchell Smoot (petitioner)
    Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc. (Member)
    Former HOA President/Treasurer
  • Stewart F. Gross (petitioner attorney)
    Law Offices of Stewart F. Gross, PLLC

Respondent Side

  • Michael S. McLeran (HOA attorney)
    Childers Hanlon & Hudson, PLC
  • Denise Mueller (board member/witness)
    Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
    HOA Vice President; ALC Member
  • Dawn Feigert (property manager/witness)
    Trestle Management Group
    Senior Manager at HOA management company
  • Timothy Fischer (board member/witness)
    Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
    HOA Treasurer; ALC Member
  • Kirk Nelson (board member/witness)
    Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
    HOA President; ALC Member
  • Jan Greenfield (board member)
    Los Reyes Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Former ARC Chair

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
    Presided over hearings and issued final decision
  • Louis Dettorre (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed in transmission records prior to final decision
  • Susan Nicolson (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed in final decision transmission
  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    OAH
    Presided over initial continuances
  • c. serrano (OAH Staff)
    OAH
    Document processor

Other Participants

  • Valerie (McCormick Ranch Staff)
    McCormick Ranch Property Owners Association
    Contact regarding compliance

Carolyn Wefsenmoe v. Summit View Homeowner’s Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H017-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-03-08
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Carolyn Wefsenmoe Counsel —
Respondent Summit View Homeowner's Association Counsel Chad M. Gallacher, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R’s Article XI, Sections 1, 2, and 3; Summit View Community Plat Notes

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, ruling that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the walls were built on the common area. Since HOA maintenance responsibility primarily attached to the common area, and the location of the walls relative to the lots remained unproven, the HOA was not found in violation of its maintenance obligations.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the walls were located in a common area. No survey evidence was presented to determine whether the walls were on the individual lots (Owner responsibility) or the common area (HOA responsibility).

Key Issues & Findings

HOA failure to maintain perimeter walls and improper charging of homeowners for repairs.

Petitioner alleged that the HOA (SVHA) violated CC&R Article XI, Sections 1, 2, and 3, and the Community Plat Notes by failing to maintain the subdivision perimeter walls and charging homeowners for repairs, arguing the walls abutted and were part of the Common Area (NAOS), making maintenance the HOA's responsibility.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 1
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 2
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 3
  • Summit View Community Plat Notes

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Maintenance, Perimeter Walls, CC&R, Common Area, Burden of Proof, NAOS, Lot Line Dispute
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 1
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 2
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 3
  • Summit View Plat Notes

Video Overview

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/71FsAzQZjyvSrdExtF4eXX

Decision Documents

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1018596.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:51:50 (52.8 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1018616.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:51:54 (5.6 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1031301.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:51:57 (53.6 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032541.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:02 (258.1 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032542.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:05 (723.8 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032543.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:10 (487.6 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032544.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:15 (3029.4 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032545.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:21 (81.9 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032546.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:29 (3401.3 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032547.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:33 (2346.1 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1035846.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:37 (114.5 KB)

Questions

Question

Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner files a petition against their HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the person filing the petition is responsible for proving that the HOA committed the alleged violations. The HOA does not have to disprove the allegations initially; the homeowner must first provide sufficient evidence to support their claim.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • procedural requirements

Question

What level of evidence is required to win a dispute against an HOA?

Short Answer

A 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' like in criminal cases. Instead, the homeowner must show that their version of the facts is more probable than the HOA's version. It relies on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the number of witnesses.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • evidence
  • hearings

Question

If a wall touches an HOA common area, does the HOA automatically have to maintain it?

Short Answer

No. The location of the wall's foundation (on the lot vs. common area) determines responsibility.

Detailed Answer

Simply abutting a common area does not make a structure part of the common area. Unless the homeowner can prove the structure was actually built *on* the common area land, the HOA may not be responsible for its maintenance.

Alj Quote

There was no persuasive evidence presented that simply because on the other side of the wall there was a common area, does not prove that the wall was actually built on the common area.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

  • maintenance
  • common areas
  • boundaries

Question

Is a professional survey necessary to prove a boundary or maintenance dispute?

Short Answer

Yes, often. Without a survey, it is difficult to prove exactly where a structure lies.

Detailed Answer

If there is a dispute about whether a wall or structure is on private property or common area, failing to provide a professional survey can result in losing the case. The judge generally cannot assume a location without specific evidence.

Alj Quote

However, again, no evidence was presented to determine exactly where the wall was built. Perhaps if this evidence was presented there may be a different result.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • surveys
  • property lines

Question

Does the alignment of walls affect who is responsible for them?

Short Answer

Yes. If walls are not uniformly aligned, it suggests they follow individual lot lines rather than a subdivision perimeter.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, the judge noted that because the walls were not in a straight, uniform line across lots (likely due to varying lot sizes), it supported the conclusion that the walls were built on individual lots rather than being a single common area perimeter wall.

Alj Quote

Further, the tribunal notes that the walls were not uniformly even across the individual lots. This was presumably because each lot is a different size, which also would lead to the conclusion that each wall was built on each individual lot.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

  • maintenance
  • construction
  • HOA obligations

Question

Can I rely solely on Plat Notes to prove HOA maintenance responsibility?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, especially if physical evidence contradicts the interpretation that a structure is a 'perimeter wall'.

Detailed Answer

Even if a Plat Note says the HOA maintains 'subdivision perimeter walls,' the homeowner must still prove that the specific wall in question fits that definition and location. If the evidence suggests the wall is on a private lot, the general note may not apply.

Alj Quote

Petitioner testified that she believed that based upon the 'Notes' section on the plat map, this created an obligation on the SVHA… [However] Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the walls in questions are in a common area.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

  • cc&rs
  • plat maps
  • interpretation

Case

Docket No
23F-H017-REL
Case Title
Carolyn Wefsenmoe vs Summit View Homeowner's Association
Decision Date
2023-03-08
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner files a petition against their HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the person filing the petition is responsible for proving that the HOA committed the alleged violations. The HOA does not have to disprove the allegations initially; the homeowner must first provide sufficient evidence to support their claim.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • procedural requirements

Question

What level of evidence is required to win a dispute against an HOA?

Short Answer

A 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' like in criminal cases. Instead, the homeowner must show that their version of the facts is more probable than the HOA's version. It relies on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the number of witnesses.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • evidence
  • hearings

Question

If a wall touches an HOA common area, does the HOA automatically have to maintain it?

Short Answer

No. The location of the wall's foundation (on the lot vs. common area) determines responsibility.

Detailed Answer

Simply abutting a common area does not make a structure part of the common area. Unless the homeowner can prove the structure was actually built *on* the common area land, the HOA may not be responsible for its maintenance.

Alj Quote

There was no persuasive evidence presented that simply because on the other side of the wall there was a common area, does not prove that the wall was actually built on the common area.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

  • maintenance
  • common areas
  • boundaries

Question

Is a professional survey necessary to prove a boundary or maintenance dispute?

Short Answer

Yes, often. Without a survey, it is difficult to prove exactly where a structure lies.

Detailed Answer

If there is a dispute about whether a wall or structure is on private property or common area, failing to provide a professional survey can result in losing the case. The judge generally cannot assume a location without specific evidence.

Alj Quote

However, again, no evidence was presented to determine exactly where the wall was built. Perhaps if this evidence was presented there may be a different result.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • surveys
  • property lines

Question

Does the alignment of walls affect who is responsible for them?

Short Answer

Yes. If walls are not uniformly aligned, it suggests they follow individual lot lines rather than a subdivision perimeter.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, the judge noted that because the walls were not in a straight, uniform line across lots (likely due to varying lot sizes), it supported the conclusion that the walls were built on individual lots rather than being a single common area perimeter wall.

Alj Quote

Further, the tribunal notes that the walls were not uniformly even across the individual lots. This was presumably because each lot is a different size, which also would lead to the conclusion that each wall was built on each individual lot.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

  • maintenance
  • construction
  • HOA obligations

Question

Can I rely solely on Plat Notes to prove HOA maintenance responsibility?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, especially if physical evidence contradicts the interpretation that a structure is a 'perimeter wall'.

Detailed Answer

Even if a Plat Note says the HOA maintains 'subdivision perimeter walls,' the homeowner must still prove that the specific wall in question fits that definition and location. If the evidence suggests the wall is on a private lot, the general note may not apply.

Alj Quote

Petitioner testified that she believed that based upon the 'Notes' section on the plat map, this created an obligation on the SVHA… [However] Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the walls in questions are in a common area.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

  • cc&rs
  • plat maps
  • interpretation

Case

Docket No
23F-H017-REL
Case Title
Carolyn Wefsenmoe vs Summit View Homeowner's Association
Decision Date
2023-03-08
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Carolyn Wefsenmoe (petitioner)
    Appeared via Google Meet on her own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Chad M. Gallacher (HOA attorney)
    Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
  • Bick Smith (witness/board president)
    Summit View Homeowner's Association
    Also referred to as Vic Smith; testified for Respondent
  • Henry (board member)
    Summit View Homeowner's Association
    Discussed erosion issues; toured walls with Bick Smith
  • Denise (board member)
    Summit View Homeowner's Association
    Participated in special board meeting
  • Larry Burns (property manager/GM)
    Summit View Homeowner's Association
    General Manager who wrote community painting update; participated in board meeting

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmitted minute entry to
  • James Knupp (Acting Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmitted order to
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmitted ALJ decision to
  • AHansen (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient for transmitted documents
  • vnunez (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient for transmitted documents
  • djones (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient for transmitted documents
  • labril (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient for transmitted documents
  • c. serrano (OAH Staff)
    OAH
    Signed minute entries for transmission
  • Helen Purcell (county recorder)
    Maricopa County
    Recorded Amended CC&R Declaration in 2004
  • Maria Rosana Pira (notary public)
    Maricopa County
    Notarized Amended CC&R and Bylaws in 2004

Other Participants

  • Elelliana (unknown)
    Correspondent in objected-to email exhibit
  • Beth Mulcahy (attorney)
    Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C.
    Firm filed the Amended CC&R Declaration in 2004
  • LizzieG (customer service rep)
    Brown Community Management
    Customer service contact listed on billing document

Daniel Mayer v. Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H020-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-02-17
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome total
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Daniel Mayer Counsel —
Respondent Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1812

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party after establishing that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1812 by improperly combining two separate expenditure proposals (roadway preservation and gate replacement) into a single vote on a ballot, failing to provide an opportunity to vote on each action separately. Respondent was ordered to refund the $500.00 filing fee and pay a $500.00 civil penalty.

Key Issues & Findings

Combining two separate proposed actions into a single vote action on a ballot.

The Respondent HOA combined two separate proposed expenditures ($30,000 total for roadway asset preservation and common area gate replacement) into one vote on a ballot sent to homeowners, violating statutory requirements that each proposed action must be voted upon separately.

Orders: Respondent must abide by A.R.S. § 33-1812; Respondent must refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee; Respondent must pay a $500.00 civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1812
  • A.R.S. § 10-3708
  • A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Ballot, Combined Vote, Reserve Funds Access, Statutory Violation
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1812
  • A.R.S. § 10-3708
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/4jD4DBnKBI57WggSZKqOKg

Decision Documents

23F-H020-REL Decision – 1031122.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:58 (100.0 KB)

23F-H020-REL Decision – 1038504.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:01 (54.8 KB)

Questions

Question

Can my HOA combine multiple capital improvement projects into a single 'Yes' or 'No' vote?

Short Answer

No. The HOA must allow homeowners to vote for or against each proposed action separately.

Detailed Answer

Even if the projects are related or presented in the same letter, the ballot itself must provide an opportunity to vote on each specific expenditure or project individually. Combining them into one vote violates Arizona statutes.

Alj Quote

Thus, the tribunal finds the ballot improper because it did not contain the opportunity to vote on each separate proposal.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)-(2)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • ballots
  • assessments

Question

If the HOA conducts a vote by mail or email rather than at a live meeting, do they still have to list voting items separately?

Short Answer

Yes. The requirement to list each proposed action separately applies to absentee ballots and written ballots used without a meeting.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ rejected the argument that voting requirements only apply to in-person meetings. Statutes governing both planned communities and nonprofit corporations require that written ballots set forth each proposed action.

Alj Quote

According to that statute, the ballots still must set for each action and provide an opportunity to vote for or against each action. … Therefore, this ballot runs afoul of A.R.S. § 33-1812.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812; A.R.S. § 10-3708

Topic Tags

  • absentee ballots
  • voting
  • mail-in voting

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge force the HOA to undo a project (like a road repair) if the vote was illegal?

Short Answer

Generally, no. The ALJ lacks the statutory authority to order projects rescinded once completed.

Detailed Answer

While the ALJ can determine that a violation occurred and levy penalties, they cannot order the association to 'un-do' the physical work or rescind the project.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority under the A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 to order the projects rescinded…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • powers of ALJ
  • construction

Question

What is the standard of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove that their contention is 'more probably true than not.'

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • evidence

Question

Can the HOA claim that their specific bylaws or CC&Rs override state laws regarding ballot formats?

Short Answer

No. The relevant state statute explicitly overrides community documents regarding absentee ballot requirements.

Detailed Answer

The statute begins with 'Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents,' meaning the state law requirements for ballots take precedence over the HOA's internal rules.

Alj Quote

A.R.S. § 33-1812 provides… 'Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents… any action taken… shall comply with all of the following…'

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)

Topic Tags

  • governing documents
  • statutory interpretation
  • supremacy of law

Question

If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes. The ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the homeowner for the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, the HOA was ordered to pay the $500 filing fee directly to the Petitioner.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Order of the ALJ

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • fees
  • penalties

Question

Does a majority vote of the homeowners cure a defective ballot?

Short Answer

No. Even if the vast majority of homeowners approved the spending, the ballot can still be ruled a violation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that although most homeowners approved the proposal, the violation still stood because allowing such ballots would leave 'virtually no remedy' for future procedural violations.

Alj Quote

In this case, although the vast majority of homeowners approved the proposals, the Administrative Law Judge is concerned that this type of ballot could be used in the future, leaving virtually no remedy.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812

Topic Tags

  • voting results
  • procedural violations
  • compliance

Case

Docket No
23F-H020-REL
Case Title
Daniel Mayer vs Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-02-17
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA combine multiple capital improvement projects into a single 'Yes' or 'No' vote?

Short Answer

No. The HOA must allow homeowners to vote for or against each proposed action separately.

Detailed Answer

Even if the projects are related or presented in the same letter, the ballot itself must provide an opportunity to vote on each specific expenditure or project individually. Combining them into one vote violates Arizona statutes.

Alj Quote

Thus, the tribunal finds the ballot improper because it did not contain the opportunity to vote on each separate proposal.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)-(2)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • ballots
  • assessments

Question

If the HOA conducts a vote by mail or email rather than at a live meeting, do they still have to list voting items separately?

Short Answer

Yes. The requirement to list each proposed action separately applies to absentee ballots and written ballots used without a meeting.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ rejected the argument that voting requirements only apply to in-person meetings. Statutes governing both planned communities and nonprofit corporations require that written ballots set forth each proposed action.

Alj Quote

According to that statute, the ballots still must set for each action and provide an opportunity to vote for or against each action. … Therefore, this ballot runs afoul of A.R.S. § 33-1812.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812; A.R.S. § 10-3708

Topic Tags

  • absentee ballots
  • voting
  • mail-in voting

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge force the HOA to undo a project (like a road repair) if the vote was illegal?

Short Answer

Generally, no. The ALJ lacks the statutory authority to order projects rescinded once completed.

Detailed Answer

While the ALJ can determine that a violation occurred and levy penalties, they cannot order the association to 'un-do' the physical work or rescind the project.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority under the A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 to order the projects rescinded…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • powers of ALJ
  • construction

Question

What is the standard of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove that their contention is 'more probably true than not.'

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • evidence

Question

Can the HOA claim that their specific bylaws or CC&Rs override state laws regarding ballot formats?

Short Answer

No. The relevant state statute explicitly overrides community documents regarding absentee ballot requirements.

Detailed Answer

The statute begins with 'Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents,' meaning the state law requirements for ballots take precedence over the HOA's internal rules.

Alj Quote

A.R.S. § 33-1812 provides… 'Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents… any action taken… shall comply with all of the following…'

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)

Topic Tags

  • governing documents
  • statutory interpretation
  • supremacy of law

Question

If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes. The ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the homeowner for the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, the HOA was ordered to pay the $500 filing fee directly to the Petitioner.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Order of the ALJ

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • fees
  • penalties

Question

Does a majority vote of the homeowners cure a defective ballot?

Short Answer

No. Even if the vast majority of homeowners approved the spending, the ballot can still be ruled a violation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that although most homeowners approved the proposal, the violation still stood because allowing such ballots would leave 'virtually no remedy' for future procedural violations.

Alj Quote

In this case, although the vast majority of homeowners approved the proposals, the Administrative Law Judge is concerned that this type of ballot could be used in the future, leaving virtually no remedy.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812

Topic Tags

  • voting results
  • procedural violations
  • compliance

Case

Docket No
23F-H020-REL
Case Title
Daniel Mayer vs Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-02-17
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Daniel Mayer (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf
  • Mr. D'Angelo (witness)
    Petitioner's husband

Respondent Side

  • Sandy Chambers (board president)
    Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent; also referred to as 'Andrew Chambers' and 'Miss Chambers' in the transcript

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Miranda (OAH staff)
    OAH
    Front desk staff mentioned by ALJ
  • James Knupp (commissioner)
    ADRE
    Acting Commissioner listed on initial transmittal
  • Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
    ADRE
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Transmittal recipient
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Transmittal recipient
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Transmittal recipient
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Transmittal recipient

Other Participants

  • jzipprich (property manager)
    Desert Management
    Email contact for Respondent HOA

Richard Busack v. The Cliffs Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H010-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-12-16
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Richard Busack Counsel —
Respondent The Cliffs Condominium Association Counsel Melissa Doolan

Alleged Violations

Article III, Section 3.07 of the Declaration of Establishment of Condominium and of Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for The Cliffs Condominium

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the responsibility for maintaining the leaking pipe and the resulting damage fell under the owner of the unit served by the pipe (Unit 263) as defined by Article III, Section 3.07 of the CC&Rs, not the HOA.

Why this result: The ALJ’s interpretation of Article III, Section 3.07 found that the owner of Unit 263 was responsible for the maintenance and repair of the specific section of pipe that leaked, and therefore, the HOA was not liable for the resulting damage or requested reimbursement.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA responsibility for reimbursement for kitchen cabinet and countertop replacement and mold remediation/restoration after a leaking pipe.

Petitioner sought reimbursement of $8541.00 from the HOA for damages caused by Cat 3 water coming from a leaking toilet pipe located between the ceiling of unit 163 and the subfloor of unit 263. Petitioner alleged the pipe was the HOA's responsibility as it was in the inner walls and not 'open and unobstructed' as defined by Petitioner. The ALJ determined the pipe maintenance was the responsibility of the owner of Unit 263, not the HOA, based on the plain reading of Article III, Section 3.07.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • Article III, Section 3.07 (CC&Rs)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Responsibility, CC&Rs Interpretation, Pipe Maintenance, Water Damage Reimbursement, Owner Responsibility
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • Article III, Section 3.07 (CC&Rs)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/514IpgEIrpWFy43p7nXfCV

Decision Documents

23F-H010-REL Decision – 1020439.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:51:22 (91.6 KB)

Questions

Question

Is the HOA automatically responsible for a pipe leak just because the pipe is located inside the walls between units?

Short Answer

No. Governing documents may assign responsibility to the specific unit owner served by that pipe, even if the pipe runs outside the unit's boundaries.

Detailed Answer

Even if a pipe is physically located outside a specific unit (e.g., between the unit and the main line), the CC&Rs may dictate that the owner is responsible for the utility lines serving their unit up to the point where they join the common utility lines. Location inside a wall does not automatically make it an HOA common element.

Alj Quote

Rather, unit owners are responsible for the maintenance of all sewer and drainage pipes 'between the points at which the [pipes] enter [the unit] and the points where the [pipe] joins the utility lines serving other Condominium Units.'

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • maintenance responsibility
  • plumbing
  • common elements

Question

What does 'open and unobstructed condition' mean regarding pipe maintenance in CC&Rs?

Short Answer

It generally means the pipe must be kept free of clogs, not that the pipe must be physically visible or outside of a wall.

Detailed Answer

Homeowners often misinterpret this phrase to mean that if a pipe is enclosed in a wall, it is not 'open' and therefore not their responsibility. However, the ALJ ruled that this language refers to the flow within the pipe—specifically, that the owner must ensure the pipe does not remain clogged.

Alj Quote

Rather than referencing that access to the pipe had to be open and unobstructed, i.e., not inside a wall, a plain reading of 'open and unobstructed condition' means that the pipe itself must not be allowed to remain clogged.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • definitions
  • maintenance responsibility

Question

If the HOA repairs the drywall after a leak, does that mean they admit responsibility for the plumbing repair and other damages?

Short Answer

No. The HOA may repair structural elements they are responsible for (like bearing walls) without accepting liability for the leak source or personal property damage.

Detailed Answer

The HOA can perform repairs on components defined as Common Elements (such as bearing walls) without conceding that they are liable for the pipe that caused the damage or for other resulting damages like cabinetry or mold.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s counsel indicated that the HOA repaired the drywall because Article III, Section 3.05 defines bearing walls as Common Elements.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs / Negligence

Topic Tags

  • repairs
  • liability
  • common elements

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the HOA violated the governing documents.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must provide evidence that outweighs the evidence offered by the HOA. Simply alleging a violation is not enough; the petitioner must prove it by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the CC&Rs. A.A.C. R2-19-119.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • procedural requirements
  • burden of proof

Question

What evidence is required to win a dispute regarding water damage repairs?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove the HOA violated a specific provision of the CC&Rs or acted negligently.

Detailed Answer

Even if a homeowner suffers significant damage, they cannot recover costs from the HOA unless they can establish that the HOA had a legal duty to prevent or repair the specific cause of the damage under the CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent violated Article III, Section 3.07 of the CC&Rs. … IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Violation

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • damages

Question

Can I hold the HOA responsible for a leak originating from a neighbor's unit?

Short Answer

Generally, no, unless the HOA is responsible for that specific pipe section under the CC&Rs.

Detailed Answer

If the leak comes from a pipe serving a specific unit (even if located outside that unit), maintenance responsibility often falls on that unit owner, not the HOA. The ALJ found that maintenance of such a pipe was the responsibility of the unit owner it served.

Alj Quote

Therefore, maintenance of the leaking pipe… was the responsibility of the owner of Unit 263.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs / Liability

Topic Tags

  • neighbor disputes
  • liability
  • plumbing

Case

Docket No
23F-H010-REL
Case Title
Richard Busack v. The Cliffs Condominium Association
Decision Date
2022-12-16
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Is the HOA automatically responsible for a pipe leak just because the pipe is located inside the walls between units?

Short Answer

No. Governing documents may assign responsibility to the specific unit owner served by that pipe, even if the pipe runs outside the unit's boundaries.

Detailed Answer

Even if a pipe is physically located outside a specific unit (e.g., between the unit and the main line), the CC&Rs may dictate that the owner is responsible for the utility lines serving their unit up to the point where they join the common utility lines. Location inside a wall does not automatically make it an HOA common element.

Alj Quote

Rather, unit owners are responsible for the maintenance of all sewer and drainage pipes 'between the points at which the [pipes] enter [the unit] and the points where the [pipe] joins the utility lines serving other Condominium Units.'

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • maintenance responsibility
  • plumbing
  • common elements

Question

What does 'open and unobstructed condition' mean regarding pipe maintenance in CC&Rs?

Short Answer

It generally means the pipe must be kept free of clogs, not that the pipe must be physically visible or outside of a wall.

Detailed Answer

Homeowners often misinterpret this phrase to mean that if a pipe is enclosed in a wall, it is not 'open' and therefore not their responsibility. However, the ALJ ruled that this language refers to the flow within the pipe—specifically, that the owner must ensure the pipe does not remain clogged.

Alj Quote

Rather than referencing that access to the pipe had to be open and unobstructed, i.e., not inside a wall, a plain reading of 'open and unobstructed condition' means that the pipe itself must not be allowed to remain clogged.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • definitions
  • maintenance responsibility

Question

If the HOA repairs the drywall after a leak, does that mean they admit responsibility for the plumbing repair and other damages?

Short Answer

No. The HOA may repair structural elements they are responsible for (like bearing walls) without accepting liability for the leak source or personal property damage.

Detailed Answer

The HOA can perform repairs on components defined as Common Elements (such as bearing walls) without conceding that they are liable for the pipe that caused the damage or for other resulting damages like cabinetry or mold.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s counsel indicated that the HOA repaired the drywall because Article III, Section 3.05 defines bearing walls as Common Elements.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs / Negligence

Topic Tags

  • repairs
  • liability
  • common elements

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the HOA violated the governing documents.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must provide evidence that outweighs the evidence offered by the HOA. Simply alleging a violation is not enough; the petitioner must prove it by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the CC&Rs. A.A.C. R2-19-119.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • procedural requirements
  • burden of proof

Question

What evidence is required to win a dispute regarding water damage repairs?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove the HOA violated a specific provision of the CC&Rs or acted negligently.

Detailed Answer

Even if a homeowner suffers significant damage, they cannot recover costs from the HOA unless they can establish that the HOA had a legal duty to prevent or repair the specific cause of the damage under the CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent violated Article III, Section 3.07 of the CC&Rs. … IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Violation

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • damages

Question

Can I hold the HOA responsible for a leak originating from a neighbor's unit?

Short Answer

Generally, no, unless the HOA is responsible for that specific pipe section under the CC&Rs.

Detailed Answer

If the leak comes from a pipe serving a specific unit (even if located outside that unit), maintenance responsibility often falls on that unit owner, not the HOA. The ALJ found that maintenance of such a pipe was the responsibility of the unit owner it served.

Alj Quote

Therefore, maintenance of the leaking pipe… was the responsibility of the owner of Unit 263.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs / Liability

Topic Tags

  • neighbor disputes
  • liability
  • plumbing

Case

Docket No
23F-H010-REL
Case Title
Richard Busack v. The Cliffs Condominium Association
Decision Date
2022-12-16
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Richard Busack (petitioner)
  • Theresa Jensen (witness)
    Witness for Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Melissa Doolan (respondent attorney)
    The Travis Law Firm, PLC
    Appeared for Respondent The Cliffs Condominium Association
  • Mr. Petri (HOA/management representative)
    Mentioned by Petitioner regarding dispute over damage repair
  • Mr. Honen (HOA/management representative)
    Involved in cabinet repair communication and cancellation (also referred to as Mr. Horn)
  • Miss Cohen (HOA/management representative)
    Handled initial communications and forwarded information to the Board (also referred to as Miss Cohan)

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    OAH
    Also referred to as Tammy Igner
  • Louis Dettorre (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Miranda Alvarez (legal secretary)
    Transmitted decision
  • A. Hansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • V. Nunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • D. Jones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • L. Abril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Jill Bird (observer)
  • John (observer)
  • Michael (observer)
  • Anthony Zeller (contractor associate)
    Overseeing the repair plumber

Keith Jackson v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H006-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-11-08
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Keith Jackson Counsel —
Respondent Val Vista Lakes Community Association Counsel Eric Cook

Alleged Violations

ARS 33-1813

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition, finding that the Association did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1813 by rejecting both the initial recall petition (due to insufficient signatures) and the subsequent amended petition (which was barred by the one-petition-per-term rule for the same members).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving that the Association violated ARS § 33-1813. The second petition was barred by statute (A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(4)(g)).

Key Issues & Findings

Improper rejection of a recall petition to remove four Board members.

Petitioner alleged the HOA improperly rejected his recall petition by misinterpreting ARS 33-1813, specifically arguing that the initial incomplete petition should not have been considered valid, thus allowing the amended petition to proceed. Respondent argued that the statute only permits one petition submission per term for the same board members (A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(4)(g)).

Orders: Petitioner's Petition is dismissed. Petitioner bears his $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARS 33-1813
  • ARS 33-1813(A)(4)(g)
  • ARS 33-1813(A)(4)(b)
  • ARS 33-1804
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/7wK0YGLzf9x9SxFVr6rtEm

Decision Documents

23F-H006-REL Decision – 1011201.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:43 (113.7 KB)





Briefing Doc – 23F-H006-REL


Briefing: Keith Jackson v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association (Case No. 23F-H006-REL)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and subsequent legal decision in Case Number 23F-H006-REL, involving Petitioner Keith Jackson and Respondent Val Vista Lakes Community Association. The central conflict revolved around the proper interpretation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1813, which governs the process for recalling members of a homeowner association’s board of directors.

The dispute was initiated after an initial recall petition, containing an insufficient number of signatures, was submitted to the Association’s board on July 12, 2022. A second, supplemented petition with a sufficient number of signatures was submitted on July 19, 2022. The Petitioner argued that the first submission was incomplete and therefore not a legally valid petition, meaning it should not have triggered the statute’s “one petition per term” limitation. The Respondent contended that the statute is unambiguous: once a petition is submitted, regardless of its numerical sufficiency, a second petition to recall the same board members is barred for the remainder of their terms.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of the Respondent. The decision concluded that the Association did not violate the statute by rejecting the first petition for having insufficient signatures. Furthermore, the ALJ found that A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(4)(g) clearly and unequivocally prohibits submitting more than one recall petition for the same board member during a single term of office. Consequently, the second petition was statutorily barred, and the Petitioner’s case was dismissed.

Case Overview

Parties and Key Individuals

Affiliation

Keith Jackson

Petitioner

Homeowner, Val Vista Lakes

Eric Cook

Attorney for Respondent

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaad & Smith LLP

Kay A. Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Doug Keats

Witness for Respondent; Treasurer

Val Vista Lakes Board of Directors

K. Adams

Witness for Respondent; Secretary

Val Vista Lakes Board of Directors

Andy Ball

Individual who submitted the initial petition

Friend of Petitioner, Association Member

Kirk Kowieski

Vice President of Management Company

First Service Residential (FSR)

Bill Suttell

Board President; target of recall petition

Val Vista Lakes Board of Directors

Sharon Maiden

Board Vice President; target of recall petition

Val Vista Lakes Board of Directors

Steve Nielson

Board Member; target of recall petition

Val Vista Lakes Board of Directors

Core Legal Issue

The case centered on the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1813, specifically the relationship between two subsections:

1. Subsection (A)(4)(b): This section establishes the signature threshold required to compel a board to call a special meeting for a recall vote. For an association with over 1,000 members, this is “at least ten percent of the votes in the association or…at least one thousand votes…whichever is less.”

2. Subsection (A)(4)(g): This section states, “A petition that calls for the removal of the same member of the board of directors shall not be submitted more than once during each term of office for that member.”

The central question before the court was whether an initial petition that fails to meet the signature threshold of (4)(b) still constitutes a formal submission that triggers the “one petition per term” limitation of (4)(g).

Chronology of Events

July 12, 2022

At a board meeting, Andy Ball submits an initial recall petition targeting four board members. The petition contains approximately 211-214 signatures, below the required threshold.

July 15, 2022

Board President Bill Suttell notifies Association members via email that the petition has been turned over to the management company, First Service Residential (FSR), for signature vetting.

July 18, 2022

The Association officially notifies its members that the initial recall petition has been rejected “for not meeting the criteria of the law.”

July 19, 2022

Kirk Kowieski of FSR informs an Association member that “a ‘new’ (amended) petition” could be submitted.

July 19, 2022

Keith Jackson submits a second, supplemented petition containing the original signatures plus additional ones, totaling over 250 signatures.

July 25, 2022

The Board of Directors votes to reject the second petition. FSR sends an email to members stating it was rejected based on A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(4)(g).

July 30, 2022 (approx.)

Keith Jackson files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the Board improperly rejected the recall petition.

October 24, 2022

An administrative hearing is held before ALJ Kay A. Abramsohn.

November 8, 2022

The ALJ issues a final decision, ruling in favor of the Respondent and dismissing the Petitioner’s case.

Petitioner’s Position and Arguments (Keith Jackson)

Grievances Leading to Recall Effort

Mr. Jackson testified that the recall effort was initiated due to significant community dissatisfaction with the Board’s direction. The primary concerns articulated during the hearing included:

• Lack of Transparency and Accountability: A general sentiment among members that the Board was not operating openly.

• Financial Mismanagement: The Association’s financial reserves had allegedly plummeted from $3.4 million to a projected “well under a million dollars” within the year.

• Loss of Revenue: The Board terminated the Association’s largest non-dues revenue source in an executive session without member input. Members reportedly learned of this decision through the media after a wedding was cancelled.

• Toxic Workplace Environment: The community manager and several employees had reportedly quit due to micromanagement and a poor work environment created by the Board.

Legal Argument

The Petitioner’s legal argument was founded on the principle that a petition is not legally cognizable until it meets the statutory requirements for action.

• Concept of a “Valid” Petition: Jackson argued that the initial July 12 submission was an “incomplete petition” and therefore not a “valid petition” under A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(4)(b) because it failed to meet the signature threshold.

• Triggering the Statute: He contended that an invalid, incomplete petition should not be officially “considered” and thus should not trigger the one-petition-per-term limit in subsection (g).

• The “Amended” Petition: The only legally valid petition, in his view, was the completed version submitted on July 19, which contained over 250 signatures. He argued this was the first and only valid submission that the Board was required to act upon.

• Statutory Loophole: Jackson warned that the Association’s interpretation creates a dangerous loophole: “anyone on the board could never get recalled with the way the stat was being interpreted…you could submit any incomplete petition for anyone on the board and they would never get…recalled during their term.”

• Reliance on Management Company: Jackson pointed to Exhibit C, an email from Kirk Kowieski of FSR, stating that an “amended petition” could be submitted. Since the Board had delegated the vetting process to FSR, Jackson argued this communication affirmed the legitimacy of his second submission.

Respondent’s Position and Arguments (Val Vista Lakes Community Association)

Legal Argument

The Respondent’s counsel, Eric Cook, argued for a plain-language reading of the statute, asserting that the law is clear and binding.

• Plain Meaning of the Statute: The core of the argument was that A.R.S. § 33-1813 says what it means. It refers to “a petition,” not a “valid petition” or a “complete petition,” when establishing the one-submission limit.

• Standalone Provision: A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(4)(g) was presented as a standalone provision. It is not contingent on whether a petition meets the signature requirements of subsection (b). Its purpose is to prevent repeated recall efforts against the same board member.

• One Chance Rule: “Section G is a standalone provision that says if you file that petition, you get that one chance.”

• Chronology is Key: A petition was submitted on July 12. It was considered and rejected. The second petition, submitted on July 19, sought to remove the same four board members. This second submission was a clear violation of subsection (g).

• Function of Subsection (b): Respondent argued that the signature threshold in subsection (b) only determines whether the Board is obligated to call a special meeting. It does not define whether a document submitted as a petition constitutes “a petition” for the purposes of the one-per-term rule.

Witness Testimony

• Doug Keats (Treasurer) and K. Adams (Secretary) both testified that they were present at the July 12 meeting when Andy Ball submitted the initial petition directly to the Board President, Bill Suttell. They affirmed this petition was the one the Board officially considered and rejected for having an insufficient number of signatures.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

On November 8, 2022, ALJ Kay A. Abramsohn issued a decision dismissing Mr. Jackson’s petition, finding no violation of A.R.S. § 33-1813 by the Association.

Key Findings of Fact

• The Association has more than 1,000 members.

• The initial petition submitted on July 12, 2022, contained an insufficient number of signatures to meet the statutory threshold for compelling a recall vote.

• The second petition submitted on July 19, 2022, petitioned for the removal of the same four board members named in the first petition.

Conclusions of Law

1. Rejection of the First Petition: The ALJ concluded that the Board did not violate the statute when it rejected the July 12 petition. Since the petition did not contain the required number of signatures, the Board was under no obligation to call a special meeting.

2. Rejection of the Second Petition: The central conclusion rested on a direct interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(4)(g). The decision states: “a petition which calls for the removal of the same member of the board of directors ‘shall not be submitted more than once during each term of office for that member.’ Therefore, in this case, the July 19, 2022 ‘second’ petition which petitioned for the removal of the same four Board members…was not permitted by statute.”

3. Final Ruling: Because the second petition was statutorily prohibited, the Board did not violate the law by rejecting it. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish any violation by the Association, and the petition was therefore dismissed.






Study Guide – 23F-H006-REL


Study Guide: Johnson v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association (Case No. 23F-H006-REL)

This study guide is designed to assess and deepen understanding of the administrative hearing held on October 24, 2022, and the subsequent decision regarding the dispute between Keith Jackson and the Val Vista Lakes Community Association. The materials cover the central arguments, key figures, procedural timeline, and legal interpretations at the heart of the case.

——————————————————————————–

Quiz: Short Answer Questions

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing exclusively from the provided source materials.

1. Who are the two primary parties in this case, and what is the nature of their dispute?

2. What specific Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) is the central point of legal contention, and what is its general purpose?

3. Describe the timeline and key differences between the first and second recall petitions that were submitted to the Association.

4. What was petitioner Keith Jackson’s core argument for why the first petition submitted on July 12th should have been considered invalid by the Board?

5. What was the respondent Association’s legal justification, based on the statute, for rejecting the second, “amended” petition submitted on July 19th?

6. Identify Kirk Kowieski and First Service Residential (FSR). What role did their communications and actions play in Mr. Jackson’s argument?

7. What authority does the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) have in this matter, and how does it relate to the Department of Real Estate?

8. According to the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, what was the legal standard Mr. Jackson had to meet, and did he succeed?

9. Identify the four board members targeted for recall and their respective positions within the Association’s board of directors.

10. What was the final order of the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Keith Jackson (the Petitioner) and the Val Vista Lakes Community Association (the Respondent). The dispute centers on whether the Association’s Board of Directors improperly rejected a recall petition initiated by Mr. Jackson to remove four board members, based on their interpretation of state law.

2. The central statute is A.R.S. § 33-1813. Its purpose is to govern the process for removing a member of a community association’s board of directors, including the requirements for calling a special meeting based on a recall petition.

3. The first petition, containing approximately 211-214 signatures, was submitted by Andy Ball on July 12, 2022. The second, “amended” petition was submitted by Keith Jackson on July 19, 2022; it included the original signatures plus an additional 37, for a total of over 250, and was intended to be a complete version.

4. Mr. Jackson argued that the first petition was mistakenly turned in as an incomplete “first batch” and therefore was not a “valid” petition under the statute. He contended that the Board could only act upon a completed petition that met the statutory signature threshold, making the initial submission legally void.

5. The Association argued that A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(4)(g) is clear in its language. This subsection states that a petition to remove the same board member shall not be submitted more than once during that member’s term of office, and therefore the second petition was barred by statute.

6. First Service Residential (FSR) is the property management company for the Association, and Kirk Kowieski is its Vice-President. Mr. Jackson argued that an email from Mr. Kowieski (Exhibit C) confirming that an “amended petition” would be accepted showed that FSR, acting with authority from the Board, had agreed the completed petition submitted on July 19th was the only valid one.

7. The Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) is a separate state agency that conducts hearings and makes decisions on behalf of other agencies. It does not work for the Department of Real Estate but was tasked with conducting the hearing after Mr. Jackson filed his complaint with the Department.

8. The legal standard was the “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning Mr. Jackson had to prove that it was more probable than not that the Association had violated A.R.S. § 33-1813. The Judge concluded that Mr. Jackson did not meet this burden of proof.

9. The four board members targeted were: Bill Suttell (President), Sharon Maiden (Vice-President), Doug Keats (Treasurer), and Steve Nielson (General Board Member).

10. The final order, issued on November 8, 2022, was that the Petitioner’s Petition be dismissed. The Judge found that the Board did not violate the statute when it rejected either the July 12th or the July 19th petition.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis. Formulate a comprehensive response for each, citing specific facts, arguments, and evidence from the hearing and the final decision.

1. Analyze the competing interpretations of A.R.S. § 33-1813 as presented by the petitioner and the respondent. Explain how each party used subsections (A)(4)(b) and (A)(4)(g) to support their respective positions regarding the validity of the two petitions.

2. Discuss the role and actions of First Service Residential (FSR) and its representative, Kirk Kowieski. Evaluate the significance of FSR’s communications as evidence in the petitioner’s case and explain how the final legal decision implicitly addresses the limits of FSR’s authority.

3. Trace the complete procedural history of the recall effort, beginning with Mr. Jackson’s collection of signatures and culminating in the Administrative Law Judge’s final order. Identify key dates, actions taken by each party, and the rationale provided for each decision along the way.

4. Examine the evidence presented during the hearing, specifically Petitioner’s Exhibits A, C, D, and F, and Respondent’s Exhibit 1. Describe the content and purpose of each exhibit and analyze its effectiveness in supporting the arguments made by each side.

5. Explain the final ruling in Case No. 23F-H006-REL. Detail the Administrative Law Judge’s legal conclusions regarding both the July 12th and July 19th petitions and articulate the reasoning that led to the dismissal of Mr. Jackson’s petition.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An impartial judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact, and issues legal decisions. In this case, the ALJ was Kay A. Abramsohn.

A.R.S. § 33-1813

The specific Arizona Revised Statute that provides the legal framework for the removal of a board of directors member in a community association, forming the basis of the entire dispute.

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

A separate state agency authorized to conduct administrative hearings and issue decisions for disputes referred by other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.

Exhibit

A document or item of physical evidence introduced during a hearing to support a party’s claims. Examples include the initial petition (Respondent’s Exhibit 1) and email correspondence (Petitioner’s Exhibit C).

First Service Residential (FSR)

The property management company hired by the Val Vista Lakes Community Association to handle tasks such as maintaining records, sending community notices, and vetting petition signatures.

Homeowners Association. In this case, the Val Vista Lakes Community Association.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition or complaint. In this case, Keith Jackson.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The burden of proof in this administrative hearing. It requires the petitioner to show that the facts they allege are more probable than not.

Recall Petition

A document signed by a required number of association members to call for a special meeting to vote on the removal of one or more members of the board of directors.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition or complaint is filed. In this case, the Val Vista Lakes Community Association.

Special Meeting

A meeting of the association members called for a specific purpose outside of regularly scheduled meetings, such as voting on a recall. The statute dictates the conditions under which the Board must call such a meeting.

Statute

A written law passed by a legislative body. The central statute in this case is A.R.S. § 33-1813.

Term of Office

The designated length of time a board member serves in their position. Under A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(4)(g), a recall petition for the same member cannot be submitted more than once per term.

Vetting

The process of carefully examining and verifying the information presented, specifically the process FSR was tasked with to validate the signatures on the recall petition.






Blog Post – 23F-H006-REL


Their HOA Recall Had 250+ Signatures. It Was Voided by This One-Sentence Legal Booby Trap.

For many homeowners, a battle with their Homeowners Association (HOA) board is a familiar, frustrating story of feeling unheard. It was a reality that spurred homeowner Keith Jackson to action. Believing his board was failing the community, he channeled the widespread discontent of his neighbors, gathering significant support for a recall. Yet, despite his passionate efforts and clear community backing, the entire campaign was tragically derailed by a single, counter-intuitive rule, triggered by the simple, well-meaning mistake of a trusted friend.

Takeaway 1: The “One-Shot” Rule is Ironclad

The core legal issue that doomed the recall was a procedural trap hidden in plain sight. On July 12, 2022, a friend of Mr. Jackson, Andy Ball, submitted the recall petition to the board. The problem? It was incomplete and lacked the required number of signatures. According to Jackson’s testimony, his friend even tried to qualify the submission, telling the board, “here is the first batch of signatures more for coming.”

But that verbal clarification was powerless. The simple act of handing over the documents was legally considered a formal submission. This premature action triggered a critical and unforgiving clause in Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(4)(g):

A petition that calls for the removal of the same member of the board of directors shall not be submitted more than once during each term of office for that member.

Because the first petition was officially submitted and rejected for having insufficient signatures, the second, corrected petition—even with more than enough community support—was automatically barred. As the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision confirmed, the board was legally correct to reject the second attempt. The first try, flawed as it was, was the only one the law allowed.

Takeaway 2: Your Property Manager Isn’t Your Lawyer

This case exposes a common and dangerous misconception in community governance: the difference between operational guidance and binding legal counsel. After the first petition was rejected, Mr. Jackson and his supporters were led to believe they could simply submit a corrected version based on advice from Kirk Kowieski, a Vice President at the HOA’s management company, First Service Residential (FSI).

In a July 19, 2022 email, Kowieski seemed to give them a green light:

The group submitting the recall petition can submit a “new” (amended) petition that has the same names, addresses and signatures as the original as well as any additional signees. Because the first/original petition was “officially” submitted and became a record of the Association, the Association had to accept it and consider it as presented.

This advice, while seemingly authoritative, offered false hope and had no legal standing. Tellingly, while the judge noted the manager’s email in the factual summary of the case, it was given zero weight in the legal analysis. The advice wasn’t just wrong; in the final decision, it was legally nonexistent.

Takeaway 3: Passion and Signatures Don’t Beat Procedure

The recall effort was not born from minor disagreements; it was fueled by serious grievances that resonated deeply within the community. In his testimony, Keith Jackson outlined a compelling case against the board:

• A severe lack of transparency and accountability.

• The community’s reserve fund plummeting from $3.4 million to under $1 million in just one year.

• Cutting off the community’s biggest source of revenue without any member input.

• Creating a “toxic workplace” that led to the resignation of the community manager and other key employees.

These concerns prompted over 250 homeowners to sign the petition in just 10 days. Yet, the merits of their case were never heard. From the very first moments of the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge made the narrow scope of the proceeding clear, even stopping Mr. Jackson’s opening statement to clarify, “The only authority I have is to determine whether or not the statute was interpreted correctly.” The legal system, in this administrative context, was procedurally deaf to their valid concerns, illustrating a stark reminder that passion and popular support are secondary to the cold, hard rules of procedure.

Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale in Black and White

In the highly regulated world of HOA governance, understanding and adhering to the exact letter of the law is non-negotiable. Keith Jackson’s story is a powerful cautionary tale of how a community movement can be undone by a simple, irreversible mistake. A friend turning in a petition before it was ready wasn’t a minor stumble to be corrected—it was the single action that sealed the fate of the entire campaign.

This case forces us to confront the purpose of such a strict rule. Proponents argue this “one-shot” provision prevents boards from being paralyzed by serial, frivolous recall attempts, ensuring stable governance. Critics, however, contend that its unforgiving nature creates a procedural minefield that disempowers homeowners and shields inept or malicious boards from accountability. This leaves us with a crucial question: Does a strict, one-shot rule for recalls truly protect boards from harassment, or does it create an insurmountable barrier for homeowners seeking accountability?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Keith Jackson (petitioner)
    Self-represented
  • Andy Ball (member)
    Val Vista Lakes Community Association
    Submitted the initial incomplete petition

Respondent Side

  • Eric Cook (HOA attorney)
    Lewis Brisbois Bisgaad & Smith LLP
    Represented Val Vista Lakes Community Association
  • Doug Keats (board member)
    Val Vista Lakes Community Association
    Treasurer; Board member being recalled; Witness
  • K. Adams (board member)
    Val Vista Lakes Community Association
    Secretary; Witness; Assigned to work with HOA attorney
  • Bill Suttell (board member)
    Val Vista Lakes Community Association
    President; Board member being recalled
  • Sharon Maiden (board member)
    Val Vista Lakes Community Association
    Vice President; Board member being recalled
  • Steve Nielson (board member)
    Val Vista Lakes Community Association
    General Board Member; Board member being recalled
  • Kirk Kowieski (property manager)
    First Service Residential (FSR)
    Vice President/Interim Manager of the HOA management company
  • Melissa Scoville (board member)
    Val Vista Lakes Community Association
    Board member mentioned in context of Rob Act's petition
  • Joanie U (board member)
    Val Vista Lakes Community Association
  • Lenny KNik (HOA attorney)
    Consulted by Kirk regarding the petition process
  • Andreas Vas (HOA attorney)
    Consulted by Kirk regarding the petition process

Neutral Parties

  • Kay A. Abramsohn (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
    Transmitted decision electronically

Other Participants

  • Rob Act (member)
    Submitted a separate incomplete petition
  • Stephanie (intern manager)
    FSR
    Works with Kirk

Asmaa Kadhum v. Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association

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 22F-H2222028-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-10-11
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Asmaa Kadhum Counsel —
Respondent Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1256

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to prove a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1256 because the specific issue raised—a complaint about a recorded lien—was moot, as the lien had been released, and no current enforcement action regarding the disputed legal fees was pending.

Why this result: The ALJ determined that absent a recorded lien or pending enforcement action, the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction to address the reasonableness or accuracy of the disputed legal fees under the specific statute cited (A.R.S. § 33-1256).

Key Issues & Findings

Requesting to Waive/or Adjust Unreasonable Collection Fees.

Petitioner sought to waive or adjust unreasonable collection fees and attorney fees ($2,351.40 or $3,500.00) charged by the HOA related to a lien placed on their unit, which was later released because it was allegedly based on incorrect amounts.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1256
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA lien, Collection fees, Attorney fees, Statutory violation, Jurisdiction, Rehearing
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1256
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – 1005275.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:10 (101.7 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – 1009064.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:12 (37.4 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/1_aamg stmt.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:16 (21.1 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/2_email from silvia regarding late fees.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:19 (457.3 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/3_email regarding plumbing repair from laweyer.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:23 (983.8 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/4_ledger dec 2021.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:27 (96.5 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/5_letter from lawyer.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:30 (138.0 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/7_petition response.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:34 (25.0 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/975165.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:37 (104.8 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_ElectronicNotice_Hearing.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:41 (93.3 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_ElectronicNotice_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:46 (122.6 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_HearingScheduled.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:50 (129.6 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_MC_Pet.ResponseToRespondentsResponseToPetition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:54 (132.2 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_MC_Response&ADRERequest.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:59 (133.2 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_Notice_Hearing.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:03 (1101.1 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_Notice_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:07 (3755.5 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_Payment.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:11 (221.2 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_Pet.ResponseTo.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:17 (5499.9 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:21 (5828.4 KB)

22F-H2222028-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2222028-REL/HO22-22028_Response_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:25 (125.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 22F-H2222028-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Dispute Between Asmaa Kadhum and Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key facts and legal proceedings concerning a dispute between homeowner Asmaa Kadhum (Petitioner) and the Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association (Respondent). The central conflict is the Petitioner’s refusal to pay approximately $3,500 in legal fees that the Respondent incurred during collection efforts for past-due assessments.

The dispute escalated when the Respondent, on June 15, 2020, filed a lien for $2,199.00 against the Petitioner’s property. The Petitioner contested the lien’s validity, citing numerous accounting errors. Subsequently, the Respondent’s own legal counsel advised releasing the lien on November 13, 2020, acknowledging it contained “invalid late fee charges” and was released to protect the association from a “potential false lien claim.”

Despite the release of the lien, the Respondent continued to demand payment for the legal fees. The Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) on January 12, 2022, alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1256 and arguing the collection fees were unreasonable.

Following a hearing and a rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of the Respondent. The decision was based on a critical jurisdictional issue: because there was no active lien on the property at the time the petition was filed or heard, there was no existing violation of the cited statute for the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to adjudicate. The ALJ concluded that the OAH lacks the authority to issue a declaratory judgment on the reasonableness of the fees in the absence of a pending enforcement action by the association. The underlying liability for the legal fees remains an unresolved issue between the parties.

Parties Involved

Name/Entity

Key Representative(s)

Petitioner

Asmaa Kadhum

Asmaa Kadhum, Mazin Ahmed Al-Salih

Respondent

Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association

Jerry Latschar (Vice President), Cammy Bowring

Chronology of Key Events

Prior to May 1, 2019

Petitioner accrued unpaid assessments and fees totaling $1,375.00 under previous management (AAMG).

April 21, 2020

Respondent sent a notice to Petitioner demanding payment of $1,435.00 in past-due assessments and fees within 30 days.

April 30, 2020

Petitioner responded via email, stating it was “not a good timing for collections” due to the pandemic and requested late fees be removed.

June 15, 2020

Respondent recorded a Notice of Lien on Petitioner’s unit for an amount of $2,199.00.

August 7, 2020

Respondent’s attorney sent a notice stating the total amount due, including legal fees, was now $2,504.00.

September 10, 2020

Petitioner notified Respondent that the lien amount was incorrect and constituted an “improper lien.”

November 13, 2020

Respondent recorded a Release of Lien against the Petitioner’s unit.

December 10, 2020

Respondent’s attorney explained in a letter that the lien was released because it “included late fee charges that were found to be invalid.”

Post-Release

Respondent maintained that Petitioner still owed approximately $3,500.00 in legal fees from the collection process.

December 2021

An account ledger showed a balance of $2,685.40.

January 12, 2022

Petitioner filed a petition with the ADRE (Case No. HO22-22/028) alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1256.

April 4, 2022

An administrative hearing was held before ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer.

October 11, 2022

Following a rehearing, the ALJ issued a final decision, finding no violation of the cited statute and dismissing the petition.

October 27, 2022

Petitioner filed a miscellaneous motion, which the OAH did not consider, stating it could take no further action on the matter.

Analysis of the Core Dispute

The Disputed Legal Fees

The primary point of contention is the legal fees assessed to the Petitioner’s account for the collection of past-due assessments.

• Respondent’s Claim: The Respondent asserts that legal fees of approximately $3,500.00 are owed. However, during testimony, Respondent’s representative, Mr. Latschar, was “uncertain where the $3,500.00 total originated.”

• Conflicting Evidence: The amount claimed is inconsistent with other documents. Invoices from counsel submitted after the initial hearing showed total charges of only 661.50∗∗attributabletothePetitioner′smatterbetweenAugustandNovember2020.AledgerfromDecember2021showedatotaloutstandingbalanceof∗∗2,685.40, which included legal fees.

The Improper Lien

A foundational element of the Petitioner’s argument is the improper nature of the lien filed by the Respondent.

• Filing and Release: A lien for $2,199.00 was recorded on June 15, 2020, and officially released on November 13, 2020.

• Reason for Release: The Respondent’s attorney stated the release was necessary to “protect [Respondent] and our firm from a potential false lien claim” because the original notice “included late fee charges that were found to be invalid.” The Respondent’s response to the petition also states, “the lawyer was forced to release the lien” because of “errors” related to posting late fees.

• Varying Amounts: The Petitioner highlighted the inconsistent amounts demanded throughout the process:

◦ $1,435.00 in the April 2020 notice.

◦ $2,199.00 in the June 2020 lien filing.

◦ $2,504.00 in the August 2020 attorney notice.

Petitioner’s Position and Arguments

The Petitioner contends they should not be held responsible for legal fees stemming from the Respondent’s flawed collection process.

• Fees are Unreasonable: The core argument is that charging legal fees for an “invalid” lien based on “false statements and invoices” is unreasonable and unacceptable.

• Lack of Cooperation: The Petitioner claims to have made multiple attempts to discuss the matter and arrange payments, sending meeting requests in December 2021 that were allegedly ignored or cancelled.

• Principle of Fairness: The Petitioner argued, “if someone files a claim then realized that his filing process was based on wrong documents, and then dropped the claim himself, should the other party be responsible for the legal fees for that.”

Respondent’s Position and Arguments

The Respondent maintains that the legal fees are a legitimate debt resulting from the Petitioner’s failure to pay assessments.

• Legal Action was Necessary: The Respondent initiated legal action because the Petitioner had not paid assessments for “nearly a year” and had stated they would not make back payments until late fees were waived.

• Lien Release vs. Debt: The Respondent argues that the release of the lien “doesn’t release the balance owing, just the lien at the county.” The legal fees incurred to collect the past assessments remain due.

• Petitioner Contributed to Costs: The Respondent claims the Petitioner “proceeded to force the attorney to review the ledger, which caused further legal fees to be charged.”

Administrative Hearing and Legal Rulings

Case Details and Petition

• OAH Docket: 22F-H2222028-REL

• ADRE Case: HO22-22/028

• Alleged Violation: A.R.S. § 33-1256, which governs the placement of liens for assessments and requires that they be for “reasonable collection fees and for reasonable attorney fee.”

• Relief Sought: An order to “Waive / or Adjust Unreasonable Collection Fees.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

Across both the initial hearing and the rehearing, the ALJ’s decision was consistent and based on a narrow interpretation of the OAH’s jurisdiction under the cited statute.

• Primary Finding: The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1256.

• Jurisdictional Limitation: The ALJ repeatedly emphasized that her authority was limited to evaluating existing liens. Since the lien was released in November 2020, well before the petition was filed in January 2022, there was no active lien to assess for reasonableness.

• Corrective Action: The ALJ stated that by releasing the improper lien, the Respondent had “fixed” the past error, removing it from the OAH’s purview.

• No Declaratory Judgment: The decision clarified that the OAH has “no jurisdiction to issue declaratory judgments.” It could not rule on whether the legal fees themselves were reasonable as a standalone issue, only whether an active lien containing those fees was compliant with statute.

• No Enforcement Action: The decision noted that at the time of the hearing, the Respondent was not pursuing any enforcement action (such as filing a new lien or foreclosure) to collect the disputed fees. The fees existed only as “a number on a ledger.”

Salient Quotes

• Petitioner: “Why why we have to pay for for them mistakes? That’s totally issue.”

• Petitioner: “$3,377 legal fee for placing lean is not reasonable or acceptable.”

• Respondent: “they caused us to obtain legal counsel by not paying their bills for almost a year… It doesn’t release the balance owing, just the lien at the county.”

• Respondent’s Attorney (via letter): “…because the original Notice of Lien ‘included late fee charges that were found to be invalid . . . a Release of Lien was recorded in order to protect [Respondent] and our firm from a potential false lien claim.'”

• Administrative Law Judge: “There is no lean on your property. I can’t say the lean is wrong because there is no lean at this point.”

• Administrative Law Judge: “I can’t I can’t say that what they did in the past was wrong because they have fixed it by releasing the lean.”

• Administrative Law Judge (Decision): “the exact amount of legal fees attributable to Petitioner is not relevant in this matter as there were no pending enforcement actions. This is not to say Petitioner may not be entitled to raise this question in a separate venue.”






Study Guide – 22F-H2222028-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Case No. 22F-H2222028-REL

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Based on the provided source materials, answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences.

1. Identify the Petitioner and the Respondent in this case and describe the nature of their dispute.

2. What specific Arizona Revised Statute did the Petitioner allege the Respondent violated, and what was the core of this allegation?

3. On what date did the Respondent file a Notice of Lien against the Petitioner’s property, what was the amount, and why was this lien later released?

4. According to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), why did the Office of Administrative Hearings lack the jurisdiction to rule on the reasonableness of the legal fees sought by the Respondent?

5. How did the Petitioner respond to the Respondent’s April 21, 2020 notice of past-due assessments?

6. What action did the Respondent’s law firm state it was prohibited from taking until May 21, 2020, and what was the legal basis for this restriction?

7. After the initial hearing, what was the total amount of legal fees supported by the four invoices submitted by Mr. Latschar for the period between August 1 and November 30, 2020?

8. The Petitioner sought to sell their property and requested a statement from the Respondent showing a zero balance. What was the central point of contention preventing this?

9. In December 2021, the Petitioner attempted to schedule a meeting with the board to dispute a fee. What was the outcome of these requests?

10. What was the final outcome of the case as stated in the Administrative Law Judge’s decision on October 11, 2022?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner is Asmaa Kadhum, a condominium owner. The Respondent is the Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association. Their dispute centers on the reasonableness of approximately $3,500 in legal fees the Association charged to Kadhum for collection efforts related to past-due assessments, particularly after the Association filed and then released an invalid lien on the property.

2. The Petitioner alleged a violation of A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16, Section 33-1256. The core of the allegation was that the Association was charging unreasonable collection and attorney fees, which is a standard addressed by this statute when an HOA places a lien against a unit.

3. The Respondent filed a Notice of Lien for $2,199.00 on June 15, 2020. The lien was later released on November 13, 2020, because, as the Respondent’s attorney noted, the original Notice of Lien “included late fee charges that were found to be invalid,” and the release was recorded to protect the Association and the law firm from a potential false lien claim.

4. The ALJ stated that the court could not rule on the reasonableness of the fees because there was no longer a recorded lien against the property. The petition was filed under A.R.S. § 33-1256, which governs liens, and since the lien had been released, there was no active violation or enforcement action for the court to evaluate or remedy. The OAH has no jurisdiction to issue declaratory judgments on such matters in the absence of an active enforcement action.

5. In an email dated April 30, 2020, the Petitioner responded to the notice by stating it was “not a good timing for collections” due to the pandemic. The Petitioner disputed the total amount, claiming late fees should be removed, and stated they were planning to pay the whole amount “after this pandemic goes away.”

6. In a May 5, 2020 email, the law firm, Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C., stated that pursuant to state law, it could not proceed with collection efforts until 30 days had passed from the April 21 notice. This meant the file could not be turned over to their office for collection until after May 21, 2020, giving the owner time to pay or arrange a payment agreement.

7. According to the ALJ’s decision from the initial hearing, the four invoices submitted by Mr. Latschar after the hearing showed total charges of $661.50 attributable to the Petitioner’s matter between August 1, 2020, and November 30, 2020.

8. The Petitioner wanted a zero-balance statement to sell the property, arguing all assessments had been paid. The Respondent refused to provide this, contending that while the assessments were paid, there was still an outstanding balance for legal fees incurred during the collection process, which the Petitioner disputed as unreasonable and resulting from the Respondent’s own mistakes.

9. The Petitioner sent multiple meeting requests in December 2021 to dispute a fee of $3,377. The Respondent ultimately canceled the meeting with the homeowner and held one with only the board members, citing COVID-19 and the use of Zoom, even though previous meetings had been held via Zoom.

10. In the final decision dated October 11, 2022, the ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1256. This was because there was no recorded lien against the property at the time of the petition or hearings, and thus no active enforcement action for the OAH to adjudicate.

——————————————————————————–

Suggested Essay Questions

1. Trace the complete timeline of the dispute, starting from the initial delinquency prior to May 2019 through the final OAH decision in October 2022. Detail the key financial figures, legal actions, and communications from both parties at each significant stage.

2. Analyze the central legal arguments presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent. Discuss the merits of the Petitioner’s claim regarding A.R.S. § 33-1256 and explain in detail the jurisdictional reasoning used by the Administrative Law Judge to dismiss the petition.

3. Examine the various financial discrepancies present throughout the source documents, including the differing amounts cited in notices, the lien filing, attorney letters, and account ledgers. How did these inconsistencies contribute to the escalation of the conflict and the accumulation of legal fees?

4. Discuss the role of the Respondent’s law firm, Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C., in this dispute. Based on the provided emails and legal documents, evaluate their advice to the Association and their actions regarding the lien and collection process.

5. Critically evaluate the communication and resolution attempts between the Petitioner and the Respondent’s board outside of the formal legal proceedings. What do the emails and hearing testimony reveal about their efforts to resolve the dispute directly?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings for government agencies, such as the Office of Administrative Hearings. In this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer served as the ALJ.

A.R.S. § 33-1256

The specific Arizona Revised Statute cited by the Petitioner. This statute pertains to liens for assessments in condominiums, including provisions for reasonable collection and attorney fees associated with such liens.

Assessment

A mandatory fee paid by condominium owners to the homeowners’ association (HOA) for the maintenance of common elements and other association expenses.

Declaratory Judgment

A binding judgment from a court defining the legal relationship between parties and their rights in a matter before any harm has occurred. The OAH stated it had no jurisdiction to issue such a judgment on the legal fees.

Department of Real Estate (ADRE)

The Arizona state agency responsible for licensing and regulating the real estate industry. Its functions include the Homeowners Association Dispute Resolution process.

A legal claim or hold on a property as security for a debt. In this case, the Condominium Association placed a lien on the Petitioner’s unit for unpaid assessments and fees.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent Arizona state agency authorized to conduct hearings in contested matters for other state agencies, ensuring a fair and impartial process.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal case or administrative hearing. In this matter, the petitioner is the homeowner, Asmaa Kadhum.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof in most civil and administrative cases. It requires the party with the burden of proof (the Petitioner in this case) to show that their claim is more likely true than not.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case to re-examine the issues and evidence. In this matter, a rehearing was granted after the initial April 4, 2022 hearing.

Release of Lien

A legal document that removes a previously recorded lien on a property. The Respondent recorded a Release of Lien on November 13, 2020, after acknowledging the original lien amount was incorrect.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the respondent is the Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association.






Blog Post – 22F-H2222028-REL-RHG


5 Shocking Lessons from a Homeowner’s Two-Year War with Her HOA

Introduction: The Notice on the Door

It’s a moment many homeowners dread: finding an official notice from the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) taped to the front door. For most, it’s a minor issue—a reminder about lawn care or trash cans. But for homeowner Asmaa Kadhum, a notice in April 2020 regarding approximately $1,400 in past-due assessments was the first step in a spiraling, multi-year legal war with her Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association.

What began as a manageable debt quickly escalated into a complex battle involving property liens, lawyers, and a dispute over thousands of dollars in legal fees. The case of Kadhum versus her HOA serves as a powerful cautionary tale, revealing several surprising and counter-intuitive truths about the high-stakes world of HOA disputes.

——————————————————————————–

1. You Can Win the Battle Over a Lien, But Still Owe the Fees

One of the central ironies of this case is how a clear victory on one front failed to end the war. After the homeowner fell behind on assessments, the HOA’s collection efforts caused the initial $1,435 dispute to snowball. On June 15, 2020, the HOA placed a lien on her property for $2,199. The homeowner disputed the lien’s accuracy, arguing that it contained errors.

Ultimately, she was proven correct. The HOA was forced to record a Release of Lien on November 13, 2020. This should have been the end of it, but here’s the twist: even with the lien gone, the HOA maintained that the homeowner was still responsible for approximately $3,500 in legal fees that had been incurred during the process of trying to collect the original debt. This reveals a crucial distinction in HOA law: getting an improper lien removed from your property title doesn’t automatically erase the associated collection costs from the HOA’s ledger. The manageable debt had now become a much larger problem.

——————————————————————————–

2. A Legal Technicality Can Get a Valid Complaint Dismissed

The homeowner, now facing a bill for thousands in legal fees related to a lien the HOA admitted was flawed, took her case to the Arizona Department of Real Estate. This move, however, highlights a critical strategic error. She filed her petition on January 12, 2022, alleging a violation of statute A.R.S. § 33-1256, which governs HOA liens and the reasonableness of the fees associated with them.

This led to a procedural “Catch-22” that doomed her case. The problem was timing. The HOA had released the improper lien on November 13, 2020—a full 14 months before the homeowner filed her petition. The case hinged on a procedural nuance that many homeowners might overlook: the statute she cited applies exclusively to active liens. Since the target of her complaint no longer existed by the time of the April 2022 hearing, the judge had no jurisdiction.

The Administrative Law Judge explained this jurisdictional trap in plain English:

and if there was a lien on your property right now, I could look at it and say whether or not the collection fees were appropriate, were reasonable. There isn’t one, so there’s nothing for me to evaluate.

The homeowner’s complaint about the fees might have had merit, but because she legally tied it to a violation that was no longer active, the court’s hands were tied. A different legal approach, perhaps focused on disputing the fees in another venue, may have been necessary.

——————————————————————————–

3. Correcting an Error Doesn’t Erase the Cost of Making It

The homeowner’s core argument was simple and relatable: why should she be forced to pay for the HOA’s mistakes? This question became even more pointed when documents revealed the HOA’s own attorney admitting the error. The attorney explained that the lien was released because it “included late fee charges that were found to be invalid” and the release was done to protect the association from a “potential false lien claim.”

During the hearing, the homeowner put the fundamental question to the judge: “Why… do we have to pay for their mistakes?”

Despite the HOA’s admission of error, the legal fees incurred during the entire collections process—including the work related to filing and defending the faulty lien—remained on her account. The situation reached a shocking climax during the hearing. When the judge reviewed the case, he noted that the HOA’s own representative, Mr. Latschar, “was uncertain where the $3,500.00 total originated.” The homeowner was being held liable for a debt that even her creditor couldn’t fully explain.

——————————————————————————–

4. A Disputed Debt Can Haunt a Property Sale

Even after the lien was officially released, the homeowner found herself in a financial vise. As she explained in the hearing, she wanted to sell her property and needed a formal statement from the HOA showing a zero balance to provide to potential buyers and title companies.

However, because the HOA’s books still showed she owed thousands in disputed legal fees, they would not provide this statement. This situation highlights the immense leverage an HOA maintains during a property conveyance. The dispute created a “phantom debt”—not an active lien recorded with the county, but a disputed balance on a ledger that can effectively halt a sale. The judge acknowledged this limbo, describing the amount as “just a number on a ledger.”

Yet, that number is a powerful barrier. Title insurance companies, which are essential for nearly all property sales, will not issue a clear policy if there is a known, unresolved financial dispute with an HOA. This gives the association the power to delay or prevent a sale, even without an active lien on the property.

——————————————————————————–

5. Small Communication Failures Lead to Big Legal Bills

This entire conflict escalated because of a pattern of communication failures that eroded trust long before lawyers were involved. Records show the friction began as early as November 2019, with the homeowner claiming disputes over incorrect receipts and the HOA’s alleged failure to waive late fees as promised.

The situation came to a head in April 2020. When the homeowner received the collection notice, she responded via email, stating it was “not a good timing for collections” due to the pandemic and that she planned to pay the full amount “after this pandemic goes away.” Instead of working toward a formal payment agreement, the HOA proceeded with legal action. The homeowner later claimed she tried to schedule meetings with the board to resolve the matter directly but “was never responded to.”

These failures in communication and negotiation were the direct catalyst for involving lawyers. That decision is what caused the debt to balloon from the original $1,435 to a prolonged, stressful, and expensive dispute over thousands in legal fees.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: A Pyrrhic Victory?

The ordeal of Asmaa Kadhum offers critical lessons for any homeowner in an HOA. It demonstrates that in these disputes, legal technicalities matter immensely, clear communication is non-negotiable, and winning a single battle doesn’t mean you’ve won the war. Even when a homeowner is “right” on a key point—like forcing the removal of an improper lien—they can still face significant and lasting financial consequences.

This case leaves every homeowner with a final, thought-provoking question to ponder: When facing a dispute with an HOA, how do you know when to fight for what’s right versus when to avoid a battle that might cost you more than you stand to gain?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Asmaa Kadhum (petitioner)
    Homeowner of Unit 101 who filed the initial petition.
  • Mazin Ahmed (petitioner)
    Co-owner/husband of Petitioner; primary contact for correspondence and identified as part of 'Petitioner' in the decision.

Respondent Side

  • Jerry Latschar (board member)
    Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association
    Vice President of the Board of Directors and Statutory Agent; appeared on behalf of the Association.
  • Robert Kellerman (board member)
    Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association
    President of the Board of Directors.
  • Silvia Petzold (board member)
    Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association
    Former Treasurer who initiated debt collection contact with Petitioner.
  • Solomon Padilla (board member)
    Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association
    Board member included in internal association correspondence.
  • Cammy Bowring (property manager)
    The Bowring Team
    Bookkeeper and point of contact for the Association's financial matters.
  • Lauren Vie (HOA attorney)
    Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C.
    Legal counsel for the Association.
  • Beth Mulcahy (HOA attorney)
    Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C.
    Lead attorney for the Association's legal representation.
  • Morgan Ronimus (HOA attorney)
    Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C.
    Paralegal acting as a legal representative in correspondence with Petitioner.
  • Pam Latschar (respondent)
    Recipient of correspondence regarding Unit 101.

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presiding Administrative Law Judge; also referenced phonetically as Tammy Agon and Tammy Aganeer in transcripts.
  • Louis Dettorre (hearing officer)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Commissioner who granted the request for rehearing.
  • Dan Gardner (staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    HOA Coordinator.
  • Miranda Alvarez (staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Legal Secretary who transmitted the ALJ decision.
  • c. serrano (staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Clerk who transmitted the minute entry.

Other Participants

  • David Villasenor (unknown)
    Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association
    Owner of Unit 107; CC'd on association communications.